Medieval Lucca: And the Evolution of the Renaissance State

M E D I EVA L LU C C A A N D T H E EVO LU T I O N O F T H E R E N A I S S A N C E S TAT E This page intentionally lef...

Author: M. E. Bratchel

354 downloads 1809 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

M E D I EVA L LU C C A A N D T H E EVO LU T I O N O F T H E R E N A I S S A N C E S TAT E

This page intentionally left blank

Medieval Lucca and the Evolution of the Renaissance State M . E . B R ATC H E L

1

1

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford   Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York  M. E. Bratchel 2008

The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bratchel, M. E. Medieval Lucca and the evolution of the Renaissance state / M. E. Bratchel. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978–0–19–954290–1 1. Lucca (Italy)—History. 2. Cities and towns, Medieval—Italy—Tuscany. 3. City-states—Italy—Tuscany—History—To 1500. 4. Lucca (Italy)—Politics and government. I. Title. DG975.L82B733 2008 945’.5304—dc22 2008015103 Typeset by Laserwords Private Limited, Chennai, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd, King’s Lynn, Norfolk ISBN 978–0–19–954290–1 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

For Frances, Claire, and Daniel


Acknowledgements This has not been an easy book to write. My past work has focused on fifteenthcentury Italy. In writing a monograph on the Lucchese state in the fifteenth century, it soon became clear that it would be necessary to look back to the Early and High Middle Ages—even to Late Antiquity. The book then developed as a hybrid: early chapters that are largely dependent on published primary and secondary sources; later sections more firmly grounded on my own archival research. In many respects it has been easier for a fifteenth-century historian to look backwards than it would have been for an early medievalist to look forward. For the earlier period there are fine collections of published documents and a rich secondary literature. I have consulted the published primary sources both independently and under the guidance of secondary studies. Where the document is of significance for my argument, I have turned to the original, which often contains useful material beyond that cited or calendared. The real challenge in treating the earlier period has been to master—and to keep abreast of—a secondary literature of daunting proportions. In consequence this book has taken far longer to write than I might have anticipated, and the early chapters have required constant (I trust seamless) revision in the light of continuing publications. If the book is a hybrid, the acknowledgements must reflect this fact. For the earlier chapters I have pillaged the works of Andreas Meyer, Raffaele Savigni, Amleto Spicciani, Cinzio Violante, Chris Wickham, to name only some of those most frequently cited. Other debts—no less real—are recorded in the footnotes. In a work of synthesis it has often been necessary for me to assess the findings of specialists, and to take sides in cases of disputed interpretation. In my treatment of the centuries before the fourteenth, I am only too aware of my temerity as an outsider, not least because of an abiding admiration for the high quality of Italian medieval scholarship of recent decades. Specialists do not readily forgive. I can only plead a genuine attempt to come to terms with the earlier periods of Lucchese history, and to make sense of that material in the light of the developments of later centuries. For the later chapters my debts are of a rather different order. Here I would wish to thank the fellow-scholars, archivists, and librarians who have stimulated my thoughts and aided my researches into the history of fourteenth- and fifteenthcentury Lucca. More specifically, I have received—as always—the constant support and assistance of the staff of the Archivio di Stato in Lucca, with special mention due to its current director, Dr Giorgio Tori, and to Dr Sergio Nelli. Similar debts are gratefully acknowledged to the staff and volunteer assistants

viii

Acknowledgements

of the Archivio Arcivescovile di Lucca; to Dr Marco Paoli and the staff of the Biblioteca Statale di Lucca; to Dr Luca Santini of the Archivio Comunale di Camaiore; and to the librarians of the Biblioteca Universitaria di Genova. All historians of late medieval Lucca are indebted to the indexes of notarial documents recently compiled by Claudio Ferri, without which sections of this study would have rested on the less sure foundation of haphazard personal discoveries. In writing the present book I have continued to benefit from discussions on all things Lucchese with Professor Christine Meek of Trinity College, Dublin. And, more precisely on the theme of the present book, I am grateful to Professor Rodolfo Savelli for pointing me towards possible comparisons with Genoa. Research has been made possible by two periods of long leave, and by generous research grants from the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, together with a Senior Research Grant from the Centre for Scientific Development in South Africa. Work on the book was begun as a visiting research fellow at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London (1999–2000), where early ideas were shaped in discussions with Professors Trevor Dean and Kate Lowe. The first chapters were drafted in Cambridge as a visiting scholar at Downing College, and later as a visiting fellow of Clare Hall. The final manuscript was revised in Italy in the tranquil and productive environment of the Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Study and Conference Center at the Villa Serbelloni (October–November 2006), and as Bogliasco Fellow in History at the Liguria Study Center for the Arts and Humanities (November–December 2006). Chapter 5 is a much-revised version of a paper that I gave in Lucca at a conference on ‘Paolo Guinigi e il suo tempo’—subsequently published as ‘L’influenza politica di Paolo Guinigi nella formazione dello stato’, in Quaderni Lucchesi di Studi sul Medioevo e sul Rinascimento, 4 (2003), pp. 33–55. Other sections (previously unpublished) have been variously presented as papers in South Africa (Southern African Society for Medieval and Renaissance Studies), England (London University’s Institute of Historical Research/International Medieval Congress, Leeds), and the United States (International Medieval Congress at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo). Much of the book has consequently benefited from the comments and responses of distinguished Italianists, including Professors Edward Muir, Thomas Blomquist, Duane Osheim, and George Dameron. Professors Wickham and Meek read and commented on the whole draft manuscript. I am grateful to them all. None can be held responsible for the surviving errors and continuing misconceptions. The maps were drawn by Mrs Wendy Job, senior cartographer, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. The map of the thirteenth-century ecclesiastical diocese draws upon material from Pietro Guidi (ed.), Rationes Decimarum Italiae nei secoli xii e xiv, Tuscia, i, La Decima degli anni 1274–1280 (Città del Vaticano, 1932), as well as on maps published in Fedor Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana von der Gründung des Longobardenreiches bis zum Ausgang der Staufer (568–1268) (Rome, 1914) and Andreas Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius:

Acknowledgements

ix

Studien zum italienischen Notariat vom 7. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert (Tübingen, 2000). The map of the conquests of Castruccio Castracani draws upon a map in Louis Green, Castruccio Castracani: A Study on the Origins and Character of a Fourteenth-Century Despotism (Oxford, 1986), p. 249. Finally, there are two long-standing debts of a more permanent nature. The first is to the late Geoffrey Scammell, my doctoral supervisor in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Under him I began the historical research that has culminated in the present study. The second is to Susan Bratchel. She has been involved in every stage of this enterprise: supporting when things have gone wrong; pursuing references; demanding clarification—often with necessary persistence—when my writing has threatened to become too abstruse.


Contents Abbreviations Used in Footnotes Note on Italian Terms Maps 1. Lucca’s Ancient Heritage: The Early Structures of City and Territory

xii xiv xv 1

2. The Early Commune and the Conquest of the Contado

27

3. The Administration of a Medieval City-Territory: Twelfth to Fourteenth Centuries

51

4. The Fourteenth Century: The Lucchese State from the Loss of Independence to the Recovery of Liberty

82

5. The Signoria of Paolo Guinigi and the Evolution of the Fifteenth-Century Lucchese State

121

6. Lucca and its Territories in the Fifteenth Century: Politics and Administration

144

7. Lucca and its Territories in the Fifteenth Century: Economy and Society

170

Glossary Bibliography Index

204 209 229

Abbreviations Used in Footnotes AAL

Archivio Arcivescovile, Lucca

ACiv.

Atti Civili

ACL

Archivio Capitolare, Lucca

ACr.

Atti Criminali

Allucio da Pescia

A. Spicciani and C. Violante (eds.), Un santo laico dell’età postgregoriana: Allucio da Pescia (1070 c.a.–1134): Religione e società nei territori di Lucca e della Valdinievole (Rome, 1991)

AM

Archeologia medievale

AN

Archivio de’ Notari, parte 1 (ASL)

ASI

Archivio storico italiano

ASL

Archivio di Stato, Lucca

BSL

Biblioteca Statale, Lucca

BSP

Bollettino storico pisano

Città

G. Chittolini, Città, comunità e feudi negli stati dell’Italia centrosettentrionale (secoli XIV–XVI) (Milan, 1996)

CUL

Cambridge University Library

Florentine Tuscany

W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000)

Garf. 1995

P. Bonacini (ed.), La Garfagnana dai longobardi alla fine della marca canossana (secc. vi/xii): Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana il 9–10 settembre 1995 (Modena, 1996)

Garf. 1997

La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998)

Garf. 2005

Viabilità, traffici, commercio, mercati e fiere in Garfagnana dall’antichità all’unità d’Italia: Atti del convegno tenuto a

Abbreviations Used in Footnotes Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 10–11 settembre 2005 (Modena, 2006) GCV

Gabelle del contado e delle vicarie (ASL)

GPG

Governo di Paolo Guinigi (ASL)

MGH

Monumenta Germaniae Historica

PC

Podestà di Casoli oltre Giogo (ASL)

PVB

Podestà di Villa Basilica (ASL)

Rif.

Consiglio Generale, Riformagioni Pubbliche (ASL)

Sant’Anselmo

C. Violante (ed.), Sant’Anselmo vescovo di Lucca (1073–1086) nel quadro delle trasformazioni sociali e della riforma ecclesiastica (Rome, 1992)

SB

Sentenze e bandi (ASL)

VC

Vicario di Camaiore (ASL)

VG

Vicario di Gallicano (ASL)

VP

Vicario di Pietrasanta (ASL)

VVl.

Vicario di Valdilima (ASL)

xiii

Note on Italian Terms As a teacher of Italian history (inter alia) at a South African University, I can hardly fail to be aware of the perplexity caused by the Italian terms that punctuate even the most student-oriented texts. Italian words are particularly difficult to avoid in a monographic study. Many carry with them a range of technical, often contested, meanings that cannot be captured fully by the nearest English equivalent. No solution is entirely satisfactory. I have tried to explain Italian (and Latin) terms in the text and in the footnotes—even at the expense of some repetition where usage is widely scattered. For ease of reference, I have appended a glossary of the more important words.

Maps 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

North-western Tuscany: Physical The medieval diocese Territory claimed by Lucca in 1308 The dominions of Castruccio Castracani The Sei Miglia The fifteenth-century Lucchese state

xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi

N

Land over 500 m Land over 100 m

Pontremoli

Verrucola Bosi Fivizzano

Castiglione Casoli

Var

a

Lizzano Castelnuovo M

a

Fosdinovo

S

gr a

Gallicano

Barga Coreglia

e rc

hio

Carrara

PISTOIA

Massa

Diecimo

Borgo a Mozzano

LIGURIAN SEA

Lago di Massaciùccoli

5

10 km

Map 1. North-western Tuscany: Physical

LUCCA

Viareggio

PLAIN OF LUCCA Lago di Bientina

PISA

0

Serravalle

Pescia

Pietrasanta Camaiore

Fucecchio

S. Maria a Monte Ar no

Palaia

N

BISHOPRIC OF MODENA

Boundary of Bishopric of Lucca Archbishopric Bishopric

Pieve Fosciana BISHOPRIC OF LUNI

M

a

g

Careggine

Pieve di Villa BISHOPRIC OF Terenzana Controne hio Casabasciana PISTOIA Pieve di Valleriana Diecimo Pieve di Vellano PISTOIA Mozzano Pieve di Villa Basilica Massa Buggianese Brancoli Pescia Sesto Montecatini Pieve di Monsagrati Moriano S. Pancrazio S. Gennaro (Pieve a Nievole) Camaiore Marlia S. Felicità Segromigno Pieve S. Torre Stefano Vaiano Lammari S.Pietro in Lunata Pieve a Campo S. Macario Pieve S. Elici Arliano Paolo Cerreto Fiesso LUCCA Lago di Guidi Bientina Vicopelago Pieve di Compito Cappiano Lago di Ripoli Vorno Massaciùccoli Massa BISHOPRIC OF Buti Pisana S. Maria a FLORENCE S. Ginesio Calci Monte Ar n o Fabbrica Lavaiano Vicopisano PISA Musciano Corazzano Barbinaia Cascina Loppia

S

Gallicano

ra

LIGURIAN SEA

Pievi

Vico Pancellorum

erc

Appiano Triano BISHOPRIC OF PISA

S. Gervasio Padule

Migliano Sovigliana Tripalle S. Maria de Aquis

0

5

10 km

Map 2. The medieval diocese

Gello Mattaccino

BISHOPRIC OF VOLTERRA

N

1308 boundary of territory claimed by Lucchese state

Pontremoli

Verrucola Bosi Fivizzano

Castiglione

V

Casoli

ar

a

Lizzano Castelnuovo M

Fosdinovo S

a

gr

a

Gallicano

Barga Coreglia hio

e rc

Carrara

PISTOIA Massa

Diecimo

Borgo a Mozzano

LIGURIAN SEA


5

10 km

Map 3. Territory claimed by Lucca in 1308

LUCCA

Viareggio

Lago di Bientina

PISA 0

Serravalle

Pescia

Pietrasanta Camaiore

Ar

no

Fucecchio

S. Maria a Monte

Palaia

Maps

xix

N Boundary of the Dominions of Castruccio Castracani in 1328 Ma

Pontremoli

gra

Verrucola Bosi

Levanto Camporgiano Sarzana

Corniglia Manarola Portovenere

Castiglione

Carrara

io

Gallicano Pietrasanta

ch

Massa

Camaiore Nozzano

PISA

Colle Salvetti

Lima

Villa Basilica

PISTOIA

Montemurlo Serravalle Pescia PRATO Montecatini LUCCA Carmignano Altopascio Arno S. Maria a Fucecchio Monte FLORENCE Empoli

Vicopisano Pontedera Livorno

Sambuca

Barga r Coreglia

Se

Lari

San Miniato Montopoli Peccioli San Gimignano

Guardistallo

LIGURIAN SEA

VOLTERRA

Cecina

SIENA

Piombino Portoferraio

ELBA

Map 4. The dominions of Castruccio Castracani

0

5 10 km

Diecimo Boundary of Sei Miglia

Piegaio Pietrasanta

Convalle Lopeglia

Camaiore

Pieve di S Brancoli Sesto Moriano

Corsanico Orbicciano

Nozzano Castiglioncello

Segromigno SS. Annunziata

LUCCA

LI G U R SE A IAN

5 km

Lunata

S. Pietro in Campo

S. Vito

Capannori Tassignano Paganico Pieve S. Paolo S. Margherita Sorbano Toringo Parezzana Carraia Vicopelago

Fiesso

Massa Pisana

0

Gragnano

Lammari

Nave

Arliano


S. Gennaro

Marlia

S. Macario Carignano

Map 5. The Sei Miglia

Matraia S. Pancrazio

Pieve S. Stefano

Fibbialla Pieve a Elici

Torre

erch i o

Monsagrati Mommio

Vorno

Pieve di Compito

Lago di Bientina

Maps

0

xxi

10 km

Boundary of Lucchese state, plus enclaves Boundary of Sei Miglia

Dalli

Territorial boundaries DUCHY OF FERRARA AND MODENA

Florentine enclave

Minucciano Castiglione di Garfagnana Pontecosi Silicano Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Cascio

MALASPINA OF MASSA

Eglio

Treppignana Sommocolonia Barga

Coreglia

Gallicano

Vico Pancellorum

Verni

Trassilico

Ghivizzano Se

Fornovolasco

rc

Montignoso

h io

GENOESE

E

Borgo a Mozzano Diecimo Anchiano Piegaio

I

Matraia

Orbicciano Pieve S. Stefano

Pieve Elici

T

Brancoli

N

Mommio Corsanico

Lopeglia

Aramo

E

Convalle

Camaiore

Segromigno

R

Pietrasanta

N

Pescaglia

Marlia

GU

L

SS. Annunziata

Nave

F

LI

Lammari Lunata S. Vito Capannori LUCCA Tassignano Paganico Pieve S. Paolo S. Margherita Sorbano Carraia Castiglioncello Toringo Parezzana

O

Carignano


RI AN

F

SE

A

L O

Compito

R

E

N

T

PISA

Map 6. The fifteenth-century Lucchese state

I

N

E

Lago di Bientina


1 Lucca’s Ancient Heritage: The Early Structures of City and Territory Throughout the Middle Ages, as later during the Renaissance, the origins and antique history of Lucca failed to excite sustained interest among local chroniclers. It is possible that our vision has been clouded, to a degree, by a fire in 1822, which destroyed the manuscript collection of the seventeenth-century Lucchese bibliophile Francesco Maria Fiorentini. The loss of manuscripts was clearly substantial.¹ The chronicle usually attributed to Sebastiano Puccini, more probably the work of Gherardo Sergiusti, hints at a local historiographical tradition regarding Lucca’s origins that is now lost to us.² Nevertheless, enough material survives in transcript to suggest that patriotic Lucchese writers were generally disinclined to trace the history of their city back beyond the eleventh century. By the sixteenth century, Giuseppe Civitale, most important of all later Lucchese chroniclers, was forced to concede that firm records regarding Lucca’s most distant past had been irretrievably lost.³ Before the Cinquecento, one extant local chronicle alone ventured to describe Lucca’s foundation: a chronicle in ottava rima written by Alessandro Streghi. Streghi’s poem was probably composed mainly in the 1430s; though it was supplemented with additional verses in later decades, when it circulated widely in forms of both verse and prose.⁴ Streghi traced Lucca’s origins to the familiar company of wandering Trojan exiles. Lucca, originally called Urilia, becomes ¹ ‘Antica cronichetta volgare lucchese già della biblioteca di F.-M. Fiorentini’, ed. S. Bongi, Atti della R. Accademia lucchese, 26 (1893), pp. 219–20. ² BSL MS 18, ‘Delle Cronache di Lucca di Sebastiano Puccini’, fo. 12r . The issue of authorship needs to be revisited: compare BSL MS 18, fo. 23r ; MS 98, p. 76; MS 927, fo. 111v . But see marginal note, MS 927, fo. 163r . ³ Giuseppe Civitale, Historie di Lucca, ed. M. F. Leonardi, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores Recentiores, nos. 1 and 4, 2 vols. (Rome, 1983–8), i, p. 116: ‘Ma se da qualche discreto o amorevole cittadino di Lucca fu raccolto de ricordi di quei tempi che di più avanti fossero stati scritti, così della fondatione come del nome di lei, si può tener per certo che le guerre, et le pesti, i rubbamenti, i sacchi, gl’incendij grandi et le revolutioni dello stato et simili rovine gl’hanno fatti disperdere et mandare a male’. ⁴ For the manuscript copies of Streghi’s verse chronicle, and of the prose translation attributed—I believe wrongly—to Alessandro Boccella: M. E. Bratchel, ‘Chronicles of Fifteenth-Century Lucca: Contributions to an Understanding of the Restored Republic’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 60 (1998), pp. 8–13.

2

Medieval Lucca and the Renaissance State

the creation of the Trojan Artomone. It was built on territory granted to the loyal Artomone by a grateful Aeneas, and was subsequently populated by many nobles who had followed Artomone from Troy.⁵ This first city was destroyed from neighbouring Pisa by the descendants of Peleus.⁶ But two noble infants of Artomone’s line escaped the ruins of Urilia and fled to Rome, where their military prowess and faithful service quickly attracted the attention of the Roman Senate. These brothers, Vessilano and Catulo, together with a third and younger brother, Mauro, were rewarded by the rebuilding of their native city on even more lavish scale at the public expense of Rome. The city, now called Città de Tre Castelli, was destroyed once more: this time by the forces of Scipio in punishment for the rebellion of its ruler, Garsipione, against Rome. Yet again two young brothers of Lucca’s ruling house, imprisoned in Rome in consequence of their father’s treason, emerged as the military heroes of Rome. The military valour of the brothers Enea and Polidamus was rewarded by the refounding of their city; and the new city was finally called Luca after two of the noble Romans, Lucio Celio and Lucio Bibolo, who had been entrusted with its restoration.⁷ Streghi’s narrative of Lucca’s foundation was recounted in full by Giuseppe Civitale. But the later writer then proceeded to demolish this local tradition as incompatible both with established chronology and with historical plausibility.⁸ The more critical approach to myths of origin is hardly surprising in a sixteenthcentury chronicler; though Civitale still tried to retain some space for the Trojans in a historical reconstruction now influenced by the fantasies of Annio of Viterbo.⁹ More noteworthy than the uneasy combination of credulity with critical thought that characterized Lucchese writers of the sixteenth century is the general lack of interest displayed by all their predecessors, excluding Streghi, in Lucca’s earliest history. In Italian medieval historiography, there was a very widespread presupposition that a people’s future historical function and subsequent development were laid down and predetermined at the moment of foundation. The assumption that the founders of cities impressed indelible characteristics on all future inhabitants pervades the early Italian Renaissance. In Lucca itself, the point was explicitly acknowledged by Sergiusti, probably ⁵ BSL MS 942, ‘Cronache di Lucca scritte in ottava rima da Allessandro di ser Giovanni di ser Masseo da Barga’, c. i, ott. 29–38. ⁶ Ibid., c. i, ott. 40–55. ⁷ The story through to the refounding of Lucca by Lucio Celio, Lucio Bibolo, Marco Quinto, and Catulo and Leo Emilio is recounted in the first four canti of Streghi’s poem: BSL MS 942, fos. 1r –21v . ⁸ Civitale, Historie, i, pp. 130–5. ⁹ For the influence of Annio of Viterbo on contemporary Florentine historiography: A. D’Alessandro, ‘Il mito dell’origine ‘‘aramea’’ di Firenze in un trattatello di Giambattista Gelli’, ASI 138 (1980), pp. 339–89. Following Annio, ‘mia guida et vero lume certo delle cose antiche’, Civitale attributed Lucca’s foundation to Lucio Lucumone, forty-fifth ruler after Noah, king of Tuscany from 702 : Civitale, Historie, i, pp. 136–66.

Lucca’s Ancient Heritage

3

writing in the 1540s.¹⁰ Yet, even in the hands of Streghi, the Trojan pedigree of Lucca’s nobility had been little more than the periodically invoked explanation and guarantee of Lucchese fidelity and valour. When, by the end of the sixteenth century, foundation myths finally became a major preoccupation of Lucchese chronicles, the objective had already shifted to the detached and meticulous listing of rival opinions.¹¹ In part, the explanation lies with Lucca’s relatively weak historiographical tradition.¹² Further, and perhaps not unconnected, many imperatives that prompted the antiquarian enthusiasms of other Italian societies were less pressingly relevant in the Lucchese context. Lucchese writers did not have to confront any challenge from within their own dominions comparable with that posed by Fiesole to neighbouring Florence. Fiesole was older than its ruling city of Florence, in a world where antiquity was closely intertwined with prestige. Fiesole could also advance claims to an independent and privileged relationship with Rome itself.¹³ Insecurity aroused by Fiesole was a major factor in inspiring the Florentine search for a legitimizing past. Moreover, Lucca’s political and constitutional situation was far too ambiguous to promote the impassioned, if radically fluctuating, quest for an appropriate foundation myth that so bedevilled Florence’s developing historiography.¹⁴ And looking beyond Florence, Lucca’s rulers were entirely untroubled by the need to explain the settlement of their own noble ancestors among such barren and unprepossessing wastes as the Venetian lagoons; nor could even the most creative rewriting of Lucchese history reasonably duplicate ¹⁰ BSL MS 18, fo. 10v : ‘Quanto l’antichità sia delli homini appregiata nessuno è che non lo conoschi, e li dotti humanisti sanno che questo vocabulo antiquo alle volte significa caro perchè le cose antiche sono care.’ ¹¹ An anonymous Lucchese chronicle now preserved in Cambridge, apparently written at the very end of the sixteenth century and almost certainly the lost chronicle of Salvatore Guinigi, offers a particularly extensive survey of the current interpretations: CUL MS Add. 4700, ‘Historie della Città di Lucca’, pp. 36–58. ‘Tuttavia doppo d’haver’ intorno a ciò fedelmente riferito quanto ho potuto ravogliere, concludo che di tutte queste opinioni io non voglio, nè rifiutarne alcuna per esser’ antiche, nè affermarne alcuna per essere incerte, e si come i gusti delle persone sono diversi, così rimetto volentieri a’ i lettori, che ciascuno si elegga quella che più si troverà di suo gusto’: ibid., p. 58. This, and the preceding reference to the ‘rozza simplicità’ of ‘gl’antichi nostri’, provides a further warning that the extant chronicle material may be less than representative. ¹² An underdevelopment greatly exaggerated by E. Cochrane, in Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago, 1981), pp. 119–21, 224. Certainly Lucca was not backward in the production of urban laudes: H. Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich bis zum Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts: Studien zur Sozialstruktur einer Herzogstadt in der Toskana (Tübingen, 1972), pp. 338–47. ¹³ T. Maissen, ‘Attila, Totila e Carlo Magno fra Dante, Villani, Boccaccio e Malispini: Per la genesi di due leggende erudite’, ASI 152 (1994), pp. 561–639. More specifically: C. KlapischZuber, ‘San Romolo: Un vescovo, un lupo, un nome alle origini dello Stato moderno’, ASI 155 (1997), pp. 3–48. ¹⁴ Thus Civitale comfortably accommodates his belief that Lucca became a Roman colony under the Republic in 320  at the time of the consuls Gneo Domitio Calvino and Lucio Cornelio Scipione II, with his later conviction that ‘Lucca fusse all’hora et sia sempre poi stata affessionata, devota et fedele all’Imperio, che il principio si è attribuito meritamente al detto [Giulio] Cesare’: Historie, i, p. 232.

4


Venetian claims to a distant past characterized by a true political independence free from all imperial control.¹⁵ The early history of the urban settlement in Lucca is very obscure indeed, though obscurity presents no barrier to myth-making and is probably among the least significant reasons for the relative neglect by Lucchese chroniclers of the earliest ages of their city’s history. Within Lucchese territory there is sufficient evidence of human presence from Palaeolithic times. The site of Lucca itself, on islets then formed by the river Serchio, may have been settled by the Etruscans. Archaeological evidence has pointed increasingly to Etruscan roots; though a powerful local historiographical tradition has continued to attribute the first habitations to the Ligurians of the northern Apennines, a people culturally and technologically influenced in this border region by their Etruscan neighbours to the south.¹⁶ The story that the consul Ti. Sempronius Longus took refuge within the walls of Lucca following Hannibal’s victory at the Trebbia in December 218  may be ill founded.¹⁷ Little can be said with confidence before the foundation of the Latin colony in 180 , from which date the history of the walled city clearly begins. Rome came into conflict with the Ligurian tribes in the period after the Hannibalic War: both with the Ingauni around Genoa, and with the Apuani of the mountains above Pisa. Raids on Pisan lands by the latter resulted in the transportation and resettlement of perhaps 40,000 Apuani by the consuls Cornelius and Baebius in 181/0 . The Latin colony of Lucca was then established, probably with less than three thousand settlers, on the Pisan territory vacated—at least in part—by these forced removals. The topography of the Roman city has long since been clarified, with some lingering disputes over the course of the Roman walls to the north-west.¹⁸ Less revealing are the written sources for the city’s history throughout the entire Roman period. Lucca apparently became a municipium after 90 ,¹⁹ and was allocated upon ¹⁵ E. Muir, Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice (Princeton, 1981), particularly pp. 67–74. ¹⁶ The debate is briefly summarized by I. Belli Barsali, Lucca: Guida alla città (Lucca, 1988), pp. 5–6. The case for the extensive and continued colonization by the Etruscans of the Lucchese plain—and indeed for the origins of Lucca itself as an Etruscan trading outpost—is developed from archaeological evidence in P. Mencacci and M. Zecchini, Lucca Romana (Lucca, 1982), pp. 33–58; and more recently by M. Zecchini, Lucca Etrusca: Abitati, necropoli, luoghi di culto (Lucca, 1999). For Etruscan settlement in the Garfagnana: G. Ciampoltrini (ed.), Gli Etruschi della Garfagnana: Ricerche sull’insediamento della Murella a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana (Florence, 2005). ¹⁷ The retreat of Ti. Sempronius Longus to Lucca is recounted at length by Civitale, Historie, i, pp. 218–20. The tradition has been accepted by more recent Lucchese historians from A. Mazzarosa, Storia di Lucca dalla sua origine fino al 1814 (Lucca, 1833), p. 10, to G. Lera, Lucca: Città da Scoprire (Lucca, 1980), p. 36. The difficulties raised by Livy’s ‘Sempronius Lucam contendit’ are discussed by F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1957–79), i, p. 411. ¹⁸ A. De Conno, ‘L’insediamento longobardo a Lucca’, in Pisa e la Toscana occidentale nel Medioevo: A Cinzio Violante nei suoi 70 anni, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1991), i, pp. 67–77. ¹⁹ E. T. Salmon, The Making of Roman Italy (London, 1982), p. 199, n. 331; Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares, ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1977), ii, 280 (xiii. 13).


5

enfranchisement to the Fabia tribe.²⁰ Thereafter we know only of that great gathering of senators and lictors drawn to Lucca in April 55  for the conference of the triumvirs Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus. Recent archaeological evidence suggests that the city faced a time of crisis under the Late Republic and Early Empire, but recovered both economically and demographically during the course of the fourth and fifth centuries. This recovery, which may have begun as early as the second half of the third century, was accompanied—perhaps explained—by the restoration of the city walls and by the establishment of a state arms factory (fabrica) for the manufacture of swords.²¹ No less obscure are the decades following the fall of the Roman Empire in the west. At the time of the Ostrogothic kingdom, Lucca may have been the seat of a Gothic military commander or count (comes): the evidence is far from compelling. A more convincing indicator of Gothic interest in, and settlement around, Lucca is provided by the strength and persistence of Lucca’s resistance when besieged by Narses in 553 during Justinian’s wars for the reconquest of Italy. Agathias’ account of the siege perhaps points to the occupation of Lucca by a Frankish garrison, and clearly presupposes the settlement within Lucca’s walls of a large and diversified Gothic population. After finally conquering the city, Narses left behind a strong military force under the command of a magister militum.²² Thereafter all is speculation until the beginning of Lombard penetration at the end of the sixth century. The city that appears so fleetingly in the literary sources of classical antiquity, and that had clearly been much less important than the neighbouring maritime centres of Pisa and Luna, becomes one of the best-studied societies of the Lombard age. Lucca’s high profile after 568 (and more specifically after 685) owes as much to the comparative wealth of documentary evidence as to the city’s undoubted ²⁰ For tribal allocations in general, and for Lucca in particular: W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria (Oxford, 1971), pp. 230–50, 333. See also L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic: The Thirty-Five Urban and Rural Tribes (Rome, 1960), pp. 110, 272. Lucca seems to have reverted to the status of a colonia at the time of the triumvirs Ottaviano, Antonio, and Lepido: F. Castagnoli, ‘La centuriazione di Lucca’, Studi Etruschi, 20 (1948–9), p. 285. ²¹ G. Ciampoltrini and P. Notini, ‘Lucca tardoantica e altomedievale: Nuovi contributi archeologici’, AM 17 (1990), p. 590. The literature is summarized by S. Cosentino, ‘Dinamiche sociali ed istituzionali nella valle del Serchio tra v e vii secolo’, in Garf. 1995, pp. 41–4. But see also Mencacci and Zecchini, Lucca Romana, pp. 86, 125. ²² L. A. Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, i, Excerpta ex Agathiae historia a fine Procopii ad Gothos pertinentia Hugone Grotio interprete. Ex libro primo (Milan, 1723), pp. 386–7. Cosentino, ‘Dinamiche sociale ed istituzionali’, pp. 46–61: particularly for the identification of Funso as a Gothic comes civitatis of the reign of Theodoric. My use of the word ‘Gothic’ does not necessarily presume the existence of a single Gothic ethnic identity—whether original or acquired: P. Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554 (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 33–9, 151–2 and passim. See now C. Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800 (Oxford, 2005), pp. 82–3. By the sixteenth century the story of Narses’ siege had entered Lucchese historical consciousness: BSL MS 18, fos. 22r –23v . The learning here displayed in defence of questionable Lucchese action during the course of the siege provides an additional pointer to Sergiusti’s authorship of a text—now preserved in a number of very different versions—normally traced to Sebastiano Puccini.

6


prominence within the Lombard kingdom. While there are no narrative histories of Lucca before the eleventh century, Lucchese archives—predominantly those of bishop and chapter—offer approximately 3,494 documents that record legal transactions pre-dating the year 1100, of which almost three hundred are pre800.²³ The record is supplemented from the time of Pope Gregory the Great by miracle accounts and travellers’ tales, as pilgrimage routes to Rome brought saintly royal and aristocratic visitors to Lucchese hostels.²⁴ By the seventeenth century Lucchese writers had developed a positively Arthurian myth of Lombard Lucca, featuring the institution in 700 of an order of chivalry called ‘della ragione’. These legendary knights came to number 2,500, and, though given a general mandate for the administration of justice throughout all Tuscany, were entrusted with specific responsibilities for the protection of widows and orphans. Such good and holy intentions were marred only by the perversity and barbarism of the Lombard laws that the knights administered.²⁵ More recent analysis of the extant texts has shown the construction of new buildings by noble Lombard families from 685, particularly in areas immediately outside the walls. The region to the east and west of the gate of S. Pietro on the road from Pisa was settled by the highest ranks of Lombard society, though the earliest settlement seems to have been to the north around porta S. Frediano. Whether—as believed by Schwarzmaier—initial Lombard settlement in the suburbs is to be explained by the density of population already within the walls, or rather by the importance of gates and lines of road communications as foci of population, there is growing evidence from the early eighth century for the building of substantial houses by wealthy Lombards within the city itself.²⁶ Lucca’s Lombard aristocracy retained its social and institutional importance during, and beyond, the early decades of Frankish penetration into Tuscany. But there was an increasing Frankish presence and control in the years after 815.²⁷ The centuries thereafter were characterized by economic and demographic growth—explained in part by Lucca’s political significance, but also by the city’s position as the principal centre between the Apennines and the Arno on the via Francigena. ²³ Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 8–11, 17; D. J. Osheim, ‘The Episcopal Archive of Lucca in the Middle Ages’, Manuscripta, 17 (1973), pp. 132–3; C. Wickham, Community and Clientele in Twelfth-Century Tuscany: The Origins of the Rural Commune in the Plain of Lucca (Oxford, 1998), pp. 243–6; G. Ghilarducci, ‘L’edizione dei documenti del sec. xi dell’Archivio Arcivescovile di Lucca’, in Sant’Anselmo, pp. 423–6. ²⁴ Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 16–17, 32–4. ²⁵ CUL MS Add. 4700, pp. 177–8. ²⁶ I. Belli Barsali, ‘La topografia di Lucca nei secoli viii–xi’, in Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo: Atti del 5 0 Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Lucca 3–7 ottobre 1971 (Spoleto, 1973), pp. 482–3; De Conno, ‘L’insediamento longobardo’, pp. 59–127; Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, p. 18. ²⁷ B. Andreolli, Uomini nel medioevo: Studi sulla società lucchese dei secoli viii–xi (Bologna, 1983), pp. 67–77; De Conno, ‘L’insediamento longobardo’, pp. 64–6; Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, p. 95.


7

The relative wealth of documentary evidence has attracted scholars to the history of early medieval Lucca; it has also stimulated scholarly debate. One enduring controversy centres on the issue of continuity from the classical Roman past. There is no doubt regarding the continued occupation of the area within the city walls; that the local nobility, in Lucca as elsewhere, remained urban based; that Lucca maintained and extended its function as an administrative centre. The debate revolves rather around definitions of urbanism,²⁸ and the extent to which the town with its territory (civitas) survived the barbarian invasions as an autonomous unit.²⁹ Comparisons with Roman antiquity are complicated by the radical changes that were already occurring in the centuries before the collapse of the western Empire. Lucca of the early third century has been portrayed as a city in ruins.³⁰ And, if the Roman Empire had been ‘a commonwealth of citystates’,³¹ under the late Empire this mosaic of fairly independent town territories was subordinated to provincial governors and supra-municipal magistrates.³² No doubt cities came to fulfil new functions in a changing world; appearances were transformed by changes both economic and cultural. But, at least in the case of Lucca, Wickham’s insistence on the survival of clear urban characteristics appears irresistible.³³ Further controversy surrounds the establishment and extent of the Lombard duchy of Lucca. The regions of Lombard Italy were ruled from the towns, and Lucca became the seat of a Lombard duke. Tradition has preserved the names of fourteen Lombard dukes of Lucca, beginning with Gummarith in 576. The list has always been treated with suspicion; in 1813 Cianelli pruned the ducal candidates for whom there is firm evidence to four.³⁴ The vast landed possessions of Lucca’s Lombard aristocracy in the distant Maremma, and the apparent inclusion of Populonia within the territory of Lucca in documents of the late eighth century, offer some support to those who would trace the duchy ²⁸ See, e.g., Ciampoltrini and Notini, ‘Lucca tardoantica e altomedievale’, pp. 561–92. More generally, C. Wickham, ‘Considerazioni conclusive’, in R. Francovich and G. Noyé (eds.), La storia dell’alto medioevo italiano (vi–x secolo) alla luce dell’archeologia (Florence, 1994), pp. 741–59. ²⁹ The literature is summarized in O. Capitani, ‘Città e comuni’, in G. Galasso (ed.), UTET Storia d’Italia, iv ( Turin, 1981), pp. 5–10; D. Harrison, The Early State and the Towns: Forms of Integration in Lombard Italy  568–774 (Lund, 1993), pp. 88–93. ³⁰ Ciampoltrini and Notini, ‘Lucca tardoantica e altomedievale’, p. 590. ³¹ P. J. Jones, The Italian City-State: From Commune to Signoria (Oxford, 1997), p. 22. ³² R. Thomsen, The Italic Regions: From Augustus to the Lombard Invasion (Copenhagen, 1947); M. Pasquinucci, ‘L’Etruria in età romana’, in M. Luzzati (ed.), Etruria, Tuscia, Toscana: L’identità di una regione attraverso i secoli (Pisa, 1992), pp. 63–73. ³³ C. Wickham, ‘L’Italia e l’alto medioevo’, AM 15 (1988), pp. 105–24; id., ‘La città altomedievale: Una nota sul dibattito in corso’, AM 15 (1988), pp. 649–51. ³⁴ A. N. Cianelli, Dissertazioni sopra la storia lucchese, in Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria del principato lucchese, i (Lucca, 1813), pp. 25–41. The fourteen are: Gummarito (576); Valfredi (585); Arnolfo (590); Ariulfo (602); Tasone (630); Allovisino (685); Walperto (714); Ramingo (728); Berprando (730); Vanefredi; Valprando Duca e Vescovo (741); Alperto (744); Desiderio; Tachiperto. Cianelli’s revised list: Allovisino (686); Walperto (713); Alperto (754); Tachiperto (773). For doubts regarding Tachiperto: De Conno, ‘L’insediamento longobardo’, pp. 62–3.

8


back to the conquests of Gummarith.³⁵ But Walperto (713–736) remains the first of three pre-Frankish dukes who are securely attested by the sources. No less debated is the territory over which Lucca’s dukes held sway. There is the possibility, frequently contested, that the Lombard duke resident in Lucca was the only holder of the ducal title in Tuscany. Consequently Lucca has been portrayed as the capital of a consolidated Lombard duchy that embraced either the whole of Tuscany or, alternatively, the more restricted region of northwest Tuscany.³⁶ In all probability centres like Pistoia (and more especially Siena) enjoyed an effective administrative autonomy under local gastaldi (royal officials), though this was not necessarily incompatible with the hegemony throughout Tuscany of Lucca and its ducal court.³⁷ Later under the Carolingians, the Bavarian Bonifacio, variously described as count and duke of Lucca, founded a dynasty that was to control the counties of Lucca, Pisa, Volterra, Luni, Pistoia, Florence, and Fiesole. His son, Bonifacio II, was entrusted with the defence of Corsica against the Saracens, while his grandson, Adalberto I, was named both marquis of Tuscany and guardian (tutor) of Corsica. Adalberto II (886–915), known as ‘il Ricco’, with his palace outside Lucca near porta S. Donato, and with powers and lands extending far beyond Tuscany, was lauded as king in all but name. After the Adalberti, the March of Tuscany, though significantly modified in character and functions, was to survive until the death of Matilda of Canossa in 1115.³⁸ Debates over the survival of the Roman city-territory, and over the nature and extent of the Lombard duchy and its successor formations, transport us from the obscure early history of the city into the countryside over which that city exercised control. In early sixteenth-century Lucca, the new, or renewed, interest in Lucca’s origins was intimately connected with live contemporary political ³⁵ L. Bertini, ‘Peredeo Vescovo di Lucca’, in Studi storici in onore di Ottorino Bertolini, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1972), i, pp. 21–45. But see B. Andreolli, ‘Walprando: Un vescovo guerriero del regno di Astolfo’, in Uomini nel medioevo, p. 24. For the inclusion of Populonia (Cornino) in ‘territorio Lucense’: F. Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana von der Gründung des Longobardenreiches bis zum Ausgang der Staufer (568–1268) (Rome, 1914), p. 116. For the fragility of the evidence identifying Gummarith (Grimarit) as first duke of Lucca: S. Gasparri, I duchi longobardi (Rome, 1978), p. 57. ³⁶ There is a convenient survey of the historiography in E. Lenzi, Lucca: Capitale del regno longobardo della Tuscia (Lucca, 1997), pp. 64–7. See, particularly, C. G. Mor, ‘I gastaldi con potere ducale nell’ordinamento pubblico longobardo’, in Atti del 10 Congresso Internazionale di Studi Longobardi: Spoleto, 27–30 settembre 1951 (Spoleto, 1952), pp. 409–15. ³⁷ Bertini, ‘Peredeo’, pp. 29–30. ³⁸ See the articles by G. Fasoli and C. G. Mor on the Adalberti and Bonifacii sub voce in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, i (Rome, 1960); xii (Rome, 1970); M. Nobili, ‘L’evoluzione delle dominazioni marchionali in relazione alla dissoluzione delle circoscrizioni marchionali e comitali e allo sviluppo della politica territoriale dei comuni cittadini nell’Italia centro-settentrionale (secoli xi e xii)’, in La cristianità dei secoli xi e xii in occidente: Coscienza e strutture di una società: Atti della ottava settimana internazionale di studio Mendola, 30 giugno–5 luglio 1980) (Milan, 1983), pp. 235–58; H. Schwarzmaier, ‘Società e istituzioni nel x secolo: Lucca’, in Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo: Atti del 5 0 Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Lucca 3–7 ottobre 1971 (Spoleto, 1973), pp. 143–61.


9

claims to territorial dominion. Lucca’s borders had contracted markedly during the wars of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as neighbouring powers seized areas of traditional Lucchese control. In February 1536 the General Council (Consiglio Generale) appointed a commission of three citizens to collect together all writings relating to Lucca’s ancient territories. Their efforts, preserved in the ‘Libri delle Sentenze’, failed to penetrate back beyond 1308, which did not deter Giuseppe Civitale from embarking on his own search for more distant evidence.³⁹ Belief in the political utility of these antiquarian exercises does not seem to have endured very long. By the end of the sixteenth century Lucca’s ancient territories were coming to be explored mainly for the location of pagan shrines.⁴⁰ Civitale sought to identify Lucca’s legitimate borders from three points of reference. First, he drew from Alessandro Streghi the notion that Lucca, at its first foundation by the Trojan Artomone, was assigned twenty miles of territory on both sides of the Serchio over the full course of that river.⁴¹ Secondly, there are the references, never specific, to Lucca’s ancient jurisdiction and territories as defined and confirmed in privileges issuing from the Emperors of Rome.⁴² Finally, there is the detailed description of the territories historically ruled by Lucca, clearly based on the Lucchese statute of 1308.⁴³ We need not linger over the links between the Roman civitas and its mythical Trojan prototype; the identification of the Latin colony founded in 180  with the medieval city-state raises problems that cannot be dismissed so lightly. With the foundation of the Latin colony, centuriation (the marking-out of land for settlement) took place in the plain around Lucca—though it is unclear whether the centuriation now visible relates to the first or second period of colonization.⁴⁴ Archaeological and toponymic evidence suggest the garrisoning of military outposts in the valley of the Serchio immediately after 180 , followed by the gradual colonization of the Garfagnana, eastern Versilia, Lunigiana, and Val di Lima.⁴⁵ But the evidence of settlement provides only an imperfect guide to the borders of the city-territory, which itself was not immutable. The confines of Lucchese and Pisan territory remain uncertain even for the densely settled plain to the east of the city around Bientina.⁴⁶ The disputed reading of classical texts has resulted in continuing debate whether Lucca reached the sea to the south of ³⁹ S. Bongi (ed.), Inventario del Regio Archivio di Stato in Lucca, 4 vols. (Lucca, 1872–88), i, p. 50; Civitale, Historie, i, pp. 54, 119–20. ⁴⁰ CUL MS Add. 4700, pp. 61–2. ⁴¹ Civitale, Historie, i, p. 126. ⁴² Ibid., p. 212. ⁴³ Ibid., pp. 178–212; Statuto del 1308: Statutum Lucani Communis an. MCCCVIII, repr. of 1867 edn. with foreword by V. Tirelli (Lucca, 1991), pp. 35–46. ⁴⁴ Castagnoli, ‘La centuriazione di Lucca’, pp. 285–90. ⁴⁵ Mencacci and Zecchini, Lucca Romana, pp. 244–5, and R. Ambrosini’s chapter on the Romanization of the Lucchesia, appended to the same volume, pp. 283–314. For the Garfagnana: G. Ciampoltrini, P. Notini, and C. Spataro, ‘Vie e traffici nella Garfagnana d’età augustea: L’insediamento della Murella di Castelnuovo di Garfagnana’, in Garf. 2005, particularly pp. 232–3. ⁴⁶ Mencacci and Zecchini, Lucca Romana, pp. 200–1, 242.

10


the Magra, thus dividing the territories of Pisa and Luni.⁴⁷ At least by the sixth century, at the time of the brief Byzantine domination, the boundary between Lucca and Pistoia seems to have followed the valley of the Pescia maggiore, well to the west of the borders of the medieval ecclesiastical borders of Lucca.⁴⁸ More controversial has been the evidence of an early second-century alimentary table from Veleia near Parma, which appears to show Lucchese jurisdiction extending as far north as Veleia, thereby restricting the territory of Luna to the south and west of its medieval diocese.⁴⁹ The city-territories survived the collapse of Rome as units of administration and justice, though the cities themselves had already lost some of their administrative autonomy. At the time of the Roman Republic, Lucca belonged to the province of Cisalpine Gaul; under Augustus, Lucca became part of the seventh region, colloquially called Etruria or Tuscia. But the classical city-territories were only truly subsumed into broader provincial administrative regions with the reforms of Diocletian (284–305), when Lucca became a north-western portion of the new province of Tuscia et Umbria (itself later subdivided between Italia annonaria and Italia suburbicaria).⁵⁰ Both the larger and smaller divisions were perpetuated under the Lombards; the Italian provincial system may have disintegrated with—or before—the coming of the Lombards,⁵¹ but the ducal court centred on Lucca appears to have exercised some authority far beyond Lucca’s own ⁴⁷ L. Banti, Luni (Florence, 1937), pp. 59, 112; P. M. Conti, ‘Il presunto ducato longobardo di Pisa’, BSP 31–2 (1962–3), p. 163; E. Pais, Dalle guerre puniche a Cesare Augusto, 2 vols. (Rome, 1918), ii, pp. 699–716. For Pais, the coastal area around Viareggio was not part of the original territory ceded by Pisa, but had become the object of dispute between Lucca and Pisa by 168 . ⁴⁸ R. Pescaglini Monti, ‘Nobilità e istituzioni ecclesiastiche in Valdinievole tra xi e xii secolo’, in Allucio da Pescia, pp. 225, 229–30; A. M. Onori, Pescia dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1998), pp. 20–3. ⁴⁹ N. Criniti, La Tabula Alimentaria di Veleia (Parma, 1991), pp. 238, 244; F. Baroni, ‘Rapporti e collegamenti viarii medievali attraverso il passo di Tea fra la Garfagnana, la Lunigiana e il mare’, in Garf. 1997, pp. 179–83; G. Mennella, ‘ ‘‘Agri placentinorum et lucensium in Veleiate sumpti’’ ’, in Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in occidente ed in oriente: Actes de la x e rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain (Rome, 1999), pp. 85–94; G. Petracco and G. Petracco Sicardi, ‘La dichiarazione dei ‘‘Coloni Lucenses’’ nella tavola di Velleia’, Archivio storico per le province parmensi, 4th ser., 56 (2004), pp. 283–97. An updated literature is listed on the website http://veleia.unipr.it. Among older studies: Banti, Luni, pp. 57–9; U. Formentini, ‘Per la storia preromana del pago’, Studi Etruschi, iii (1929), pp. 51–66; Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana, pp. 63, 290; H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1883–1902), ii, p. 288. ⁵⁰ B. Cori and P. R. Federici, ‘Etruria, Tuscia, Toscana—una regione naturale?’, in M. Luzzati (ed.), Etruria, Tuscia, Toscana: L’identità di una regione attraverso i secoli (Pisa, 1992), pp. 15–33; Cosentino, ‘Dinamiche sociale ed istituzionali’, pp. 39–41; Pasquinucci, ‘L’Etruria in età romana’, pp. 63–73; Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana, pp. 2–10. For Italy in general: B. WardPerkins, From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Urban Public Building in Northern and Central Italy  300–850 (Oxford, 1984), pp. 16–17. For the sixth century: T. S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in Byzantine Italy  554–800 (Rome, 1984), pp. 19, 211. ⁵¹ P. M. Conti, ‘La Tuscia e i suoi ordinamenti territoriali nell’alto medioevo’, in Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo: Atti del 5 0 Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Lucca 3–7 ottobre 1971 (Spoleto, 1973), pp. 77–92; Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, pp. 12–14.


11

administrative and judicial area (iudiciaria, finis, territorium).⁵² The integrity of the Carolingian and post-Carolingian county was unprejudiced by the fact that Lucca seldom possessed its own count, but rather was combined with neighbouring counties or city-territories—in varying and evolving ways—to constitute the March of Tuscany.⁵³ The concept of city with its territory persisted, but clearly neither the Lombard iudiciaria nor the Carolingian comitatus preserved the precise boundaries of the Roman civitas. The Lombard conquests had resulted in significant modifications to politico-administrative units throughout north-central Italy.⁵⁴ The course of these conquests explains the eighth-century references to localities in Populonia—far to the south—‘in iudicaria’ or ‘in discursu Lucense’.⁵⁵ Territory to the north-east of Pisa was held by the Byzantines for more than fifty years after the Lombard invasion. When the Versilia (fines versilienses) eventually fell to the Lombards, territory that appears to have been Pisan and Lunese in classical times was acquired by Lucca.⁵⁶ In the high and middle valley of the Serchio, Byzantine resistance was centred on castrum Carfagnanae (probably Piazza al Serchio) and on castrum novum (Castelnuovo di Garfagnana). When these strongholds fell to the Lombards, it seems that some lands were subtracted from the ancient territory of Luni, and that Castelnuovo became the centre of a separate area of civil administration (fines Castronovo) under control from Lucca.⁵⁷ Under the ⁵² Bertini, ‘Peredeo’, pp. 29–30; Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, pp. 41–51; Gasparri, I duchi longobardi, pp. 30–2; Mor, ‘I gastaldi’, p. 411. Cianelli believed in an early pre-ducal period when every Tuscan city ruled itself under Lombard military supervision: Dissertazioni, i, p. 31. And Conti has argued that Lucca’s Lombard dukes exercised authority only over that city’s iudiciaria, positing the independence from ducal control of the gastaldati that predominated elsewhere in Tuscany: ‘Il presunto ducato longobardo di Pisa’, pp. 145–74. ⁵³ Bertini, ‘Peredeo’, p. 30; Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, pp. 60–3, 73–6; Nobili, ‘L’evoluzione delle dominazioni marchionali’, pp. 235–58; Schwarzmaier, ‘Società e istituzioni’, pp. 151–4; V. Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca tra la fine del secolo xi e i primi tre decenni del xii’, in Allucio da Pescia, pp. 90–1. Reference under Matilda to Corneto ‘in comitatu tuscanense’ suggests that comitatus might also be used to refer to the entire March: C. Manaresi, I placiti del ‘Regnum Italiae’, 3 vols. (Rome, 1955–60), iii, pt. i, no. 455, p. 371. See now A. Puglia, ‘L’amministrazione della giustizia e le istituzioni pubbliche in ‘‘Tuscia’’ da Ugo di Provenza a Ottone I (anni 926–967)’, ASI 160 (2002), pp. 675–733. ⁵⁴ Conti, ‘Il presunto ducato longobardo di Pisa’, pp. 169–74; C. Violante, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche nell’Italia centro-settentrionale durante il Medioevo: Province, diocesi, sedi vescovili’, in G. Rossetti (ed.), Forme di potere e struttura sociale in Italia nel Medioevo (Bologna, 1977), pp. 92–5. ⁵⁵ D. Bertini (ed.), Dissertazioni sopra la storia ecclesiastica lucchese, in Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria del Ducato di Lucca, iv, pt. i (Lucca, 1818), pp. 19–49; P. M. Conti, ‘La iudiciaria longobarda di Maritima’, BSP 40–1 (1971–2), pp. 1–5; Gasparri, I duchi longobardi, p. 57; Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana, pp. 116–22. ⁵⁶ Conti, ‘Il presunto ducato longobardo di Pisa’, p. 163; Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana, p. 62. ⁵⁷ The material, even the location of Byzantine resistance, is very controversial. P. M. Conti, Luni nell’Alto Medioevo (Padua, 1967), pp. 5–6; L. Angelini, Una pieve toscana nel medioevo (Lucca, 1979), pp. 8–12; id., Problemi di storia longobarda in Garfagnana (Lucca, 1985), pp. 17–19, 22, 36–50; Cosentino, ‘Dinamiche sociale ed istituzionali’, pp. 55–6, 60–1; Schneider, Die

12


Carolingians, the county of Lucca was shorn of its most southerly extension with the reconstruction of Populonia on the basis of its ancient diocese.⁵⁸ Elsewhere, the transition to Carolingian rule seems to have resulted in little restructuring of Lucchese territory—in marked contrast to what has been argued for other parts of north-central Italy.⁵⁹ The search for administrative boundaries has been ill served both by the traditional identification of the ecclesiastical diocese with the Roman municipal territory, and by an enduring belief that dioceses throughout the succeeding centuries were to remain substantially unchanged.⁶⁰ Neither thesis is entirely devoid of truth. The earliest bishops established themselves in towns, and, as their activities extended to the countryside, the bishop’s area of jurisdiction tended to coincide with the town territory. The principle was never insisted upon by the ecclesiastical authorities, though its desirability was established at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.⁶¹ Later aspirations towards continuity and stability are amply attested in the border disputes that arose between dioceses—contests that invariably revolved around the question of who held jurisdiction ‘a tempore Romanorum et Langobardorum’ (at the time of the Romans and Lombards).⁶² Proof of actual continuity is more elusive, more particularly since the precise borders of the Lucchese diocese cannot be confidently established before the estimo of 1260.⁶³ The core area of the Lucchese diocese seems to have changed little between the eighth and thirteenth centuries.⁶⁴ But Reichsverwaltung in Toscana, pp. 38–9, 48–9, 64–5; A. Augenti, ‘Dai castra tardoantichi ai castelli del secolo x: Il caso della Toscana’, in R. Francovich and M. Ginatempo (eds.), Castelli: Storia e archeologia del potere nella Toscana medievale, i (Florence, 2000), pp. 32–3. A link between the fines of the eighth- and ninth-century documents and earlier units of Byzantine military organization is possible but unproven. ⁵⁸ G. Rossetti, ‘Società e istituzioni nei secoli ix e x: Pisa, Volterra, Populonia’, in Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo: Atti del 5 0 Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Lucca 3–7 ottobre 1971 (Spoleto, 1973), pp. 248–50, 252, 256. ⁵⁹ Violante, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, p. 95. ⁶⁰ For Lucca, these assumptions pervade Bertini (ed.), Dissertazioni, iv, pt. i, pp. 3–93. For Siena: V. Lusini, ‘I confini storici del vescovado di Siena’, Bullettino senese di storia patria, 5 (1898), pp. 333–57; 7 (1900), pp. 59–82, 418–67; 8 (1901), pp. 195–273. ⁶¹ ‘Diocese’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York, 1907–12), v, s.v. The word ‘diæcesis’, seldom used in the early medieval West, itself has secular roots—signifying the territory subject administratively to a city. ⁶² The phrase appears in Lucca in the context of the eighth-century dispute between the bishops of Lucca and Pistoia over the two parishes of S. Andrea and S. Gerusalemme situated in the territory of Pistoia: L. Schiaparelli (ed.), Codice Diplomatico Longobardo, in Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 2 vols. (Rome, 1929–33), i, no. 21. For commentary on the dispute itself: A. Spicciani, ‘Le istituzioni pievane e parrocchiali della Valdinievole fino al xii secolo’, in Allucio da Pescia, pp. 164–6; id., ‘Il padule di Fucecchio nell’alto medioevo’, in A. Malvolti and G. Pinto (eds.), Incolti, fiume, paludi: Utilizzazione delle risorse naturali nella Toscana medievale e moderna (Florence, 2003), pp. 61–2; R. Nelli, Montecatini dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1998), pp. 5–6. ⁶³ P. Guidi (ed.), Rationes Decimarum Italiae nei secoli xiii e xiv, Tuscia, i, La Decima degli anni 1274–1280 (Città del Vaticano, 1932), pp. 243–73. ⁶⁴ For a list of tenth/eleventh-century pievi: L. Nanni, La Parrocchia studiata nei documenti lucchesi dei secoli viii–xiii (Rome, 1948), pp. 64–75.


13

the evidence of the thirteenth-century tax record remains less than compelling as a guide to either ecclesiastical or civil boundaries over the preceding millennium.⁶⁵ Clearly neither ecclesiastical nor civil borders were immutable, and the changes were often interconnected. To the east the borders of the Lucchese diocese were apparently determined by the vicissitudes of the Lombard wars, and by the lines of fortifications established in the Valdinievole respectively by the Lombards and the Byzantines (perhaps also by topographical constraints).⁶⁶ The strength and conquests of Lucca’s Lombard dukes enabled Lucca’s bishops to acquire lands and to exercise jurisdiction far to the south, and on the confines of Pisa, though the precise nature of their spiritual authority—particularly in the neighbourhood of Populonia—remains unclear. This expansion of episcopal power is not unrelated to the fact that Lucca’s bishops were drawn from the ranks of the local Lombard aristocracy. There is even a tradition, entirely unconvincing, that Bishop Walprando followed his father Walperto in the office of duke.⁶⁷ Despite their political importance and their familial links with the city’s rulers, bishops, in Lucca as elsewhere, do not appear to have exercised any institutionalized public functions under the Lombard kings.⁶⁸ By contrast, Charlemagne utilized bishops as agents of royal power. They came to sit with counts in judging a wide range of transgressions;⁶⁹ Charles the Bald in 876 granted powers as royal envoys (the missatico) to bishops of the Italian kingdom within their respective dioceses.⁷⁰ From the ninth century, therefore, ⁶⁵ For the sometimes contested border with the diocese of Pisa: M. L. Ceccarelli Lemut and S. Sodi, ‘Il sistema pievano nella diocesi di Pisa dall’età carolingia all’inizio del xiii secolo’, Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia, 58 (2004), particularly pp. 421–4. ⁶⁶ A. M. Onori, Massa e Cozzile dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1989), p. 7. ⁶⁷ L. Bertini, ‘Intorno alla probabile genesi delle contese confinarie tra i vescovi pisano e lucense’, BSP 40–1 (1971–2), pp. 14–15; id., ‘Peredeo’, pp. 21–6; Harrison, The Early State, p. 212. For Walprando: Andreolli, ‘Walprando’, in Uomini nel medioevo, pp. 20–6; De Conno, ‘L’insediamento longobardo’, p. 117; Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 74–8, 159–61. ⁶⁸ O. Bertolini, ‘I vescovi del ‘‘regnum Langobardorum’’ al tempo dei Carolingi’, in Italia sacra: Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica: Vescovi e diocesi in Italia nel medioevo (sec. ix–xiii): Atti del ii0 convegno di storia della chiesa in Italia: Roma 5–9 sett. 1961 (Padua, 1964), pp. 1–12. But see Gasparri, I duchi longobardi, p. 25. ⁶⁹ Bertolini, ‘I vescovi’, pp. 12–26; G. Rossetti, ‘Formazione e caratteri delle signorie di castello e dei poteri territoriali dei vescovi sulle città nella Langobardia del secolo x’, in G. Rossetti (ed.), Forme di potere e struttura sociale in Italia nel Medioevo (Bologna, 1977), pp. 117, 141–8. ⁷⁰ G. Arnaldi, ‘Papato, arcivescovi e vescovi nell’età post-carolingia’, in Italia sacra: Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica: Vescovi e diocesi in Italia nel medioevo (sec. ix–xiii): Atti del ii 0 convegno di storia della chiesa in Italia: Roma 5–9 sett. 1961 (Padua, 1964), p. 39: ‘episcopi singuli in suo episcopio missatici nostri potestate et auctoritate fungantur’. For the changing and ambiguous meaning of the concept ‘episcopium’ (episcopatus, munus episcopale): Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, pp. 86–8. The ex officio grant to bishops of the missatico may have been short lived; but not the association of bishop and count in joint responsibility for the peace of bishopric and county: A. Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius: Studien zum italienischen Notariat vom 7. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert ( Tübingen, 2000), p. 14; E. Dupré Theseider, ‘Vescovi e città nell’Italia precomunale’, in Italia sacra: Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica: Vescovi e diocesi in Italia nel medioevo (sec. ix–xii): Atti del ii0 convegno di storia della chiesa in Italia: Roma 5–9 sett. 1961 (Padua, 1964), p. 75.

14


pressures of administrative convenience combined with Carolingian policy to forge—or re-establish—the general coincidence of ecclesiastical dioceses and comital territories.⁷¹ There was probably always a tendency for civil administrative divisions to adjust to the potentially more stable diocesan territories,⁷² and the latter were forged only in part by political events. The diocese has been defined as the sum of its baptismal churches. The identification of the pieve (local ecclesiastical unit) with the pagus (local territorial unit) has enabled historians to argue not only for the coincidence of Roman ecclesiastical and civil boundaries, but alternatively for the correspondence of the diocese with pre-Roman and unRoman frontiers.⁷³ The identification of pieve and pagus is problematic, and a territorial definition of the late Roman diocese in terms of its pievi is itself rendered suspect by the late evolution of the pieve as a precise territorial entity.⁷⁴ The picture is complicated by Cinzio Violante’s insistence that, from the fifth to the tenth centuries, neither diocese nor pieve is definable in terms of a criterion of territoriality—though both clearly possessed territorial dimensions.⁷⁵ Whether or not Roman ecclesiastical and civil units ever truly corresponded, the link was soon shattered by missionary activity and by long vacancies of episcopal sees. On the borders with Pisa and Pistoia, some missionary foundations of the seventh and eighth centuries seem to have been annexed by the more powerful diocese of Lucca. The conversion of pagans or Arians by eastern missionaries may have created administrative problems within and between dioceses; subsequent juridical ambiguities and the conflicts of neighbouring bishops over territory were perhaps in part a legacy of these missions.⁷⁶ And continuing ambiguities might arise from the fact that bishops sometimes laid claim to institutions within ⁷¹ Arnaldi, ‘Papato, arcivescovi e vescovi’, p. 33; C. Violante, ‘Le strutture organizzative della cura d’anime nelle campagne dell’Italia centrosettentrionale (secoli v–x)’, in Cristianizzazione ed organizzazione ecclesiastica delle campagne nell’alto medioevo: Espansione e resistenze: Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, xxviii, 2 vols. (Spoleto, 1982), ii, p. 1058; id., ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, p. 95. And see n. 57 above. ⁷² The tendency was not without exceptions. Continuing conflict between Arezzo and Siena revolved around attempts to bring ecclesiastical boundaries into line with new civil administrative divisions: Lusini, ‘I confini storici’, passim; Schneider, Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana, pp. 39–41; J. P. Delumeau, Arezzo espace et sociétés, 715–1230: Recherches sur Arezzo et son contado du viiie au début du xiiie siècle, 2 vols. (Rome, 1996), i, pp. 196–9. In the Lucchesia, as late as 1003, the castello of Verruca might lie within the Lucchese pieve of ‘Massa prope Burra’, but ‘infra comitato et territurio pistoriense’: Pescaglini Monti, ‘Nobilità e istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, p. 250. ⁷³ Formentini, ‘Per la storia preromana’, pp. 62–3; Conti, Luni, pp. 23–8, 33. ⁷⁴ For a critical review of the evidence for the identification of pieve and pagus: Violante, ‘Le strutture organizzative’, pp. 963–5. On the slow process of evolution by which local populations came to be attached to a particular baptismal church: ibid., pp. 995, 1015–19, 1136, 1144–5. ⁷⁵ Ibid., pp. 963–1162. ⁷⁶ Bertini, ‘Intorno alla probabile genesi’, pp. 7–15; P. M. Conti, ‘Ricerche sulle correnti missionarie nella Lunigiana e nella Tuscia nei secoli vii e viii’, Archivio storico per le provincie parmensi, iv ser., 18 (1966), p. 107.


15

other dioceses—as in the case of the Cadolingi foundation of Rosaia, described by Enrico Coturri as ‘an oasis of the bishopric of Pistoia in the midst of the diocese of Lucca’.⁷⁷ Throughout the early Middle Ages precise boundaries, whether of ecclesiastical or civil jurisdiction, are probably illusory and certainly evade reconstruction. Then as later, there are continuing indications of the adjustments of diocesan borders.⁷⁸ In the Garfagnana, the precise boundaries of the dioceses of Lucca and Luni at the beginning of the twelfth century remain a contentious and undecided issue.⁷⁹ Eschewing territorial precision, the diocese remains important as an agency for the transmission of territorial identity and notions of urban-based authority. Perhaps this is true of the brief Byzantine interlude, when power threatened to pass from municipal councils into the hands of extra-urban military commanders ruling from the castelli (fortified settlements) established in strategically important areas. Clearly it is true of the late Carolingian period when the diocese continued to provide a basic delimiting structure in a world of fragmenting authority. Francesca Bocchi has argued that the early communes of the eleventh and twelfth centuries sought to control territory in response to concrete economic and political needs—specifically the need to secure food supplies. For Bocchi, the new city-state only coincidentally corresponded to the ecclesiastical diocese.⁸⁰ Certainly the same topographical constraints and the same material interests in controlling networks of communication were likely to influence (though not determine) the configuration of both diocese and state.⁸¹ But Italian historiographical orthodoxy since De Vergottini has tended to posit a conscious programme of communal expansion that aspired to annex the entire diocesan territory,⁸² and the actual areas of ⁷⁷ E. Coturri, ‘Ospedali della Valdinievole al tempo di Sant’Allucio’, in Allucio da Pescia, pp. 217–18. For the location of Rosaia, and for the pieve of Massa Piscatoria: Pescaglini Monti, ‘Nobilità e istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, pp. 233–5, 259. ⁷⁸ Thus after 1133 the diocese of Luni seems to have been compensated for the loss of territory elsewhere by the acquisition of the Lucchese pieve de Castello (Piazza al Serchio) together with some chapels of the Lucchese pieve of S. Terenzo de Rogiana: Angelini, Una pieve toscana, pp. 53–6; G. Bottazzi, ‘Viabilità e insediamento nella Garfagnana medievale’, in Garf. 1995, p. 78. But see Angelini, Problemi di storia longobarda, pp. 22–8. ⁷⁹ R. Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche tra la città e l’episcopato lucchese e la Garfagnana nell’età comunale (xii–xiii secolo)’, in Garf. 1997, p. 48; L. Angelini, ‘Elezioni nelle chiese della Garfagnana dugentesca’, in ibid., pp. 103–4; M. Seghieri, ‘Piazza e Sala dominio del vescovo di Lucca: Origini e primi sviluppi della contea’, Carfaniana antiqua: Miscellanea di studi, i (Lucca, 1980), pp. 13–18. ⁸⁰ F. Bocchi, ‘La città e l’organizzazione del territorio in età medievale’, in R. Elze and G. Fasoli (eds.), La città in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo: Cultura, istituzioni, vita religiosa (Bologna, 1981), pp. 63–4. ⁸¹ On the role of roads and commerce in shaping territorial boundaries: Baroni, ‘Rapporti e collegamenti viarii medievali’, pp. 163–209. ⁸² E. Sestan, ‘La città comunale italiana dei secoli xi–xiii nelle sue note caratteristiche rispetto al movimento comunale europeo’, in G. Rossetti (ed.), Forme di potere e struttura sociale in Italia nel Medioevo (Bologna, 1977), p. 186. See now: G. Milani, I comuni italiani. Secoli xii–xiv (Rome and Bari, 2005), pp. 6, 37. The essential text is G. De Vergottini, Origini e sviluppo della comitatinanza

16


border tension between Lucca, Pisa, and Pistoia seem fully to support this thesis. Admittedly, in Lucca, as elsewhere, the precise shape of the early city-state was determined by the fortunes of war—and ultimately influenced (if not predetermined) by defensible natural boundaries.⁸³ The legacy of classical Rome included not only the historic borders of the city-territory, but also the aspiration of cities to expand at the expense of their neighbours.⁸⁴ Lucca’s frontiers stabilized against a background of armed conflict with neighbouring cities, particularly with Pisa. Uncertainties over the parties to the border dispute of 168  render suspect the traditional dating of Lucchese–Pisan rivalry to the era of Republican Rome. Modern qualms over the historicity of S. Paolino undermine a Lucchese chronicle tradition that attributed the martyrdom of Lucca’s first bishop to continuing Pisan jealousy.⁸⁵ More generally, our vision may be clouded by the tendency of later writers to pre-date the institutionalized territorial rivalry of organized urban communities.⁸⁶ Nevertheless, cross-border raids (however constituted) can be traced back securely to the pre-communal age: under the years 1004/1005 Pisan chronicles record Lucca’s brief capture of the lower Valdiserchio.⁸⁷ In the same period, less convincingly, Pisan sources allege the annexation to the bishopric of Lucca of the Valdera and Valdarno—territories that seemingly had long formed part of the Lucchese diocese.⁸⁸ There was fighting around Vaccoli in 1055.⁸⁹ Continuous conflict, punctuated by years of uneasy peace, began with the tussle for possession of the fortress of Vaccoli in 1088.⁹⁰ Thereafter the ambitions of (Siena, 1929), pp. 113–41. G. Santini stresses the essential novelty and revolutionary consequences of these communal ambitions: ‘Circoscrizioni amministrative civili nei domini matildici’, Studi Matildici (Modena, 1978), p. 97. The communal aspiration does not seem to me to be affected by the distinction drawn by Tirelli between diocesan territory and ‘episcopatus’: Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, pp. 86–8. ⁸³ At the end of the Pisan wars, Lucchese and Pisan territory came to be separated by the logical natural barriers of the Monti Pisani and the marshes of Massaciuccoli and Bientina—barriers that all coincided with established diocesan boundaries. ⁸⁴ M. Ascheri, ‘Città-Stato: Una specificità, un problema culturale’, Le Carte e la storia: Rivista di storia delle istituzioni, 12 (2006), p. 11. ⁸⁵ CUL MS Add. 4700, pp. 114–16, 136–9, 248–9. For S. Paolino: R. Savigni, Episcopato e società cittadina a Lucca da Anselmo II (+1086) a Roberto (+1225) (Lucca, 1996), p. 314. ⁸⁶ Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 249, 252, 260. Schwarzmaier’s vision, in turn, is blurred by an exaggerated sense of cleavage between an older, rural-based nobility and the urban ruling class emerging during the course of the eleventh century. ⁸⁷ Bernardo Marangone, ‘Vetus Chronicon Pisanum’, ed. F. Bonaini, ASI 1st ser., 6/2 (1845), p. 4; Ranieri Sardo, ‘Cronaca Pisana’, ibid., pp. 75–6. These events seem to coincide with the emerging power of Lucca’s leading families, and with the temporary eclipse of both episcopal and margraval authority: Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 128–9. ⁸⁸ For the refutation of Pisan claims: Bertini (ed.), Dissertazioni, iv, pt. i, pp. 11–68, 92–3. ⁸⁹ G. Tommasi, ‘Sommario della storia di Lucca dall’anno MIV all’anno MDCC’, ASI, 1st ser., 10 (1847), p. 15. ⁹⁰ ‘Eodem anno [1088], ut in Gestis Lucanorum scribitur, castrum de Vacchole destructum fuit a popolo Lucano, [quod erat nobilium].’ Tholomei Lucensis Annales, ed. B. Schmeidler, MGH: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, , viii (Berlin, 1955), p. 20. See also Tolomeo, Gesta Lucanorum,


17

the two neighbouring cities were pursued in a number of arenas that can be separated at least for reasons of narrative convenience. The earliest recorded conflicts took place in the mountains to the south-west of Lucca, and in the sterile marsh and woodland that then extended northward from Pisa to the mountains. At times of Pisan weakness, Lucchese forces descended from the mountains, plundering to the walls of Pisa itself. In 1168 the Lucchesi burnt and laid waste the village of Quosa below Monte Pisano.⁹¹ In 1172, in retaliation for subsequent Lucchese incursions, the Pisans entered and plundered the Lucchese plain as far as Lunata.⁹² Quosa was again taken by Lucca, together with Avane and Ponte a Serchio, in 1285.⁹³ But for the most part, military endeavour centred on the seizing and recovery of private fortresses in the Monte Pisano, whether by siege, assault, or the suborning of local lords. Ripafratta, controlling the valley of the Serchio between Lucca and Pisa, was captured by Lucca—albeit briefly—in 1104.⁹⁴ In the central Monti Pisani, the castello of Vorno was garrisoned by Pisans in 1144 when its lord, Enrico di Sigefredo (descendant of a family of Lucchese notables and royal judges founded in the tenth century by Giudice Leone), allied himself with Pisa against Lucca. The fortress of Vorno was abandoned by its Pisan defenders only in 1150, whereupon it was razed as a threat to Lucca’s security.⁹⁵ Similar assaults by urban militia, often occasioned by the shifting alliances of local lords, were repeated to the south and west at Castagnori (1100), Asciano (1168), and Agnano (1169).⁹⁶ A second region frequently contested between Lucca and Pisa was the Tyrrhenian coast from the mouth of the Serchio to the Magra. The charter of privileges granted to the citizens of Lucca by the Emperor Henry IV in 1081 included rights of free navigation on the Serchio and landing rights at the mouth of the Motrone.⁹⁷ The early history of fortifications along the coast is obscure before ed. B. Schmeidler, ibid., p. 284. The date 1080 in one codex appears to be a corruption; but some problems of dating remain: A. N. Cianelli, Dissertazioni sopra la storia lucchese, in Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria della città e stato di Lucca, ii–iii (Lucca, 1814–16), iii, pt. i, pp. 89–93; Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, p. 35. ⁹¹ Tholomei Lucensis Annales, p. 68; Tolomeo, Gesta Lucanorum, p. 291; Marangone, ‘Vetus Chronicon Pisanum’, p. 52. ⁹² ‘Revertentibus Pisanis cum exercitu, Lucensium terras decimoquinto Kal. Septembris intraverunt, et ex utraque parte fluminis Sercli totam terram Lucensium ab Aquilata usque ad Pontem Sancti Petri devastaverunt et igne cremaverunt, et bestias multas et spolia inde abstraxerunt.’ Marangone, ‘Vetus Chronicon Pisanum’, p. 65. ⁹³ D. Corsi, ‘Lucca, Viareggio, Messina. Note d’archivio’, ASI 138 (1980), p. 460. ⁹⁴ Tholomei Lucensis Annales, p. 29; Tolomeo, Gesta Lucanorum, p. 285; Marangone, ‘Vetus Chronicon Pisanum’, p. 7. Lucca recovered Ripafratta in 1285, perhaps through the treason of the Pisan Podestà, conte Ugolino della Gherardesca: Tholomei Lucensis Annales, p. 206; Tolomeo, Gesta Lucanorum, p. 319. ⁹⁵ G. Massoni, La pieve e la comunità di Vorno (Lucca, 1999), pp. 39–47. ⁹⁶ Tholomei Lucensis Annales, pp. 27, 68–9; Tolomeo, Gesta Lucanorum, pp. 285, 291–2; Marangone, ‘Vetus Chronicon Pisanum’, pp. 52–5. ⁹⁷ ‘Statuimus etiam, ut si qui homines introierint in fluvio Serculo vel in Motrone cum navi sive cum navibus causa negotiandi cum Lucensibus, nullus hominum eos vel Lucenses in mari vel in

18


the mid-twelfth century.⁹⁸ The picture seems to be one of expanding Lucchese influence, and subsequent conflict between Pisa, on the one hand, and Lucca and its Genoese ally, on the other. The treaty between Lucca and Genoa shows that, by October 1166, the Lucchesi had taken and fortified Motrone. But Lucca’s control came to an end in 1169, when Motrone was destroyed—and then rebuilt—by Pisa.⁹⁹ More mixed were the fortunes of Viareggio (Castello del mare). Viareggio repeatedly changed hands. The Emperor Frederick I ordered its destruction in 1175—a prelude to his policy of forbidding the construction of any fortresses along the Versilian coast. After further vicissitudes, Viareggio finally fell under permanent Lucchese control in 1287.¹⁰⁰ The contest for the control of the Versilian coast was inextricably linked with a wider struggle for dominance over the Versilian interior and the Garfagnana. Control of the coastal plain clearly lay behind the protracted struggle for Castello Aghinolfi, a struggle in which the local lords—the Nobili da Castello—were both active and passive participants.¹⁰¹ Similar concerns explain Lucca’s sporadic action against Corvaia and Vallecchia, whose lords periodically formed alliances with Pisa. To the south, possession of Montramito (Montegravanto or Montravanto) was essential for the security of the road to Viareggio. But, while these fortresses on the edge of the Versilian plain were obvious centres of contention, lords throughout the Versilia and the Garfagnana were able to pursue their own interests under cover of the inter-city rivalries—and, indeed, under the protection of the universalist claims of Empire and Papacy. In 1169 the lords of Corvaia appear to have received widespread support from throughout the Versilia and the Garfagnana; Lucchese success against Corvaia was followed by the destruction of many noble strongholds in the Garfagnana.¹⁰² A determined minority then sought refuge in Pisa, though most took oaths of loyalty to the ascendant power of Lucca. New opportunities arose with the coming of the Emperor Frederick I: a diploma of 5 March 1185 freed the lords and communes of the Garfagnana and Versilia from the control of any city, placing them under direct imperial protection. Similar decrees emanated in 1209 from Otto IV, and in 1242 from Frederick II. Alternatively, protection might come from the Papacy: in 1227 Gregory IX took the whole province of the Garfagnana under papal protection.¹⁰³ Yet both Pope and Emperor were suprascriptis fluminibus eundo vel redeundo vel stando molestare aut aliquam injuriam eis inferre, vel depredationem facere aut aliquo modo hoc eis interdicere presumat.’ Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, Documenti, serie prima, i. ⁹⁸ Though see now J. A. Quirós Castillo, El incastellamento en el territorio de la ciudad de Luca ( Toscana) (Oxford, 1999), pp. 223–4. ⁹⁹ Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, pp. 37–42; Corsi, ‘Lucca, Viareggio, Messina’, pp. 443–5. ¹⁰⁰ Corsi, ‘Lucca, Viareggio, Messina’, pp. 441–71. ¹⁰¹ G. Sforza, Memorie storiche di Montignoso (Lucca, 1867), pp. 9–26. ¹⁰² ‘Eodem etiam anno [1170] intraverunt Garfagnanam et ibidem multa castra destruxerunt, multa ceperunt et multa etiam combusserunt.’ Tholomei Lucensis Annales, p. 70. ¹⁰³ D. Pacchi, Ricerche istoriche sulla provincia della Garfagnana (Modena, 1785), pp. 116–26.


19

distant and illusive allies. Ultimately the war in the Garfagnana was fought between unstable alliances that looked to Lucca and Pisa.¹⁰⁴ The Garfagnana passed finally under Lucchese control, not because of Frederick II’s diploma of December 1248,¹⁰⁵ but because of Lucca’s military successes and the final coincidence of the interests of many Garfagnini with those of Lucca. The last regions of significant contestation lay to the south and east: from Bientina to San Miniato, and including the southward thrust of the Lucchese diocese far beyond the Arno. There are suggestions of a border dispute between Bishop Peredeo and Pisa in the area of Collesalvetti as early as 764.¹⁰⁶ In 1128 the Pisans encouraged the castello of Buggiano, and perhaps Limano, to rebel against Lucca: both were subsequently destroyed.¹⁰⁷ The Fucecchiani at this time were apparently allied to Pisa; local skirmishes (if not the renewal of full-scale war) led to the destruction of that castello in 1136.¹⁰⁸ In 1149 the Pisans attempted to defend Vorno by means of diversory attacks on Montecastello and S. Gervasio in Valdera.¹⁰⁹ In 1169 Lucca captured Marti and recovered Palaia on the southern borders of the Lucchese diocese.¹¹⁰ And in 1172 Lucca captured and burnt San Miniato, which was in the diocese of Lucca but allied to Lucca’s enemies.¹¹¹ Throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the communes of the Valdinievole and Valdarno inferiore were both participants in, and victims of, a continuing struggle for control that involved Lucca, Pisa, Florence, Prato, Pistoia, and the imperial vicar based in San Miniato.¹¹² The Lucchese state that emerged from these wars never corresponded precisely with the diocese as revealed in the rationes decimarum of 1260. The borders of the diocese passed south of Castello Aghinolfi and Camporgiano, and never embraced those lands in the high valley of the Serchio that passed under Lucchese ¹⁰⁴ Thus the ‘Nobiles viri DD. de Versilia, & Lunisgiana, & Carfagnana, qui praestitere auxilium, & favorem Pisano Comuni’ were explicitly named in the peace negotiations between Lucca and Pisa of 1237: Pacchi, Ricerche istoriche, p. 125. ¹⁰⁵ Pacchi, Ricerche istoriche, pp. 128–9; Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, pp. 215–16. ¹⁰⁶ Bertini, ‘Peredeo’, p. 36. For later attempts by bishops of Lucca to build up a network of alliances in the disputed southern parts of the diocese: R. Pescaglini Monti, ‘Un inedito documento lucchese della marchesa Beatrice e alcune notizie sulla famiglia dei ‘‘domini di Colle’’ tra x e xi secolo’, in Pisa e la Toscana occidentale nel Medioevo: A Cinzio Violante nei 70 anni, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1991), i, pp. 129–72. ¹⁰⁷ CUL MS Add. 4700, pp. 289–90; Tholomei Lucensis Annales, p. 46; Tolomeo, Gesta Lucanorum, p. 287; Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, p. 29; Bertini (ed.), Dissertazioni, iv, pt. ii, no. cxxi. ¹⁰⁸ Tholomei Lucensis Annales, p. 50; Tolomeo, Gesta Lucanorum, p. 287. ¹⁰⁹ CUL MS Add. 4700, p. 304. ¹¹⁰ Ibid., p. 330. Three years later, the castello and borgo of Palaia were still in the hands of the bishop and ‘lucanus populus’: Bertini (ed.), Dissertazioni, iv, pt. ii, no. cvii. And this cooperation continued into the 1220s: Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, p. 139. Andreolli, without reference, identifies Palaia in Valdera as already under the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Lucca in 998: Uomini nel medioevo, p. 139. ¹¹¹ Tholomei Lucensis Annales, p. 71; Tolomeo, Gesta Lucanorum, p. 295. ¹¹² P. O. Baldasseroni, Istoria della città di Pescia e della Valdinievole, 2nd edn. (Pescia, 1784), pp. 120–36. In the wars with Pistoia after 1177, Nelli suggests that the Montecatinesi appear rather as allies than as subjects of Lucca: Montecatini dalle origini, pp. 17–19.

20


influence during the early communal period. To the north, Piazza e Sala (Piazza al Serchio) in the diocese of Luni was under the temporal jurisdiction of the bishop of Lucca.¹¹³ Further south, Bozzano, though outside the diocese, seems to have been under Lucchese control at the end of the twelfth century—and periodically thereafter.¹¹⁴ Despite the claims of later Lucchese chroniclers,¹¹⁵ there is no compelling evidence that San Miniato, though part of Lucca’s diocese, was ever under Lucca’s firm political control in any meaningful sense. Certainly Lucchese forces periodically burnt the lands of San Miniato. But plundering is not ruling. And local histories of San Miniato have been written largely without reference to Lucca, other than as an externalized threat.¹¹⁶ Yet, just as the territorial dimensions of Lucca’s bishopric seem to have played some role in preserving the concept of a city-based territory in the centuries after the fall of Rome, so in the High Middle Ages the area of Lucca’s true and natural jurisdiction continued to be vaguely identified with the borders of the diocese.¹¹⁷ As in the earlier period, the mechanics of the link are less than clear. A traditional Italian historiography has tended to portray the mediating role of bishop and diocese in juridical terms. Certainly, in some parts of Italy, bishops, by royal concessions—sometimes without formal approval—fortified cities and claimed concomitant juridical rights over the surrounding countryside.¹¹⁸ With the collapse of royal power in the late Carolingian period, the bishops of many cities were granted powers of jurisdiction—powers that extended initially for one mile, later for as much as seven miles from the city walls.¹¹⁹ The situation differed in Lucca, not least because of the power of the margraves, and in spite of the proclivity of individual Emperors to favour the power of the bishops in Tuscany as a counterweight to the margraves and the counts and public officials who were linked to them.¹²⁰ From the eighth century the bishop of Lucca gradually replaced the king as the leading landlord in the immediate environs of the city.¹²¹ As private proprietor ¹¹³ Seghieri, ‘Piazza e Sala’, pp. 13–34. ¹¹⁴ Cianelli, Dissertazioni, ii, pp. 321–2, 325; iii, pt. i, pp. 44, 212–22. ¹¹⁵ Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, pp. 238–9. ¹¹⁶ G. Rondoni, Memorie storiche di San Miniato al Tedesco con documenti inediti e le notizie degl’illustri samminiatesi (San Miniato, 1876). Rondoni’s work is largely drawn from the documents published in the various collections of G. Lami, including Sanctae Ecclesiae Florentinae Monumenta, 4 vols. (Florence, 1758), i, pp. 334–65, 373–5, 492–8. ¹¹⁷ Even if the city was never able to govern directly the entire diocesan territory: Nobili, ‘L’evoluzione delle dominazioni marchionali’, p. 250. ¹¹⁸ Rossetti, ‘Formazione e caratteri’, pp. 113–48. ¹¹⁹ Bocchi, ‘La città e l’organizzazione del territorio’, pp. 58–9; Dupré Theseider, ‘Vescovi e città’, pp. 79–90. For Piacenza: S. Rossi, ‘Piacenza dal governo vescovile a quello consolare: L’episcopato di Arduino (1121–1147)’, Aevum: Rassegna di scienze storiche linguistiche e filologiche, 68 (1994), pp. 324–5. ¹²⁰ M. L. Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi di Volterra dalle origini all’inizio del xiii secolo’, in Pisa e la Toscana occidentale nel Medioevo: A Cinzio Violante nei suoi 70 anni, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1991), i, p. 40. ¹²¹ Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, p. 38.


21

and public functionary, Lucca’s bishop was a powerful presence within the Sei Miglia—the area of plain and low hills that circumscribed the city. But the bishop never received a formal grant of lordship over the Sei Miglia, as became characteristic of city-territories further to the north.¹²² In this respect it is impossible to see the future commune of Lucca as the direct juridical heir of an episcopal signoria. When, in 1081, the Emperor Henry IV granted to the faithful citizens of Lucca that no castle was to be built within six miles of their city,¹²³ he was merely confirming Lucca’s traditional zone of influence. And the imperial diploma was clearly directed against the house of Canossa rather than, in the first instance, against Bishop Anselmo II as one of the Countess Matilda’s leading supporters.¹²⁴ The power of bishops over the wider diocese has been bedevilled by debates over the concept of the bishop-count. Certainly from Frankish times bishops were given powers within their dioceses to examine cases involving religion and morality.¹²⁵ An older local historiography sometimes went beyond this to claim that Lucca’s bishops, from an early period, claimed the title of bishop and count (‘episcopus et comes’).¹²⁶ While bishops in some parts of Italy clearly were made counts,¹²⁷ bishops in Lucca (as elsewhere in Tuscany) appear never to have been granted the title of count, nor yet to have exercised full comital powers.¹²⁸ As in the case of other landholders, if on a grander scale, the temporal jurisdiction of Lucca’s bishop was associated with proprietary rights. Bishops exercised jurisdiction over church property, whether acquired through purchase or through the alienation of fiscal land. Later, episcopal jurisdiction over the residents on the lands of the church was confirmed and validated by imperial grant, as by Otto II in 980,¹²⁹ or Frederick I in 1164.¹³⁰ The identification of ¹²² C. Wickham, ‘Economia e società rurale nel territorio lucchese durante la seconda metà del secolo xi: Inquadramenti aristocratici e strutture signorili’, in Sant’Anselmo, p. 413. ¹²³ Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, Documenti, serie prima, i; MGH: Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, vi, pt. i, Heinrici IV: Diplomata (Weimar, 1953), no. 334, pp. 437–9. For reservations about this document, and more particularly about the diploma granted in the same year to Pisa, both preserved in late copies: G. Rossetti, ‘Pisa e l’impero tra xi e xii secolo: Per una nuova edizione del diploma di Enrico IV ai pisani’, in C. Violante (ed.), Nobilità e chiesa nel medioevo e altri saggi: Scritti in onore di Gerd G. Tellenbach (Rome, 1993), pp. 159–82. Henry VI’s diploma of 1186 confirmed to Lucca ‘omnia Regalia et omnem iurisdictionem et districtum intra et extra Civitatem usque ad sex milliaria’: Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, pp. 198–200. ¹²⁴ Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, p. 66; H. E. J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 296–307. ¹²⁵ Bertolini, ‘I vescovi’, pp. 13–22; Rossetti, ‘Formazione e caratteri’, pp. 145–6. ¹²⁶ Baldasseroni, Istoria della città di Pescia, p. 65. ¹²⁷ Dupré Theseider, ‘Vescovi e città’, pp. 92–101. But see now: Milani, I comuni italiani, pp. 12, 38. ¹²⁸ For useful definitions and distinctions: M. Nobili, ‘Il ‘‘liber de anulo et baculo’’ del vescovo di Lucca Rangerio, Matilde e la lotta per le investiture negli anni 1110–1111’, in Sant’Anselmo, pp. 176, 179. ¹²⁹ Seghieri, ‘Piazza e Sala’, p. 20; Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, pp. 92, 112. ¹³⁰ MGH: Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, x, pt. ii, Friderici I Diplomata inde ab a. mclviii usque ad a. mclxvii (Hanover, 1979), no. 430, pp. 322–6. By the reign of Frederick I, the

22


episcopal and public power may have made it easier for the bishop to establish territorial lordships, over and above the proprietary rights possessed by all lords over their own tenants. But the areas of episcopal control formed scattered rural seigniories within and beyond the borders of the county. In Lucca, at least, it is not helpful to see the nascent commune as the direct heir to public functions previously delegated to bishops over the entire territory of the diocese/county.¹³¹ In more practical ways, the bishop played a decisive role in territorial integration. From the eighth century, bishops of Lucca had acquired extensive landed possessions by means of donations, exchanges, and purchases.¹³² These properties extended beyond the diocese, though they were concentrated within and throughout the diocese, and there was always an understandable tendency to shed possessions in areas outside the bishop’s sphere of influence. Thus, in 1119 Bishop Benedetto ceded to Abbot Ugo of S. Maria di Serena possessions held by the Lucchese church towards Roselle (‘a suprascripto flumine Cecina, usque ad Episcopatum Rosellense’) in return for lands closer to Lucca (‘a Fluvio Cecine usque ad Fluvium Arni’).¹³³ The resources at the bishop’s disposal increased during the Carolingian period with the introduction and regularization of tithes, collected throughout the diocese with the coercive support of the civil authorities.¹³⁴ Both lands and tithes were leased to laymen. From the early ninth century there is increasing reference in official church records to baptismal churches with defined territories (pivieri).¹³⁵ And by the end of the tenth century it became common for bishops to lease all or most of the possessions and revenues of pievi to high-ranking laymen (saving provisions for the care of souls).¹³⁶ From the beginning, the cession of church land to laymen—often by perpetual or hereditary leases (livelli)—might be seen as the despoiling of the church, whether through carelessness, violence, or by episcopal gifts to relatives.¹³⁷ At the same time, the leasing of church lands and revenues throughout the Lucchesia clearly created important ties between centre and periphery. And the relationship was a reciprocal one in so far as aristocratic families, together with small and medium proprietors, continued to donate lands to the church in anticipation legacy of the Investiture Controversy seems to have combined with current imperial policy to define all episcopal property as ‘regalia’: Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, p. 76; G. Tabacco, The Struggle for Power in Medieval Italy: Structures of Political Rule (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 214–15. ¹³¹ For an alternative reading: Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, pp. 55–146. Tirelli’s interpretation rests on his identification of the ‘regalia’ with i beni pubblici, which seems to me problematic, and on his contested vision of the role of the bishop in Lucchese politics after 1081. ¹³² The essential study here is Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich. ¹³³ Bertini (ed.), Dissertazioni, iv, pt. i, p. 47. ¹³⁴ Violante, ‘Le strutture organizzative’, pp. 1073–4. ¹³⁵ Ibid., pp. 1015–16, 1019. ¹³⁶ Ibid., pp. 1099–1101, 1107, 1122–4. ¹³⁷ D. J. Osheim, An Italian Lordship: The Bishopric of Lucca in the Late Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1977), p. 13; Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, p. 100. As early as 852 the Emperor Louis II granted restitution of all alienated property to the newly appointed bishop Geremia: ‘Omnis vero libellos, omnisque scriptiones inde factos irritos & vacuos esse statuimus’: Bertini (ed.), Dissertazioni, iv, pt. ii, no. xxxii.


23

of future benefits. The precise nature of the ties remains controversial; much discussion has focused on whether grants to non-cultivators (grandi livelli) were or became feudal. Precisely on the basis of the Lucchese evidence, it has been variously argued how far grandi livelli created bonds of vassalage or of commendation; how far grandi livelli represented a Tuscan alternative to the feudo-vassalic institutions of Lombardy; how far the succession of Milanese bishops of Lucca in the eleventh century transformed livelli contracts involving entire pievi into grants that were truly feudal.¹³⁸ The material is to be considered against the background of current Anglo-Saxon doubts regarding the phenomena of fiefs and vassals as conventionally conceptualized.¹³⁹ It seems to me that, in Italy as elsewhere, historians have been overly preoccupied with constructing sharply defined relationships on the basis of a technical vocabulary that is both more fluid and less exact than they tend to suppose. Eschewing the more detailed debates, certain points appear clear. In contested areas of the diocese the bishop of Lucca built up a network of alliances through the granting of lands and strongholds to allies, who, in turn, might offer lands and castelli to the bishop in return for episcopal support: a familiar eleventhcentury example is provided by relations in the southern part of the diocese, particularly in the territory of S. Maria a Monte, involving conte Gualfredo, son of conte Ardengo degli Ardengheschi of Siena, and Bonfiglio de Camugliano.¹⁴⁰ Agreements with the bishop might include precise military obligations. Thus in 1180 the consuls of Montopoli, on behalf of the knights and people, promised to obey the orders of Bishop Guglielmo of Lucca. They were then invested, as a benefice, with half the territory’s guida (a payment due from travellers along the Arno for the right of safe passage); in return the knights of Montopoli were bound to defend the lands of the church with horses and arms.¹⁴¹ More generally, episcopal grants of lands, rights, and revenues created bonds of fidelity ¹³⁸ Some of the recent literature is conveniently summarized by A. Spicciani, ‘Concessioni livellarie e infeudazioni di pievi a laici (secoli ix–xi)’, in C. Violante (ed.), Nobilità e chiesa nel medioevo e altri saggi: Scritti in onore di Gerd G. Tellenbach (Rome, 1993), pp. 183–97. ¹³⁹ E. A. R. Brown, ‘The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe’, American Historical Review, 79 (1974), pp. 1063–88; T. Dean, Land and Power in Late Medieval Ferrara: The Rule of the Este 1350–1450 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 1–6; S. Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1994), particularly pp. 17–74, 181–257. These doubts seem to me fully validated by the texts (if not always by the arguments) produced by Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 183–207. ¹⁴⁰ Pescaglini Monti, ‘Un inedito documento lucchese’, pp. 144–57, 169. ¹⁴¹ The consuls ‘miserunt manus suas in sacris manibus ejusdem Episcopi, promittentes observare quicquid ipse Dominus Episcopus exinde eis preciperet, et imponeret’, renouncing all their rights to the guida. The bishop then ‘investivit nomine Beneficii’ the consuls with one half of the guida; ‘sic quod milites de Montetopali semper pro arbitrio, et voluntate Lucani Episcopi habeant equos, et arma ad honorem Dei, et Lucane Ecclesiae, et Episcopatus, et Lucani Episcopi, et ad defensionem terrarum, et bonorum opere Sancti Martini’. Bertini (ed.), Dissertazioni, iv, pt. ii, app., no. cxi. In 1237 the podestà and consiglio generale of S. Maria a Monte were ordered to provide the bishop with two well-armed knights for the service of the Emperor Frederick II: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ++O23.

24


(fidelitas) between the bishop and the great Tuscan families (to whom the bishop himself often belonged). Fidelitas might defy definition in precise feudo-vassalic terms,¹⁴² and loyalty to the bishop was perfectly compatible with loyalty to other role-players of early medieval Tuscany. Nevertheless, the diocesan aristocracy were tied to the city by a network of leases involving the bishop (and to a lesser extent the cathedral chapter). A degree of control was exercised periodically through the regular renewal of leases (livelli). And this against a pattern of highly fragmented landholding by powerful individuals throughout the diocese, which in itself privileged the city. If the diocese influenced the perimeters of the future Lucchese state, the association probably owes more to the practical imperatives of ecclesiastical landholdings than to the bishop’s legitimizing role in preserving concepts of a territorialized public power (the potere missatico). The building of castelli and the founding of hospitals at strategic points also served to fix boundaries that were to endure.¹⁴³ But the diocese also contributed in less tangible ways. Ernesto Sestan has argued—I think rightly—that inhabitants of the city thought of the saints whose relics lay within the city as protectors of the whole diocesan territory (‘in quanto signori celesti, signori anche, e non detronizzabili né sminuibili, del territorio della diocesi’). This world view appeared self-evident to the inhabitants of the countryside, who were accustomed to think of themselves as appendices of the mother church.¹⁴⁴ The thesis requires qualification. Religious loyalties were not enough to enable Lucca to retain political control of the Valdera; the whole southern part of the diocese, particularly the region lying to the south of the Arno, was gradually slipping from Lucca’s rule by the twelfth century. Everywhere the exempt monasteries formed enclaves that were separate from, and potentially hostile to, the Lucchese bishopric. Reformed monasteries subject to Camaldoli, S. Benedetto di Polirone, Vallombrosa, and Montecassino were, no doubt, the products of the same eleventh-century spiritual revival that moved Lucca’s reforming bishops. But the reformed monastic congregations were essentially extraneous to the diocese, while, at a more local level, the whole Cluniac movement tended to resuscitate the control of private churches by powerful lay patrons.¹⁴⁵ Indeed, episcopal control of the diocese needs to be periodized. There was a period of crisis in the late tenth century when the bishop’s powers to intervene in the pievi were greatly curtailed.¹⁴⁶ The focus of faith and discipline on bishop and cathedral city was not a constant. It probably remains true that for most inhabitants of the Lucchesia religious attachments meant rather ¹⁴² Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, p. 31. ¹⁴³ Castle-building became important during the reign of Bishop Pietro (896–932), under the impulse of the campaigns of Berengar and the Saracen incursions: Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, p. 103. ¹⁴⁴ Sestan, ‘La città comunale’, pp. 191–2. ¹⁴⁵ Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, pp. 66–75. ¹⁴⁶ Violante, ‘Le strutture organizzative’, pp. 1127–8, 1139–42.


25

more than civil ones. Bonds were strengthened by the reformulation of the diocese as a collection of pievi dependent from the mother church,¹⁴⁷ and by the image of the bishop as font of peace and justice. All these ingredients transformed the diocese into the natural (if ultimately unattained) arena of city power. At the beginning of the communal age, Lucca laid claim to a relatively large city-territory. That claim was rooted in the city’s history. Cities were less numerous in the territory of what was to become Gallia Cisalpina, and, with Roman colonization, cities in this region were endowed with larger territories than elsewhere in Italy. Lucca’s importance under its Lombard dukes resulted in a significant extension of the area juridically subject to Lucca. From Roman times there was an association, neither static nor necessarily precise, between city-territory and its ecclesiastical diocese. This association was one of the factors that kept alive the concept of county (comitatus) throughout the Carolingian and post-Carolingian period, at a time when Lucca (usually) had no count (‘comes comitatus lucensis’) of its own. Later, for reasons that may be debated, the early commune attempted to extend its jurisdiction over the Lucchese diocese, which essentially corresponded with the Carolingian county, and which was not unconnected with the city-territory of the Romans and Lombards. During these early centuries, as later, the boundaries of Lucchese influence were determined by political events, and by Lucca’s success or failure in vindicating historic claims. The extent of Lucca’s political influence was always too fluid and too uncertain to permit of any crude explanations of geographical determinism. Nevertheless, Lucca was able to benefit from certain natural and geographical advantages, including those advantages that had been responsible for the initial location of the Latin colony. Lucca was the natural outlet for the lands of the Serchio valley: the Roman state arms factory (‘fabrica di spathae’) drew to Lucca wood from the high valley of the Serchio (as well as iron from Elba, Sardinia, and Populonia).¹⁴⁸ Eastwards from the city stretches a large cultivated plain, topographically featureless as anyone will know who has walked the terrain from Porcari to Lucca. This region was reclaimed early from marshland;¹⁴⁹ and, from Roman times, the Sei Miglia (constituting perhaps a fifth of Lucca’s diocese) was always the zone of city influence par excellence. More generally, Lucca was at the centre of important road networks, especially those that ran down the Serchio, then eastwards to the lower Valdarno. The road system had helped to shape the north–south orientation of the Lucchese diocese, and constituted an important factor both facilitating and directing Lucca’s future territorial aspirations. Communications by road and water were necessary for the establishment of ¹⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 1145. ¹⁴⁸ Cosentino, ‘Dinamiche sociali ed istituzionali’, pp. 42–3, 60–1. ¹⁴⁹ Wickham, ‘Economia e società rurale’, p. 393.

26


control, even for the unification of a territory, without ever quite becoming the independent and decisive variant (conceptualized as area di strada) of some recent Italian historiography. The processes by which the commune of Lucca achieved dominion over its contado becomes the central concern of the next chapter.

2 The Early Commune and the Conquest of the Contado Until comparatively recently, historiographical orthodoxy has portrayed the period from the eleventh century as a time when the cities of northern and central Italy progressively entrenched their control over the surrounding countryside: a literal conquest or reconquest of the contado. The imagery of conquest had already been anticipated in the mid-twelfth century in the Gesta of Otto of Freising.¹ Lucca exemplifies this tradition. Writing at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Antonio Cianelli traced the histories of the rural counts (conti rurali) who, by virtue of imperial or royal grants, had obtained rights over lands and fortified settlements (castelli). These rights essentially involved exemption from both urban and marchesal jurisdiction. The subsequent history of the Lucchese state was characterized by campaigns by the Lucchesi, led by their Podestà, against the forces of the countryside. The triumph of the city was symbolized by the acts of submission and oaths of loyalty extracted individually (if often temporarily) from the rural counts, in a process that was still incomplete in the mid-fourteenth century.² The unpublished seventeenth-century chronicle of Antonio Iova, once it reaches the late twelfth century, reduces the history of Lucca to little more than a succession of submissions made to Lucca by individual lords and by the inhabitants of their castelli. Beginning in 1171 with the sale by Truffa Mezalombardi to the commune of Lucca of land from the sea to Montramito, Iova goes on to recount the promises of military and financial aid wrung two years later from the Soffredinghi. At the same time, the leaders (capi) of important centres of the Garfagnana swore oaths of loyalty and were taken under Lucchese jurisdiction.³ Similar oaths followed the peace with Pisa of 1178.⁴ To the military obligations were soon added residential requirements binding the nobles of the countryside, whether in times of war or of peace, to live for a specified ¹ Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. Imperatoris, ed. G. Waitz and B. De Simson, MGH: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum (Hanover, 1912), p. 116, quoted by Jones, The Italian City-State, p. 363. ² Cianelli, Dissertazioni, ii, pp. 320–38; iii, pt. i, pp. 81–245. ³ BSL M. 2598–9, Antonio Iova, ‘Annali Historici della città di Lucca’, 2598, pp. 320, 324. ⁴ Ibid., pp. 333, 337–8, 342.

28


number of months each year in Lucca—traditionally seen as the mechanism par excellence whereby the cities of northern and central Italy subdued a turbulent countryside.⁵ The more recent historiography has been critical of the term ‘rural count’. Historians are less confident than they used to be that jurisdictional structures were determined (or significantly influenced) by the broader political programmes of kings and emperors. And the new caution applies to both urban and rural autonomies. Immunities were granted to bishops and church lands from the time of Charlemagne, and to private individuals from the time of Berengar I.⁶ Generally, however, the lay aristocracy acquired zones of local hegemony through independent local initiatives, perhaps recognized by royal authority ex post facto, but certainly at the expense of comital authority.⁷ Traditionally, the establishment of lordly power over entire communities (dominatus loci) has been associated with the process of castle-building (incastellamento). It was through the erection of castles and the organization of local defence that lords were able to extend their rights and jurisdiction over compact territories, and beyond the ranks of their own tenants—however far such rights might be divided and contested on the ground between competing lordships.⁸ Recent Lucchese scholarship has shared the negative reaction to the notion of ‘rural counts’. Schwarzmaier, for example, dismisses as entirely discredited the idea that local lords evaded comital jurisdiction by virtue of the widespread royal grants of comital authority (if not comital titles) to the local possessors of lands and castles. Schwarzmaier is no more sympathetic to Cianelli’s attempts to trace families of ‘rural counts’ back to the earliest extant exemplars of the concentration of lordly power in the Lucchesia.⁹ But Schwarzmaier retains the distinction between an emerging urban ruling class and a ‘feudal’ nobility firmly entrenched in rural space; Lucca’s mission remains the subordination of an unruly countryside.¹⁰ This mission was retarded, though not diverted, by the efforts of the Hohenstaufen to reassert royal authority in Italy through the protection of seigneurial autonomies—or, at least, through the coordination of ⁵ BSL M. 2598–9, Antonio Iova, ‘Annali Historici della città di Lucca’, 2598, p. 347. ⁶ For a reassessment of Berengar: B. H. Rosenwein, ‘Friends and Family, Politics and Privilege in the Kingship of Berengar I’, in S. K. Cohn and S. A. Epstein (eds.), Portraits of Medieval and Renaissance Living: Essays in Memory of David Herlihy (Ann Arbor, 1996), pp. 91–106. ⁷ Tabacco, Struggle for Power, pp. 151–66. ⁸ Ibid., pp. 193–6. For a description of this process in the territory of Arezzo, which the author contends was well advanced by the death of Henry V in 1125: Delumeau, Arezzo, i, pp. 161–87. ‘Quelles que soient les conclusions que l’on retient sur les modalités et l’impact de l’incastellamento, il reste que la détention de nombreux castra par l’aristocratie supérieure et capitanéale—qu’elle résulte d’une concession en bénéfice, puis en fief, ou de la simple mise en place de castra allodiaux—est un élément crucial de l’appropriation de pouvoirs régaliens, par cette même aristocratie’: ibid., pp. 180–1. ⁹ Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, p. 226. ¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 259–61, 308.

The Early Commune

29

local powers both urban and seigneurial.¹¹ In Tuscany, under Barbarossa, forces were less polarized than in the north.¹² Within the Lucchesia, Hohenstaufen policy towards the rural nobility finds expression in Frederick I’s diploma of 1185,¹³ confirmed to the same parties by Frederick II in January 1242.¹⁴ In Lucca, as elsewhere, criticism of the ‘conquest of the contado’ has extended far beyond the debate over rural counts. In part the dispute involves issues that are common to the whole of northern and central Italy. Instead of the traditional conflictual relationship between city rulers and ‘feudal’ nobility, some historians have long argued for a reality that was decidedly more cooperative.¹⁵ The initial focus may have been more on the fortunes of countrymen (comitatini) than on the fate of rural lords.¹⁶ Early attacks on an urban/rural dualism retained the struggle against the ‘feudatories’, and saw the local markets of ‘feudal’ lords as a continuing threat to the progressive centralism of the city.¹⁷ Increasingly, the truly defining characteristic of Italian development (to a lesser extent of the entire Mediterranean world) has come to be located in the persistent urban base of the landed nobility.¹⁸ The picture is modified by change over time and by pronounced regional diversity. The contrast between a lesser urban-based and a greater country-based aristocracy was clearly a reality in some regions.¹⁹ Recent scholarship has tended to locate Lucca and its territory at the other extremity: an area where the urbanity of the local nobility was at its least ambiguous; where an independent rural base was at its most fragile. ¹¹ Tabacco, Struggle for Power, pp. 212–14; G. Fasoli, ‘Aspirazioni cittadine e volontà imperiale’, in R. Manselli and J. Riedmann (eds.), Federico Barbarossa nel dibattito storiografico in Italia e in Germania (Bologna, 1982), p. 138. ¹² P. Brezzi, ‘Gli alleati italiani di Federico Barbarossa (feudatari e città)’, in Manselli and Riedmann (eds.). ¹³ ‘Eapropter cognoscat tam presens etas fidelium imperii quam successura posteritas quod nos attendentes lucida et honesta servitia fidelium nostrorum dominorum de Soragio, dominorum de Gregnano, dominorum de Vericula Gerardenga, dominorum filiorum Guidi de Villa, dominorum de Baciano et de Caregino, hominum de Castellione et de Fossiana, dominorum de Celabareti, hominum de Ciserana, hominum de Barga, dominorum de Casa Rolandenga, dominorum de Casa Sofredinga, dominorum de Casa de Porcaria et omnium valvassorum de Garfagnana dominorumque de Montemagno, dominorum filiorum Vbaldi, dominorum de Valechia, dominorum de Coruaria, Trufe de Castello Ainulfi et omnium vassallorum de Versilia et de Camaiore, hominum de Ghiuizano, ipsos et omnia bona eorum mobilia et immobilia, que nunc habent vel in posterum legitime poterunt adipisci, sub protectione maiestatis nostre suscepimus’: MGH: Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, x, pt. iv, Friderici I Diplomata inde ab a. mclxxxi usque ad a. mcxc (Hanover, 1990), 899. ¹⁴ Pacchi, Ricerche istoriche, p. 126, app. xxiv. ¹⁵ There is a neat summary of the early historiography in G. Dameron, ‘Patrimony and Clientage in the Florentine Countryside: The Formation of the Estate of the Cathedral Chapter, 950–1200’, in Cohn and Epstein (eds.), Portraits of Medieval and Renaissance Living, pp. 260–1. ¹⁶ E. Fiumi, ‘Sui rapporti economici tra città e contado nell’età comunale’, ASI 114 (1956), pp. 18–68. ¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 40, 51. The theme is revisited in the extensive recent literature on Florentine ‘terre nuove’: P. Pirillo, ‘Il popolamento tra signorie territoriali e dominio fiorentino’, in id., Costruzione di un contado: I Fiorentini e il loro territorio nel Basso Medioevo (Florence, 2001), pp. 39–53. ¹⁸ Jones, The Italian City-State, pp. 48, 73–5, 83–5. ¹⁹ Ibid., pp. 60–71, 146–7.

30


Much of the argument centres on the scarce incidence of fortress-building (incastellamento) around Lucca—and indeed around neighbouring Pisa. Regional studies have illuminated the construction of the territorial signoria around the possession of the fortified centre (castra).²⁰ The building of a fortress did not lead necessarily or immediately from the defence of seigneurial rights to the establishment of a territorial lordship.²¹ Yet fortress-building was intimately connected with the ruralization of residence and the localization of power. The absence of incastellamento bears witness to the weakness of both processes. The argument proceeds to the limited impact of castelli on settlement patterns in the Lucchesia, and to the restricted incidence of private jurisdictions. Within the Lucchese plain, we are told, seigneurial rights were limited to low justice. In specific localities, the bishop of Lucca might claim prerogatives of a public character; elsewhere lords as powerful as those of Porcari and Montemagno failed to move from a proprietorial to a territorial signoria. The reconquest of the contado becomes problematic in a region where the contado never required reconquering.²² Lucca’s distinctiveness has been attributed to the survival of the March of Tuscany. Marchesal authority, which endured—though in attenuated form— through to the death of Matilda in 1115, restrained the territorialization of seigneurial power (including episcopal power). In 1081 the citizens of Lucca received a charter of privileges from the Emperor Henry IV that granted them effective powers of self-government; the earliest references to the consuls of the people of Lucca date from 1119/20.²³ The interval between the crisis of the March in the 1080s and the assertion of the communal regime in the early twelfth century was too short to permit significant developments in the direction of territorial lordships.²⁴ More particularly, throughout the ninth and tenth centuries the margrave of Tuscany usually bore the additional title of count of Lucca, the centre of marchesal administration.²⁵ Elsewhere local comital families arose, whether these were rooted in an earlier age, or were the more recent product of political experimentation in the middle decades of the tenth century. Significantly the first ‘private’ castello in northern or central Italy of which we have record, that of Aulla pre-884, was built by the marchese Adalberto; Andrea Augenti ²⁰ S. Tiberini, ‘Origini e radicamento territoriale di un lignaggio umbro-toscano nei secoli x–xi: I ‘‘Marchesi di Colle’’ (poi ‘‘Del Monte S. Maria’’)’, ASI 152 (1994), pp. 522–9. ²¹ S. Tiberini, ‘I ‘‘marchesi di Colle’’ dall’inizio del secolo xii alla metà del xiii: La costruzione del dominato territoriale’, ASI 155 (1997), pp. 199–201. ²² See, particularly, Wickham, ‘Economia e società rurale’, pp. 391–422. ²³ For these landmarks in the history of the early commune (controversially interpreted), and for subsequent imperial and marchesal privileges: V. Tirelli, ‘Lucca nella seconda metà del secolo xii società ed istituzioni’, in I ceti dirigente dell’età comunale nei secoli xii e xiii (Pisa, 1982), pp. 157–231. For the consulate: T. W. Blomquist and D. J. Osheim, ‘The First Consuls at Lucca: 10 July 1119’, Actum Luce: Rivista di studi lucchesi, 7 (1978), pp. 31–40; Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 13–14. ²⁴ Wickham, ‘Economia e società rurale’, pp. 416–17. ²⁵ Puglia, ‘L’amministrazione della giustizia’, pp. 678–9, 687. Puglia shows the uneven appearance of comital families in other parts of ninth- and tenth-century Tuscany.

The Early Commune

31

has calculated that sixty-one (of ninety-five) castelli attested in tenth-century Tuscany were built (or held) by families of the great aristocracy, often of comital or marchesal rank.²⁶ The precise category of ‘rural counts’ may have been discredited; it remains plausible to attribute the weak progress of incastellamento within the comitatus lucensis to the general absence of comital families. It is somewhat ironic that Lucca’s control of the countryside has been attributed to the persistence of marchesal power, itself seen as the chief obstacle to developing urban aspirations.²⁷ Concomitantly, though difficult to link, there is the extreme fragmentation of landholding. The Lucchese aristocracy after the tenth century were descended—however indirectly—from the leaseholders or appropriators of episcopal lands and tithes (decime). The lands of the bishops of Lucca were scattered throughout the entire diocese; the landholdings of noble families in and around Lucca tended to be similarly disseminated. From the beginning, the city became the natural centre for the administration of widely scattered estates whose lords came to dominate the internal political life of the city.²⁸ In this respect Lucca may not have been very different from Pisa or Arezzo, though the Lucchese experience has traditionally been contrasted with that of Florence.²⁹ Landholding was particularly fragmented on the plain around Lucca.³⁰ Indeed, apart from the issues of incastellamento and the establishment of territorial signorie, it was precisely this fragmentation that, according to Schwarzmaier, prevented the establishment of private family monasteries (Adelsklöster) within the immediate vicinity of Lucca.³¹ Certainly the image of a pervasive urban hegemony is most convincing for the area within six miles of the city, distinguished in Henry IV’s diploma of 1081. This zone became institutionalized as the Sei Miglia, though its precise configuration might change even as late as the fifteenth century. In terms of the imperial grant of 1081, the Sei Miglia was subject to urban jurisdiction, and within it no castles were to be built.³² The privilege largely reflected existing ²⁶ Augenti, ‘Dai castra tardoantichi’, pp. 33–4, 45. ²⁷ Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 332–4, 403–9. On the harshness of the rule of the Canossiani: G. Fasoli, ‘La realtà cittadina nei territori canossiani’, Studi Matildici (Modena, 1978), pp. 72–3. ²⁸ C. Wickham, ‘Aspetti socio-economici della Valdinievole nei secoli xi e xii’, in Allucio da Pescia, pp. 283–5; id., ‘Economia e società rurale’, pp. 402–5. ²⁹ The traditional Florentine dichotomy between city and territory has been recently restated by E. Faini, ‘Il gruppo dirigente fiorentino dell’età consolare’, ASI 162 (2004), pp. 199–231. But see Dameron, ‘Patrimony and Clientage’, pp. 259–81. For a Tuscan overview: C. Wickham, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’, in G. Dilcher and C. Violante (eds.), Strutture e trasformazioni della signoria rurale nei secc. x–xiii (Bologna, 1996), pp. 343–409. ³⁰ C. Wickham, ‘Rural Communes and the City of Lucca at the beginning of the Thirteenth Century’, in T. Dean and C. Wickham (eds.), City and Countryside in Late Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Essays Presented to Philip Jones (London, 1990), pp. 6–7. ³¹ Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, p. 380. ³² MGH: Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, vi, pt. i, Heinrici IV, no. 334, p. 438: ‘Statuimus etiam, ut a predicta urbe infra sex miliaria castella non hedificentur, et si aliquis munire presumpserit, nostro imperio et auxilio destruantur’.

32


juridical and topographical realities: to the east lay an area of marshland, the padule di Sesto, gradually reclaimed, but stretching in the tenth century from Capannori to Porcari.³³ But on more propitious sites, even within the Sei Miglia, fortresses were constructed and might pose a threat. The Lucchese monastery of San Salvatore in Bresciano fortified its estate of Castagnori during the course of the eleventh century, subsequently, it seems, leasing the castello to a family that favoured the Pisans. The destruction of Castagnori by Lucca in 1100 shows the construction of castelli within the Sei Miglia, but also the rapid affirmation of Lucchese control.³⁴ Castelli there certainly were within the Sei Miglia; Maria Elena Cortese counts eighteen within a ten-mile radius of Lucca between the tenth and twelfth centuries.³⁵ None was to pose a lasting threat. In part we speak of urban vigilance, particularly in border areas. The destruction of Castagnori was preceded (1088) by that of Vaccoli, and followed (1150) by that of Vorno.³⁶ Yet this image of an urban offensive against incastellamento suggests a false polarization. Some castelli were built by—or, as in the cases of Marlia,³⁷ Porcari, and Vaccoli,³⁸ were ceded in whole or in part to—Lucca’s bishop. Lucchese bishops, excepting the north Italian appointments of the reform period, were drawn from prominent Lucchese families. The joint commitment of bishop and ‘lucanus populus’ to the defence of episcopal strongholds has already been illustrated in distant Palaia.³⁹ Other castelli were built by families of impeccable urban credentials, often on land held on long-term leases (a livello) from the bishop. Vaccoli was reconstructed after 1079 by the judge (iudex) Guido filio b.m. Bonaldi;⁴⁰ Vorno—first mentioned in 1126—was built by the dei Leoni, the descendants of a family of judges dominant in the local affairs of Lucca and resident in the vicinity of the cathedral ³³ G. Ciampoltrini, ‘Archeologia lucchese d’età comunale II: Gli ‘‘astrachi’’ di Lucca e le fosse di Paganico’, AM 25 (1998), pp. 213–27. ³⁴ Tolomeo, Gesta Lucanorum, p. 285: ‘Anni Domini MC. Lo popolo di Lucha disfecie lo castello di Castagnori, che lo favoregiavano li Pisani.’ G. Ciampoltrini, ‘Castra e castelli nella valle del Serchio (vi–xi secolo): Evidenze archeologiche’, in La nascita dei castelli nell’Italia medievale: Il caso di Poggibonsi e le altre esperienze dell’Italia centrosettentrionale (Convegno di Studi, Poggibonsi, 12–13 settembre 1997) (Poggibonsi, 1997). ³⁵ A ten-mile radius that does not conform precisely to the boundaries of the Sei Miglia as defined in the 1186 charter of Henry VI: M. E. Cortese, ‘Castelli e città: L’incastellamento nelle aree periurbane della Toscana (secc. x–xii)’, in R. Francovich and M. Ginatempo (eds.), Castelli: Storia e archeologia del potere nella Toscana medievale, i (Florence, 2000), pp. 209–10. ³⁶ Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 16. ³⁷ Cortese, ‘Castelli e città’, pp. 209, 213; Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 215–17, 255; Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 31, 61. ³⁸ A. Spicciani, ‘Forme giuridiche e condizioni reali nei rapporti tra il vescovo di Lucca e signori laici (secolo xi): Ipotesi di istituzioni parafeudali’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: Marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. ix–xii): Atti del convegno (Pisa, 3–4 dicembre 1993) (Rome, 1996), pp. 337–47; Cortese, ‘Castelli e città’, p. 210; Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 111, 234, 257; Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 31. ³⁹ See above, p. 19. ⁴⁰ Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 257–8.

The Early Commune

33

of S. Martino.⁴¹ The history of the castelli of the Sei Miglia points to the integration of town and countryside, and to the inevitability of urban control. The building of castelli did not necessarily lead to aspirations of territorial lordship. Generally the castelli of the Sei Miglia were not centres of population, but were constructed—like the castelli of the abbey of Sesto at Compito, Castelvecchio, and Castelnuovo di Sesto⁴²—for the protection of ecclesiastical and lay properties. A rebuilt Castagnori (initially of strategic importance) survived in the thirteenth century to defend and administer the agricultural interests of the Lucchese family del Gallo.⁴³ Against a background of fragmented landholding, seigneurial rights, even over tenants, were limited and variable. The control of a castello over an entire districtus castri might, at best, be no more than a vain ambition. Within the Sei Miglia the evidence of weak private seigneurial power, of precocious, continuous urban control, is so pervasive that it might obscure some telling pointers to the contrary. The great families of the Sei Miglia—the Porcaresi, even the dei Leoni—were frontier families. So too, on the Pisan side, were the Ripafratta. The ‘Lambardi de Vaccoli’, the original builders of Vaccoli, held land in both Lucchese and Pisan territory.⁴⁴ The Pisan properties of the dei Leoni date back at least to Leone II (post-970): Leone III acted as judge in both Lucca and Pisa; in 1144 Enrico II sought to protect his interests by allying openly with the Pisans; Enrico’s sons Tinnioso and Rustico were constrained to live in Pisa; his heirs were not able to return to Lucca until after the peace of Ripafratta of 1158.⁴⁵ Ultimately, families had to make a choice. No doubt the outcome was in large measure predetermined by topography, diocesan affiliations, and the balance of landed interest. But to deny the potential for independent action would render incomprehensible the histoire événementielle of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Nor were noble interests simply confined to the control of properties and tenants (signoria fondiaria). The castelli of the abbey of Sesto may have defended abbey lands, but also controlled and protected new or revived roads through the marshes of Bientina to the Arno. The territorial control exercised by the Lambardi of Vaccoli from their castello on Monte Cotrozzi may have resulted in the abandonment of the road to Pisa across the Monti Pisani through Vaccoli.⁴⁶ Where possessions were relatively concentrated, as here and as ⁴¹ Massoni, La pieve, pp. 34–47. For the dei Leone: Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 286–90; Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 21. ⁴² G. Ciampoltrini, ‘La via dell’Abate e la Buca Tana di Maggiano: Sull’insediamento in grotta dei secoli centrali del Medioevo nel territorio lucchese’, AM 27 (2000), p. 357. ⁴³ Ciampoltrini, ‘Castra e castelli’. ⁴⁴ Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 257–8. Their possessions seem to have been narrowly focused in this border region. ⁴⁵ The material is conveniently summarized in Massoni, La pieve, pp. 34–47. ⁴⁶ Ciampoltrini, ‘La via dell’Abate’, pp. 357–8.

34


with the dei Leoni at Vorno, power must always have drifted in a territorial direction. In the event, territorial lordships failed to develop within the Sei Miglia. Excluding the territorial signoria of the lords of Porcari at S. Gennaro and the small districtus castri of Coldipozzo,⁴⁷ the only significant exceptions relate to the episcopal signoria in Moriano,⁴⁸ and, perhaps, to the neighbouring castello of the Montemagnenses at Mammoli with its districto et iudicaria.⁴⁹ The Morianese was somewhat ambiguously embraced within the Sei Miglia. The bishop claimed territorial lordship over Moriano (later extended to Sesto and Dardagna) from time immemorial (ab antiquis temporibus); on precisely what grounds is unclear. At the centre of the Morianese was the castello built by Bishop Pietro II in the early tenth century, strategically placed on the low hill of Moriano, controlling access to the mountains while protecting episcopal properties on the plain. To the north, in the twelfth century, appeared the episcopal castello of Aquilea. In 1081–2, at the time of conflict between Lucca and its bishop Anselmo II, Castro Moriano was successfully defended by its inhabitants against the forces of city and emperor. Thereafter—and until the eighteenth century—the episcopal lordship of Moriano (or Iura) remained an independent enclave within the Lucchese state. But even here the impact of incastellamento on settlement patterns seems to have been limited. And even here, though the bishop claimed high justice,⁵⁰ the real political power exercised by the bishop as local lord seems to have been rather restricted, while city rights continued to be asserted persistently, if generally diplomatically, over local inhabitants, for whom episcopal rule was probably the more agreeable option. With limited reservations regarding the Massa Pisana and the Morianese, Lucca always controlled the Sei Miglia; elsewhere urban hegemony was less easily achieved. The obvious counterpart to the Sei Miglia was the area bordering and south of the Arno: the Valdera and Valdarno. In these most southerly regions of the Lucchese diocese the bishop of Lucca possessed extensive landed estates, particularly after the division of the inheritance of the last Cadolingi counts of Fucecchio.⁵¹ From the early tenth century, Lucca’s bishops built castelli in this strategically important but vulnerable area—especially at S. Maria a Monte, ⁴⁷ Wickham, ‘Economia e società rurale’, pp. 406–7; id., Community and Clientele, pp. 169–70. The rights granted to the Avvocati by the Emperor Frederick I, including their lordship of Coldipozzo, were confirmed by Lucca through its Podestà Ingheramus de Montemagno in 1203, when the Avvocati are described as ‘our noble citizens’: Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, pp. 36–8. ⁴⁸ For what follows: Osheim, An Italian Lordship, pp. 51–85; Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 82–131, and passim. ⁴⁹ Wickham, ‘Economia e società rurale’, pp. 404, 410. ⁵⁰ See, in particular, the detailed testimony of various witnesses in 1276: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ∗ G31. ⁵¹ Bertini (ed.), Dissertazioni, iv, pt. ii, app., no. xcviii; Osheim, An Italian Lordship, p. 23; Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 90.

The Early Commune

35

where episcopal families were extensively propertied.⁵² Later bishops acquired (or reacquired) castelli or parts of castelli: Palaia in 1077 by agreement with its local lords; Capannoli, Rustica, San Gervasio, Forcoli, and Colcarelli by various cessions made after 1051 by the counts Gherardeschi.⁵³ Episcopal castelli were not in themselves a threat to urban interests; indeed, at least in this contested border region, Duane Osheim sees bishop and commune as working together in pursuit of mutual interests.⁵⁴ In the event, the Lucchese diocese south and east of S. Maria a Monte was never incorporated very convincingly into the Lucchese state. Writing of a rather later period, Giorgio Chittolini identified the Valdarno lucchese (with the Valdinievole) as an area of weak Lucchese influence; one in which the city failed to establish stable rule.⁵⁵ There are, of course, degrees of weakness. An oratory, dedicated to its eponymous saint, was founded at San Miniato by Lucchese nobles at the very beginning of the eighth century. Fortifications for the protection of the oratory’s lands were built before 902; subsequently the bishop of Lucca leased the castello of San Miniato to local lords (lambardi). The castello or quasi città of San Miniato thus arose within the Lucchese diocese; its growth was facilitated by road communications with Lucca, and the castello passed into the hands of clients of Lucca’s bishop whose lands were scattered throughout the diocese. Thereafter—not, apparently under Otto I, but certainly during the course of the eleventh and twelfth centuries—San Miniato became the military and political stronghold in central Italy of the German emperors. From the 1030s San Miniato was the seat of an imperial vicar and the site of an imperial residence; by the twelfth century San Miniato may already have attained its sobriquet ‘al Tedesco’. Under the somewhat sporadic attentions of imperial rule, the Samminiatesi achieved a considerable measure of self-government. As imperial intervention waned, and, encouraged by the privileges of Frederick II, San Miniato emerged as an independent commune, though one operating in the shadow of more ⁵² Schwarzmaier, Lucca und das Reich, pp. 102–3, 105. ⁵³ Spicciani, ‘Forme giuridiche e condizioni reali’, pp. 326–7; Wickham, ‘Economia e società rurale’, pp. 405–6, 408–9, 415; Osheim, An Italian Lordship, pp. 24, 131–41. Interspersed with the sales and cessions, conflicts continued throughout the twelfth century in the Valdera between the bishop of Lucca and the descendants of Guido I Gherardeschi, conti di Capannoli: Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 527. For the grant to Bishop Giovanni II of part of the castello of Montalto by Walfridi di Ardingo conte, ‘de comitato e teriturio Senemse’ (with subsequent promise to defend the castello for the bishop): L. Angelini (ed.), Archivio arcivescovile di Lucca, iii, Carte dell’xi secolo dal 1031 al 1043 (Lucca, 1987), no. 49; G. Ghilarducci (ed.), Archivio arcivescovile di Lucca, iv, Carte dell’xi secolo dal 1044 al 1056 (Lucca, 1995), nos. 63–6. ⁵⁴ Osheim, An Italian Lordship, p. 25. In twelfth-century documents there is a tendency to identify the enemies of S. Martino as the enemies of Lucca: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ++L1. Elsewhere the unity of interest was less apparent: Osheim, An Italian Lordship, p. 27. For Pisa: M. Matzke, Daibert von Pisa: Zwischen Pisa, Papst und erstem Kreuzzug (Sigmaringen, 1998), pp. 66–7. ⁵⁵ G. Chittolini, ‘Ricerche sull’ordinamento territoriale del dominio fiorentino agli inizi del secolo xv’, in La formazione dello stato regionale e le istituzioni del contado, secoli xiv e xv ( Turin, 1979), pp. 318–21.

36


powerful neighbours. Local forces might appeal for Lucchese assistance, as for the help of Florence or Pisa; ultimately in San Miniato and its territory it was Florentine influence that would prevail.⁵⁶ Rather different were the experiences of S. Maria a Monte: closer to the city, and—for a time—much more firmly within Lucca’s sphere of influence, it was also the site of an episcopal castello, built probably by Bishop Pietro II (896–933). The powers of Lucca’s bishops at S. Maria a Monte were gradually transformed from the seigneurial rights that they had acquired over the properties of the ancient church of S. Maria (signoria fondiaria) into a truly territorial lordship (signoria territoriale). In March 1199 there is reference to the bishop’s court, where the iudex Cristiano, Ildebrandino, and Torpino, consuls of S. Maria a Monte, met together with the bishop’s steward (castaldo), Guidone Tediccione, to hear a land dispute involving the hospital of Altopascio.⁵⁷ S. Maria a Monte seems to provide a classic example of the processes whereby, through incastellamento, powers over tenants and dependants came to be extended over all the local population, and were subsequently confirmed by imperial grant. By imperial grant the bishop of Lucca after 1194 came to rule S. Maria a Monte as ‘messo imperiale’. Such superior authority, though perhaps awarded initially to circumscribe urban expansion, was not necessarily contrary to the interests of Lucca’s developing commune: Bishop Anselmo II found refuge at S. Maria a Monte when he fled from Lucca in 1080, but generally urban and episcopal agendas converged in this highly contested region. The Santamariammontesi themselves (like the inhabitants of Moriano) seem to have found in the bishop a convenient protector against the claims of neighbouring lords. And, excepting the years after 1261, when the castello fell to (or aligned itself with) Pisa, the commune of S. Maria a Monte remained under the relatively light rule of the bishop—reinforced in 1252 by a Lucchese garrison—until assumed into the fourteenth-century Florentine state.⁵⁸ San Miniato al Tedesco was never incorporated into the Lucchese state, except in the minds of patriotic Lucchese chroniclers.⁵⁹ S. Maria a Monte was a turbulent ⁵⁶ For a neat modern summary of the material: F. Salvestrini, ‘San Miniato al Tedesco in età comunale: Dalle origini all’avvento della dominazione fiorentina (1370)’, www.fondazionesanminiato.it/sanminiato/sanminiato.htm. Florentine chroniclers (Ricordano Malispini/Giovanni Villani) appear to speak of San Miniato al Tedesco already by the twelfth century. Professor Wickham informs me that he has never seen the nickname in any twelfth-century document. ⁵⁷ ASL Diplomatico, Altopascio, 8 Mar. 1199. ⁵⁸ P. Morelli, ‘La ‘‘signoria’’ del vescovo di Lucca sul castello di Santa Maria a Monte nel Valdarno pisano (secoli x–xii)’, in id. (ed.), Pozzo di Santa Maria a Monte: Un castello del Valdarno lucchese nei secoli centrali del medioevo: Atti del Convegno, Villa di Pozzo, 21 settembre 1997 (Santa Maria a Monte, 1998), pp. 105–42. See also: Osheim, An Italian Lordship, pp. 67–9, 75–7; Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 172–7. For the location of lands and rights ‘infra iudicaria de plebe sancte Marie a montte’ (1122): AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ++S1. ⁵⁹ And except, arguably, in terms of cultural influence: C. Wickham, Courts and Conflict in Twelfth-Century Tuscany (Oxford, 2003), pp. 66–7.

The Early Commune

37

semi-autonomous community over which city and bishop retained meaningful control throughout the thirteenth century. Lucca’s continued ambitions in the valley of the Arno are confirmed by the mid-thirteenth-century foundation of the walled settlements (terre murate) of Castelfranco and Santa Croce, in an area that had been administered until the death of Frederick II by the imperial vicar of Fucecchio.⁶⁰ Generally the Valdarno and Valdera were characterized by noble and episcopal castelli, the latter often leased (a livello) to the local noble families, who were perhaps co-responsible for their original construction.⁶¹ The seigneurial powers of Lucca’s bishop as rural lord were not necessarily prejudiced by Pisan political hegemony, but after the twelfth century these castelli had largely passed under Pisan control. Fucecchio itself had a more complex history. The Via Francigena crossed the Arno at Fucecchio: the site of a castello of the conti Cadolingi and of their abbey of San Salvatore. Before the death of the last Cadolingio in 1113, the castello (originally called Salamarzana), with surrounding lands, was ceded to San Salvatore; from the families in the service of count and abbot emerged the rulers of the early commune of Fucecchio. The commune claimed a considerable measure of self-government by virtue of Gregory VII’s exemption of its church from episcopal authority in 1086, and of the privilege granted to ‘fideles nostros homines de Ficeclo’ by Henry VI in 1187. But Henry VI’s privilege had also defined the role of an imperial vicar. Military vicissitudes, and the relative strength or weakness of imperial intervention, determined that judicial power and political oversight came to be exercised throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries by vicars appointed alternatively by Lucca and by the emperor. The lands of Lucchese proprietors extended into the hills of the Cerbaia, and the land and river communications controlled by Fucecchio were of great economic and strategic importance to Lucca. With the retreat of imperial power, Lucca entrenched a control over Fucecchio and surrounding territories that was maintained—apart from the brief submission of Fucecchio, Santa Croce, and Castelfranco to Pisa in the 1260s—until 1314. Under Lucchese rule the Fucecchiesi retained effective administrative autonomy, which resulted in a lively internal political life periodically enlivened by bitter factional strife and by conflicts with the Santacrocesi and Castelfranchesi.⁶² ⁶⁰ Morelli, ‘La ‘‘signoria’’ del vescovo’, p. 16 of the Internet text (www.idr.unipi.it/iuracommunia/morelli-smam.html); A. Malvolti, ‘Fucecchio nella seconda metà del xiii secolo’, i, ‘La vita politica: Tra Lucca e i Valdarnesi’, Erba d’Arno, 13 (1983), p. 52. ⁶¹ The possibility of joint construction arises—though is not proven—in the cases of Perignano (Gherardeschi) and Montalto (Ardengheschi): Spicciani, ‘Forme giuridiche e condizioni reali’, pp. 321–3, 331–7. For Montalto: Ghilarducci (ed.), Archivio arcivescovile, iv, nos. 63–6. ⁶² A. Malvolti, Quelli della Volta: Famiglie e fazioni a Fucecchio nel medioevo (Fucecchio, 1998), particularly pp. 19–39; id., ‘Fucecchio nella seconda metà del xiii secolo’, i, pp. 50–63. Fucecchio was undoubtedly in territory covered by the Lucchese diocese, but its ambiguous status at the beginning of the twelfth century is reflected in the somewhat confusing claims of witnesses both ‘iurisdictionem eius spectare ad domnum papam et ad imperium romanum et ad abbatem’ and

38


It is not particularly difficult to explain why the southern expansion of the Lucchese diocese became a region of fragile and patchy Lucchese control. Roughly equidistant from Lucca, Pisa, and Florence, the Valdarno inferiore and the Valdera constituted a contested frontier zone between the major cities of Tuscany; it was also the centre of margraval and imperial power. Lucchese influence was strongest north of the Arno, while the Valdera, more accessible from Pisa than from Lucca, fell early under Pisan control. Comital power was restrained by the early demise of the Cadolingi.⁶³ But these southern territories, uncharacteristically within the Lucchese state, saw the emergence of small centres with urban features (quasi città): Fucecchio, with a population, at the end of the thirteenth century, of perhaps 2,500;⁶⁴ thirteenth-century S. Maria a Monte, with perhaps 900 inhabitants.⁶⁵ Whether or not local autonomy can be explained by the presence of a local militarized elite,⁶⁶ distance from Lucca—as from other cities—permitted the growth of alternative powers. True independence, however, was always out of reach, and gradually the whole valley of the Arno fell under the sway of Pisa and Florence. The dynamics, and limitations, of Lucchese control are clear enough in the Sei Miglia and in the Valdarno inferiore. More contentious are the processes with regard to the Garfagnana, the Versilia west of the Serchio, and the Valdilima and Valdinievole to the east—the essential though unstable constituents of the medieval Lucchese state. In the Valdinievole a long local historiographical tradition has portrayed Pescia as a self-governing community: in so far as its magistrates chose podestà from Lucca, this was a consequence of Guelf/Ghibelline party alignments, not of Lucchese superiority or maggioranza. Lucchese dominance, when it came, was the product of the brutal conquest of 1282.⁶⁷ For the Garfagnana, Domenico Pacchi, writing at the end of the eighteenth century from the political perspective of hostile Modena, produced an extraordinary narrative in which the nobility of the Garfagnana—valiant defenders of local liberties—are repeatedly juxtaposed with the aggressive, colonizing power of Lucca.⁶⁸ More recently, and particularly in the work of Chris Wickham, the conquest of the contado by fire and sword that Fucecchio ‘est de districtu Lucane civitatis et non de iurisdictione lucani episcopi’: Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 105–6, 254–6. ⁶³ Though at the beginning of the twelfth century the Gherardeschi castello of Capannoli in the Lucchese Valdera was emerging as the centre of a territorial lordship with juridical powers: Wickham, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’, p. 368. ⁶⁴ Malvolti, Quelli della Volta, p. 33; id., ‘Fucecchio nella seconda metà del xiii secolo’, ii, ‘La crescita demografica e urbana’, Erba d’Arno, 15 (1984), pp. 44–57. ⁶⁵ Osheim, An Italian Lordship, p. 67. ⁶⁶ Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 120, 176; Morelli, ‘La ‘‘signoria’’ del vescovo’, pp. 13–14 of the Internet text. ⁶⁷ Baldasseroni, Istoria della città di Pescia, pp. 119–34; P. Anzilotti, Storia della val di Nievole dall’origine di Pescia fino all’anno 1818 (Pistoia, 1846), pp. 78–227. ⁶⁸ Pacchi, Ricerche istoriche, passim. For a recent restatement of a relationship based on force and subject to continual resistance: O. Rombaldi, ‘Impero e chiesa in Garfagnana (1115–1429)’, in Garf. 1997, p. 29.

The Early Commune

39

has been replaced by a more integrated vision of the relationship between city and its dominions. Wickham’s interpretation is nuanced and sophisticated, but in essence the forces binding Lucca to the Garfagnana or the Valdinievole seem to differ only in detail and degree from those operating within the Sei Miglia.⁶⁹ Looking first to the Garfagnana, there is much to be said for the vision that would date Lucca’s political control to the structural realities of the ninth century rather than to the communal offensive of the twelfth and thirteenth.⁷⁰ Briefly summarized, in the early Middle Ages the Garfagnana was not integrated into the wider economy of the Lucchesia (to the degree to which it was later to become), and it was—and remained—characterized by small peasant and middling landed proprietors. But, from an early period, small local landowners in the middle and upper Garfagnana were drawn into the clientele of the bishop of Lucca through the donation of land and proprietary churches. As a result of this, and more generally of the lease of episcopal land by tenant cultivators, there was the formation of local political groupings looking to the bishop for local support. Above the level of such village groupings were the diocesan aristocracy, who in the upper and middle Garfagnana also leased tithes, much of their land—and their juridical power over men living on the land—from the bishop. And these large-scale aristocratic leaseholders (grandi livellari), rather than tenant cultivators, tend to dominate the records by the tenth and eleventh centuries. Almost everywhere an independent landowning peasantry survived, and in the lower Garfagnana less land passed into the hands of the Church—perhaps because of the relative importance there of fiscal land. Here the pull of the city may have been somewhat different. But everywhere the Garfagnana was bound to the city and its bishop by the control of village elites, (later) by the diocesan aristocracy’s extensive holding of ecclesiastical and margraval land, and indeed by the landed possessions in the valley, notably around Castiglione, of lay owners from Lucca.⁷¹ After the year 1000 episcopal influence in the Garfagnana declined, and aristocratic landholders came to exercise powers of manorial justice over their own tenants. These aristocratic landholders, though not precisely identifiable as the heirs of the grandi livellari of the preceding centuries, also stemmed predominantly from families of urban origin. They, too, held land throughout the diocese, including the Sei Miglia and in the region south of the Arno. Landed power gradually became more concentrated, buttressed by the building or acquisition of castelli, and by the territorial extension of judicial rights.⁷² But seigneurial power in the Garfagnana seems often to have remained ⁶⁹ e.g., Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 14. ⁷⁰ For what follows: C. Wickham, The Mountains and the City: The Tuscan Appennines in the Early Middle Ages (Oxford, 1988), particularly pp. 15–149. ⁷¹ Ibid., pp. 56–8. ⁷² For the limitations of this process, and for the general lack of identification with locality: ibid., pp. 126–33. For a list of documented castelli variously appearing in the Garfagnana: G. Nesi, ‘Rocche e fortilizi della Garfagnana dalla ‘‘libertà recuperata’’ al periodo guinigiano, alla luce

40


limited and informal, while the continued dispersal of landholding and the possession of houses in Lucca makes it difficult to see the lords of the Garfagnana of any age as outside a network of power relationships centred on the city. The point can be extended to material life; throughout the Garfagnana, archaeologists identify artefacts from the earliest period of incastellamento that are typical of the Lucchese cultural sphere. The picture changes, but not radically, to the west in the more highly seigneurialized region of the Versilia. Traditional views of an early fragmentation of the Versilia into seigneurial territories largely independent of urban control have been called into question; leading families, including that from which was descended the later lords of Montemagno, retained landed possessions scattered throughout the entire diocese—lands that could be administered effectively only from the city. The Montemagnenses themselves, resident in their castello, from which they could control vital communications from Lucca to the sea, were more ambiguously linked to the city than other branches of the family; their power was more territorialized and their seigneurial rights more vigorously pursued. To a degree, the Montemagnenses can be portrayed as an exception, though their lands too were widely dispersed, and even they can be said to have operated within the orbit of the city and to have maintained strong associations with citizens (or at least with a citizen clique).⁷³ The same arguments, empirically and ex hypothesi, can be extended to the Valdinievole, where cousins of the lords of Montemagno held extensive possessions. Already by the eighth century almost all the fertile land around campo di Pescia belonged to the bishop of Lucca and his livellari; in the tenth century the local population sheltered under the protection of the castello of Pietrabuona, built by the bishop for the protection of episcopal lands, and defended by episcopal livellari.⁷⁴ By the eleventh century, power in the Valdinievole was generally too fragmented to resist urban intrusion, while great families like the ‘da Buggiano’ were tied to Lucca as grandi livellari of Lucca’s bishop—from whom, at least by the thirteenth century, they held lands and tithes ‘in feudum et nomine feudi’.⁷⁵ A good example of a locally powerful family with lands widely scattered di alcuni strumenti notarili’, in Garf. 1997, pp. 222–3; L. Giovannetti, ‘Distribuzione geografica e configurazione dei siti fortificati dell’alta Garfagnana: I dati emersi dalla ricerca territoriale’, in Garf. 1997, pp. 292–4. For the construction of castelli in the Garfagnana, their control of communications, and their limited impact on settlement patterns (based on documentary and archeological evidence): G. Ciampoltrini, P. Notini, and G. Rossi, ‘Castelli e domini in Garfagnana fra due e trecento: Aspetti e problemi dell’indagine archeologica’, in Garf. 1997, pp. 245–89. ⁷³ Wickham, ‘Economia e società rurale’, pp. 400–20. ⁷⁴ Onori, Pescia dalle origini, pp. 25–6. ⁷⁵ Spicciani, ‘Le istituzioni pievane e parrocchiali’, pp. 179–82, 192–3; id., ‘Forme giuridiche e condizioni reali’, p. 318. The bonding of the ‘da Buggiano’ (as of other families of the Valdinievole) to Lucca through the bishop was, of course, temporarily fractured at the end of the eleventh century with the exile of Anselmo II: Spicciani, ‘Le istituzioni pievane e parrocchiali’, p. 187; Pescaglini Monti, ‘Nobilità e istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, pp. 248–50, 254.

The Early Commune

41

throughout the entire diocese is provided by the lords of Uzzano, Vivinaia, and Montechiari. Significantly the ‘da Uzzano’ possessed houses in Lucca from the time of their very first appearance in the records, where they founded the church of SS. Simone e Giuda.⁷⁶ The Valdinievole, arguably, was distinguished only by precocious communal developments (a process probably favoured by Lucca),⁷⁷ and by the independent ambitions of a few local families: the ‘dei Maona’ and the ‘da Buggiano’ themselves. The growing concentration by the ‘da Uzzano’ on their lands in the Valdinievole proved entirely compatible with their integration into the ruling families of thirteenth-century Lucca, and, in the event, even the ‘dei Maona’ and the ‘da Buggiano’ often chose to identify with Lucca.⁷⁸ Most of the Valdinievole fell permanently to Florence during the fourth decade of the Quattrocento. There, and in the territories west and east of the Serchio, which were to remain under Lucchese rule, it remains difficult to reconcile Wickham’s portrayal of the (sometimes resigned) acceptance and inevitability of Lucchese hegemony with a narrative history redolent with betrayals, rebellions, and endemic conflict. For two centuries before their extinction in 1113, the Valdinievole lay within the sphere of influence of the Cadolingi, whose powers—which, at least locally and temporarily, extended to include powers of high justice—derived rather more from imperial and marchesal privileges than from episcopal investiture.⁷⁹ In the Valdinievole, as elsewhere, the immediate beneficiary of the Cadolingi inheritance was the bishop (and consequently the commune) of Lucca.⁸⁰ But an alternative reading sees urban control as having been exaggerated.⁸¹ The Lucchese hegemony of the early twelfth century was fragile and temporary, in part made possible by imperial weakness. With ⁷⁶ R. Savigni, ‘Clero e ceti eminenti della Valdinievole nel secolo xiv: La documentazione lucchese’, in La Valdinievole nel secolo xiv: Atti del convegno, Buggiano Castello, 26 giugno 1999 (Buggiano, 2000), p. 110. The lords of Uzzano, Vivinaia, and Montechiari possessed a nucleus of allodial land, supplemented by lands held a livello from the bishop of Lucca, in Sorbano, S. Pietro a Vico, Marlia, Collodi, Vivinaia, and Val di Chiecina: Pescaglini Monti, ‘Nobilità e istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, pp. 244–8; A. M. Onori, Uzzano dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1990), pp. 6–10. Likewise drawn to the city—at least by the thirteenth century—the ‘da Montecatini’: Nelli, Montecatini dalle origini, pp. 19–20. ⁷⁷ Onori emphasizes the pacific and cooperative relationship that always existed between Lucca and the rural commune of Massa e Cozzile: Massa e Cozzile dalle origini, pp. 15–16. ⁷⁸ Onori, Uzzano dalle origini, pp. 10–12; Wickham, ‘Aspetti socio-economici’, pp. 282–92. In 1277 Bishop Paganello was able to speak of the loyalty always displayed by the ‘da Buggiano’ to the bishop and bishopric of Lucca (‘fides et devotio quam ipsi habent et eorum maiores hattenus habuerunt erga ipsum dominum episcopum et episcopatum Lucanum’): Spicciani, ‘Le istituzioni pievane e parrocchiali’, p. 193. ⁷⁹ Pescaglini Monti, ‘Nobilità e istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, pp. 227–44; Onori, Pescia dalle origini, pp. 31–3; Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 130. ⁸⁰ Pescaglini Monti, ‘Nobilità e istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, pp. 241–2. Bishop and commune were not necessarily always thereafter in agreement on policy towards the Valdinievole, as shown following the events of 1281: Savigni, ‘Clero e ceti eminenti’, pp. 116–17. ⁸¹ J. A. Quirós Castillo, La Valdinievole nel medioevo: ‘Incastellamento’ e archeologia del potere nei secoli xi–xii (Pisa, 1999), p. 148: ‘il controllo della città fu discontinuo e meno egemonico di quanto generalmente sostenuto’.

42


the appearance of the Emperor Frederick I, Lucca lost control for almost a century, and the communes of the Valdinievole fell definitively to Lucca only after the death of Frederick II. The reassertion of Lucchese power in the 1260s was rapidly followed by the rebellion against Lucchese rule of 1281.⁸² Pescia, Buggiano and Vellano were destroyed in that year for their temerity; fifty years later—some in 1331, others in 1339—the rural communes of the Valdinievole passed permanently from Lucca to Florence.⁸³ In the past these communes had fought each other not infrequently over the possession of local resources, but already in the thirteenth century they had found strength in unity in what has been called a ‘sistema di comunità’.⁸⁴ A league formed in 1329 provides the backdrop to the submission to Florence, and a convincing case can be made for a long tradition of relative autonomy, made possible by the formation of local federations and by the competing ambitions of outside powers. No doubt loyalties in the Valdinievole were complicated after 1314, when Lucca fell under the control of the Ghibelline Uguccione della Faggiuola, and when Florence could pose as the defender of the rural communes against Uguccione. Ultimately the fate of the Valdinievole was determined by the growing capacity of Florence to assert its strategic and economic interests in this border region, at a time of profound crisis for Lucca following the death of Castruccio Castracani in 1328: to this extent the Valdinievole (most obviously in the case of Montecatini) was cut from the Lucchese state by force of arms. Much of the Valdinievole was, and long remained, within the diocese of Lucca; the movement of priests perhaps constituted a countervailing force that continued to orientate parishes and pievi towards Lucca.⁸⁵ But the communes of the Valdinievole also had their own political and economic interests; it is by no means self-evident that, independently of the Florentine conquest, these interests would have bound the Valdinievole inexorably to Lucca.⁸⁶ Certainly the history of the Valdinievole would appear to restore a measure of local choice that is absent from the more integrationist visions of Lucchese state-formation. The point is valid for the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, at a time of contested hegemony; it can be made with particular force with the establishment of Florentine dominion. Under Florentine rule the communes of ⁸² G. Francesconi, ‘Le comunità della Valdinievole nella prima metà del Trecento tra influenza lucchese e dominio fiorentino: Primi appunti’, in Atti del convegno: La Valdinievole nel secolo xiv; Buggiano Castello, 26 giugno 1999 (Buggiano, 2000), pp. 78–9. ⁸³ G. Calamari, I comuni di Valdinievole dalla pace con Firenze alla loro definitiva sottomissione 1329–1339 (Pistoia, 1927). Montecatini, Monsummano, and Montevettolini submitted to Florentine rule 1330–1; Buggiano, Pescia, Massa, and Cozzile and Uzzano in 1339. ⁸⁴ G. Calamari, ‘Leghe e arbitrati tra i comuni di Valdinievole nel secolo xiii’, Bollettino di ricerche e di studii per la storia di Pescia e di Valdinievole, 1 (1927), pp. 6–9; 2 (1928), pp. 20–29. ⁸⁵ Savigni, ‘Clero e ceti eminenti’, pp. 118–38. The point is parried to a degree by Savigni’s accompanying insistence on a growing extra-diocesan clerical mobility, but local communities may have consciously turned to Lucca’s bishop to resist the intrusion of Florentines into some of the more attractive benefices—both hospitals and parishes. ⁸⁶ Francesconi, ‘Le comunità della Valdinievole’, pp. 69–91.

The Early Commune

43

the Valdinievole won the right to be governed under their own statutes (subject to Florentine approval). The loyalty of newly acquired or suspect communities was purchased, as usual, with a wide range of concessions and privileges: fiscal exemptions, the cancellation of private and communal debts, matriculation into Florentine guild structures. Florentine rule brought a welcome respite after a decade of destructive warfare, while communication networks and future economic developments placed the region (at least after Florence’s acquisition of Pistoia) as naturally—perhaps more naturally—within Florence’s sphere of influence as within the orbit of Lucca. Significantly, some of the earliest arguments for the growth in Tuscany of an integrated regional economy were developed precisely with reference to the mutual advantages gained by both Pescia and Florence as a result of the absorption of the Valdinievole into the wider Florentine state—arguments admittedly that are more convincing from the mid-fifteenth than for the mid-fourteenth centuries.⁸⁷ Less difficult to fit into the picture of gradual and resigned acceptance of Lucchese hegemony is the history of the Valdilima, most of which—though excluding the high valley of the Lima⁸⁸—was to fall under Lucchese rule. In the early Middle Ages the Valdilima (or at least the territory around Controne) may have constituted a separate unit of civil administration: the fines Contronenses.⁸⁹ Here, as elsewhere, extensive landed property was acquired by Lucca’s bishops—land that rapidly passed under the control of grandi livellari. These grandi livellari were drawn from the same families that held lands in the Garfagnana and throughout the Lucchese diocese. Local historians write of the close economic and social ties that bound the nobility of the Valdilima to Lucca and its bishop. Such ties might be ruptured in the twelfth century by the extension of urban hegemony, and at the end of the twelfth century the lords of Anchiano and the lords della Rocca were among those who regularly allied with Pisa, apparently against the expansion of Lucchese power.⁹⁰ In the early thirteenth century popes and emperors claimed jurisdiction over the Valdilima—a development that elsewhere gave impetus to local aspirations of autonomy. Imperial loyalties seem to have provided the backdrop for Lucca’s burning of the castello of Corsena in 1245.⁹¹ But generally it would appear that conflict between Lucca and the communes and nobles of the Valdilima was muted by the relatively tardy extension of Lucchese control over the valley of the Lima.⁹² ⁸⁷ J. C. Brown, In the Shadow of Florence: Provincial Society in Renaissance Pescia (Oxford, 1982), who also shows the continuing importance of commercial links with Lucca: p. 118; Francesconi, ‘Le comunità della Valdinievole’, pp. 85–91. ⁸⁸ For which see E. Biagini, Piteglio dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1994); ead., Cutigliano dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1994). ⁸⁹ C. Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena e la Val di Lima Lucchese dalle origini al xvi secolo (Lucca, 1996), pp. 43–8, 125–34. The weight attached here to the term fines remains highly problematic. ⁹⁰ Ibid., pp. 67–8. ⁹¹ Ibid., pp. 246–8. ⁹² For the Valdilima in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see particularly ibid., pp. 215–75.

44


The imagery of a conquest of the contado suggests a dichotomy between city and countryside that is difficult to sustain, at least in the context of medieval Italy. Lucca, in particular, provides rich testimony to the forces that bound landowners to the interests of the wider state, and that drew landowners to the city as a centre of administration or place of residence. At the same time, Lucchese control was not irreversible; in some areas it was established earlier, and was more soundly based and more durable than in others. Most notably in the Versilia and in the Garfagnana it is impossible to ignore a chronicle historiography replete with acts of noble resistance and betrayal. Resistance appeared contemporaneously with the extension of Lucchese power. In the 1160s nobles and communes of the Versilia and Garfagnana allied with Pisa against Lucca.⁹³ The subsequent decades, in which Lucchese troops returned periodically to put the countryside to fire and sword, hardly points to a harmonious or integrated history. After 1185 imperial and papal interventions served to fan the sparks of resistance through to the middle of the thirteenth century.⁹⁴ The conundrum is both self-evident and accepted. Specifically with regard to the Garfagnana, Wickham articulates the problem that, ‘if the valley had to be conquered, then it cannot have been part of a coherent Lucchese territory’.⁹⁵ Wickham resolves the difficulty by distinguishing the undoubted periodic acts of resistance to Lucca from any opposition to ‘the logic of the maintenance of a spatially coherent diocese’.⁹⁶ But the city remains central to Wickham’s thesis, and ultimately the chroniclers were wrong to see the lords of the Garfagnana and of the Versilia as opponents of urban power.⁹⁷ The individual ingredients are powerfully argued; the overall solution is unsatisfying.⁹⁸ It is a solution difficult to reconcile with the subsequent history of the Lucchese state—a history that is as much about internal choices (whether or not logical) as about external competition. First, it seems to me necessary to reaffirm the distinctiveness of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; albeit a distinctiveness shorn of past crudities. Of central importance are a number of changes taking place in the political structures of the ruling city. From the end of the eleventh century, in Lucca as elsewhere, informal mechanisms of urban self-regulation and control were being transformed by the emergence of organized governmental bodies and of stable representatives with ⁹³ The chronicle evidence is reproduced in C. De Stefani, Storia dei comuni di Garfagnana (Modena, 1925; repr. Pisa, 1978), pp. 15–16; Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 216–17. ⁹⁴ The texts of imperial privileges to the nobles and communes of the Versilia and Garfagnana are printed in Pacchi, Ricerche istoriche, apps. xii–xiv, xxiv. See also De Stefani, Storia dei comuni di Garfagnana, docs. i–iv. ⁹⁵ Wickham, The Mountains and the City, p. 127. ⁹⁶ Ibid., p. 131. ⁹⁷ The argument is set out in ibid., pp. 126–33. Even the Fralminghi had possessions scattered throughout the diocese, as far afield as S. Maria a Monte, as well as within and around the city: Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 234–5. For a different perspective: B. Andreolli, ‘Federico I Barbarossa e la Garfagnana’, in Garf. 1997, pp. 6–7. ⁹⁸ For a reformulation by Wickham himself, influenced by the continuing debate, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’, pp. 343–409.

The Early Commune

45

somewhat ambiguous official functions (consuls). In the resolution of disputes, the initial function of consuls (both within and beyond the city walls) seems to have been primarily that of mediators or arbitrators. But over the course of the twelfth century, consuls, as representatives of the public order, came to assume true judicial functions. And, by the end of the twelfth century, aggressive communal regimes (perhaps reacting against the interventionalist policies of the Emperor Frederick I) were beginning to claim a monopoly of communal jurisdiction over both city and territory.⁹⁹ In Lucca, after 1195, the power of the curia causarum, which had previously heard cases between Lucchese citizens, or between citizens and residents of the suburbs, was extended to cases involving disputes between men of the contado and their lords. By 1200 there are references to the consules lucani causarum foretanorum.¹⁰⁰ Two further developments were taking place virtually contemporaneously: the appearance of the Podestà and the formation of the institutions of the popolo. The list of known Podestà of Lucca begins in 1187 with Paganello da Porcari.¹⁰¹ The Podestà held a supreme authority, which theoretically derived from the Emperor, though in practice appointment to office was fiercely contested by groups within the city. From the beginning, the Podestà frequently appears at the head of the Lucchesi in military campaigns against rebels and dissidents in the contado. The early Podestà were drawn from the great noble houses of Lucca and the Lucchesia (the Porcaresi, the da Montemagno), and, although their own landed concerns extended beyond the borders of individual cityterritories, they may have had a vague vision of defending the good order of the territory (however defined) against particularist interests.¹⁰² In so doing they were sometimes encouraged by popularist forces. In the Gesta Lucanorum, there is reference to the appearance in Lucca as early as 1197 of ‘le prime compagnie’; presumably societies of arms (società delle armi) formed by the popolo (non-nobles) or pedites (men who fought on foot). By the early years of the thirteenth century there are references to the priors (priori) and captains (capitani) of the societates. In 1206 we find the priors and captains of the società delle armi engaged in political decision-making together with other urban groupings and associations (including officials and representatives of the commune). By the middle of the thirteenth century the popolo had achieved political pre-eminence; popular institutions had become largely synonymous with the public power.¹⁰³ The rise ⁹⁹ G. Milani, L’esclusione dal comune: Conflitti e bandi politici a Bologna e in altre città italiane tra xii e xiv secolo (Rome, 2003), pp. 55–63; id., I comuni italiani, pp. 29–31, 49. These themes are discussed for Lucca by Tirelli, ‘Lucca nella seconda metà del secolo xii’, particularly pp. 216–23. ¹⁰⁰ Tirelli, ‘Lucca nella seconda metà del secolo xii’, pp. 193–4. ¹⁰¹ For the office of Podestà, and a list of Podestà of Lucca 1187–1801: Bongi (ed.), Inventario, ii, pp. 303–30. ¹⁰² The idea (though not the details) is suggested by Tirelli, ‘Lucca nella seconda metà del secolo xii’, pp. 184–93. ¹⁰³ Ibid., pp. 171–5, 195–6. See now A. Poloni, ‘Strutturazione del mondo corporativo e affermazione del Popolo a Lucca nel Duecento’, ASI 165 (2007), pp. 449–86.

46


of the popolo has normally been seen as heralding a less tolerant stance towards coexisting and rival powers, whether in the city itself or in the countryside—a chronology that fits neatly with the firmer control exercised over the contado by the second half of the thirteenth century. The personal and tenurial bonds that attached landowners to the bishop, and that had served to entrench and perpetuate local powers, were replaced in the twelfth century by the juridical and contractual demands of the expanding commune. It appears that it was only from the 1180s that Italian cities generally began to impose taxes and military obligations on their contadi. This was happening at a time when local power was becoming more localized and—in parts even of the Lucchesia—increasingly likely to be centred on castelli. In the Valdinievole the lords of Uzzano, Viviniaia, and Montechiari retained the city church of SS. Simone e Giuda, but during the eleventh century appear to have increasingly concentrated their landed patrimony around Uzzano.¹⁰⁴ Even in the Garfagnana the consolidation of landed power has been qualified rather than denied.¹⁰⁵ Valid doubts regarding the alienation of the nobility from the city, or regarding the nature and extent of seigneurial justice (even doubts regarding the development of territorial lordships properly defined), do not diminish the tensions that were likely to be generated by the intrusion of city power and city officials. In this respect, it seems to me, the preoccupation with various types of lordship, though important in itself, serves to distract from the central problems raised in this chapter. Regional diversity should be added to considerations of temporal change. In part it is a question of distance and communications. The present chapter has contrasted the plain of Lucca, the Sei Miglia, with the distant and precariously held lands in the Valdarno inferiore and in the valley of the Era. But there are other factors, themselves not entirely unrelated to distance. It is generally accepted that local autonomies developed most precociously in areas under comital authority.¹⁰⁶ After the disintegration of the March, and for reasons largely connected with the strength of the March, great families of comital rank had a limited presence within the county of Lucca. It must be significant that it was precisely in areas to the south and east, where comital families were present, that Lucchese power was at its most fragile.¹⁰⁷ In the upper valley of the Serchio, under Lucca’s political control from the middle of the thirteenth century, but with strong links to the Malaspina lords of the Lunigiana, the Gherardinghi had ¹⁰⁴ Pescaglini Monti, ‘Nobilità e istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, pp. 244–7; M. Seghieri, ‘La nascita e l’evoluzione del comune di Vivinaria in Valdinievole’, in Atti del convegno su i comuni rurali nella loro evoluzione storica con particolare riguardo alla Valdinievole (Bologna, 1983), p. 60. ¹⁰⁵ Wickham, The Mountains and the City, pp. 99–100. ¹⁰⁶ Wickham, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’, pp. 367–9. In Arezzo, ‘on ne voit que très rarement des droits banaux explicitement détenus par des possesseurs de castra allodiaux’, though this might merely reflect the absence of formal recognition: Delumeau, Arezzo, i, p. 185. ¹⁰⁷ Wickham, ‘Economia e società rurale’, p. 409.

The Early Commune

47

been able to construct a powerful territorial lordship centred on the castello of Verrucola.¹⁰⁸ In this region, among families of lesser rank, the nobles of Dallo (with links to the Reggiano) were able to create a power base that was to endure for considerably longer. Topographical evidence suggests that in the upper valley of the Serchio (north of Castelnuovo) castelli and isolated towers were rather more common than the documentary evidence has revealed.¹⁰⁹ Admittedly in the High Garfagnana we may be outside the diocese of Lucca, at least for part of the period under consideration, and here other influences may come into play beyond considerations of distance and of the entrenched powers in border areas of the great families.¹¹⁰ Certainly acts of rebellion by the communes and noble families of the contado, like the conquest (permanent or temporary) of parts of the Lucchese diocese, presuppose the intervention of external powers. But the engagement of outside forces cannot be factored out as in some sense unfairly prejudicing the essential harmony and integrity of the Lucchese state. Many parts of the diocese can loosely be labelled as border areas, where competing cities might offer protection to rural communities and privileges—including rights of citizenship—to landed families.¹¹¹ That such offers often proved attractive, not least to the cattani of the Garfagnana, must cast doubt on the thesis that acts of rebellion were always aberrant and necessarily short-sighted. It may well be true that local lordships in the Lucchesia were, for the most part, too small, too weak, even too scattered to aspire to true independence; the choice of allies (and ultimately of masters) remained. Matters were complicated in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries by imperial, and more briefly by papal, ambitions in the area. It has been noted above how the Emperor Frederick I in 1185 granted a diploma placing a long ¹⁰⁸ Verrucola dei Gherardinghi is to be distinguished from various other castelli of the same name in the Garfagnana, Lunigiana, and Valdinievole: Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, pp. 82–3. ¹⁰⁹ Giovannetti, ‘Distribuzione geografica’, pp. 295–317, particularly the map on p. 302. Giovannetti confirms that the castelli of the High Garfagnana were generally of modest dimensions, separated from inhabited nuclei, and that the process of incastellamento in the Garfagnana had little impact on settlement patterns. See also: Quirós Castillo, El incastellamento, pp. 156–9. ¹¹⁰ Wickham, The Mountains and the City, pp. 121–6, 145–6, which argues that the power of the Gherardinghi was very different in the Garfagnana Lunese from on their properties within the Lucchese diocese. See also: Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, pp. 47–8; R. Ricci, ‘Dal Forum Clodii al xii secolo: Potere e territorio lungo le vie di transito della Garfagnana Lunense’, in Garf. 2005, pp. 51–8. ¹¹¹ ‘Da parte loro i principali gruppi e consorzi familiari si muovono in un orizzonte sovracittadino, alleandosi ora con Lucca ora con Pisa, e talora—come nel caso dei signori di Porcari, la cui presenza è attestata anche nei Capitoli cattedrali di Pisa e Pistoia—inserendosi nelle istituzioni comunali ed in quelle ecclesiastiche delle diverse città toscane’: Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, p. 57. For the continued divided loyalties of the de’ Porcari: ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, 10 Oct. 1274. Santini, ‘Circoscrizioni amministrative’, p. 100, argues more generally for long-standing traditions of autonomy among the comunità rurali intermedie of border areas.

48


list of communities and noble families under imperial protection.¹¹² They were freed from the jurisdiction of any city, and placed under a podestà and rector, Guglielmo da Padoli, appointed by Frederick I for the Garfagnana and Versilia. These privileges were confirmed by Frederick II in 1242, though perhaps less evidently as part of a grand imperial design.¹¹³ In 1281 the communities of Pescia, Borgo a Buggiano, and Vellano turned to Rudolf of Hapsburg in an obvious attempt to free themselves from Lucca by submitting rather to the authority of the Emperor and his vicar.¹¹⁴ With the benefit of hindsight we know that there was to be little future for the imperial party in Tuscany; that Frederick II would prove a most untrustworthy ally; that little meaningful support could be expected from Rudolf of Hapsburg. These truths may well have been less self-evident to the participants. Lucca offered one pole of attraction; local calculations must have included, besides the blandishments of powerful neighbouring cities, the proximity of the imperial court, even—for a time—the aspirations of the Papacy to establish temporal control over the former Matildine lands.¹¹⁵ The view of the Lucchese state fractured and periodically dismembered only because of extraneous forces fails adequately to accommodate the internal conflicts and antagonisms characteristic of these, as of later centuries: within families; within and between communities; between aristocrats (milites) and the people (populares). Of course, now, as in later centuries, when a fortress fell, it might well be because of the subornation of local garrisons. But everywhere factions formed, and in context these assumed an identity in relation to their support or opposition to Lucchese rule (itself not necessarily a stable index). In early thirteenth-century Montecatini we are told of twenty-five towers,¹¹⁶ which conjures up images of the inter-family strife that characterized the political life of much larger political communities. In the early fourteenth century the broader military conflict between Lucca and Florence seems to have been paralleled within Montecatini by a struggle for control that invoked the old political labels of Guelf and Ghibelline.¹¹⁷ The factions of Whites and Blacks tore apart the mountain communities in the border area between Lucca and Pistoia, where Castruccio Castracani was to find support among local nobles and Pistoian exiles.¹¹⁸ Better documented are the forty-seven (or forty-eight) men of Pescia, and the forty (or forty-one) men of Buggiano—perhaps to be identified as Ghibellines—who fled ¹¹² See n. 13 above. ¹¹³ P. Cammarosano, ‘La Toscana nella politica imperiale di Federico II’, in A. Esch and N. Kamp (eds.), Friedrich II. Tagung des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom im Gedenkjahr 1994 ( Tübingen, 1996), pp. 366–7. ¹¹⁴ Brown, In the Shadow of Florence, pp. 13–14; Baldasseroni, Istoria della città di Pescia, pp. 129–31. ¹¹⁵ Pacchi, Ricerche istoriche, pp. 64–74, 121–6, apps. xvi–xxiii, xxvii–xxviii. On the nature of the Matildine gift: Rombaldi, ‘Impero e chiesa’, pp. 17–20. ¹¹⁶ Nelli, Montecatini dalle origini, p. 11. Here certainly we can see a process of incastellamento, where the castello drew within its walls the population of the surrounding countryside. ¹¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 20–1. ¹¹⁸ Biagini, Piteglio, pp. 14–19.

The Early Commune

49

Florentine rule in the Valdinievole and were awarded Lucchese citizenship.¹¹⁹ Their rewarded loyalty presumably presupposes the disloyalty of others. In late thirteenth-century Lucca traditional inter-familial and party conflicts were complicated and enlivened by cleavages that were defined, at least outwardly, in terms of social difference. In December 1294 the Berrettini of Barga, together with a long list of prominent Lucchese families that included the Mordecastelli and various branches of the Antelminelli, agreed to put the disputes between themselves and the commune of Sommocolonia to the arbitration of the priors of the society of arms of the popolo of Lucca. The dispute related to the fortifications of Sommocolonia (which the local commune clearly found threatening rather than protective), to land tenure, and to rights of jurisdiction. It is interesting that the families agreed to submit to the arbitration of the priors—perhaps they had no choice. In any event, the arbitrators, considering both the intrinsic undesirability of private castles and the faithfulness that the commune and men of Sommocolonia had always shown towards the commune of Lucca, awarded decisively in favour of the commune of Sommocolonia. Within a month the nobles were to sell the castello, its suburbs, lands, and fortifications, to the men of Sommocolonia, together with all rights and jurisdictions that they claimed within the confines of Sommocolonia. The men of Sommocolonia were then to destroy the fortifications within ten days, in which they were promised the help of the Berrettini and their allies. They were also to be absolved from all oaths of fealty and homage. In return, the nobles received a small settlement for unpaid rent, the right to pursue outstanding debts, and the payment of £3,800 in compensation for the loss of their rights, lands, and houses.¹²⁰ In 1294 the popolo of Lucca (however defined) seem to have recognized common interests with the men and commune of Sommocolonia as against fellow citizens labelled as milites. Finally, some of the anomalies are removed when we remember that private power is different from public power, even when held by the same men.¹²¹ In Pisa an arbitration award, the lodo del Valdiserchio, datable to 1091, settled ¹¹⁹ Savigni, ‘Clero e ceti eminenti’, appendix of documents, 3: ‘Quapropter cum infrascripti de Piscia et Bugiano Lucani districtus patientes nonnullas obfensiones ansietates et dampna in here et personis pro honore dominorum nostrorum et pro defensione patrie ac statu civitatis et comitatus lucani numquam cessaverint resistere viriliter et pugnare, volentes consideratione predictorum et merito eis honores et gratias inpartiri, ipsos de Piscia et Bugiano infra nominatos et scriptos cives civitatis Lucane facimus et creamus eosque ad cictadinantiam civitatis predicte recipimus, accettamus et consortio dictorum lucanorum civium aggregamus.’ Others who remained were apparently subjected to various legal disabilities: Brown, In the Shadow of Florence, pp. 51–2. ¹²⁰ ASL Diplomatico, Biblioteca di F. M. Florentini, 10 Dec. 1294. This important document is missing from the archives. The above is based on the extensive summary of the text in ASL, ‘Notulario della Biblioteca di F. M. Florentini’. See also ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, Tarpea, 12 Oct. 1296, for a comparable arbitration award by the priors of the society of arms in a dispute between the nobles of Porcari and the commune of Vivinaia. ¹²¹ The point has been made powerfully by Chris Wickham himself: see, particularly, ‘The Uniqueness of the East’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 12 (1985), pp. 166–96, and the note appended to the reprinted article in Land and Power: Studies in Italian and European Social History, 400–1200 (London, 1994), p. 75.

50


disputes between the inhabitants of the Valdiserchio and their local lords called Longubardi. The men of the Valdiserchio appealed for redress to leading Pisans (boni homines), many of whom were precisely the Longubardi against whom they were complaining. The arbitration award went entirely in favour of the men of Valdiserchio.¹²² Two hundred years later, in Lucca, a group of families¹²³ with possessions around the church of S. Salvatore drew up a statute under the common name of Corbolani. Much of the statute shows little more than the disinclination of the commune to interfere in intra-familial affairs and disputes; there remains the chapter that reserves to the assembled consorteria, in the event of trouble, the decision whether or not to go to the aid of the public power.¹²⁴ At one level, of course, these examples show interdependent relationships: the integration of town and countryside. The Corbolani statute, in particular, testifies to how far private rights and jurisdictions had been integrated into the public order. But at another level we can see that, even for the most urbanized of nobles, there was a tension between their individual acts as rural lords and their corporate acts as citizens. There is a danger that an overemphasis on integration and on the inevitability of Lucca’s hegemony over its entire diocese (or more fairly a careless reading of the integrationist argument) might discredit the essential underlying truths. The plain around Lucca was always subject economically and juridically to the city. Elsewhere in the diocese the phenomenon of incastellamento was weakly developed, and with it the formation of territorial lordships. Noble families were able to challenge the power of the city between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, but in many parts of the Lucchese state the threat was sporadic and temporary. In consequence we can talk of Lucca as a precocious example of state-formation. The organization and administration of the early city-state of Lucca becomes of interest not only in the micro-environment of Lucca but for its potential contribution to debates on state-formation in medieval Italy more generally. ¹²² Matzke, Daibert von Pisa, pp. 67–70. The grievances, as far as I can see, relate to jurisdiction over tenants, extended to the forced protection of non-tenants. ¹²³ The Corbolani, Del Veglio, and Cerlotti. ¹²⁴ S. Bongi (ed.), ‘Statuto inedito della Casa de’ Corbolani (xiv dicembre MCCLXXXVII—xxx gennaio MCCLXXXVIII)’, Atti della Reale Accademia Lucchese di scienze, lettere ed arti, 24 (1886), pp. 469–87, particularly p. 485: ‘Item, statuimus, volumus et firmamus, quod si contingerit Luce vel in civitate Lucana rumorem esse, quod absit, Consul Domus teneatur, si Luce fuerit, vel saltem Camerarius, incontinenti congregare omnes Domus quos habere poterit, sine fraude, et illa Domus teneantur esse ad locum quod Consuli placuerit statuendum, et ibi deliberare inter se quod facere habeant, an servire Comuni Lucano, an quilibet servire amico suo, an omnes ire ubi iudicatum fuerit inter eos, et ita observare ut decretum fuerit inter se, ad penam quam Consuli videbitur usque in solidos centum, si tunc iudicatum fuerit inter se de pena.’

3 The Administration of a Medieval City-Territory: Twelfth to Fourteenth Centuries It was a principle of historical study, less often invoked today, and perhaps now somewhat discredited, to work from the known to the unknown. The known is represented by the Lucchese statute of 1308.¹ The statute was drawn up against the background of, and forms part of, the anti-magnate legislation characteristic of Tuscan communes in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. The statute has been used to identify Lucchese families (often prominent in the later political history of the city) then proscribed as magnates (potentes, casastici, milites). It raises familiar questions regarding the nature of anti-magnate legislation: how far generated by class conflict, how far by factional strife.² More to our purposes, the statute of 1308 provides the first comprehensive description of the administration of the Lucchese state: a state that, after the defeat of Pistoia in 1306, extended from the Magra to the Arno, and from the coast to within a mile of Pistoia.³ The physical extent of the area over which Lucca claimed jurisdiction is best revealed by the chapter relating to the illumination of Holy Cross (luminara di S. Croce), at a time when the bearing of a candle at the feast of S. Croce (14 September) was the outward sign of the political subjection of corporations and communities to the commune of Lucca.⁴ The list begins with the communes of the Sei Miglia, organized according to pievi (ecclesiastical units centred on a church with baptismal rights, to which the surrounding parishes were subject). ¹ Statuto del 1308: Statutum Lucani Communis an. MCCCVIII, ed. S. Bongi and L. Del Prete, with introduction (prefazione) by Bongi, in Memorie e documenti per servire alla storia di Lucca, iii, pt. 3 (Lucca, 1867). This volume has been reprinted with a foreword (presentazione) by Vito Tirelli (Lucca, 1991). ² Tirelli, foreword, Statuto del 1308, pp. 30–3; id., ‘Sulla crisi istituzionale del comune a Lucca (1308–1312), in Studi per Enrico Fiumi (Pisa, 1979), pp. 317–60. ³ Bongi, introduction, Statuto del 1308, pp. xxiv–xxv. For the governance of Pistoia itself after its defeat by the Guelf communes: Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. xlvii. Significantly, the statute was rediscovered by the three citizens appointed in 1536 to collect evidence relating to Lucca’s ancient dominions: above, p. 9. ⁴ Statuto del 1308, lib. I, c. xlii.

52


The seventeen named pivieri⁵ were each obligated to provide a candle varying in weight from 25 (Compito and Segromigno) to 12 pounds. The list also includes the episcopal commune of Diecimo, and the separately named communes of Ruota (piviere of Compito), Capannori (piviere of Lunata), Montuolo (piviere of Fiesso), and Balbano (in the unnamed piviere of Massaciùccoli). A second grouping comprises thirteen suburban communes (comunia subburbanorum, close to the city, and ecclesiastically subject to the urban pieve), each obligated to bear a candle.⁶ Curiously, the comunia subburbanorum include the commune of S. Martino in Colle and the castello and the village of Porcari, distant from the city on the far eastern borders of the Sei Miglia.⁷ The greater part of the Lucchese state was divided into vicariates: Coreglia, with its thirty-six constituent communes; Barga, with twenty-five; Castelnuovo and Castiglione,⁸ with sixty communes (including four in the far north ‘oltre Giogo’); Valdilima and the ‘Capitania Terrarum civium’,⁹ with twenty-six; Valdinievole, with fourteen; Valdarno, with eight; Pietrasanta, with fourteen; and Camaiore, a vicariate of twenty-one communes. Communes beyond the Arno are listed separately,¹⁰ as are five communes north of the Arno in the vicinity of Bientina.¹¹ Each commune was required to appear at the celebration of S. Croce with a candle of specified and varying weight, with the exception of the four communes ‘oltre Giogo’,¹² which were jointly to be represented by a candle of 15 pounds. After the vicariates, the chapter ends with the obligations of a miscellany of castelli ⁵ Massa Pisana, Fiesso, Arliano, S. Stefano, Vorno, Compito, S. Macario, Monsagrati, Torre, Sesto Moriano, S. Pancrazio, Marlia, Segromigno, S. Gennaro, Lammari, Lunata, S. Paolo. Missing from the above list are the pivieri of Vicopelago, Massaciùccoli, Valdottavo, and Brancoli. Ecclesiastically, Valdottavo fell within the pieve of Diecimo, and the piviere of Massaciùccoli (excluding S. Giusto di Chiatri) lay in the diocese of Pisa: F. Leverotti, ‘ ‘‘Crisi’’ del Trecento e strutture di inquadramento nelle Sei Miglia lucchesi’, in Pisa e la Toscana occidentale nel medioevo: A Cinzio Violante nei suoi 70 anni, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1991), ii, p. 204; Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 243, n. 31. ⁶ S. Vito a Picciorana, S. Casciano a Vico, S. Pietro a Vico, Ponte S. Pietro, Salissimo, S. Casciano a Guamo, Aldipesci, Sorbano Episcopi, Sorbano Iudicis, Verciano, Pontetetto, S. Angelo in Campo, S. Alessio. The communes of S. Stefano a Verciano and S. Vincenzo a Verciano are here combined into a single commune, and S. Pietro a Guamo is missing from the list. ⁷ S. Martino in Colle later appears in the 1308 statute as the centre of a podesterìa: lib. II, c. xiiii. In more recent history the parish formed part of the piviere of S. Gennaro: E. Repetti, Dizionario geografico fisico storico della Toscana, 6 vols. (Florence, 1833–45), i, s.v. Porcari was later variously administered within the vicariates and as part of the Sei Miglia. ⁸ De Stefani, Storia dei comuni di Garfagnana, p. 73, suggests that Castelnuovo may be a scribal error for Camporgiano. The ordering of the list of communes does not seem to support this argument. See also: G. Santini, ‘La formazione territoriale e la costituzione federale della Garfagnana nel medio evo’, Giornale Storico della Lunigiana e del territorio lucense,  15 (1964), p. 45. ⁹ For the ‘Capitania Terrarum civium’: A. Carina, Notizie storiche sul contado lucchese e specialmente sulle valli del Lima e dell’alto Serchio (Lucca, 1871), pp. 48–57; Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 260–4. ¹⁰ Palaia d’Oltr’Arno, Treggiaia, Monte di Castello, S. Gervasio, Cerretello d’Oltr’Arno, Colleoli, Montopoli, Partilliano d’Oltr’Arno, and Torano. ¹¹ Montecalvoli, S. Maria a Monte, Montefalcone, Bientina, and Cintoia. ¹² Albiano, Pugliano, Pieve S. Lorenzo, and Casoli e Novelli.

The Administration of a Medieval City-Territory

53

and communes that enjoyed a special status. These include fortresses of the border area of the lower Serchio between Lucca and Pisa—Nozzano, Ripafratta, Castiglioncello, Filettone¹³—together with a so-called capitanìa or vicariate of the Valdiserchio. They include communes and castelli of the Lunigiana, from Massa and Carrara to Fosdinovo and Pontremoli;¹⁴ the maritime fortifications of Viareggio and Motrone; the castello of Asciano and the commune of Buti in the Monte Pisano; and—particularly—the territories to the east recently conquered from Pistoia. The second book of the statutes of 1308 deals inter alia with the election of officials in Lucca by the General Council of S. Michele (Consiglio Generale or Consiglio Maggiore di S. Michele).¹⁵ Officials include the chancellors, consuls, judges, and notaries who staffed the urban administration, but these are greatly outnumbered by the officials of the contado.¹⁶ Each vicariate was headed by a vicar, who had to be a knight, and who was assisted by a judge, a chamberlain (camerarius), and a varying number of notaries. The number of vicariates are here increased to twelve, from the eight listed under the illumination of S. Croce. The vicariates of Castiglione and Camporgiano now appear separately, and there is reference to a vicariate of Valdriana (with the pieve of Villa Basilica), and to the vicariates of Massa del Marchese and Lunigiana. Within the vicariates, individual communes (or combinations of communes) were ruled by a podestà, ranging from the seventeen podesterìe within the vicariate of Camaiore to the single podesterìa of Cascio in the vicariate of Barga.¹⁷ Like the vicars themselves, some of the podestà had to be knights. Three vicariates—Castiglione, Camporgiano, and Massa del Marchese—had no subordinate podesterìe. Later there is reference to the podesterìe of Verrucola-Bosi (or di Fivizzano) and Fosdinovo, neither apparently subordinated to the vicars appointed in the far north for Massa del Marchese or for the Lunigiana. The image of a Lucchese state neatly divided into vicariates is further qualified by the special arrangements made, on the one hand, for the lands recently conquered from Pistoia and, on the other, for the Sei Miglia. To the east were the two capitanìe of Serravalle and Lizzano, the latter divided into eighteen podesterìe. Serravalle was both the centre of a capitanìa and a podesterìa subject to the capitano of Lizzano. Lizzano seems to have been the seat both of a capitano and of its own podestà. Closer to Lucca, all twenty-one pivieri of the Sei Miglia, including those missing from the illumination of S. Croce, had their own podestà. So, ¹³ Also the Rocca of Cotone above Massaciùccoli, Aquilea, Quiesa, and Ponte a Serchio. ¹⁴ The circumstances in which Pontremoli became an ally and dependant, rather than a subject commune of Lucca are explained by G. Sforza, Memorie e documenti per servire alla storia di Pontremoli, 3 vols. (Florence, 1904), i, p. 143 and n. ¹⁵ For election procedures: Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. xiii. ¹⁶ Ibid., lib. II, c. xiiii. ¹⁷ Cascio is across the river Serchio from Barga, north of Gallicano. Gallicano was the centre of the vicariate after the loss of Barga, and might have been a more obvious centre for the earlier podesterìa.

54


too, the suburban commune of S. Pietro a Vico, and the ambivalent S. Martino in Colle.¹⁸ Within the Sei Miglia, the communes of Ciciana and Matraia in the piviere of S. Pancrazio had their own podestà, as did Ruota in the piviere of Compito. More miscellaneously, the list includes the northern podesterìe of Verrucola-Bosi and Fosdinovo, mentioned above. It includes the communes of Gualdo and Riscetro, subjects of the cathedral chapter of Lucca. It includes communes south of the Monte Pisano: Bientina, Buti, and the communes of the Valdiserchio (not here designated as a capitanìa). And it includes Cerretello, a castello south of the Arno in the Val d’Era. These administrative divisions are essentially confirmed in subsequent articles that relate to the pledge (mutuum), allowance, and salary (feodum) of officials elected for the city and territory.¹⁹ A direct comparison is difficult because of the mutilation of the document. These later lists relate to eleven vicariates, with no surviving reference to the vicariate of Lunigiana. Fosdinovo now seems to be included under the vicariate of Massa. The cathedral chapter’s communes of Gualdo and Riscetro are here entered under the vicariate of Camaiore, while other podesterìe (Anchiano and Borgo a Mozzano in the vicariate of Coreglia; Cascio in the vicariate of Barga) are listed separately from the vicariates in which they were situated. In the vicariates and elsewhere there are a small number of additions to and subtractions from the podesterìe recorded earlier.²⁰ The salaries to be paid to vicars and to the other officials of the vicariates were relatively uniform, and were to be drawn from the receipts of their court. But salaries were markedly lower for the vicariates of Castiglione and Camporgiano, and for the capitanìe of Serravalle and Lizzano.²¹ Unlike other officials, the podestà of the pivieri and communes were paid per hearth within their allotted podesterìa. There are dangers in using normative sources as a guide to practical historical realities. The obligations of Barga, lost definitively to Lucca in 1341, continue to be recorded in the Lucchese statutes of the mid-fifteenth century; the obligations of Pietrasanta at the illumination of Holy Cross are listed not only in 1446 ¹⁸ The podesterìe of both S. Pietro a Vico and S. Martino in Colle embraced other (presumably neighbouring) communes, confirming the special status of S. Martino in Colle, and perhaps suggesting that the suburban communes were organized into a separate podesterìa centred on S. Pietro a Vico. ¹⁹ Statuto del 1308, lib. II, cc. xvi–xvii. The pledge is expressed as a loan to the commune of Lucca, and was repayable by one’s successor in office. It would seem to have fulfilled the same function as the sureties required of vicars and podestà in later statutes, to ensure that they would obey Lucca and exercise their office well and legitimately according to the statutes. ²⁰ A podesterìa made up of the communes of Galleno, Staffoli, and Orentano in the vicariate of Valdarno does not appear in the later list. In the Valdilima there is the addition of the podesterìa of Crasciana, and the uniting of Menabbio and Cerbaria into a single podesterìa. In the vicariate of Pietrasanta there is now reference to the podesterìa of Farneta and Galleno in place of Farneta and Monteggiori. Generally the lists for Pietrasanta and Camaiore appear too mutilated for useful comparison. Finally, and more miscellaneously, the podesterìe of Bientina, Valdiserchio, and Cerretello d’Oltr’Arno do not appear in the list of pledges owed to the commune of Lucca. ²¹ Unlike other officials of town and countryside, the capitani of the newly conquered territories were not required to advance loans to the commune of Lucca.


55

but also in the Lucchese statutes of 1539—though at neither date was that vicariate under the political control of Lucca.²² To remove lost territories from the statutes was to renounce claims to those territories. Nevertheless, the statutes of 1308 provide us with a comprehensive description of the rights claimed by Lucca over castelli and territories at the beginning of the fourteenth century. The commune promised to defend the lands and jurisdiction of the Lucchese Church, with a reciprocal understanding that bishop and chapter would defend the honour and rights of the commune.²³ The individual provisions and the inconsistencies suggest administrative structures in the process of formation. The overall impression remains one of order and urban power. No community, university, villa, or castello might elect its own podestà or rector (or any other public official, other than those with purely local representative functions).²⁴ By 1308 the whole of Lucca’s territory, with isolated and explicable anomalies, was neatly divided into compact vicariates under Lucchese-appointed officials. The vicars, capitani, and judges appointed to specified vicariates and capitanìe²⁵ exercised the full powers of the commune of Lucca within their own jurisdictions—as described in the ordinances (constitutiones) of those vicariates and capitanìe. The jurisdiction of Lucca’s representative was limited only by the reservation of the most serious crimes to the city authorities themselves—here designated as ‘lucanum Regimen et lucanus Capitaneus’. The reserved crimes were essentially those that were punishable by death or by the amputation of a limb: murder, treason, arson, counterfeiting, highway robbery, and ‘maleficium’ (a blanket term that covers any serious crime defined by statute).²⁶ Special, and in some ways more extensive, powers were granted to the vicars of the Garfagnana in terms of the constitution of that province.²⁷ These powers were confirmed by the statute of 1308, though—at least outside certain parts of the vicariate ²² ASL Capitoli, 10, p. 50; Statuti del Comune di Lucca, 12 (1446), lib. III, c. xxxi; 17 (1539), lib. III, c. xxxi. ²³ Statuto del 1308, lib. I, cc. i–iii. ²⁴ Ibid., lib. II, c. xv: ‘Et nulla comunitas vel universitas vel villa vel castrum lucani districtus vel fortie audeat vel presumat eligere vel eligi facere aliquem in Potestatem vel Rectorem vel capitaneum vel iudicem vel defensorem vel sindicum vel procuratorem vel aliquem alium officialem, quocunque nomine censeatur, vel qui vocem aut nomen officialis habeat vel habere possit, de lucana Civitate, burgis aut suburgis vel de lucano districtu, episcopatu vel fortia vel aliunde, nisi tantummodo consules et alios officiales de se ipsis tantum: et de se ipsis intelligantur illi solum qui sunt habitatione vel orrigine de Comuni vel terra in qua electi essent officiales.’ In the preceding decades the men of Fucecchio had sometimes enjoyed the right to elect their own (Lucchese) podestà: Malvolti, ‘Fucecchio nella seconda metà del xiii secolo’, i, pp. 59–60. Their claim to do so, subject to Lucca’s approval, survived into the local statute of 1308: G. Carmignani (ed.), Lo statuto del comune di Fucecchio (1307–1308) (Fucecchio, 1989). ²⁵ Valdarno, Valdinievole, Valdriana, the pieve of Villa Basilica, the Terrarum civium, Valdilima, Camaiore, Pietrasanta, Massa del Marchese, Serravalle, and Lizzano: Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. xxx. ²⁶ Vicars and capitani were to be compensated for losses resulting from the transfer of these reserved crimes to the central authorities. ²⁷ D. Corsi (ed.), ‘Le ‘‘Constitutiones Maleficiorum’’ della Provincia di Garfagnana del 1287’, ASI 115 (1957), pp. 347–70.

56


of Castiglione—the punishment of serious crimes (now including adultery and rape) was still delegated to the Podestà of Lucca.²⁸ Lucca, like any other early Italian city-state, extended its dominions through conquests and by means of compacts with subordinate communities (capitoli). These elements of state-building are reflected in the capitanìa, which was essentially a form of military government in problem areas. They are similarly reflected in the larger number of armed servants granted to individual vicars and capitani.²⁹ The statute of 1308 promises generally to respect individual pardons granted to the lords and men of the Garfagnana (and of Barga), and to honour pacts and promises made to the province of the Garfagnana (and to Barga within the Garfagnana).³⁰ The inhabitants of vulnerable fortifications received special privileges and immunities (and fell under special restrictions and obligations).³¹ The fifth book of the 1308 statutes contains a number of pacts and agreements with subject communities and rural lords. There is nothing surprising about these ad hoc arrangements, which were to continue throughout the fifteenth century. The overall impression remains one of juridical control from the centre, and of an organizational sophistication that was certainly precocious in the context of early fourteenth-century Tuscany. In the contado and distretto of neighbouring Florence, the consolidation of stable vicariates was only completed during the course of the fifteenth century.³² By 1322, and perhaps from the late thirteenth century, the countryside around Florence was organized into associations of communes, pivieri, and popoli called ‘leghe’, mostly under a capitano appointed directly by Florence.³³ During the 1330s the leghe came to coexist, in a very ad hoc way, with the newer institution of the podesterìe —though it was not until the 1370s that podesterìe (consisting of one or more leghe) were extended to all territories under Florentine political control. More clearly than the capitani whom they replaced, the new podestà appear as the fully accredited representatives of the hegemonic power, and enjoyed more precisely defined powers and responsibilities. But the powers of the podestà proved insufficient in the recently conquered areas outside Florence’s ²⁸ The exclusion of Salacagnana from the jurisdiction of Lucca’s Podestà is confirmed in Statuto del 1308, lib. III, c. x—where exemptions are extended to Pontremoli and Montecatini. The latter clause also provides for a direct appeal to Lucca by relatives of an injured party. ²⁹ Statuto del 1308, lib. II, cc. xxxi–xxxii. Those of the capitanìe of Serravalle and Lizzano were specifically to be well armed. ³⁰ ‘Salvis privilegiis et iuribus et honoribus que lucanum Comune habet in provincia Garfangnane seu aliqua parte vel castro ipsius provincie’: Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. xxxviiii. ³¹ Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. lxvii. ³² For what follows: A. Antoniella, ‘Vicariati e vicari nell’organizzazione territoriale dello Stato Fiorentino: Il Valdarno Superiore’, in L. Borgia (ed.), Gli stemmi del Palazzo d’Arnolfo di San Giovanni Valdarno (Florence, 1986), no pagination; P. Benigni, ‘L’organizzazione territoriale dello stato fiorentino nel ’300’, in S. Gensini (ed.), La Toscana nel secolo xiv caratteri di una civiltà regionale (Pisa, 1988), pp. 151–63. ³³ Benigni, ‘L’organizzazione territoriale’, p. 154, argues that the leghe were created in 1304–6, and reorganized in 1322–32.


57

traditional contado.³⁴ And by the 1350s these border areas came to be ruled by vicars with powers to deal with civil strife (‘romores, tumultos, seditiones et ribelliones’). It seems to me entirely significant that, when Florentine historians write of the emergence in the 1340s of stable juridical and administrative regions ruled by vicars, they are referring in the first instance to the former Lucchese vicariates of Valdinievole and Valdarno inferiore, acquired by Florence in the wars of 1329–40.³⁵ In Florence new vicariates for the contado were still being created as late as 1415. Florence took over existing Lucchese vicariates. A territorial reorganization, which was largely completed in Lucca by 1308, was pursued much later, and more hesitantly, by Florence. Nor is it only a question of geographical structures. The Lucchese statute of 1308 shows Lucca’s vicars with wide politico-administrative responsibilities as the representatives of central government, and with legal jurisdiction over civil and ordinary criminal cases. Here again Florence followed tardily. Confined initially to regions where Florence’s political control was at its most fragile, early Florentine vicars were chiefly concerned with the military control of subject territories. In the former Lucchese vicariate of Valdinievole, vicars drawn from leading Florentine families like the Strozzi and Medici (besides their primary military and public order functions) appear to have exercised many powers reminiscent of their Lucchese predecessors.³⁶ But it was only after 1423 that Florentine vicariates generally began to resemble their Lucchese counterparts—not least in the vicar’s role as ordinary judge in criminal matters.³⁷ Florence was not typical of the communal world of northern and central Italy. Historians of the eleventh and twelfth centuries in particular have tended ³⁴ In San Miniato, for example: F. Salvestrini, ‘San Miniato al Tedesco: The Evolution of the Political Class’, in Connell and Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany, pp. 252–3. The terms contado and distretto have varying meanings. In this context, contado refers to the dioceses of Florence and Fiesole; the distretto is the zone beyond the contado. ³⁵ In the case of Valdinievole, Lucchese vicars appear to have been replaced by Florentines as soon as the area fell under stable Florentine rule: G. Pinto, ‘Il vicariato della valdinievole e valleariana alla metà del trecento: Considerazioni sull’organizzazione interna e sull’amministrazione della giustizia’, in Atti del convegno su i comuni rurali nella loro evoluzione storica con particolare riguardo alla Valdinievole (Bologna, 1983), pp. 21–8. For early references to Florentine vicars elsewhere (Valdelsa, 1313; Mugello, 1342): P. Pirillo, ‘L’organizzazione della difesa’, in id., Costruzione di un contado, pp. 58–9; id., ‘Castelli e poderi’, in ibid., p. 193. ³⁶ G. Pinto, ‘Controllo politico e ordine pubblico nei primi vicariati fiorentini: Gli ‘‘atti criminali degli ufficiali forensi’’ ’, Quaderni storici, 49 (1982), pp. 226–41; id., ‘Il vicariato della valdinievole’, pp. 21–8. Acts of the Florentine vicars survive from the second semester 1346. But Chittolini argues that in the Valdinievole and Valdarno inferiore Florentine vicars were limited to their original and irregular functions regarding state security: ‘Ricerche sull’ordinamento territoriale’, p. 320. The region was a long way from Lucca, and was conquered through a series of individual agreements between Florence and its component communes. We shall return to the true effectiveness of Lucca’s control over this part of the diocese: below, pp. 75–6. ³⁷ A direct comparison with Florence is complicated by the fact that the consolidation of the Florentine state coincided with, and was occasioned by, the enormous expansion of Florentine dominion over other civitates (cities and their territories): Chittolini, ‘Ricerche sull’ordinamento territoriale’, pp. 292–5.

58


to see Florence as follower rather than leader.³⁸ But the administration of the Lucchesia seems to have been precocious not only with respect to Florence. In the fourteenth century the territory of both Pisa and Pistoia formed a mosaic of minor districts ruled by podestà or capitani, perhaps as many as fifty in the case of late-fourteenth-century Pisa. Functions varied, depending on whether these officials were paid by the city or by the rural communities themselves. Vicars might appear as extraordinary magistrates anywhere in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Italy, and particularly in peripheral areas.³⁹ It was not until after the Florentine conquest of Pistoia, Arezzo, and Pisa that these jurisdictional networks were reduced to stable, compact vicariates.⁴⁰ The contrast with Siena is especially marked. At least Pistoia, Arezzo, and Pisa shared with Lucca the same centralization of power and the rigorous urban controls that characterized the more systematic organization of most city-territories in late-thirteenth-century Italy. It is true that by 1337–9 the Sienese state was divided into nine vicariates, each under a capitano, which grouped together specified villages and communities.⁴¹ But important centres of population, places ‘privilegiate e capitolate’,⁴² were excluded from these vicariates. All states, Lucca included, reached special agreements known as capitoli with individual castelli: these were the conditions under which those places were originally integrated into the state, or the privileges offered to ensure the loyalty of vulnerable areas. But an early fifteenth-century record of treaties and agreements between Siena and the lords and communities of its territory shows an extraordinary nexus of rights and obligations (even involving areas close to the city itself ),⁴³ while a statute of 1422 speaks of communities of the Sienese contado that were not subject to any capitano, podestà, or vicar, and to ³⁸ Wickham, Courts and Conflict, pp. 168–9. ³⁹ In the late fourteenth century, local lords governed the Pisan Maremma on behalf of Pisa as vicars of Marittima; the Pisan vicariate of Valdera was abolished by a reform of Gherardo D’Appiano in 1398: O. Banti, Iacopo d’Appiano: Economia, società e politica del comune di Pisa al suo tramonto (1392–1399) (Pisa, 1971), pp. 62, 308. ⁴⁰ Chittolini, ‘Ricerche sull’ordinamento territoriale’, pp. 296, 298–300, 302, 310. For Pisa: Banti, Iacopo d’Appiano, pp. 118–19; K. Shimizu, L’amministrazione del contado pisano nel Trecento attraverso un manuale notarile (Pisa, 1975), pp. ix–xii, 22–33; F. Leverotti, ‘L’organizzazione amministrativa del contado pisano dalla fine del ’200 alla dominazione fiorentina: Spunti di ricerca’, BSP 61 (1992), pp. 33–82. In the fourteenth-century Pisan contado, Leverotti speaks of ‘la fioritura di molte nuove capitanìe, spesso di dimensioni piccolissime’, and (at least locally) of a ‘disgregazione amministrative’: ead., ‘Sulle circoscrizioni amministrative del contado pisano nel tardo medioevo: Spunti di ricerca’, Studi di storia pisana e toscana in onore del prof. Cinzio Violante: BSP 60 (1991), pp. 209–15 (p. 211 for the quotations). ⁴¹ ‘Et sub quo vicariatu sint et esse debeant infrascripte terre et comunitates et homines et persone ipsarum terrarum et comitatum’. M. Ascheri and D. Ciampoli (eds.), Siena e il suo territorio nel Rinascimento, 2 vols. (Siena, 1986–90), i, pp. 55–67. The formulation given in the above quotation appears on p. 65. ⁴² So described by M. Ascheri (ed.), L’ultimo statuto della Repubblica di Siena (1545) (Siena, 1993), p. xxxi. ⁴³ M. Ascheri, ‘Stato, territorio e cultura nel trecento: Qualche spunto da Siena’, in S. Gensini (ed.), La Toscana nel secolo xiv caratteri di una civiltà regionale (Pisa, 1988), pp. 165–81; Ascheri


59

other communities that by reason of pacts are considered as citizens.⁴⁴ Indeed, Mario Ascheri has argued that Sienese merchants were interested in the expansion rather than the consolidation of their territory, and that (at least in the fourteenth century) there was no abstract scheme of territorial organization.⁴⁵ The Lucchese statute of 1308 provides an image of administrative arrangements and aspirations at the beginning of the fourteenth century, but is a difficult document from which to reconstruct the evolution of administrative structures. An older historiography has argued that the vicariates (and the military governorships in problem areas) emerged in the half-century between 1261 and 1308. Until 1261 Lucca’s control extended beyond the suburbio and the Sei Miglia only with regard to individual communities (castelli, terre, ville), some of which were granted citizenship rights. By c. 1300 Lucchese control covered the entire territory; at its most enthusiastic the thesis speaks of the triumph of the Guelfs and the abolition of feudalism.⁴⁶ Alternatively, the administrative divisions of 1308 have been seen as new arrangements, that may or may not have been put into effect immediately. Certainly Camaiore had its vicar by 1313,⁴⁷ and by the fourth decade of the fourteenth century the civil and criminal records of the vicariates show vicars throughout Lucchese territory performing the judicial and administrative functions attributed to them by statute. The contradictions and inconsistencies within the 1308 statute suggest structures that were still imperfectly established. To say more, we need to make sense of a range of scattered references from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The Lucchese plain came to be ruled differently from the vicariates of the mountains, and, despite recent tendencies to minimize the distinctiveness of the Sei Miglia, Lucca’s government of the plain is a discrete issue that needs to be tackled separately. From an early period the Sei Miglia was characterized by the (highly fragmented) landholdings of urban-based families and city churches. Social bonds were forged between landholders and cultivators; sometimes between landholders, cultivators, and non-cultivators through the sub-letting of land to and Ciampoli (eds.), Siena, i, pp. 81–249. Cf., for Florence, C. Guasti and A. Gherardi (eds.), I capitoli del comune di Firenze: Inventario e regesto, 2 vols. (Florence, 1866–93). ⁴⁴ ‘Un magistrato scomodo: il Maggior Sindaco nello statuto del 1422’: Ascheri and Ciampoli (eds.), Siena, i, pp. 251–336. For problems presented by communities with Sienese citizenship: M. Ascheri, ‘Statuti, legislazione e sovranità: Il caso di Siena’, in G. Chittolini and D. Willoweit (eds.), Statuti città territori in Italia e Germania tra Medioevo ed Età moderna (Bologna, 1991), p. 188. ⁴⁵ Ascheri, ‘Stato, territorio e cultura’, p. 168. But see M. Ginatempo, ‘Uno ‘‘stato semplice’’: L’organizzazione del territorio nella Toscana senese del secondo quattrocento’, in La Toscana al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico: Politica economia cultura arte, 3 vols. (Pisa, 1996), iii, pp. 1073–1101, for a more robust view of the Sienese state—at least as reorganized in the early decades of the fifteenth century. ⁴⁶ Carina, Notizie storiche, pp. 34–40, 43, 68–9. ⁴⁷ R. Antonelli, Conviene chio tamassi con questa scure: Giustizia e realtà quotidiana nelle inquisizioni del Vicario di Camaiore (1335–1384) (Camaiore, 1990), p. 19.

60


non-cultivators.⁴⁸ Undoubtedly the small owners and tenants of the plain were tied to the city initially through informal bonds of clientage and protection. There would have been a pressing need for protection in the countryside at the time of the Pisan wars.⁴⁹ But by the mid-twelfth century these earlier and more fluid relationships were being supplemented by the more precisely defined seigneurial claims of landholders over their servile (if legally free) tenants (manentes). Such claims were not intrinsically prejudicial to city jurisdiction, as confirmed in 1186 by imperial decree and exercised at least from the 1180s by the Lucchese court of the contado (curia foretanorum).⁵⁰ The great proprietors were generally the leading men and institutions of the city; they turned to the city courts to validate claims regarding the status and obligations of their manentes; consular magistrates and city courts might confirm seigneurial rights, or adjudicate seigneurial rights between rival lords.⁵¹ Within the Sei Miglia, lords, for the most part, exercised jurisdiction only over their own manentes —and even here the penalty for non-compliance (minatio) might be shared between Lucca and the local lord.⁵² An insistence on the limited, fragmented, and subordinate nature of private power within the Sei Miglia must nevertheless confront the appearance of territorial lordships—especially on the margins of this least seigneurialized of territories. We have already made reference to the lords of Vorno, who controlled what Wickham has described as ‘one of the very few signorie in the Sei Miglia’.⁵³ The lords of Vorno were very ambiguously committed to Lucca, though the threat was short-lived, as their local power was broken in the political conflicts of the mid-twelfth century. To the east, a late-thirteenth-century dispute suggests that the Porcaresi had indeed established territorial, as distinct from purely proprietorial, powers around Porcari.⁵⁴ But the best evidence for the establishment of territorial signorie within the Sei Miglia relates to the lands of ⁴⁸ Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 24, 84–6. At least until the twelfth century, the pronounced fragmentation of landholdings within the Lucchese plain seems to have been a force binding the Sei Miglia as a whole to the city, and retarding the development of local village identities: ibid., pp. 36–7. ⁴⁹ e.g., the case of Bettone di Balordo of Villora/Colle di Compito: Wickham, Courts and Conflict, pp. 88–92. ⁵⁰ In 1186 Henry VI granted to Lucca ‘omnia regalia et omnem iurisdictionem et districtum intra et extra civitatem usque ad sex milia’: quoted by Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 81. For early references to the curia foretanorum: Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 141. ⁵¹ Wickham, Courts and Conflict, pp. 88–9, 92–3. ⁵² Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 81. The formulae cited extend beyond the Sei Miglia to the Versilia, and raise questions to which we shall return. Nor is the argument exclusive to Lucca. Everywhere, it would appear, in the generation after 1180, communes were claiming to monopolize jurisdiction over city and territory: Milani, L’esclusione dal comune, pp. 62–3. ⁵³ Above, pp. 32–3. The quotation is taken from Wickham, Courts and Conflict, p. 93. P. Guidi and O. Parenti (eds.), Regesto del capitolo di Lucca, 4 vols. (Rome, 1910–39), ii, nos. 1188, 1521. ⁵⁴ Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 161; ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, Tarpea, 12 Oct. 1296. Seigneurial rights with regard to their private landownership had been granted by the imperial privilege of 1186 to the Porcaresi, Montemagno, and others: Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 15.


61

the bishop, of the canons of the cathedral of S. Martino, and of the abbey of Sesto. As in the case of noble families, powers of jurisdiction probably stemmed largely from rights of landownership, but ecclesiastical lordships, most obviously in the case of the bishop and cathedral canons, were also created (or at least confirmed) through imperial diplomas and the delegation of royal power.⁵⁵ Recent Lucchese scholarship has been united in questioning the real challenge to Lucca’s rule posed by these ecclesiastical immunities. The abbey of Sesto fell increasingly under city control.⁵⁶ Episcopal rights of high justice were often a tool of rather than an obstacle to Lucchese control, and, with the emergence of rural communes in the twelfth century, city courts often appear as the adjudicators (not necessarily uncontested) of disputes between bishops and their subjects in a clear hierarchy of juridical power.⁵⁷ Rural communes formed in the twelfth-century Sei Miglia around parishes, and the earliest references relate to the affairs of the local church. Wickham has shown that these communes were not necessarily formed in conflict with local lords, but neither—at the beginning—were they an institutional expression of city-communal rule (nor even, in themselves, definable in institutional terms).⁵⁸ Perhaps in the twelfth century the growing preoccupation of Lucca’s aristocratic families with urban politics resulted in their declining involvement in the affairs of the Sei Miglia; for whatever reason, by the late twelfth century villagers were becoming less dependent on aristocratic protectors and more inclined to defend their own interests through local cooperation.⁵⁹ The process involved the emergence of stable and discrete village territories (confines), associated territorially with the parishes that begin to appear in the early twelfth-century records (or with the boundaries of the episcopal signoria in the case of Moriano/Aquilea).⁶⁰ The process also involved an evolution from informal cooperative arrangements based on oaths of the mid-twelfth century to the structured local consular ⁵⁵ Otto II delegated to Lucca’s bishop rights of jurisdiction over episcopal lands and castelli ‘ad vicem regiae potestatis’ in 980. These concessions were confirmed, under rather different circumstances, by Frederick I and Henry VI. Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 29–30. The imperial diploma of 1186 confirms the iura of the cathedral canons in Massa Macinaia. ⁵⁶ A. M. Onori, L’Abbazia di San Salvatore a Sesto e il lago di Bientina: Una signoria ecclesiastica 1250–1300 (Florence, 1984), pp. 81–6, 109–17. ⁵⁷ Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 82–131; id., Courts and Conflict, p. 65; Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 102, 194. At other times the arbitration role might be played by episcopal gastaldi and avvocati (themselves often members of the urban curia dei treguani: Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 228. ⁵⁸ Ibid., pp. 5–6, 28. ⁵⁹ Ibid., pp. 39–46. For Wickham the rural communes of the Sei Miglia result not from an offensive against seigneurial power but from the power vacuum created by the collapse of aristocratic patronage and protection. ⁶⁰ Ibid., pp. 47–81. Cf. Figline, where fragmentation into local parishes was prevented perhaps by the strength of local aristocratic families, and where the boundaries of a signoria also provided the framework for local organization: C. Wickham, ‘Ecclesiastical Dispute and Lay Community: Figline Valdarno in the Twelfth Century’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome: Moyen âge, 108 (1996), pp. 19–20.

62


governments established throughout the Sei Miglia by c. 1200.⁶¹ Consuls, as local representatives, guarded the interests of parish churches;⁶² the consuls of Tassignano were responsible for the digging of a new drainage ditch;⁶³ from an early period we find consuls as judges and arbitrators in local disputes (particularly within the atypical seigneurial territories).⁶⁴ But already by the 1190s consuls were responsible for the collection of taxes that were due to the city.⁶⁵ Wickham has argued that growing urban taxes at the end of the twelfth century, collected through the consuls, may have been the decisive factor transforming the villages of the Sei Miglia from informal communities into public institutions; certainly it was a decisive factor in transforming communal officials throughout the Sei Miglia into ‘the lowest level of city government’ (collecting taxes and keeping the peace)—the role that they were to play throughout the rest of the period covered by the present study.⁶⁶ The right of rural communes to elect their own consuls from among local residents was recognized by the Lucchese statute of 1308.⁶⁷ A century earlier, in the Morianese, the appointment of consuls seems to have been contested between the bishop and the villagers.⁶⁸ And, even in Lucca’s weakly seigneurialized eastern plain, aristocratic urban and semi-urbanized landowners might claim control over the election of consuls; though an entirely atypical set of landholding and tenurial relationships seems to lie behind the 1206 dispute in Tassignano, during which it was claimed that the consuls for the commune (perhaps distinguished from the ⁶¹ The chronology is tabulated by Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 161. ⁶² The first recorded act of village consuls often involved their approval of land sales by the local church: Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 61. For the priest of S. Margherita acting (in 1148) ‘cum consilio et assensu consules communiter vicinorum predicte ecclesie et aliorum vicinorum’: ibid., p. 134. Consuls might also be responsible for collecting tithes, retaining part for the use of the parish community; e.g., Carignano and Busdagno (1210): Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 297–8; ASL Diplomatico, Opera di Santa Croce, 31 July 1210—an interesting document that implies that the consuls possessed some measure of coercive power, and that grants them some reward (feudum) for the exercise of their office. ⁶³ Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 49, 145. For the range of administrative responsibilities that might be assumed by rural communes at the end of the twelfth century: ibid., pp. 168–9. ⁶⁴ An early thirteenth-century example concerns the episcopal signoria of Moriano: Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 64, 94. See also an earlier dispute between the bishop and lay landowners put to the arbitration of the consuls of Moriano in 1175; by 1223 the Moriano consuls were responsible for hearing all local disputes, excluding the five major felonies and rights of appeal (reserved to the bishop): ibid., pp. 93–5. For the link between a signoria (Moriano/S. Gennaro) and the establishment of formal consular judicial tribunals: ibid., pp. 95–6, 169–70. In non-seigneurial Compito (1168) and Paganico (1190), the role of the consuls seems to have been essentially that of arbiters: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ++H34; Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 152. ⁶⁵ At Marlia in 1193: Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 43–4. At Tassignano (in contested form) by the late twelfth century: ibid., pp. 143, 145. ⁶⁶ Ibid., pp. 171–2, 241 (for quotation). ⁶⁷ Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. xv. Villagers were also allowed to appoint their own tax-collector (exactor) from among men subject to Lucchese jurisdiction, and could be legally represented in Lucca by syndics and procurators drawn from their own ranks or from city residents. ⁶⁸ Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 96.


63

consul of the patrons) were representatives of the aristocratic church patrons rather than communal officials.⁶⁹ While rural communes of the Sei Miglia might be important enough to fight over, and although some continued to advance ambitious claims throughout the fourteenth century, they remained essentially weak formations with limited powers: the juridical, political, and economic strength of the city, and the attraction of the city for more ambitious villagers, prevented the development of truly autonomous local institutions—except, perhaps, on the borders.⁷⁰ The role of consuls, the functioning of rural communes, and the relationship between the communities of the Sei Miglia and city authority are clarified by the notarial protocolli that begin to survive for Lucca from the 1220s.⁷¹ The early notarial registers show consuls raising loans on behalf of their communities: for example, the three consuls of Fibbialla (technically within the Sei Miglia) who, acting on behalf of themselves, their commune, and in the name of their office (‘pro officio eorum consulatus’), entered into an agreement with domino Uguiccione, canon of S. Martino, for a short-term loan of £12 (‘lib. XII denariorum lucanorum’).⁷² They show the appointments of syndics and procurators, which were to dominate the records of later centuries: to negotiate with city merchants, for example, and, through them, to settle sums owing to the treasury (camera) of Lucca;⁷³ or to sub-let land held by the commune in perpetual tenure from urban-based landowners;⁷⁴ or for the election of a chaplain.⁷⁵ Much ⁶⁹ Wickham, ‘Rural Communes’, pp. 1–12; id., Community and Clientele, pp. 137–51, 248–53 (for the text). For parallels with S. Concordio di Moriano: ibid., pp. 163–5. The text of the S. Concordio dispute is printed in part by Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 250, n. 49. ⁷⁰ Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 178–81. ⁷¹ The first surviving register in the Archivio Arcivescovile dates from 1220; that for ser Ciabatto, 1226/7, has been edited by A. Meyer, ‘Der Luccheser Notar Ser Ciabatto und sein Imbreviaturbuch von 1226/1227’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 74 (1994), pp. 172–293. The earliest protocolli preserved in the Archivio de’ Notari of the Archivio di Stato in Lucca begin in 1245: C. Ferri, L’Archivio dei Notari di Lucca (Lucca, 1991). For a survey of the thirteenth-century material, both pergamene and registers: Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, pp. 235–9. ⁷² Meyer (ed.), ‘Der Luccheser Notar Ser Ciabatto’, no. 86 (23 Nov. 1227); id. (ed.), Ser Ciabattus: Imbreviature Lucchesi del Duecento: Regesti, i, Anni 1222–1232 (Lucca, 2005), B86. Fibbialla had been granted to the canons by various co-owners: ‘Il necrologio del capitolo’, ed. Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 484: ‘Ob. Gualdus ‘‘qui dedit castrum de Fibialla et alia sua’’ ’. The village was controlled by the canonica, but the document edited by Meyer identifies links with individual canons: with Uguiccione himself, and with domino Bene, who provided the consulate with securities on the loan (‘unum [ . . . ]um argenti et unum par caligarum ferri et duos duplas baldinelle de sete et unam cappapellem panni bruni et unam guarnachiam panni st[anfor]tis bruni’). ⁷³ By the commune, men, and università of S. Maria of Paganico (1310): AN 60 (ser Rabbito Toringhelli), fo. 112r – v . ⁷⁴ Tempagnano (1291), where the commune guaranteed payment of rent, and itself received an additional annual rent from the local lessee: R. Savigni, ‘Istituzioni ecclesiastiche e dinamiche sociali lungo la via Francigena: Le pievi di Lammari e Lunata dal primo medioevo al xiii secolo’, in G. Concioni (ed.), S. Frediano di Lunata e S. Jacopo di Lammari: Due pievi capannoresi sulla via Francigena (Capannori, 1997), pp. 50–1. ⁷⁵ Paganico (1312): AN 34(IV) (ser Paganello Bonaiuti), fos. 158r – v , 165r . Shortly afterwards the men of Paganico (with the rector of S. Maria) were appointing a (different) syndic and procurator

64


more interesting is the gathering of eighty-nine men representing the commune and collectivity (universitas) of Tassignano, summoned in January 1287 by Iacopo Lupardi, Dino Bonnani, and Guido Iusti—these three described as consuls or vicars of the commune. In a formula that was to become standard, the meeting was summoned by the church bell and held sub porticu of the parish church. The consuls or vicars, acting together with the men of the commune, passed an ordinance that for the next ten years no one who was not subject to the commune (that is, those who were not tenuti of the commune) could be elected as podestà, rector, official, or minister. The men of the commune of Tassignano were not to obey anyone elected contrary to this decree; nor recognize (publicly or secretly) anyone so elected as official, rector, or administrator; nor were they to pay his salary and dues. Those disobeying this decree, with their heirs and descendants, were debarred in perpetuity from all offices, honours, and benefices (beneficia) of the commune—and were also to pay a fine to the commune of £50 (‘lib. L denariorum lucanorum’).⁷⁶ This early statute suggests that words like consul, vicar, podestà, rector were not used with great technical precision in the Lucchese countryside of the late thirteenth century.⁷⁷ Nevertheless the statute anticipates the distinction between locally elected leaders and administrators (consuls) and the holders of coercive public powers (podestà) that would become entrenched in the Lucchese statute of 1308.⁷⁸ The men of Tassignano claimed the right to elect their own podestà. In 1308 the appointment of podestà was the prerogative of the Lucchese authorities: for the opera of their local church: ibid., fo. 170r . For the settlement of a debt by the rector of S. Andrea of Tempagnano, acting in 1205 ‘cum consilio et assensu Martini Cicale et Juncte Tolomei consulum vicinie suprascripti loci’ (and with the permission of the consuls of Lucca): Savigni, ‘Istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, pp. 52–3. For the election of a syndic and procurator by the commune of Castelvecchio di Compito to settle a mid-thirteenth-century dispute with the abbey of San Salvatore a Sesto over the appointment and investiture of a rector and chaplain for the church of S. Andrea (and later to participate as elector in the choice of rector): AN 2(I) (ser Cassiano Cassiani da Romano), pp. 243–4, 245–54. ⁷⁶ AN 11(I) (ser Giunta Renieri), pp. 159–62. The agreement was based on mutually enforceable promises, securities, and penalties, and the parties renounced appeal to the penalty clauses of the constitutions of the commune of Lucca etc. The list of eighty-nine names may be a fairly complete list of the adult males of the village; it names fathers and sons, including sons appearing with the consent of their fathers. ⁷⁷ At Castelvecchio di Compito in 1258/9, Vitale di Moncingnano was named vicar of the commune rather than consul: AN 2(I) (ser Cassiano Cassiani da Romano), p. 243. In 1312, the leaders of Paganico (Puccino Benassai and Ghino Bonfilii) are described as the consuls or vicars of their commune, acting with the consent of ‘consiliariorum eorum et dicti communis [4 men] et etiam infrascriptorum vicinorum eorum et dicti communis [67 names]’: AN 34(IV) (ser Paganello Bonaiuti), fo. 158r – v . Ibid., fo. 170r —where seventy-five parishioners are listed. The designation ‘consules seu vicarii’ of the commune of S. Maria of Paganico, Pieve S. Paolo, continues at least into the 1330s: AN 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti), pp. 52, 55, 73, 162, 211. There are references to the ‘consules seu vicarii’ of Tempagnano in 1291 (Savigni, ‘Istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, n. 148); and to the ‘consules seu vicarii’ of Matraia (acting on behalf of their consulatus) in the mid–1340s: AN 131 (ser Tommaso Finocchi), p. 28/2; 137 (ser Francesco Finocchi), pp. 4, 75. ⁷⁸ Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. xv. In this context, there is a useful definition of podestà (‘dominus terre, who is placed above men to rule them’) in Wickham, ‘Ecclesiastical Dispute’, p. 36. On


65

like the vicars and capitani of the vicariates, they were to be elected by the General Council of S. Michele. Furthermore, the podestà in 1308 appear at the head of the twenty-one pivieri of the Sei Miglia, with perhaps one assigned to the suburban communes subject to the urban pieve. A few fortresses within these pivieri might also have their own podestà, and other villages had the right to request the Podestà and Capitano del popolo of Lucca to grant them a podestà (to be elected in Lucca in the usual way).⁷⁹ The problems to be resolved relate to the appearance of the office of podestà itself, and to the association by 1308 of the office of podestà with the geographical territories of the baptismal, pieval churches (pievi). Just as any number of political, social, familial, and economic associations organized themselves under consuls at the end of the twelfth century, so podestà appear for the first time in a number of different settings. Within the wider Lucchese state, podestà are often recorded as the agents of noble family confederations (consorterie): thus Roberto del fu Tignoso, in 1225 podestà of the nobles of Uzzano and Vivinaia,⁸⁰ or Ingherame del fu Ildebrandino da Porcari, podestà, rector, or consul of the Porcaresi in 1229.⁸¹ Podestà might be appointed by noble consorterie to rule over villagers, but they might also appear in villages of the Lucchese plain where seigneurial structures were weak. Wickham has collected earlier references to podestà in non-seigneurialized villages of the Sei Miglia from the late 1130s, which he suggests may show a brief and temporary weakening of urban control over the Sei Miglia. In so far as the word is used to denote men with specific judicial and coercive powers, rather than just a synonym for syndic or procurator, village podestà appear less frequently after 1148.⁸² We know from the Tassignano statute of 1287 that, by the late thirteenth century, the lands of the bishopric at Moriano, or those of the abbey of Sesto, rule by podestà and rule by consuls might appear as alternative rather than supplementary options: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ∗ G31, particularly the testimony of Belenato del fu Broccardo of Aquilea; A. M. Onori, ‘Comuni rurali e signorie nel basso Valdarno del Duecento: L’esempio di Montecalvoli’, in Castelli e borghi della Toscana tardo medioevale: Atti del Convegno di Studi 28–29 maggio 1983 (Pescia, 1985), pp. 107–29. ⁷⁹ Statuto del 1308, lib. II, cc. xiv–v. The reference to ‘Unus Potestas in comuni sancti Petri ad Vicum et aliorum comunium dicte Potestarìe’ suggests that the suburban communes (or at least the eastern suburbs) were organized as a separate podesterìa. ⁸⁰ Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 204–5: ‘nos Robertus Dei gratia Lucanus episcopus pro nobis et Lucano episcopatu tibi Ruberto q. Tignosi viro nobili de Uthano potestati omnium nobilium de Uthano et Vivinaria pro te et omnibus nobilibus de Uthano et Vivinaria consortibus tuis recipienti et eorum in hoc gerendo negotium tradimus concedimus et elargimur omnem decimam et decimationes hominum qui stare consueverant Lathano et modo stant iuxta plebem Pisciae’. Id., ‘Clero e ceti eminenti’, p. 109. ⁸¹ Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 95–7: ‘potestate seu rectore vel console suorum consortum scilicet de Porcari’. ⁸² Tassignano, 1139 (‘sub pena obbligatione de potestate de illa terra’); Brancoli, 1148 (‘sub penam potestatis de suprascripto loco Brancalo’): G. Degli Azzi Vitelleschi (ed.), Regesti del Regio Archivio di Stato in Lucca, i, Pergamene del Diplomatico, 2 pts. (Lucca, 1903–11), pt. ii, nos. 487, 587. Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 16.

66


individual villages might aspire to appoint their own podestà, as distinct from the traditional structures of consuls/vicars, their councillors, and village officials. It is impossible to determine how generalized this aspiration was. Just as the claims of local men to appoint their own podestà were contested in the lands subject to Lucca’s bishop,⁸³ so Lucca must always have reacted jealously to such claims—and no doubt very effectively within the Sei Miglia. The appearance of Uberto Antelminelli as podestà and rector of Segromigno in 1265 probably reflects informal (and perhaps formal) urban control.⁸⁴ The statute of 1308 defines podestà as city-appointed officials; the sub-text indicates the need for constant vigilance (though probably with an eye to communities more distant and more troublesome than those of the Lucchese plain). The association in 1308 of podestà with the pievi of the Sei Miglia raises more complex issues. It is generally accepted that pieval structures (based on a pieval church with baptismal rights that controlled the subordinate churches/chapels within its territory or pieve) were in crisis by the twelfth century. The crisis should not be exaggerated. There were attempts to revitalize the system by the episcopal reformers of the late eleventh century;⁸⁵ the resolution of a mid-thirteenthcentury dispute between the men of Castelvecchio di Compito and the abbey of San Salvatore a Sesto included the provision that the rector of the parish church of S. Andrea was to be invested in things temporal by the abbot as patron and in things spiritual by the pievano of Compito;⁸⁶ in the fifteenth century there continue to be lively and acrimonious disputes over the authority of pievani and the independence of parishes. What concerns us here, however, is not the continued vitality of the pievi, but the emergence of the pivieri, precisely corresponding with the ecclesiastical pievi, as units of secular jurisdiction and administration. The debate revolves around matters of continuity and change. In the late eleventh century there are references within the Sei Miglia to the territory of the pieve (de territorio de plebe), and more specifically to the iudicaria of the pieve (iudicaria de plebe). These references relate to the pievi of S. Stefano, S. Macario, Segromigno, Compito, Torre, S. Gennaro, S. Pancrazio, Lammari-Lunata, and the episcopal territory of Diecimo.⁸⁷ Beyond the wider debate regarding the ⁸³ AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ++14. For the processes behind the appointment of 1230: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ∗ G85. By 1237 the podestà of S. Maria a Monte was chosen by the bishop from a list of three Lucchese citizens provided by representatives of the commune: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ++O23; Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 225–6. ⁸⁴ Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 419; ASL Diplomatico, Spediale di S. Luca, 21 Jan. 1265. The document shows Uberto, acting with the consent of the men of the commune, appointing a syndic and procurator (Giovanni di Iacopo Sesmundini) to negotiate a loan for the commune of £60. ⁸⁵ Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 251–3. ⁸⁶ With significant reference to the temporal and spiritual keys: AN 2(I) (ser Cassiano Cassiani da Romano), pp. 245–54. For a similar case involving the prior and canons of S. Reparata of Lucca (as patrons), the pievano of Lunata, and the church of S. Lorenzo in Picciorana (1252): Savigni, ‘Istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, pp. 40–2. More generally: Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 299–300. ⁸⁷ Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, pp. 127–34; Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 31, 252–3.


67

survival from antiquity of the pievi as units of civil jurisdiction, some historians have seen these references as anticipating the administrative districts that appear in the Lucchese statute of 1308; some have emphasized the fleeting nature of these references; others have sought to restrict them to purely topographical significance, or to the landed estates of the pieve itself (and to the jurisdiction over them belonging to the bishop).⁸⁸ Clearly we cannot pre-date by two centuries a Lucchese plain uniformly divided into pivieri, each under a podestà normally resident in the village that was the seat of the pieve. We must assume that Lucca appointed podestà in places of strategic importance, outside the pieval structures—as it continued to do.⁸⁹ We might assume that the villages of the Sei Miglia—more complete communities in the thirteenth century than they were to become later, for all the emphasis placed on the drift of talented men to the city—could petition the Lucchese authorities for a podestà of their own (as they might continue to do).⁹⁰ But the evidence for the continuous existence of pievi as units of public administration is rather stronger than is often conceded. There are, in fact, quite a lot of passing mid- and late-thirteenth-century references to the office of podestà in a number of pievi of the Sei Miglia.⁹¹ And the evidence for the continued existence, and distinctive characteristics, of individual pivieri is even stronger. The iudicaria of the pieve of Segromigno was mentioned twice in the 1070s;⁹² in 1265 Uberto Antelminelli was named as podestà (though of ⁸⁸ The debate is not confined to Lucca. Among the more recent contributions: Santini, ‘Circoscrizioni amministrative’, pp. 101–9. For Lucca: Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, pp. 122–34; Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 31, 252–3; id., ‘Istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, p. 13; Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 16, 71, 78, 188. ⁸⁹ Notably the castello of Ruota di Compito, and later that of Nozzano in the west. ⁹⁰ Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. xv. On the other hand, the podestà established in Matraia and Ciciana may be a legacy of noble control over the villagers. Imperial privileges appear to have granted rights to the Avvocati not only over the territory of Coldipozzo, but more generally over the pievi of S. Pancrazio and Marlia: Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 65–7; Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, Documenti, serie prima, v. As late as the fifteenth century the Avvocati were claiming the men of Matraia as subditi and vassalli: M. E. Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494: The Reconstruction of an Italian City-Republic (Oxford, 1995), p. 176. I have not found any evidence in the notarial records of the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries that the men of Matraia were acting differently from those of any other rural commune. ⁹¹ Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 439 (pieve of Brancoli, 1190s); p. 399 (pieve of Compito, 1258, where Giovanni di Ventura Falconi is described as ‘potestas seu rector’: ASL Diplomatico, Pergamene Recuperate, 31 July 1258); p. 409 (pieve of Moriano, 1246, Ghirardinus qd. Oddi Benenati, ‘potestas seu rector pleberii Sexti Moriani electus secundum formam capituli constituti lucani’); p. 413 (pieve of Moriano, 1243, 1245, Ricoverus, variously described 1243–50 as ‘vicecomes episcopi’, ‘potestas seu rector comunis de Moriano’, ‘potestas comunis de Moriano’, ‘vicarius episcopi’, ‘castaldus de Moriano’, ‘castaldus in curia de Moriano’, ‘vicecomes episcopi luc. in Moriano et aliis locis’); p. 413 (pieve of Moriano, 1276, Aldebrandinus Barbagialle ‘electus potestas de Sexto Moriani et Aquilea per lucanum comune’; p. 427 (pieve of S. Gennaro, with Tofari, 1228, 1244, 1279); p. 434 (pieve of S. Gennaro, 1244); p. 419 (Segromigno, 1265, ‘potestas corporis plebis Sugrominei’). ⁹² Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 31. Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, p. 128, rightly notes that ‘infra vicaria de plebem de Sugrominio’ is a misreading (D. Barsocchini (ed.), Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria del Ducato di Lucca, v (3 pts., Lucca, 1837–44), iii, no. 1801, pp. 672–3) for

68


the corporis plebis Sugrominei rather than of the whole pieve);⁹³ in the fifteenth century Segromigno was one of only two pivieri of the Sei Miglia that seem to have retained strong pan-pieval representative and administrative institutions.⁹⁴ It may be significant that the pieve of Segromigno was rather more under local noble control than were some other pievi of the Lucchese plain.⁹⁵ Franca Leverotti has argued that the pivieri became the administrative divisions of the Sei Miglia by the fourteenth century.⁹⁶ Yet there is no clear evidence that the uniform secular division of the entire Sei Miglia into pivieri, each under a podestà, pre-dates the Lucchese statute of 1308. References to local podestà are never plentiful, even for periods when we might expect to find them—which should caution against arguing from silence, either in the eleventh or in the thirteenth century. But the arrangements detailed in 1308 seem to have been relatively new;⁹⁷ they may even represent a plan of administrative reform. More significantly, the podestà of the pivieri had disappeared by 1331, except with regard to extraordinary appointments to individual problem or border areas. Thereafter the villages of the Sei Miglia were listed within their respective pivieri for administrative and record purposes—for tax assessments, for example, where measurements and valuations were allocated to Lucchese officials by pivieri or groups of pivieri. The relative importance sometimes attached to the settlement around the pieval church is retained in the phrase ‘comune del corpo’, to distinguish it from the parishes of its dependent chapels. Some pivieri, notably Segromigno, appear to retain more political and social cohesion than others. But, given the broken and uncertain history of the podesterìe of the Sei Miglia, and more particularly their disappearance by 1331, it is difficult to see what administrative functions could have vitalized the pivieri as regular administrative or juridical divisions in the fourteenth-century Sei Miglia.⁹⁸ Before 1308, and ‘infra iudicaria’—AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ++R52. Similarly with regard to the reference to the vicaria of Pieve S. Stefano—or S. Macario (Degli Azzi Vitelleschi (ed.), Regesti, i, pt. i, no. 305, p. 171): Tirelli, ‘Il vescovato di Lucca’, p. 127. ⁹³ Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 419; ASL Diplomatico, Spediale di S. Luca, 21 Jan. 1265. ‘Corpo della pieve di . . . ’ signifies the commune in which the pieval church was situated: Leverotti, ‘ ‘‘Crisi’’ del Trecento’, p. 225. ⁹⁴ AN 931 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 82v –84r ; 1004(VII) (ser Domenico Domenici), fos. 13r –14r . The second was Arliano: below, pp. 104–6. ⁹⁵ A dorsal note on a document of 1014, relating to the pieve of Fabbrica and reflecting later usage, refers to ‘feudum illorum de Sugrominio’: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, +K27; Savigni, ‘Istituzioni ecclesiastiche’, p. 18. For the ‘da Segromigno’: Pescaglini Monti, ‘Un inedito documento lucchese’, pp. 161–3. For the thirteenth century: Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 421. ⁹⁶ Leverotti, ‘ ‘‘Crisi’’ del Trecento’, pp. 203–4, 231–2. ⁹⁷ The appearance in 1276 of Aldebrandinus Barbagialle, ‘electus potestas de Sexto Moriani et Aquilea per lucanum comune’—Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 413, n. 175—may suggest that the process should be dated back to the last decades of the thirteenth century, which was clearly an important period in the administrative reordering of the Lucchese state. ⁹⁸ Franca Leverotti claims that the Lucchese state ‘aveva rigidamente modellato la struttura amministrativa sull’organizzazione pievana’, but the studies collected in Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento: Le Sei Miglia Lucchesi nel XIV e XV secolo (Pisa, 1992), concern the pivieri only in


69

after 1331, justice was administered by the city (and often in the city);⁹⁹ the agents of local government and the responsible tools of urban control were, and remained, the consular institutions and officials of the rural communes—which numbered 156 at the beginning of the fourteenth century.¹⁰⁰ Beyond the plain and foothills of the Sei Miglia lie the mountains (which soon, for purposes of convenience, we shall be able to call the vicariates). The starting-point here, as to a lesser degree within the Sei Miglia itself, is the disintegration of public power that characterized the region as a whole in the twelfth century.¹⁰¹ The scattered landed possessions of the greater nobility, a weak process of incastellamento (and more particularly its limited impact on settlement patterns), and the strength of the city itself combined to limit the formation of territorial signorie in most parts of the Lucchesia. Nevertheless lords, lay and ecclesiastical, came to exercise seigneurial justice over tenants and over communities—beginning, and thereafter most apparent, in peripheral areas such as the Valdera.¹⁰² Like the great landowners of the Sei Miglia, with whom they are often to be identified,¹⁰³ the lords of the mountains were often tied to the city by residence and through political and judicial office. Much of the argument for the limited independence of these families revolves around the early involvement of families such as the lords of Montemagno at the very summit of urban social and political life. In the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries noble families (the Soffredinga, the nobles of Vallecchia, Corvaia, and Montemagno, the sons of Ubaldo) swore oaths of loyalty to the commune of Lucca, which included offers of military assistance.¹⁰⁴ And links to the city were also mediated through Lucca’s bishop. In 1169, for example, Berlingario del fu Ubaldo promised on behalf of himself and his co-proprietors that he would not give the castello of Colcarelli in the Val d’Era to the enemies of the bishop or to those of Lucca (‘inimicis sancti Martini vel inimicis Lucensium’).¹⁰⁵ passing, and then as divisions of the countryside that might be allocated to urban officials for the assessment of village obligations. The quotation is taken from p. 196. For possible changes taking place at the beginning of the fifteenth century: below, pp. 128–33. ⁹⁹ For the twelfth century: Wickham, Courts and Conflict, pp. 16–107. ¹⁰⁰ Leverotti, ‘ ‘‘Crisi’’ del Trecento’, p. 211. ¹⁰¹ Wickham, Community and Clientele, p. 239. ¹⁰² Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 189. ¹⁰³ The Porcaresi combined extensive possessions in the Sei Miglia (and at Porcari on the borders of the Sei Miglia) with wide proprietary and territorial powers throughout the Valdilima, Garfagnana, and Lunigiana: Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 79–104—who claims (p. 102) that as late as 1290 ‘il dominio feudale dei Porcaresi (o quanto meno la loro influenza) si era esteso su gran parte della Val di Lima se non sull’intera valle, sino ai confini con la montagna pistoiese’ (emphasis added). At the end of the twelfth century, the lords (domini) of Montemagno held lands and tithes in the piviere of Lammari that, while acknowledging citizen jurisdiction, they granted to a local family ‘in feodum et beneficium perpetuum’: Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 190–1. ¹⁰⁴ Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 229–30, collects together the material from the Annales of Tolomeo, but is distracted by the question whether the oaths were properly feudal. ¹⁰⁵ Ibid., p. 219. Berlingario was a member of a family known as the ‘filii q. Ubaldi’. These oaths became more frequent during the twelfth century, and came to privilege the position of the bishop with respect to local lay lords: Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 221–2.

70


There are problems in seeing the bishop of Lucca simply as a proxy for urban power. The bishop of Lucca continued to exercise seigneurial rights (and sometimes territorial lordship) over lands politically lost to Lucca: at Palaia, Usigliano del Vescovo, S. Gervasio, Toiano, Tempiano, and Collegoli, for example.¹⁰⁶ Indeed, the agreements between Pisa and Lucca of 1181 protected the temporal and spiritual jurisdiction of the bishop of the one city in territories politically subject to the other. Even more significantly in the present context, disputes over cross-border jurisdictions between bishop and urban authorities were not to prejudice relations between the two cities.¹⁰⁷ Where Lucca’s city-territory and diocese coincided, the territorial lordships of the bishop inevitably resulted in occasional tensions. Outside the Sei Miglia, episcopal lands included Sala (in the diocese of Luni), Diecimo, Villa Basilica, and the castelli and quasi-urban settlements in the south-east¹⁰⁸—together with jurisdictional rights of a more narrowly patrimonial character throughout the entire territory. Episcopal lordships were confirmed by imperial and margraval grants,¹⁰⁹ and emperors may have seen in the bishop a potential counterweight to the growing autonomy of the commune.¹¹⁰ But, despite the tensions and imperial meddling, current historiography has emphasized the unity of interests between city and bishop generally, and more particularly in vulnerable border areas.¹¹¹ More than this it is difficult to say, and Franca Leverotti’s attribution of the chaotic administrative organization of the Pisan state to the survival of Lucchese power across the border in the guise of Lucchese episcopal enclaves appears problematic.¹¹² By the twelfth century relations between Lucca, seigneurial lords, and ecclesiastical institutions were complicated by the emergence in the mountains (as in the Sei Miglia) of rural communes. The formative processes have long been ¹⁰⁶ Leverotti, ‘Sulle circoscrizioni amministrative’, p. 211; ead., ‘L’organizzazione amministrativa’, pp. 46–9. Other possessions of the bishop of Lucca in this area include Forcoli, Alica, Pratiglione, Montecastello, Cerretello, Cevoli, S. Pietro, and Solaria. ¹⁰⁷ Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 231–2. ¹⁰⁸ For Sala episcopi: Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, pp. 45, 68, 74–82, and the references there cited. For Diecimo: G. Ghilarducci, Diecimo: Una pieve un feudo un comune, i, Il medioevo (Lucca, 1990), particularly pp. 61–6, app. I. For Villa Basilica: Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, pp. 55, 62, 89–90; Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 50–1, 84–5. At S. Maria a Monte Frederick I granted powers to Lucca’s bishop ‘ad iustitiam et legem faciendam, regendam, gubernandam per te et per tuum nuntium, ita sicuti nos vel noster missus agere debuissemus’: Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 76. ¹⁰⁹ Notably Otto II’s diploma of 980 confirming to Lucca’s bishop powers both patrimonial and territorial over episcopal lands, castelli, and their inhabitants: MGH: Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, ii, pt. i, Ottonis II Diplomata (Hanover, 1888), no. 239. ¹¹⁰ Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 76–7. ¹¹¹ Thus the disputes in 1263 between the bishop and the Gherardesca: M. Maccioni, Difesa del dominio de Conti della Gherardesca sopra la signoria di Donoratico, Bolgheri, Castagneto ecc. (Lucca, 1771), pt. ii, p. 35. The position of the bishop was more ambiguous during the conflict in the Garfagnana between Lucca and the Papacy of the 1220s and 1230s: Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, pp. 53–5. ¹¹² Leverotti, ‘L’organizzazione amministrativa’, pp. 33–82.


71

debated. At least in the Garfagnana, Carlo De Stefani traced the origins of the principal communes (Castiglione, Ceserana, Barga, Ghivizzano, Coreglia, Fosciana) to the privileges that the Countess Matilda had granted to places—the ‘terre matildiche’—where she possessed extensive allodial land. These privileges were confirmed by emperors in pursuit of their wider political agenda in Tuscany, and by Lucca in the contest for local support with neighbouring Pisa.¹¹³ Other territories and castelli were claimed to be protected by (and subject to) the Papacy in terms of the Matildine donation of 1102.¹¹⁴ More general, but equally venerable, traditions have seen these communes as the organized response of local communities to the oppressive claims of feudal lords.¹¹⁵ But the periods of sustained imperial or papal intervention were fleeting, and it has been convincingly argued that the rural communes of the mountains were created within the confines of, but not necessarily in opposition to, the noble signoria.¹¹⁶ The communes, like the signorie themselves, were products not of imperial power but of the localization of power; not infrequently in mountain communities we find the coexistence of the consuls of the commune and the consuls of the nobles.¹¹⁷ We might assume that at the end of the thirteenth century on the borders between Garfagnana and Lunigiano the Nobili di Dallo continued to exercise a firmer rule over territories centred on their castelli than might have been possible further south.¹¹⁸ Countrymen were not invariably loyal to the city, despite the claim of the Lucchese jurist Rolando di Guamignano that urban justice was more equitable for peasants.¹¹⁹ Allegiances were likely to be determined by local power relations. Thus in 1180 the consuls of the castello of Casoli in the Valdilima promised to defend Casoli for the bishop against all persons except ¹¹³ C. De Stefani, ‘Ordini amministrativi di Garfagnana dal xii al xviii secolo’, ASI 5th ser., 9 (1892), pp. 31–66. ¹¹⁴ Rombaldi, ‘Impero e chiesa’, pp. 17–19; Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, pp. 51–5. Carina, Notizie storiche, pp. 6–7, lists the communities alleged in 1192 to owe censo to the papal camera as Carraja, Saltocchio, Brancoli, Domazzano, Tempagnano, Diecimo, Roggio, Convalle, Anchiano, Cune, Controne, Casabasciana, Buliano, Ceserana, Ariana, Bacciano, Fosciana, Castiglione, Silicano, Coraggine, Casatico, Pescaglia, Corfino, Petrognano, Corfigliano, Gragno, Gragnano, etc. That these claims are pre-Matildine and date back to the early eleventh century would seem improbable. ¹¹⁵ The literature is usefully summarized by Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 1–10. Recent, geographically pertinent contributions include R. Ricci, ‘La formazione del comune di Pontremoli: Organamento e tempistica’, Archivio storico per le province parmensi, 4th ser., 56 (2004), pp. 77–86. ¹¹⁶ Wickham, Community and Clientele, 172, 175–8; Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, p. 50. ¹¹⁷ Thus the agreement of 1264–5 between the commune of Castiglione and the ‘Comune nobilium case Gerardingorum’, the ‘Comune nobilium de casa Suffridingorum’, and the conti di Castelvecchio ‘in unum Comune reducendo Comune predictorum nobilium cum Comune de Castilione et e converso’: Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, p. 86. ¹¹⁸ Carina, Notizie storiche, pp. 21–2. The powerbase of the nobles of Dallo extended beyond the Lucchesia into the Reggiano. ¹¹⁹ Wickham, Courts and Conflict, p. 52.

72


the Porcaresi.¹²⁰ Most famously, there is the story of Scariccio, notary, citizen of Lucca, and probably a resident of Castiglione, who carried a candle for Castiglione (or perhaps for the entire province of the Garfagnana) in the traditional act of submission to Lucca at the Illumination of S. Croce in 1246—for which indiscretion his right hand was cut off (in Lucca, or perhaps on his return home) by unspecified Cathani of the Garfagnana.¹²¹ For rural communes as for noble consorterie a range of options was open in the turbulent political conditions of the early thirteenth century. For both nobles and communes the final outcome was likely to be a hierarchy of judicial rights in which high justice was reserved to Lucca (or to Lucca’s bishop), and where local pacts excluded action against Lucca (and more theoretically against the emperor). The general picture is qualified, but not invalidated, by the history of individual settlements, some of which developed as important centres of population. The origins of Pietrasanta are not uncontroversial, though the inconsistencies are perhaps resolved if we compare events around Pietrasanta with the founding by Florence of the castello of Vicchio di Mugello in 1309/1324.¹²² There would seem no reason to doubt that Pietrasanta was founded or refounded by Lucca in a conscious attempt to discipline the turbulent nobles of Corvaia and Vallecchia. The story is not contradicted by the confirmation in 1308 of the privileges granted to the ‘burgo et hominibus burgi Petrasancte’ by the Podestà of Lucca Guiscardo da Pietrasanta.¹²³ It would seem supported by the clause in the 1308 statute requiring the men of Corvaia, Vallecchia, Sala, Castiglione, and the territory of Sarzana (excluding traitors) to return to Pietrasanta;¹²⁴ and by the clause that officials should be elected for the various wards of Pietrasanta (per ruga and for the terra nuova), with no further mention of officials representing Corvaia, Vallecchia, Castiglione, or Sala.¹²⁵ If Lucca’s foundation (or rebuilding) of Pietrasanta was an act of urban policy, other communes could lay claim to a tradition of independence that posed a ¹²⁰ AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ++D58; Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 91–4; Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 220. More obscurely, in 1122 the men of Vallico had sworn ‘ad tenendum et defensandum [Vallico or Sala] per bonam fidem contra honnes homines excepto contra potestatem’: Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, pp. 65–72. By contrast in 1262 the men of Castiglione di Garfagnana and of Verrucola in Alpibus pledged fidelity to the bishop ‘contra omnes personas’: ibid., pp. 84–5. ¹²¹ De Stefani, Storia dei comuni di Garfagnana, pp. 56–7, and the references there cited. Meyer identifies the notary as Saccucius da Boveglio, a village in the neighbourhood of Villa Basilica: Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 250. ¹²² P. Pirillo, ‘Controllare e proteggere la politica fiorentina sul contado’, in id., Costruzione di un contado, pp. 20–2. ¹²³ Statuto del 1308, lib. V, c. xl. The outcome of the protracted struggle between Lucca and the nobles of Corvaia and Vallecchia (among others) is shown in a subsequent clause protecting the purchasers ‘de bonis proditorum Corvarie et Vallecchie’: ibid., lib. V, c. xliii. ¹²⁴ Ibid., lib. I, c. xl. For the traitors of Corvaia and Vallecchia and their names: ibid., lib. III, cc. lx–lxii. ¹²⁵ Ibid., lib. II, c. xliiii. The Corvaresi seem to have posed a particular threat, perhaps a legacy of the role of their ancestors as vicecomites.


73

periodic threat to the city. Independent aspirations might be rooted in imperial or comital privileges. Thus Villa Basilica was granted the right to administer low justice by the Cadolingi in 1104,¹²⁶ and thereafter fitted rather ambiguously into Lucchese administrative structures. Barga received privileges from the Countess Matilda; it was later to enjoy substantial autonomy, bolstered in the conflicts of 1227–36 by the presence of a papal vicar.¹²⁷ But more important than paper privileges were the geographical advantages that allowed some communities to develop into small towns or quasi-cities. Self-evidently the relationship between Lucca and Pescia, Fucecchio, or S. Maria a Monte, with their dynamic economic life and their complex internal political structures, was significantly different from the relationship between Lucca and the noble consorterie and village parliaments of the mountains.¹²⁸ As on the plain, Lucca appointed podestà to rule in places of political or strategic importance. In 1207 we find the podestà of Fucecchio, Disfaciato, receiving instructions from Lucca from the curia treguanorum.¹²⁹ The office of podestà was held in Buggiano in 1286 and in Pescia in 1322 by members of leading Lucchese families.¹³⁰ As on the plain, village consuls became the administrative agents of urban government, with special responsibilities for reporting crime. The mountains differed from the Sei Miglia with regard to the survival of (often weak) seigneurial territories—where the power of the local domini interacted with the privileges of the local community and with the authority of the local podestà.¹³¹ More importantly, the mountains differed from the Sei Miglia in that, into the relationship between noble proprietors, rural communes, and urban government, there were intruded the intermediary powers of the vicars within their vicariates. The statute of 1308 shows military governorships and a variety of expedients in newly conquered areas: neither is difficult to explain. The origins of the twelve vicariates, which, in truncated form, were to survive as long as the republic itself, pose much more difficult problems. ¹²⁶ Wickham, Community and Clientele, pp. 72, 98–9; Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 50–1, 84–5. ¹²⁷ Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, pp. 63–4. The material is conveniently summarized by Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 233–43. ¹²⁸ The self-assertiveness of the commune of S. Maria a Monte is reflected in the oath of 1210 whereby the consuls and homines swore to obey Bishop Roberto ‘salvo omni honore et ractione et usu plene communis sancte Marie Montis et divisim, et salvo omni honore et ractione et usu plene domni Ruberti episcopi et episcopatus communiter et divisim’: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ∗ D15; Savigni, Episcopato e società, pp. 99–100. ¹²⁹ Wickham, Courts and Conflict, p. 241. The court of the treguani was a lay tribunal that, among other things, heard cases that involved the church. Federigo Sonni, podestà of Montecalvoli in 1203, was a former consul of the treguani: Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 239. ¹³⁰ Savigni, ‘Clero e ceti eminenti’, documents reproduced in apps. 1 and 2. ¹³¹ Thus in 1283 we find Bendino Afferre, podestà of the castello and terra of Sorico for the di Poggio, domini de Sorico, examining witnesses under oath in a case involving the murder of two men within the territory. The inquisizione was held in the church of S. Prospero of Sorico, and was recorded by the scribe of the commune, Ugolino Spalle of Pescia: Savigni, ‘Clero e ceti eminenti’, p. 118; ASL Diplomatico, Archivio dei Notari, 4 Aug. 1283.

74


Again the difficulties are, in part, a legacy of the debate over continuity (or its absence). Giovanni Santini has been a leading proponent of the precommunal origins of the administrative divisions or minor iudiciarie of the Lucchese state—within, but also outside, the Sei Miglia.¹³² In the Lucchesia the argument rests largely on the identification of the Garfagnana as an autonomous (or quasi-autonomous) province with very distant roots—fines Carfanienses with the subordinate fines Castronovo and fines Contronenses. But it extends to the Versilia (fines Versiliae), to the Valdinievole (fines Pisciae), and to the Valdarno (fines Vallis Arni). In reality the precise boundaries of the Garfagnana in the early Middle Ages remains highly contentious; the Garfagnana hardly then constituted a coherent province; and it assumed a discrete administrative identity only in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.¹³³ Elsewhere we seem to be concerned with the continuity of geographical labels that reflect the immutability of mountain ranges and river valleys rather than the preservation of Byzantine or Lombard traditions. Of course the seat of Lucca’s vicars sometimes coincided with the site of pieval churches (Gallicano in the Garfagnana; Camaiore in the Versilia; Pescia in the Valdinievole), or—like Camaiore—with ancient defensive districts (fines Campomaiore). But this has more to do with the favoured position of the sites originally chosen than the historical survival of administrative structures. As early as the 1170s we hear of five capitani, each accompanied by a judge, sent to rule over the principal settlements of the Garfagnana (Barga, Coreglia, Ghivizzano, Ceserana, and Castiglione).¹³⁴ Locally, as in the case of a certain Salvo, named in 1274 as podestà of Trassilico in the mountains high above Gallicano, the appointment of a podestà might coincide with the transfer of jurisdiction from a noble family to a local community—and thence to Lucca.¹³⁵ Local podestà represent an assertion of Lucchese power; they were appointed for important centres and for vulnerable castelli before the division of the Lucchese state into neat vicariates—and (with subordinate powers) they similarly continue to be appointed thereafter. Certainly, podestà within the vicariates were more numerous in 1308 than they were later to become: seventeen podestà are named for the vicariate of Camaiore; thirteen for Valdilima.¹³⁶ But we should resist the temptation of deriving from the statute of 1308 a structured hierarchy of ¹³² Santini, ‘Circoscrizioni amministrative’: ‘il contado lucchese di età comunale era ancora diviso secondo le antiche circoscrizioni amministrative precomunali: Val di Serchio, Val di Nievole, Val d’Arno di Ripa destra e Oltrarno’, pp. 107–8. More generally: id., ‘I comuni di pieve’ nel medioevo italiano: Contributo alla storia dei comuni rurali (Milan, 1964). ¹³³ Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, pp. 47–8. Savigni argues convincingly that ‘gli eventi del decennio 1227–1236 abbiano contribuito notevolmente al definirsi di un’identità ‘‘garfagnina’’ in contrapposizione alla città’: ibid., p. 55. ¹³⁴ CUL MS Add. 4700, p. 330. ¹³⁵ The appearance of the podestà Salvo seems to coincide with privileges freeing the men and commune of Trassilico from the jurisdiction of the domini di Porcari: Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, p. 58. Salvo, himself, was resident in Gallicano; the acts were witnessed by a local notary from Trassilico named Bonassai: ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, 10 Oct. 1274. ¹³⁶ Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. xiiii.


75

powers. The podestà pre-date the vicars; the vicariates—when they appear in the second half of the thirteenth century—were superimposed on communities where Lucca’s jurisdiction had long been exercised by a podestà; the appointment of a podestà had probably always been a somewhat ad hoc decision; and the relationship between vicar and podestà was likely to be problematic—especially where the normal residence of the vicar coincided with the seat of a podestà. The restructuring of the Lucchese state into larger territorial units headed by a vicar would seem to owe a great deal to the imperial and papal interventions of the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.¹³⁷ In this respect, interventions often written off as ephemeral and inconsequential were, in reality, to leave a lasting legacy. The plans of the Emperor Frederick I for Italy, though flexible in detail, in essence involved an attempt to limit the rule of cities over their territories. Specifically in Tuscany, Frederick, and his chancellor Rainaldo di Dassel, reorganized the countryside under imperial officials often bearing the title of vicar.¹³⁸ Following the arrival of Rainaldo di Dassel in 1162, the imperial administration of Tuscany was centred on San Miniato. The administrative areas subject to San Miniato were much larger than the future vicariates; thus in 1185 Guglielmo di Palodi, marchese of Massa, was appointed as imperial rector or vicar for the Garfagnana and Versilia.¹³⁹ The appearance of an imperial vicar for the Garfagnana had been anticipated in 1172 by Lucca’s appointment of its own vicar in the person of Gualtierotto Castagnacci.¹⁴⁰ Guglielmo di Palodi’s period of office was itself short lived. Thereafter Lucca, pope, and emperor vied for control of the Garfagnana, and frequently sought to establish control through the naming of a vicar for the entire province. Under the Emperor Frederick II, the Garfagnana, again united with the Versilia and with the Lunigiana, was granted to the marchese Oberto Pallavicini as vicar general, and later to the Emperor’s illegitimate son Enzo.¹⁴¹ From the 1160s territories further east had been ruled more directly from the imperial centre of San Miniato; these regions were periodically taken over by Lucca amid the changing political fortunes of the late twelfth century. Thus in 1199 the consuls of Lucca appointed the giurisperto Panfolia as judge (iudex) for the Valdriana, Valdinievole, and Valdarno.¹⁴² By 1226 the whole region was again ruled, at least nominally, from San Miniato by the castellano Everardo di ¹³⁷ The point is made with due recognition of a current Italian historiography that is inclined to deny the relevance of imperial models for the development of Italian institutions: Milani, I comuni italiani, pp. 68–9. ¹³⁸ Fasoli, ‘Aspirazioni cittadine’, p. 140. ¹³⁹ De Stefani, Storia dei comuni di Garfagnana, pp. 26–9. ¹⁴⁰ Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, p. 223. The appointment of Gualtierotto Castagnacci as vicar or podestà of the entire Garfagnana seems to have coincided with the sending of capitani to Barga, Coreglia, Ghivizzano, Ceserana, and Castiglione. ¹⁴¹ Events are summarized by Corsi (ed.), ‘Le ‘‘Constitutiones Maleficiorum’’ ’, p. 349. In 1247 Enzo was succeeded as vicar by Bonaccorso da Padule. ¹⁴² Santini, ‘Circoscrizioni amministrative’, p. 117: ‘curtis Piscie, Vallis Ariani et Vallis Nebule et curtis Cappiani et curtis Fucecli et vallis Arni’. Presumably Panfolia’s functions were both judicial and administrative. For the title iudex: Wickham, Courts and Conflict, p. 21, n. 11. Baldasseroni,

76


Eichstädt.¹⁴³ But from the beginning there are hints of future administrative divisions: in 1164 a subordinate jurisdiction had already been established at Pescia under the castaldo Ugo.¹⁴⁴ And the Valdinievole becomes the first recorded of the new Lucchese vicariates—with references dating from 1218.¹⁴⁵ Boundaries followed those of ecclesiastical vicariates. In this respect Lucca may have been following in the footsteps of its bishops, who, through the appointment of vicars or vicecomites, were attempting to regularize the administration of the eastern and south-eastern parts of the diocese (particularly ‘ultra Arnum’).¹⁴⁶ The process happened more slowly in the Garfagnana, which, with the Lunigiana, then as earlier, was described as a provincia. Lucca’s rule of the Garfagnana was reasserted by an imperial diploma of December 1248; possibly as late as 1260 the city was still represented in the Garfagnana by a single vicar, Guglielmo.¹⁴⁷ By 1262 the Garfagnana was divided into two vicariates: ‘a Perpore infra’ and ‘a Perpore supra’. Only around 1272 were these two vicariates finally divided into four: Camporgiano, Castiglione, Barga (later Gallicano), and Coreglia.¹⁴⁸ The new divisions presumably represent a strengthening of Lucchese control against a background of the political events of the later thirteenth century. We return to the statute of 1308 with which we began. The statute testifies to current Lucchese expansion in the north-east towards Pistoia, and to the continuing military activities in the Valdinievole.¹⁴⁹ Elsewhere it is a record of ancient claims rather than a description of rights effectively exercised over castelli and lands. The Podestà was required to take an oath that he would defend the lands Istoria della città di Pescia, p. 120, linked the sending of Panfolia with a Lucchese military offensive that saw the destruction of the castello of Buggiano. ¹⁴³ Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 228–9. Everardo di Eichstädt was the nephew of Rainaldo, duke of Spoleto, Frederick II’s legate in Tuscany. ¹⁴⁴ Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 75; Guidi and Parenti (eds.), Regesto, ii, no. 1227. ¹⁴⁵ Osheim, An Italian Lordship, p. 44. With the revival of imperial power under Frederick II, Lucchese vicars came to be replaced by imperial ones—in 1230 we find the imperial vicars of Valdinievole and of Villa Basilica resident within the precincts of the hospital of S. Allucio: Coturri, ‘Ospedali della Valdinievole’, p. 223. And during the last years of Frederick II the Valdinievole seems to have been subsumed into an imperial vicariate that embraced (at least nominally) the Valdriana and the Valdilima: Baldasseroni, Istoria della città di Pescia, p. 122. By 1251 there was again a Lucchese vicar in the Valdinievole, as well as in Fucecchio and the Valdarno: Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, p. 256; A. Malvolti, ‘Fucecchio negli anni di Castruccio: Tra cronaca e storia’, Erba d’Arno, 8 (1982), pp. 66–7. For Tedicio di Ranieri, Lucchese vicar in Fucecchio and the Valdarno in 1254, and his judge Bonagiunta: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ++F51. ¹⁴⁶ Savigni, Episcopato e società, p. 227. None of the cited references relates to ‘vicari incaricati di amministrare le terre ‘‘ultra Arnum’’ ’. ¹⁴⁷ R. Ricci, ‘Documenti della Garfagnana medioevale (1230–1309) nell’Archivio Malaspiniano di Caniparola: Tra Garfagnana propriamente detta e Garfagnana ‘‘Lunese’’ ’, in Garf. 1997, doc. vi. The document refers to the appointment of Guglielmo, ‘vicario del comune di Lucca in Garfagnana’, as procurator by the men of Castiglione and Campori. There appears to be a further reference to ‘la vicaria di Garfagnana’ as late as 1277: ibid., doc. xviii. ¹⁴⁸ Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, p. 257. As late as 1293 the vicariates of Castiglione and Camporgiano were combined under a single vicar (domino Gano Chicoli de Lanfranchis): Pacchi, Ricerche istoriche, p. 6. ¹⁴⁹ Statuto del 1308, lib. V, cc. viiii–xi, xiiii, xxii, xxxi.


77

and jurisdiction of Lucca, explicitly those in Versilia and of Lucca’s bishop ‘ultra Arnum’.¹⁵⁰ By 1308 the bishop might retain local rights of lordship in the south, including Palaia—even the right to confirm the election of the podestà—but the prohibition against alienating the rights of the commune of Lucca in the castello of Palaia was wishful thinking in an area long since fallen under the political control of Pisa.¹⁵¹ The same might be said of other communities obligated to offer wax in Lucca at the lumination of S. Croce. And even more optimistic was the presence demanded of the bishop of Luni (or his vicar) at the vigil of S. Croce.¹⁵² As an assertion of Lucchese claims, and—in places—as a somewhat uneasy synthesis of evolving structures, the statute of 1308 is rich in pointers to the building of the Lucchese state over the previous half-century. It can be compared with surviving fragments of the statutes of the Garfagnana (de Constitutionibus lucani Comunis et provincie Carfagnane) of 1266, with subsequent references from 1274 and 1285.¹⁵³ The extant Constitutiones Maleficiorum of 1287, drawn up with the approval of the syndics of the communities of the entire province,¹⁵⁴ confirmed the rights and jurisdiction granted to local lords by Frederick I and Frederick II, and also the privileges enjoyed under the imperial vicariate by some communes—most especially that of Barga.¹⁵⁵ But the constitutions also emphasized the special powers of the vicars of the Garfagnana within their vicariates.¹⁵⁶ These earlier constitutions are reflected in the continuing recognition of the distinctive juridical status of the Garfagnana that appears in the statute of 1308, though the caveats (both in 1287 and 1308) make it difficult to draw firm comparisons. Generally, both the privileges accorded to the inhabitants of the Garfagnana and the wide powers granted to the local representatives of Lucchese rule seem to have been tempered over the intervening twenty-year period.¹⁵⁷ ¹⁵⁰ Ibid., lib. I, c. i. ¹⁵¹ Ibid., lib. I, c. xxxvi: ‘De non vendendo iura que lucanum Comune habet in castro Palarie de Ultra Arnum.’ ¹⁵² Ibid., lib. I, c. xlii: ‘Volumus etiam quod dictum Maius lucanum Regimen rogari faciat dominum lunensem Episcopum, seu eius vicarium si idem dominus Episcopus fuerit absens, quod esse debeat cum hominibus de Carraria, castro et burgo de Seressana et cum aliis comunibus suis iurisdictionis Luce in sero dicte vigilie ad dictam luminariam.’ ¹⁵³ De Stefani, Storia dei comuni di Garfagnana, pp. 67, 161 (doc. vi); Corsi (ed.), ‘Le ‘‘Constitutiones Maleficiorum’’ ’, p. 351. ¹⁵⁴ Corsi (ed.), ‘Le ‘‘Constitutiones Maleficiorum’’ ’, pp. 359–60. ¹⁵⁵ Ibid., cc. xxvi, xxxviii. The men of Barga were permitted to elect their own podestà, though in context the word seems to be used as a synonym for local consuls: c. xxxii: ‘Item quod possint sibi creare potestates et consules de se ipsis et ita quod eorum honores, status et consuetudines servare teneantur inter Bargenses salvis senper suprascriptis et infrascriptis et jurisdictione lucani Comunis et similiter teneantur potestates lucani Comunis et Judex qui ibi fuerit pro lucano Comuni.’ ¹⁵⁶ Ibid., c. xlii. ¹⁵⁷ Ibid., p. 355, argues that local rights and privileges of lords and communities in the Garfagnana, inherited from the time of the imperial vicariate, had been suppressed by 1308. Similarly the vicars of the Garfagnana lost their powers to deal with serious criminal offences: Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. xxx. But in 1287, as in 1308, Lucchese rights and Lucchese legislation took precedence (ibid., cc. xviiii, xxiv–xxv, lvi); judicial appeals ultimately lay with Lucca (ibid., c. xxx); and a precise comparison is vitiated by the formula (or similar): ‘salvis privilegiis honore,

78


Other clauses of the 1308 statute are more anecdotal, but are no less revealing of the processes of state-building. Early fourteenth-century realities are captured in the identification of the lands of the bishop south of the Arno, and of the commune in Versilia, as territories of marked vulnerability.¹⁵⁸ Events of the preceding decades are remembered in the long list of traitors from Corvaia, Vallecchia, Castello Aghinolfi, and the Versilia; from Pescia, Montecalvoli, S. Maria a Monte, Fucecchio, and the Valdarno—sentenced with their descendants to exile and confiscation of property, and with a register kept of their names for perpetual memory.¹⁵⁹ And precisely the same events lay behind the sensitivity to the wishes of the men of Vivinaia in dealings with the recently disloyal communes of the Valdinievole.¹⁶⁰ If traitors were banished, loyalty was rewarded (or at least purchased). Privileges and immunities were granted to the inhabitants of castelli within the Sei Miglia (Aquila, Castiglione sul Serchio, Castel Passerino, Cotone, Nozzano in the west; Ruota, Pozzore, and Gello in the east), in return for not inconsiderable obligations towards their own defence, and that of Lucca.¹⁶¹ Further afield, the statute confirmed privileges granted to communities in the equally contested region of the Versilia—Pietrasanta, Camaiore, Stazzema, Pomezzano, Ratignano, Volegno, Pruno, Farnocchia, and Galleno.¹⁶² Unspecified privileges were likewise accorded to individuals and noble families; to win support, and in return for cessions and services.¹⁶³ And the statute of 1308 is not lacking in narrative detail relating to the attempts by the commune to vindicate rights ceded to it by the great families of the contado.¹⁶⁴ In 1294 the city authorities asserted that it was inconsistent with the honour and interests of Lucca that any private person should have jurisdiction and fortifications within its territories, and particularly outside the Sei Miglia.¹⁶⁵ The overwhelming thrust of the statute of 1308 confirms the centralization of juridical jurisdictione, tenutis et possessionibus lucani Comunis et in nullo predictis vel aliquo predictorum lucano Comuni preiudicantibus’. ¹⁵⁸ Statuto del 1308, lib. III, c. lviii: ‘De pena imposita proditoribus castrorum’. ¹⁵⁹ Ibid., lib. III, cc. lx–lxii. The events themselves date back to 1253–4. ¹⁶⁰ Ibid., lib. II, c. xlvi. ¹⁶¹ Ibid., lib. II, c. lxvii; lib. IV, cc. lv, lxxxvi (Ruota and Pozzore); lib. V, c. xxxiiii (Ruota, Pozzore, and Gello). ¹⁶² Ibid., lib. V, cc. xl–xlii. ¹⁶³ Ibid., lib. I, c. xxvi; lib. II, c. xxxviiii (Aliotto della Rocca and consorti); lib. V, cc. xlv–xlvii. ¹⁶⁴ Ibid., lib. I, c. xviiii: ‘De recuperando iura data lucano Comuni a Lamberto Masnerii et Raynerio de Porcari et alia iura’; c. xxi: ‘De inveniendis terris et domibus quas lucanum Comune habet in Ghivizano’; c. xxvi: ‘De tenendo et observando comperam de Montesummano’; lib. V, c. xxxv: ‘De observando comperam factam de Montegiori a Soffreduccio de Bozano’; c. xliiii: ‘De habendo firmas vendictiones factas tempore domini Guiscardi de Petrasancta olim lucani Potestatis’; c. lx: ‘De eo quod camerarii teneantur reinvenire terras, possessiones, boschos et pascua spectantia ad lucanum Comune’. ¹⁶⁵ Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, pp. 59–60; ASL Diplomatico, ‘Notulario della Biblioteca di F. M. Florentini’, 10 Dec. 1294. The context is explained by L. Green, Castruccio Castracani: A Study on the Origins and Character of a Fourteenth-Century Despotism (Oxford, 1986), pp. 26–8.


79

and administrative power on the city. All jurisdiction over the city and territory of Lucca rested with the Podestà (saving the authority of vicars, capitani, and local podestà).¹⁶⁶ And the Podestà of Lucca had jurisdiction over all crimes committed against citizens in the vicariates.¹⁶⁷ While the mosaic of privileges and private pacts that characterized any fourteenth-century Italian state must be acknowledged, privileges are repeatedly abrogated in the 1308 statute itself, and were subject to future cancellation (‘salvis consiliis et stantiamentis factis per lucanum Comune’, or equivalent phrases).¹⁶⁸ Vicars were to handle civil cases according to the statutes of the commune, popolo, and courts of the city of Lucca.¹⁶⁹ Regulations relating to the issuing of bans were standardized; a series of laws relating to minor criminal offences were extended to the contado.¹⁷⁰ In the vicariates, reprisals were not to be granted by vicars, their judges or notaries, but could come only from the city authorities.¹⁷¹ More generally, the power of city courts was asserted over the clergy, and over territories that fell under the temporal jurisdiction of bishop and chapter.¹⁷² Religious institutions such as S. Iacopo of Altopascio and the abbey of Camaiore (no doubt more to the prejudice of the bishop than of the exempt institutions themselves) were placed under the protection of the city, and particularly under the protection of the Podestà and his court.¹⁷³ The statute of 1308 entrenched the rights of citizens. They were subject only to city courts, though they might appeal to those of the vicariates; they were freed from taxes and obligations with regard to their possessions in the contado; their property was protected, as was their right to agricultural labour.¹⁷⁴ The statute is full of references to Lucca’s right to levy taxes, and to impose services (military, castle-guard, roads) on the inhabitants of the countryside—including those resident within the ecclesiastical immunities.¹⁷⁵ Vicars emerge as the agents ¹⁶⁶ Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. ii. The Podestà had general powers of jurisdiction over rebels and outlaws anywhere in the Lucchesia: lib. III, cc. clx–clxi. ¹⁶⁷ Ibid., lib. III, c. xiv. ¹⁶⁸ Ibid., lib. II, c. xliiii; lib. III, cc. ii, xlviii, lxxxii; lib. IV, c. lxxxv; lib. V, cc. xl–xlii. ¹⁶⁹ Ibid., lib. II, c. xxxvii. ¹⁷⁰ Ibid., lib. III, cc. lxxvi, lxxxviii, lxxxxii: ‘De pena ludentium ad tassillos’; lib. V, c. lii: ‘De non aucupando ad quallias vel starnas certis modis’; c. liiii: ‘De non aucupando vel sagittando ad colunbos, vel retia in domo tenenda’. ¹⁷¹ Ibid., lib. I, c. xxxviiii. ¹⁷² Ibid., lib. I, c. xxiii: ‘De manutenendo et augendo lucanum districtum et iura lucani Comunis, que habet in Fibbialla, Veneri, Collodi et Sexto Moriani’; lib. III, cc. lxx, lxxiii, cxliiii–cxlv; lib. IV, c. xxxiii. ¹⁷³ Ibid., lib. I, c. v (Altopascio); lib. IV, c. xxxv (Camaiore). ¹⁷⁴ Courts: ibid., lib. II, c. xliii: ‘De conveniendis debitoribus civium lucanorum in vicariis et capitaniis lucani districtus et fortie’; lib. III, c. xiv. Obligations: lib. IV, c. lxxviiii: ‘De eo quod nullus, habens terras extra lucanum districtum infra lucanum episcopatum, possit cogi ad aliquas datias solvendas’; lib. V, c. lxvi. Property: lib. IV, c. lxxvi; c. lxxvii: ‘De constringendo comunia laborare terras, quarum laboratores non inveniuntur’; c. lxxviii. ¹⁷⁵ Ibid., lib. I, cc. xxiii, xl: ‘De habitantibus in Petrasanta subeundo honera ipsius terre’; lib. II, c. lxiii: ‘De nominibus singulorum hominum et singularium comunitatum Luce requirendis et in scriptis redigendis, qui ire debent in exercitum’; lib. III, c. clviii; lib. IV, c. liiii: ‘De illis de Valle Roggii et Piscallia cogendis ad servitia lucani Comunis’.

80


of urban power: receiving instructions from Lucca for implementation and dissemination; sometimes of a general nature, sometimes—as in the case of the vicar of Camaiore—for the preservation of specified natural resources and communications within their vicariates.¹⁷⁶ Village consuls, in the vicariates as in the Sei Miglia, make their appearance almost exclusively as the executive agents of local vicars and central government. They were responsible for denouncing crimes, pursuing and apprehending criminals and outlaws (banniti); they (and their communities) were punishable for their failures.¹⁷⁷ At its clearest, Lucca’s rule was proclaimed in the prohibition against the collection of any tolls (pedaggio or malatolte) within Lucchese territory by any private person, place, or corporate body.¹⁷⁸ Rural communes were forbidden from entering into any agreements or leagues without the express consent of the Podestà, Capitano, and Anziani of Lucca.¹⁷⁹ No private fortresses were to be built, or rebuilt, anywhere in the Garfagnana, Versilia, or Valdilima.¹⁸⁰ Of more local relevance, court messengers of the commune of Bientina were obligated to wear caps displaying the arms of Lucca (as well as the arms of their current podestà);¹⁸¹ the customs officials in Lucca were to appoint collectors for Pietrasanta and Pescia, and enjoyed potential—though probably unrealized—opportunities to profit from the collection of customs and the salt tax south of the Arno.¹⁸² It is less clear how far these impressive statements of urban power were translated into reality. They were rejected by the Church. In 1309 the papal delegate, Stefano, pievano of Campoli, rejected a long list of chapters in the 1308 statute, and in other Lucchese legislation, that were against the liberties of the Church.¹⁸³ For the most part, the chapters that he identified related to Lucca’s claim to jurisdiction over clerics, from whose ranks he excluded those claiming benefit of clergy ‘fictitiously’. But also rejected were the agreements between Lucca and exempt houses; Lucca’s claims over the areas that fell under the temporal jurisdiction of bishop and chapter; and the implicit attack on the tolls collected on their lands by the bishop and the abbey of Sesto.¹⁸⁴ The judgement ¹⁷⁶ Statuto del 1308, lib. II, c. lxviii: ‘De defensa boschi et loci de marina Serrallii’; lib. III, c. clviiii. The duties of vicars included the enforcement of standardized weights and measurements: lib. IV, c. lvi. ¹⁷⁷ Ibid., lib. III, cc. x, xliii–xliiii, xlviii, lxxxii–lxxxiii, lxxxxiiii. ¹⁷⁸ Ibid., lib. III, c. cxl. ¹⁷⁹ Ibid., lib. III, c. xxviii. ¹⁸⁰ Ibid., lib. V, cc. xxxvii–xxxviiii. ¹⁸¹ Ibid., lib. I, c. xxviiii. Bientina was fiercely contested between Lucca and Pisa at the beginning of the fourteenth century. ¹⁸² Ibid., lib. II, c. liii. ¹⁸³ ‘Sentenza di Stefano Pievano di Campoli, Delegato papale, concordata dal Clero, Popolo e Comune di Lucca, dove si emendano e si cassano alcune disposizioni degli Statuti in materia ecclesiastica; data l’ultimo Febbraio 1309. Da pergamena già appartenuta alla Tarpea della Repubblica, ora nell’Archivio Diplomatico di Lucca’, appended to Statuto del 1308, pp. 337–45. Earlier papal sanctions against Lucca for legislation that infringed the liberty of the Church can be traced back to Honorius III: Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, p. 74. ¹⁸⁴ For the gabelle and pedaggi collected by the bishop at Diecimo: Ghilarducci, Diecimo, pp. 68–72, 157–8, 167–9.


81

of the papal delegate, backed by threats of continuing excommunication, was accepted, and the offending chapters amended. Lucca’s claims of jurisdiction and taxation in Moriano, Aquilea, Sesto, and Diecimo date back at least to the 1220s or 1230s, and had resulted in continuing conflicts between bishop, local communes, and Lucca.¹⁸⁵ The rule of the bishop over Moriano had been vigorously and comprehensively reasserted by the court of the Podestà as recently as 1276.¹⁸⁶ The statute of 1308 itself was not entirely confrontational towards the Lucchese Church. While asserting the superior jurisdiction of the commune, the statute began with a promise to defend the lands and jurisdictions of the bishop and canons in return for reciprocal support for Lucchese officials and the understanding that the lands of the Church would not offer a refuge for outlaws.¹⁸⁷ Lucca’s courts were open to clerics (as they had always been),¹⁸⁸ and Lucca’s Podestà was to assist the Church in expelling heretics.¹⁸⁹ Even in the judgement of the papal delegate, Lucca’s demands on the lands of the Church were not rejected outright; rather they were matters for negotiation with the bishop. The pattern was set for a relationship between Church and State that was generally harmonious, but subject to periodic tensions when either side pressed its pretentions too vigorously. Relations between Lucca and the lay nobility were rather more complicated. Regionally, the great landed families, but also some rural communes, had displayed a considerable measure of independence against a background of almost continuous warfare with Pisa and later with Pistoia: thus the banishments and the proscriptions of the 1308 statute. Even after the establishment of the vicariates, some lords clearly retained substantial local powers—at least over low justice. The claims and the structures of governance were in place by 1308. The effectiveness of Lucca’s administrative organization of the Sei Miglia is not really in doubt. Elsewhere the conformity of practice with the normative model can only be assessed with confidence in the better documented but—for Lucca—difficult decades that were to follow. ¹⁸⁵ Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, pp. 408–12. Cf. Ghilarducci, Diecimo, p. 72: ‘Ognuno era sovrano sul proprio territorio e la Repubblica non pensò mai di impadronirsi della Jura, nè di molestare il vescovo nei suoi possessi temporali.’ Equally problematic is the suggestion of Wickham (writing of Moriano in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries) that the bishop may have had full jurisdiction only when both parties came from Moriano: Community and Clientele, p. 94. ¹⁸⁶ AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ∗ G31. ¹⁸⁷ Statuto del 1308, lib. I, cc. ii–iii. ¹⁸⁸ The Fondo Diplomatico in the Archivio Arcivescovile shows that throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries bishops, the cathedral chapter, and clerics generally continuously resolved legal disputes before the treguani. ¹⁸⁹ Statuto del 1308, lib. III, c. clv. One concern of the papal delegate in 1309 was that both clerics and laity should have access to the secular courts: ibid., pp. 341–2.

4 The Fourteenth Century: The Lucchese State from the Loss of Independence to the Recovery of Liberty Within the city of Lucca itself, more than a century of civil discord provides the backdrop to the 1308 statute.¹ After 1308 those proscribed as nobles (magnati and casastici) were excluded from the government of the republic, leading to a departure of families and individuals that is difficult to quantify.² Aided by internal dissensions within Lucca, and by German troops left over from the Italian campaign of the Emperor Henry VII, the Pisans under Uguccione della Faggiuola took and sacked Lucca on 14 June 1314. Uguccione had ruled Pisa under a number of titles (podestà, capitano del popolo, capitano di guerra) since the summer of 1313; in Lucca he quickly appointed his son Francesco as podestà and capitano del popolo, and within a month formalized his own rule over both Pisa and Lucca as capitano generale di guerra e della lega.³ The turbulent political history of Lucca in the decades after 1314 has been well served by recent scholarship.⁴ A brief narrative of events is necessary to provide political context for the present chapter. Uguccione della Faggiuola had initially drawn support in Lucca from Castruccio di Gerio Castracani. Castruccio’s military successes and political ambitions soon aroused Uguccione’s distrust. But an attempt in 1316 to eliminate Castruccio proved abortive. Castruccio was released from prison against a background of popular resistance in Lucca to Uguccione’s rule, while Uguccione took refuge in Verona. Thereupon the threatening military situation caused the governing council of Lucca to grant extraordinary powers to two citizens: Castruccio himself ¹ Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, pp. 57–62, 92–3, 118, 120. ² Ibid., pp. 127–8. ³ Ibid., pp. 131–5. The events of 1314 are chiefly remembered through the widespread destruction of Lucchese archival material: Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, pp. 254–5; D. Corsi, ‘Legislazione archivistica dello Stato di Lucca’, ASI 114 (1956), pp. 189–90, 195. After Francesco’s death at Montecatini in 1315, he was replaced as capitano and podestà of Lucca by Uguccione’s other son, Ranieri. ⁴ Green, Castruccio Castracani; id., Lucca under Many Masters: A Fourteenth-Century Italian Commune in Crisis (1328–1342) (Florence, 1995); C. E. Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, 1342–1369 (Cambridge, Mass., 1980); ead., Lucca 1369–1400: Politics and Society in an Early Renaissance City-State (Oxford, 1978).

The Fourteenth Century

83

and Pagano Cristofani—powers that by June 1316 were vested in Castruccio alone with the title of captain-general and defender. Castruccio’s rule as capitano e difensore del popolo was periodically renewed between 1316 and 1320. He was appointed lord (signore) of Lucca for life in 1320, a title that coincided with that of vicar-general for Lucca conferred upon him by the Emperor Frederick III. Created duke of Lucca, Pistoia, Volterra, and Luni, with their dependent territories, by Louis the Bavarian in 1327, Castruccio died of a fever in September of the following year shortly after his successful campaign against Pistoia. If the years under Castruccio Castracani marked a time of expansion and military successes, those following Castruccio’s death form the bleakest period in the history of Lucca. Castruccio’s sons failed to realize their hereditary rights to their father’s dukedom; there was renewed civil strife within Lucca, accompanied by the depredations of the Emperor’s German troops. The rule of Francesco Castracani⁵ as imperial vicar lasted only a month (April–May 1329); Louis the Bavarian’s unpaid German mercenaries then entered into negotiations to sell Lucca to the Florentines for 80,000 florins, and, when negotiations with both Florence and Pisa failed, sold the city for 60,000 florins to the Genoese Gherardo Spinola. Spinola ruled as ‘Pacificator and lord of Lucca and its district’—later as imperial vicar—from 2 September 1329 until February 1331. During the latter part of Spinola’s rule, Lucca was closely besieged by the Florentines. To defend the city, Gherardo Spinola turned to King John of Bohemia. The King’s assistance was conditional on the transfer of the lordship of Lucca to himself, whereupon King John and his son Charles governed Lucca through royal representatives⁶ until they, in turn, sold Lucca for 35,000 florins in September 1333 to the brothers Marsiglio, Orlando, and Pietro Rossi of Parma, who ruled Lucca under the title of imperial vicars. In 1335 Lucca was sold by the Rossi to Mastino della Scala, lord of Verona, before finally passing to Pisa in 1342, always against a background of Florentine attempts to seize control of the territory. The years after 1342 saw greater political stability. In 1341 the Scaligeri had entered into negotiations to sell Lucca to the Florentines. Pisa, fearing the loss of Lucca to Florence, invaded Lucchese territory in July 1341 with the support of Milan and of Lucchese exiles. Florentine troops garrisoned Lucca, but the Florentines were unable to break the Pisan siege of the city, and a negotiated peace at the end of June 1342 led to the withdrawal of the Florentines and the beginning of Pisan rule. The Pisans ruled Lucca for a period of twenty-six years. These years have entered Lucchese historiography as a time of great oppression and exploitation; there were certainly periodic attempts to recover Lucchese ⁵ For the distant relationship between Castruccio and Francesco Castracani: Green, Lucca under Many Masters, p. 23. On Francesco Castracani: T. Del Carlo, ‘Il conte Francesco Castracane e le vicende politiche di Lucca nel suo tempo’, in id., Studi storici lucchesi (Lucca and Livorno, 1886), pp. 67–96. ⁶ Briefly Gherardo Spinola himself; later Simone di Filippo dei Reali of Pistoia.

84


independence, or to exchange Pisan for Florentine rule. The opportunity to recover independence came with the visit of the Emperor Charles IV to Lucca in September 1368. A few months of direct rule by the Emperor, and later by an imperial vicar, Guy of Boulogne, Cardinal-Bishop of Porto, ended in March 1370 when the title of imperial vicars was bestowed on Lucca’s executive council of Anziani. Lucca for thirty years became once again a free republic. The republic was increasingly torn apart by internal factional rivalry until it was replaced in 1400 by the princely regime established by Paolo Guinigi. If fourteenth-century Lucca experienced many changes of political control, the fourteenth century was also a time of plague, war, famine, and resultant population mobility. These natural and man-made calamities contributed towards the shaping of the Lucchese state. And in surveying the fourteenth century as a time of social and demographic crisis we are again well served by recent studies, particularly with regard to the Sei Miglia.⁷ In part the dislocation was an inevitable consequence of the continuing struggle for political control summarized above. In 1313, as a prelude to the rule of Uguccione della Faggiuola, German and Pisan troops overran many parts of the Sei Miglia. After the death of Castruccio Castracani, the threat came rather from Florence; assaults on castelli in the vicariates were accompanied by the burning of villages, the plundering of surrounding lands, and the dispersal of their inhabitants. As in 1313, the 1330s were also a time of great misery for areas closer to the city. Sixteen villages east of the city in the pivieri of S. Gennaro, Segromigno, Lammari, Lunata, and Marlia were sacked in 1331; in 1334 the whole Lucchese plain (apart from the piviere of Fiesso) was devastated, with attacks directed both from the Valdarno and from the north down the valley of the Serchio. The onslaught was resumed in 1336, now also with an invasion from the south-west, when not even Fiesso was spared. Further damage was caused in the early 1340s, as Lucca was contested between the armies of Pisa and Florence. The period of Pisan rule were years of relative peace, broken by the Florentine incursions of 1362–4. But the century ended with the growing threat from bands of military adventurers (compagnie di ventura), acting independently or on behalf of neighbouring powers, and with the highly destructive raids by the Pisans on the Sei Miglia after 1394.⁸ ⁷ The studies of Franca Leverotti are brought together in revised form in Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento. The book does not entirely replace the individual articles cited on p. 5. ⁸ Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, pp. 131, 204–5, 227, 257; Leverotti, Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento, pp. 32, 62–71. For a detailed description of the repeated devastation of the Lucchese countryside between 1328 and 1342: Green, Lucca under Many Masters, pp. 260–72. The specific plight of the men of Gragnano in the piviere of Segromigno is recounted in a petition of 1343: ASL Anziani avanti la libertà, 54, Lettere, p. 164. Meek draws attention to the attack on Lucchese territory by Luchino Visconti in 1344–5: The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, pp. 54, 90. For the Pisan incursions of the 1390s (drawing on Sercambi): F. Leverotti, ‘La crisi demografica nella Toscana del Trecento: L’esempio delle Sei Miglia Lucchesi’, in S. Gensini (ed.), La Toscana nel secolo xiv caratteri di una civiltà regionale (Pisa, 1988), p. 80, n. 42.


85

Closely, though not invariably, connected with the wars were the famines. In Lucca, as elsewhere in western Europe, the cycle of bad harvests and periodic food shortages began in the second half of the thirteenth century, and are traditionally associated with adverse climatic conditions, demographic pressures, and soil exhaustion. But, with the release of population pressure from the midfourteenth century, the depredations of armies (and particularly of the compagnie di ventura) becomes an increasingly convincing explanation of food shortages. The situation was particularly severe in the late 1330s and early 1340s; damage to crops was explicitly linked to the Pisan siege of 1341–2, and again to the Pisan incursions of the 1390s.⁹ More problematic is the link between war, famine, and plague.¹⁰ The Lucchese countryside was struck by major pestilences in 1340, 1348, 1362–3, 1373–4, 1383–4, 1390, and 1399–1400. Disease in the Lucchesia sometimes followed in the wake of harvest failures and food shortages, though the chronology does not fully confirm the connection between the spread of disease and populations weakened by hunger.¹¹ The vicissitudes of the fourteenth century, and more specifically the fortunes of war, are most obviously reflected in the changing and unstable boundaries of the Lucchese state. Even before the arrival in Italy of Henry VII in 1310, the Malaspina from their base at Pontremoli had attempted to subtract their lands in the Lunigiana from Lucchese obedience.¹² The Emperor’s Italian expedition gave fresh encouragement to Italian forces that had traditionally identified themselves as Ghibelline: the Malaspina seized Sarzana; the Pisans, with the help of imperial troops, a few border villages and the town of Pietrasanta.¹³ Other minor border adjustments followed—or should have followed—in April 1314 as a product of negotiations.¹⁴ The conquest of Lucca by Uguccione della Faggiuola resulted in the flight of Lucchese (‘Guelf ’) exiles to castelli in the contado.¹⁵ Much of Uguccione’s short rule was spent in recovering some of these fortified towns and villages from the Lucchese exiles and from their Florentine allies, and in destroying others (Aquilata, Castel Passerino, Nozzano) that had marked the border between Lucca and Pisa. Lucca attained its widest territorial expansion after the fall of Uguccione della Faggiuola under the signoria of Castruccio Castracani, when Lucca became ⁹ Leverotti, Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento, pp. 71–6. For severe famine throughout Tuscany in 1346: Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi Lucchese, ed. S. Bongi, 3 vols. (Rome, 1892), i, p. 92. ¹⁰ S. K. Cohn, The Black Death Transformed: Disease and Culture in Early Renaissance Europe (London, 2002). ¹¹ The connection is assumed by Leverotti, Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento, pp. 71–86; ead., ‘La crisi demografica’, pp. 67–8, n. 2. ¹² Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, p. 127. ¹³ Green, Castruccio Castracani, p. 30. According to Tommasi, Lucchese losses at this time also included Massa and Carrara: ‘Sommario’, p. 130. ¹⁴ Ibid., pp. 37–8, 51. ¹⁵ Motrone, Fucecchio, Castelfranco, Santa Croce, Montecatino: Tommasi, ‘Sommario’, p. 135; Motrone, Fucecchio, S. Maria a Monte, Cigoli, Montecalvoli, Castelfranco, Santa Croce, Montopoli, Montecatini, Monsummano: Green, Castruccio Castracani, p. 59.

86


(briefly) a state of truly regional dimensions.¹⁶ The process began even under Uguccione della Faggiuola, when Castruccio gained control of much of the Lunigiana with the titles of viscount of the diocese of Luni and vicar general of Sarzana (and later as imperial vicar of these northern territories).¹⁷ Castruccio’s earliest campaigns in 1316 as de facto ruler of Lucca resulted in the recovery of Massa in the Lunigiana and of Coreglia in Garfagnana.¹⁸ Soon his power extended as far north as Pontremoli and to the eastern borders of the Genoese Riviera. But Castrucio’s main gains were to the east and south: in 1324 he acquired Pistoia with its territory; in 1328 he was granted the vicariate of Pisa by Louis the Bavarian. Castruccio was less successful in the Val d’Arno, where he recovered S. Maria a Monte but not Fucecchio.¹⁹ The boundaries of Castruccio’s state changed frequently according to the fortunes of individual engagements and sieges, but at the time of his death in September 1328 it stretched from Levanto in the north to Piombino in the south, and eastwards to within a short distance of Prato. In a sense Lucca was only the capital city of Castruccio’s dominions, and the city-state of Lucca formed just one component of Castruccio’s dukedom and imperial vicariate, but his conquests seem to have had the support of his Lucchese subjects, and we can speak of a state ruled from Lucca, if not by the Lucchese commune.²⁰ The immediate consequence of Castruccio’s death was the loss of Pistoia, which Castruccio held by virtue of his dukedom, and of Pisa, which he held by virtue of an imperial vicariate.²¹ Pontremoli in the far north was lost to Lucca in 1329; most of the Valdinievole was seized by Florence in the wars with Gherardo Spinola, then lord of Lucca.²² Under King John of Bohemia, Lucca was able to recover many castelli in the Valdinievole (including Pescia itself ), and successfully resisted Florentine attempts to support the rebellion of Barga against Lucchese rule.²³ But, with the rule of Mastino della Scala, Lucca’s specific interests were subordinated to those of the Scaligeri empire as a whole.²⁴ Already from the time of King John of Bohemia the Lunigiana and much of the Garfagnana had fallen under the jurisdiction of private lords, notably Spinetta Malaspina and Francesco Castracani;²⁵ in 1339 the province of the Valdinievole was lost by ¹⁶ An achievement anticipated, as Green argues, by Uguccione della Faggiuola himself: Castruccio Castracani, p. 11. ¹⁷ Green, Castruccio Castracani, pp. 60–1; E. Gerini, Memorie storiche d’illustri scrittori e di uomini insigni dell’antica e moderna Lunigiana, 2 vols. (Massa, 1829), ii, pp. 53, 55. ¹⁸ Ibid., p. 84. ¹⁹ Malvolti, ‘Fucecchio negli anni di Castruccio’, pp. 65–81. Castruccio recovered Fucecchio for a few hours in December 1323, and lost S. Maria a Monte again for a period after August 1327: Green, Castruccio Castracani, pp. 147–8, 212–13. ²⁰ For the above, the best recent narrative—based on an extensive knowledge of the chronicle sources—is Green, Castruccio Castracani. ²¹ Green, Lucca under Many Masters, pp. 20–1, 26–8. ²² Ibid., pp. 39–40. ²³ Ibid., pp. 47–8. ²⁴ Ibid., p. 89. ²⁵ Ibid., pp. 117–21. Lucca retook Coreglia from Francesco Castracani in April 1341, following Francesco’s conspiracy against the Scaligeri. In August 1341 the Malaspina sold the Lucchese


87

Lucca to Florence.²⁶ In the agreement with Pisa of 4 July 1342, territories seized by Pisa during the 1341–2 contest with Florence for possession of Lucca were to be restored to the commune of Lucca, together with those territories in the Sei Miglia, Garfagnana, or Lunigiana that had fallen into the hands of private individuals.²⁷ This agreement preserved the integrity of the Lucchese state under Pisan rule—but a state that by 1342 had been shorn (largely by Florence) of many of the territories detailed in the statute of 1308. Florence’s recent acquisitions of Lucchese territory in the Valdinievole, Garfagnana, Valdriana, and Lower Valdarno were confirmed in an agreement between Pisa, Lucca, and Florence of November 1343.²⁸ Pisa temporarily held custody of a number of fortresses around Lucca by the terms of Lucca’s submission to Pisa in the previous year.²⁹ Contrary to that agreement, Pisa also retained control of some Lucchese vicariates—Pietrasanta and Massa Lunense—recovered from the Malaspina by Pisan and Lucchese forces after 1342. Other lands in the Garfagnana (including Gallicano) were indeed returned to Lucca—though not Coreglia, which remained under the rule of Francesco Castracani.³⁰ And further losses on the extreme eastern boundaries of the Lucchese state were incurred as vicariates of Castiglione and Camporgiano to the Florentines, holding them thereafter on behalf of Florence: ibid., p. 140. ²⁶ Ibid., p. 101. ²⁷ Ibid., p. 181. Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, pp. 326–7: ‘ix. Item quod omnes et singulae Terrae, Fortilitiae, Villae, jurisdictiones et Castra quae possessae fuerunt aliquo tempore per Comune Lucanum, seu Praesidem vel Rectorem, vel Dominum Lucanae Civitatis a viginti octo annis citra, sive per Dominum Mastinum et Dominum Albertum de la Scala vel alterius eorum, seu alicujus eorum Officialem, quae pervenerunt ad manus Pisani Comunis, seu suorum Civium vel comitativorum, seu suorum stipendiariorum vel Officialis vel alterius personae pro eis, seu ad manus alterius personae cum fortia et auxilio dicti Comunis Pisani vel gentis suae tempore praesentis Guerrae debeant libere cum earum et eorum apparatibus et guarnimentis infra duos menses proxime futuros restitui Comuni Lucano absque aliqua redemptione, vel solutione, et absque aliquo gravamine vel onere. Et eadem serventur in terris, castris, jurisdictionibus, et Comitatibus Lucani Episcopatus et Lucano Capitulo, et cuilibet eorum. Excepto quod Castra Cerrulii et Porcari, Monteclaro, Serravallinae, et Roccha Collodii et Roccha S Januarii possint teneri et custodiri per Comune Pisanum durante praesenti Guerra expensis decentibus Comunis Lucani declarandis per Antianos Comunis Pisani et eorum Consilium, et per Antianos Comunis Lucani et eorum Consilium, vel per sapientes ab eis eligendos. Et dicta guerra finita devenire debeant ad dictum Comune Lucanum. Et ipsum Comune Pisanum teneatur custodiam praedictam Terrarum et Roccharum dimittere, et restituere Lucano Comuni in dicto casu guerrae finitae, et se ulterius dicta Guerra finita non intromittere de dicta custodia, et salvis etiam quae in infrascripto Capitulo continentur.’ ²⁸ Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, p. 89. The initial peace with Florence of October 1342 had preserved the possessions and revenues of Lucchese citizens and contadini in Barga, Coreglia, Pietrasanta, and their vicariates: Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, pp. 341–2. ²⁹ Cerruglio, Porcari, Collodi, S. Gennaro, and—more permanently—Pontetetto and Montuolo: Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, pp. 17–18. A more general grant to Pisa of the right to garrison all Lucchese fortresses was among the terms of the league of 1357: ibid., p. 98. ³⁰ Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, pp. 20, 89–92. In 1345 Lucca had hoped for the full recovery of territory from Pisa: ASL Anziani avanti la libertà, 54, Lettere, pp. 198–9. The lost vicariates, together with other lands in the Garfagnana held by the Pisans, were formally incorporated into the Pisan state only in 1365 under Doge Giovanni dell’Agnello: Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, pp. 113, 118.

88


a result of the renewed war with Florence in 1363–4.³¹ When Lucca recovered its independence in 1369, the Emperor Charles IV confirmed Lucca’s possession of the vicariates of Massa Lunense, Camaiore, Pietrasanta, Camporgiano, Castiglione, Barga, Coreglia, Valdilima, and Valdriana. He also reserved Lucca’s rights to the lands lost to Florence to the east and south. In reality, Florence retained possession of these territories (which included Barga and Sommocolonia in the Garfagnana); Pisa remained in control of some former Lucchese villages and castelli in the south (including Bientina and Montecalvoli), while to the north territories beyond Massa were seized for Bernabò Visconti of Milan.³² In consequence the territories ruled by Lucca during the last decades of the fourteenth century were substantially diminished from those described in the statute of 1308. The political vicissitudes of the fourteenth century obviously affected the size and shape of the Lucchese state. Foreign rule, in itself, made rather less difference than might be anticipated. Despite the supervisory attentions of foreign lords, and more particularly of their agents within the city, Lucchese institutions continued to function with little outward change. And this was equally reflected in the governance of the countryside. It is true that, by the time of Castruccio, the constituent podesterìe of the vicariates, like the podestà of the Sei Miglia, had largely disappeared.³³ But from the 1330s (somewhat earlier in the case of Valdilima) we can trace the affairs of the vicariates through the voluminous series of civil and criminal court proceedings. These series are not without lacunae. The records of the vicariate of Pietrasanta are interrupted for the period 1340–70, when that territory was under the direct rule of Pisa; even more fragmentary are the records of Massa Lunense prior to 1370. Part of the vicariate of Barga eventually became the vicariate of Gallicano, following the final loss of Barga to Lucca in the 1340s. Nevertheless, administrative forms remained largely unchanged under foreign masters in those territories that continued to be ruled from Lucca. Some changes, of course, there were. During the turbulent middle decades of the fourteenth century, extraordinary magistratures arose with extra-vicarial responsibilities. Thus, in the reign of John of Bohemia, a capitano di guerra, Arduino dei Brugnadi, was appointed with powers over the vicariates of Valdilima, ³¹ Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, p. 101; D. Catellacci, ‘La pace tra Firenze e Pisa nel 1364’, ASI 5th ser., 2 (1888), pp. 145–65. ³² The material is usefully summarized in Meek, Lucca 1369–1400, pp. 19–21, 128–30. To the north, the villages oltregiogo (centred on Casoli) were recovered by Lucca in 1373: Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, pp. 218–19. ³³ Bongi (ed.), Inventario, ii, p. 342. An exception must be made for the Lunigiana and for the contested province of Valdinievole, where Castruccio placed many communes (or groups of communes) under their own podestà, some being members of his own family, while appointing castellani (often the podestà) to protect individual fortresses. The Valdinievole at this time seems to have been entrusted to a capitano rather than to a vicar. ASL Libri di corredo alle carte della signoria, 4, fos. 2r –3r , 5r – v , 7r –12r , 13r , 14v –15r , 38r –50v , 55v –56r . The material relating to the Lunigiana has been published by Sforza, Memorie e documenti, iii, pp. 329–35.


89

Valdriana, the pievato of Villa Basilica, and the terre dei cittadini.³⁴ Then, as later, such emergency powers presumably did not prejudice the ordinary jurisdiction of vicars within their vicariates. The vicariates and local podesterìe themselves, under Castruccio, continued to be held for the most part by members of metropolitan families.³⁵ During the decades of foreign rule, however, administrative posts in the contado were more frequently entrusted to foreigners; for security reasons, Lucca’s diverse rulers seem to have been more interested in monitoring the appointment of vicars than in controlling administrative appointments within Lucca itself.³⁶ Other changes also reflect the political uncertainties of the period. By 1345 the vicariate of Gallicano sometimes replaces that of Barga in the public records (though the commune of Gallicano itself was described in 1345 as being in the province of the Garfagnana).³⁷ Usage remained inconsistent for some time. In 1353, in the midst of numerous references to Gallicano in the vicariate of Barga, the notary ser Giovanni di Nicolao Arlotti of Lucca (clearly notary of the vicar’s court) named Johannis qd. dni. Becti Chiccholo de Lanfranchis as ‘vicar of the vicariate of Gallicano for the commune of Pisa’.³⁸ Two features of the period stand out in sharp relief. First the fourteenth century, whether Lucca was under communal or foreign rule, was a time of manifest disaffection in the countryside, and not least in the Garfagnana. A breakdown of law and order is hardly surprising in the context of the times; the restored republic of 1369 attempted to address the problem with the appointment of a capitano or bargello for the contado.³⁹ The demands of defence and war ³⁴ Carina, Notizie storiche, p. 89. In 1332 Carlino de’ Tedici of Pistoia is described as capitano of the province of the Garfagnana and vicar of Barga. The early procedings of his court show him in his military capacity: ASL Vicario di Barga, 12, ACr. fos. 1r –6v . Later, under Pisan rule, Gerardo Galli appears as vicar general for the whole Garfagnana: Carina, Notizie storiche, p. 48. Also during the period of Pisan rule, a Pisan vicar general or capitano di guerra, perhaps seated at Cerruglio, exercised at least military authority over a considerable area (e.g., in 1355, Nicolao Buglia de’Gualandi: ‘vicarius vicariarum Vallisnebule, Vallislime et Vallis Ariane et Cerrullii pro Comuni pisano’): Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 322–6; G. Tori, ‘Il Cerruglio sotto la dominazione pisana (1342–1369)’, in Castelli e borghi della Toscana tardo medioevale: Atti del Convegno di Studi, 28–29 maggio 1983 (Pescia, 1985), pp. 161–215. ³⁵ Green, Castruccio Castracani, pp. 88–9. ³⁶ Green, Lucca under Many Masters, pp. 228–31; Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, pp. 38, 97. Pisan supervision naturally extended to matters of local defence: AN 158(II) (ser Giovanni Arlotti), p. 49. ³⁷ AN 110 (ser Nicolao Lupori), pp. 45–6. Villages of the Serchio valley, particularly the centres of vicariates, are often identified in this period as being in the province of the Garfagnana. References to the vicariate of Barga (even to Gallicano in the vicariate of Barga) survive for some years after the definitive loss of Barga in 1347: AN 158(II) (ser Giovanni Arlotti), pp. 13–15, 17–19, 22, 24, 29–30, 33–4, 37–9, 42, 48, 50–1, 53, 63–5. ³⁸ AN 158(II) (ser Giovanni Arlotti), p. 30. The reference to the Pisan vicar of Gallicano relates specifically to a case heard before the vicar’s court. See also ibid., p. 58. The same file also contains a few topographical references to villages in the vicariate of Gallicano; usually, when identifying individuals or localities (as distinct from the affairs of the court), the reference is to the vicariate of Barga (or the province of the Garfagnana). ³⁹ Riformagioni della Repubblica di Lucca (1369–1400), i, (Marzo 1369–Agosto 1370 e aggiunte), ed. A. Romiti (Rome, 1980), pp. 28, 50–1.

90


finance placed relations under particular strain. In Gallicano, the recovery of unpaid local dues through the public sale of landed inheritances provides indirect testimony to the weight and frequency of taxes (datio, collecta, and imposita) during the later years of Pisan rule.⁴⁰ From the earliest months of the restored republic agreements were reached with individual communities of the Serchio valley, recognizing impoverishment or rewarding loyalties through special grants and fiscal concessions.⁴¹ Fortifications of marked vulnerability, like Lucchio, were the more likely to receive special treatment.⁴² Complaints continued, and whole districts might rise in rebellion.⁴³ But more striking than images of a general rural resistance to urban oppression is the sense, in almost all the communities of the contado, of bitter rivalries between forces supportive of, and opposed to, Lucca. The fourteenth century is probably not distinctive in this regard; but the richer archival sources enable us to trace local conflicts more surely. Pacts with local communities almost always involve consideration of the treatment of rebels. Thus in August 1369 a petition of the men of Coreglia requested, inter alia, confirmation of the holding by the commune of the property of its rebels.⁴⁴ The capture of fortified villages resulted, in most cases, from the suborning of local men, and in the exile of the losing faction. Classic examples of the process produced the Ghibelline ascendancy over the villages of the Valdinievole under Uguccione della Faggiuola,⁴⁵ and the rebellion of Pietrabuona in 1362.⁴⁶ The notarial acts from the vicariate of Gallicano for the 1350s reveal a noticeable presence in Gallicano and its surrounding villages of men from the now ⁴⁰ AN 246 (ser Iacopo di Michele Provenzali), fos. 1r –10r . The reference is to an imposita and collecta assessed on the estimo at the rate of 1s. 6d . in the pound (libbra) in 1363; a collecta at 14 21 s. in the pound for the first semester of 1365; two collectae at 19s. for the second half of the same year; a collecta assessed at 12s. in the pound, and another collecta and imposita for 7s. for the first half of 1366; an imposita and collecta at the rate of 5s. in the pound, another at 4s., and a third at 1s. 6d ., for the second semester of the same year. ⁴¹ Riformagioni, ed. Romiti, i, p. 90 ( Treppignana), p. 105 ( Trassilico), pp. 106–7 (Ghivizzano), pp. 111–12 (Gallicano), pp. 113–14 (Coreglia), p. 119 (Cascio). The lands recovered by Lucca from Alderigo di Franceschino Antelminelli in 1371 (Castiglione, Villa, Sassorosso, Cerageto, Verrucole, Pontecosi, Sambuca, Palleroso, Roggio, Vagli Sopra, Gramolazzo, Treppignana) received extensive exemptions for five years: ASL Capitoli, 17, p. 511. For Gallicano, rewarded again for its uncertain loyalty in 1378: ASL Capitoli, 10, pp. 13–17. ⁴² The 1388 immunities granted to Lucchio—by which the men of Lucchio were bound to pay 3 gold florins towards the salary of the vicar of Valdilima, and nothing else—are a confirmation of earlier exemptions and immunities to the same effect: GPG 2, p. 351. ⁴³ During the decades of foreign rule there had been tax revolts in Camaiore and frequent attacks on urban officials in the contado: Green, Lucca under Many Masters, pp. 306–7, 314–15. Continuing discontent is reflected in the rebellions of the post-1369 period: Meek, Lucca 1369–1400, pp. 131, 137, 160, 170. ⁴⁴ Riformagioni, ed. Romiti, i, p. 113: ‘et insuper quod bona rebellium dicti Comunis spectent et pertineant ad Comune Coriglie prout hactenus fecerunt, dumtamen banniti et rebelles pacem habentes debeant bonis propriis gaudere’. ⁴⁵ Baldasseroni, Istoria della città di Pescia, pp. 139, 154. After Pescia and Buggiano had passed to Florence in 1339, forty-seven Ghibellines from Pescia and forty from Buggiano abandoned their homes and emigrated to Lucca: ibid., pp. 186–96. ⁴⁶ Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, p. 99.


91

Florentine territory of Barga. The instruments of ser Giovanni Arlotti provide casual reference to nearly fifty men of Barga who were permanently resident in and around Gallicano in the mid-1350s.⁴⁷ Two of these men, and the brother of a third, are appearing as treasurers of the commune of Gallicano by the 1360s;⁴⁸ Molino di Bonaventura had held the same office in Barga in 1324.⁴⁹ The fourteenth century was a time of extraordinary mobility, and Samuel Cohn is undoubtedly right in arguing that the mobility was largely between mountain villages rather than towards the plain.⁵⁰ But immigrants to Gallicano from Barga far outnumber those from Camporgiano or Coreglia or even from ‘Lombardy’. The number and apparent importance of the Barghigiani suggest a more general emigration in the months after Barga finally fell under Florentine rule. Without undervaluing the general misery produced by plague, famine, warfare, and fiscal exactions, unrest in the contado was usually generated by intra- and intervillage rivalries—the factions that seem to have been a universal feature of rural as of urban communes.⁵¹ Given the wider political context of strife in Tuscany between emperor, Milan, Pisa, Lucca, and Florence, it is hardly surprising that village conflicts were fought under the banners of Guelfs and Ghibellines. The precise date when these terms entered the political vocabulary—in Lucca, as elsewhere—is controversial; Cianelli could find no references to Guelfs and Ghibellines until after the death of Frederick II in 1250.⁵² Thereafter these names were adopted both by factions within the city and by adversaries in the wider inter-state conflict over territory, in a web that encompassed the communities of the Lucchese contado. Throughout the second half of the thirteenth century ⁴⁷ AN 158(II) (ser Giovanni Arlotti), pp. 1–67, 145–99: Bartolo di Chellino, Bartolomeo Bonacorsi, Bonacorso Bonnanuccii, Bonacorso Bonaventure (Bignioro), Bonacorso Morellini, Bonnanimo di Barsetto, Casino Groste, Cestone Tossi, Ciardo Octobuoni, Cristofano Buoni, Cristofano di Pencio de’ Berrectani, Giovanni Benassi, Giovanni Cenni, Giovanni di Guidello, Giovanni Pelegrini, Giovanni di Puccio Grossi, Gucciarello Mercatucci, Guiduccino di Molino di Bonaventura ( Toppa), Guiduccino di Puccio Grossi, Guidullio Iunctini, Iunctino di Massello, Jacobo Nieri, Janni Puccii, Jannone Mercatucci, Marco Talini, Masseo Bonacorsi, Mennio Iunctini (Mercione), Molino di Bonaventura, Mone Veltri, Nutino di Riccio Salvi, Octobuono Ariguccii, Orsuccio Turi, Pelegrino Nuccii, Pencio di Totto, Petrocchio Stefani, Piero Cornicelli, Piero di Turigniuolo, Puccino Barlotti, Puccino Totti (Orbello), Rainieri Buoni, Simone Sanorecti, Talino di Puccio Ferrussi, Tulliecto Puccii, Turigniuolo di Berretino Salvi, Turo Lippi, Turo Totti. See also VG ACiv. 7; VG ACr. 937, passim. ⁴⁸ AN 246 (ser Iacopo di Michele Provenzali), fos. 1r –10r . ⁴⁹ AN 74(I) (ser Rabbito Toringhelli), p. 47. Other immigrants to Gallicano appear to be the descendants of equally prominent men, including the notaries ser Berrectino and ser Salvo. It is difficult to establish clear genealogies in this world of patronymics, but Bonacorso, Chellino, Guiduccino, Octobuono, Talino, ser Totto, Turigniuolo, Veltro are the names of leading men of Barga in the last years of Lucchese rule: AN 108 (ser Nicolao Lupori), pp. 152, 508–10; 117 (ser Bartolomeo Buonmesi), p. 215; 118 (ser Bartolomeo Buonmesi), pp. 121–7. ⁵⁰ S. K. Cohn, Creating the Florentine State: Peasants and Rebellion, 1348–1434 (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 36–8, 79. ⁵¹ In Camaiore, for example: Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, i, pp. 210–11. ⁵² Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, pp. 5–18. In the Garfagnana, some decades earlier, Lorenzo Angelini attaches party significance to the choice of the name Guelfo, but the association is dubious: ‘Elezioni nelle chiese’, p. 116. More generally: Milani, L’esclusione dal comune, pp. 120–2.

92


castelli in the Lucchese countryside fell to one or other of the contending parties, both internal and external. The party labels identified safe havens in the countryside for men exiled for belonging to the losing side in the to and fro of city politics. From the beginning conquests were likely to be facilitated by a measure of local support.⁵³ And from the early fourteenth century there is clear evidence of the existence of rival Guelf and Ghibelline factions in communities such as Pescia, Montecatini, and Monsummano—again involving local struggles for power that entailed banishment for the losers.⁵⁴ Clearly relations with Lucca were an important ingredient in determining local allegiances. In 1280–1 enthusiasm in the Valdinievole for the Ghibelline cause seems to have been generated both by rivalries within Lucca and by local resistance to Lucchese control.⁵⁵ The betrayal of Gallicano to the Antelminelli heirs of Castruccio in 1371 involved a group of local conspirators who saw advantage in abstracting Gallicano from Lucchese rule.⁵⁶ But the terms Guelfs and Ghibellines also served to identify entirely personal and local rivalries, and might result in conflicts that were independent of relations between Lucca and its rural communities; independent too of the flavour of the prevailing metropolitan regime. The signal achievement of Ciuccio Castracani degli Antelminelli, Lucchese vicar of Gallicano in 1347 during the period of Pisan rule, was to maintain the peace between the local Guelfs and Ghibellines.⁵⁷ In the interests of public peace a proclamation was issued in September 1369 that prohibited both citizens and contadini from further use of the party names.⁵⁸ That the divisions might take on a more regional significance is suggested by Sercambi’s claim (questioned by Cianelli) that in 1371, to preserve peace, Guelf communes of the vicariate of Castiglione—perhaps forty-three communes—were transferred to the vicariate of Camporgiano, and that (maybe twenty-four) Ghibelline communes of Camporgiano were declared subject to Castiglione.⁵⁹ ⁵³ Thus in the 1260s the Ghibelline Guido Novello reached agreements with the inhabitants of the Lucchese castelli that he had seized; later Forte di Massa Lunese, once recovered by Lucca, was destroyed so that it might no longer shelter rebel Ghibellines: Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, pp. 32, 40. ⁵⁴ Baldasseroni, Istoria della città di Pescia, pp. 139, 154. For Pontremoli in Lunigiana: Gerini, Memorie storiche, ii, pp. 233–4. ⁵⁵ Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, pp. 46–51. ⁵⁶ Ibid., pp. 75–6; Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, i, pp. 205–6. ⁵⁷ Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, p. 37. ⁵⁸ Riformagioni, ed. Romiti, i, p. 127: ‘quod nullus civis, comitatinus seu districtualis lucane Civitatis, audeat partem guelfam, ghibellinam, ducalem sive alium personaliter nominare nisi imperialem’. ⁵⁹ Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, i, p. 206: ‘E simile s’ordinò, acciò che neuno scandalo nascer potesse, che tutte terre guelfe della iurisdittione di Castiglioni s’atribuissero a Camporegiano, e tucte terre ghibelline della vicarìa di Camporegiana s’atribuissero alla vicarìa di Castillioni; et così fu facto.’ ASL Capitoli, 10, p. 114. Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, p. 77. The decree of the Anziani of 24 July 1371 makes no mention of Guelfs and Ghibellines: Riformagioni della Repubblica di Lucca (1369–1400), ii, (Agosto 1370–Luglio 1371 e Appendice), ed. G. Tori (Rome, 1985), p. 271. But see ASL Capitoli, 17, p. 511.


93

If historic divisions along these lines are credible, it is curious that so much of the vicariate of Camporgiano should have favoured the Antelminelli in the preceding year.⁶⁰ One feature of the fourteenth century was the formation of factions that seem to have characterized even the smallest of communities, at least in the vicariates. A second was the distinctive role played by the high nobility: distinctive with regard to both previous and later periods. The background would seem to be one of reviving noble fortunes after the popularist legislation of the immediately preceding years. In 1315 Uguccione della Faggiuola restored the possessions of the lords of the Versilia and Lunigiana, though explicitly excluding their powers of civil and criminal jurisdiction (‘exceptis fortilitiis castrorum et roccharum ac iurisdictionibus civilium et criminalium causarum’).⁶¹ Uguccione had probably also been sympathetic to the jurisdiction claimed by the old Lucchese noble family of the Avvocati over Coldipozzo.⁶² Lordships were accumulated by Castruccio Castracani, and those granted to—or seized by—members of his family were to cause problems in the decades after his death.⁶³ The period was also one of renewed imperial interventions in the affairs of Italy, which—from Henry VII onwards—were accompanied by grants of privileges, or the renewal of earlier grants to the nobility. In some respects, little seems to have changed. As in contemporary Florence,⁶⁴ there were always families who were citizens in the city, signori in the countryside, whose local powers were periodically bolstered by imperial grants of lordship (‘feodali titolo’), and who continued to enjoy limited opportunities to act independently on the inter-regional stage. In 1329 Louis the Bavarian—after the fashion of previous rulers—gave Porta Beltrame ‘in fief’ to Perotto dello Strego.⁶⁵ Similarly, King John of Bohemia, and later his son Charles IV, rewarded the loyalty of the Garzoni of Pescia through the grant of various lands in the Valdriana, Valdinievole, and the Cerbaie.⁶⁶ In some instances, privileges granted by John of Bohemia and Charles IV (to the Avvocati, for example) merely ⁶⁰ Meek, Lucca 1369–1400, p. 131; Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, i, pp. 203–4. ⁶¹ ‘Documenti’, in Tirelli, Statuto del 1308, pp. xliv–li. ⁶² Green, Castruccio Castracani, p. 98; Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, p. 146. ⁶³ For Pontremoli: Gerini, Memorie storiche, ii, p. 226. For the acquisitions made in 1366 by the sons of Arrigo and Vallerano Castracani in Castel d’Aghinolfi and Montignoso: Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, pp. 200–1; Repetti, Dizionario, iii, s.v. For Alderigo’s seizure of Sarzana: Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, i, pp. 168, 176. On the subsequent history of Alderigo, son of Franceschino: L. Galoppini, ‘Alderigo Antelminelli: Un mercante guerriero tra Garfagnana, Lucca e Bruges’, in Garf. 2005, pp. 195–216; Del Carlo, ‘Il conte Francesco Castracane’, pp. 92–3. ⁶⁴ P. Pirillo, ‘Tentazioni signorili’, in id., Costruzione di un contado, pp. 85–99. ⁶⁵ Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, pp. 201–2; Green, Castruccio Castracani, p. 49. ⁶⁶ Ibid., i, p. 380; iii, pt. i, p. 245. A. Malvolti, ‘I proventi dell’incolto: Note sull’amministrazione delle risorse naturali del comune di Fucecchio nel tardo medioevo’, in A. Malvolti and G. Pinto (eds.), Incolti, fiume, paludi: Utilizzazione delle risorse naturali nella Toscana medievale e moderna (Florence, 2003), p. 256. For the grant of the castello of Vellano in the Valdinievole with full jurisdiction (reserving sovereign rights): ASL Diplomatico, Dono Garzoni, 9 Aug. 1333.

94


confirmed those issued by the Hohenstaufen.⁶⁷ When, in August 1369, the commune of Lucca itself granted the Nobili of Dalli full jurisdiction over their castello in the far north of the Lucchese state,⁶⁸ the grant simply confirmed an earlier delegation of power to the nobles of Dalli (as to others) in reward for their faithfulness to the republic.⁶⁹ Equally familiarly, in the fourteenth century as earlier, the history of the countryside was one of exiles (banniti)—often nobles—besieging and suborning fortified settlements, often with the aim of reintegrating themselves into the political life of the republic, usually now under the banner of Guelf or Ghibelline. Specifically in the Trecento, there were the repeated plots and incursions of the Antelminelli sons and grandsons of Castruccio.⁷⁰ Samuel Cohn is undoubtedly correct in insisting that the rebellion of castelli was not always or only the work of the nobility,⁷¹ but it was often the appearance of noble forces before the walls that provided opportunities for rebellion to local and more popular forces of discontent. The rising power of Florence may have limited the range of options previously open to the nobles of the northern Garfagnana and Lunigiana.⁷² Perhaps by the middle of the fourteenth century the nobles of the high Garfagnana held their castelli not so much as centres of their own territorial lordships but, more clearly if not more faithfully than before, as fortresses guarded (at least nominally) on behalf of contiguous territorial powers.⁷³ But the truly distinctive feature of the fourteenth-century Lucchesia was a legacy of the administrative reorganization of the previous half-century. By 1308 the Lucchese state had been neatly structured (at least on paper) into a number of discrete vicariates. We have already seen that during the turbulent decades of the mid-fourteenth century some of these vicariates passed—temporarily or permanently—under the control of powerful ⁶⁷ Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, pp. 140–3, 147, 160, 205–6, 211, 219–22. It is unlikely that the confirmation of powers of jurisdiction ‘super bonis rebus, terris, castris, villis, locis, praediis, possessionibus, juribus, jurisdictionibus, seu personis’ signified very much in practice: De Stefani, Storia dei comuni di Garfagnana, pp. 151–2. ⁶⁸ Riformagioni, ed. Romiti, i, pp. 90, 97, 98–9: ‘dantes et concedentes eisdem autoritatem et iurisdictionem quas habet lucanum Comune aut habere dignoscitur cum omnibus adherentibus, pertinentibus et spectantibus de iure vel consuetudine’. ⁶⁹ U. Dorini, Un grande feudatario del Trecento: Spinetta Malaspina (Florence, 1940), pp. 32–4; Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, pp. 170–7; Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, p. 59; Baroni, ‘Rapporti e collegamenti viarii medievali’, p. 206. Despite this faithfulness, the commune of Lucca still found it necessary, in 1305, to annul the election of the nobili of Dalli (together with the marchese Azzo Malaspina and the nobili of Castello) as councillors by the commune of Verrucola de’ Bosi: Ricci, ‘Documenti della Garfagnana medioevale’, p. 162, doc. xxii. ⁷⁰ Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, i, pp. 90, 111–14, 176–83, 203–4 (for the seizure in 1370 of Castiglione, Castelnuovo, and large parts of the vicariates of Castiglione and Camporgiano), 205–6 (Gallicano), 209–10 (Bargiglio captured briefly by sons of Francesco Castracani); ASL Capitoli, 17, pp. 501–16; Cianelli, Dissertazioni, ii, p. 56; Meek, Lucca 1369–1400, pp. 90, 131. In 1373 the recently acquired Pugliano rebelled through the instigation of Azzolino and Nicolao Malaspina: Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, i, p. 218; Meek, Lucca 1369–1400, p. 137. ⁷¹ Cohn, Creating the Florentine State, pp. 9, 113–37. ⁷² Baroni, ‘Rapporti e collegamenti viarii medievali’, pp. 206–7. ⁷³ Ciampoltrini, Notini, and Rossi, ‘Castelli e domini’, pp. 284, 289.


95

neighbours. A more striking development was the privatization of vicariates in the hands of individual noble families—one whose power base lay essentially in the mountains, and others (like the Antelminelli, Streghi, di Poggio, and Forteguerra) that were fully integrated into the political life of the city. In 1313 Henry VII invested Spinetta Malaspina with an enlarged vicariate of Camporgiano. The grant was confirmed by Louis the Bavarian in 1329; Spinetta sold the vicariate to Florence in August 1341, receiving it back in fief.⁷⁴ Meaningful physical possession was, of course, another matter; under Castruccio, Spinetta was forced to flee even his lands in the Lunigiana.⁷⁵ But after 1329 Spinetta again exercised effective control over the vicariate of Camporgiano and over much of Castiglione, an arrangement briefly continued after 1343 when he ruled the two vicariates as an ally of Pisa.⁷⁶ More significant for present purposes than the military conquests of a great feudatory from the Lunigiana is the example of Coreglia. In 1333 King John of Bohemia had granted the vicariate of Coreglia to Santo Castracani dei Falabrina. When this grant was revoked later in the same year, the vicariate was not returned to Lucca but given to Francesco Castracani, a distant relative of Castruccio.⁷⁷ In 1341 Francesco’s rebellion against Mastino della Scala resulted in the siege of Coreglia and the loss of some parts of its vicariate, but, as in the case of Spinetta Malaspina, Francesco’s usefulness resulted in the confirmation of the vicariate in 1343 by Lucca’s new Pisan rulers.⁷⁸ After the Imperial grant of 8 May 1355 the vicariate became the ‘Comitatus Corelliae’, to be held as an imperial fief by Francesco Castracani and his legitimate descendants.⁷⁹ Shortly afterwards Francesco was ⁷⁴ For the text of the original grant: F. Bonaini (ed.), Acta Henrici VII Romanorum Imperatoris et Monumenta quaedam alia suorum temporum historiam illustrantia, 2 vols. (Florence, 1877), i, no. clxxi; Dorini, Un grande feudatario, pp. 367–70, 378–9. Rombaldi, ‘Impero e chiesa’, p. 39; Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, p. 267; De Stefani, Storia dei comuni di Garfagnana, pp. 118–19, 122–3. ⁷⁵ Gerini, Memorie storiche, ii, pp. 100–6; Dorini, Un grande feudatario, pp. 77–103. ⁷⁶ Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 315–16; De Stefani, Storia dei comuni di Garfagnana, pp. 122–8, 140. The Lucchese court records of both vicariates begin only in 1370–1: ASL Vicario, poi Commissario di Castiglione di Garfagnana (1371–1802); Vicario di Camporeggiana (1370–1435, 1513). ⁷⁷ Green, Lucca under Many Masters, pp. 55–6. For Francesco: ibid., p. 23, n. 25. For the text of the grant to ‘dilectus fidelis noster Franciscus Castracanis de Antelminellis Miles’, 5 Oct. 1333 (explicitly including the castello of Ghivizzano): Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, pp. 285–7. ⁷⁸ Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 308–9. For favours shown to Francesco in the face of Lucchese hostility: ASL Anziani avanti la libertà, 54, Lettere, p. 105. ⁷⁹ Ibid., pp. 318–19. ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, Tarpea, 8 May 1355. The text of the diploma is reproduced by Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, pp. 383–5, showing Francesco invested with the new county ‘cum fortilitiis, castris, villis, et locis ad eamdem pertinentibus videlicet, Corilia, Gromignana, Rocca pictorita, Licignana, Ghivizanum, Colle Bertinghi, Bori, Terilium, Viciana, Calavorna, Villa Terenzana, Lugnanum, Buglianum, Granajolum, Fornole, Chifenti, Corsagna, Serra, Puticcianum, Anchianum, Burgomozzani, Cerreto, Roccamozzani, Oneta, Cuna, Vergilio, Mottone, Spolizano, Ceretulo, Gioviano, Terzone, Deza, Volmiana, Vetriano, Colognora, Villa Roggia, Castella Roggia, Anzana, Gello, Piegajo, Pescalia, et Convalle’.

96


murdered by the sons of Castruccio, and the county of Coreglia was eventually held by his sons—first Iacopo, then Andrea—until finally recovered by Lucca in 1369.⁸⁰ The fortunes of Camporgiano and Coreglia were mirrored on a smaller—or more temporary—scale throughout the Lucchesia during these years. Perotto Streghi had apparently been granted powers over Pietrasanta by Castruccio Castracani; powers confirmed after Castruccio’s death by a general assembly of Pietrasantesi.⁸¹ In 1333, according to Cianelli, King John of Bohemia sold the vicariate of Pietrasanta to Nicolao di Vanni Porco di Poggio for 10,000 florins (fiorini d’oro).⁸² If true, this was presumably a revision of an earlier arrangement by which John and his son Charles had first granted the vicariate to Rodolfo, count of Eu—who, in turn, on 5 August 1333, had then ceded custody of the vicariate to Nicolao di Poggio.⁸³ At the same time, Vanni di Iacopo Forteguerra received the neighbouring vicariate of Camaiore, initially for a period of five years.⁸⁴ In 1373 Guido Pasciuti of Lucca was appointed vicar of Camaiore through the intervention of Charles IV, with the stipulation that he was not to be removed during his lifetime.⁸⁵ Relations with bishop and chapter remained as ambiguous and as difficult to disentangle as ever. In the far north, the territory of Sala episcopi probably became a county only when the bishop of Lucca obtained the title of ‘comes sacri palatii’ from the Emperor Charles IV in 1355.⁸⁶ But the bishop had long exercised full fiscal and juridical control, and the apparatus and personnel of the episcopal administration seem to have changed little in the century after 1255.⁸⁷ The bishop’s authority over Sala was little challenged by the commune of Lucca, at least after 1288. Further south, the appearance in 1327 of ser Martino d’Avellano, podestà of Massarosa, Fibbialla, Gualdo, and Ricetro, and of Chello Antelminelli, podestà of Diecimo, reflects Castruccio’s characteristic disregard for ⁸⁰ Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, p. 97. Coreglia was returned to Lucca by the diploma of June 1369, but the sons of Francesco retained Tereglio for a further two years: ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, 26 June 1371; Giambastiani, I Bagni di Corsena, pp. 326–8. For the occupation of the castello of Tereglio and the fortilizio of Bargiglio: ASL Capitoli, 17, pp. 511, 514–15; Riformagioni, ed. Romiti, i, p. 43. In 1371 Lucca was also repurchasing castelli in the Garfagnana from Alderigo degli Antelminelli: ASL Capitoli, 17, pp. 506–14; Meek, Lucca 1369–1400, pp. 58–9; Riformagioni, ed. Tori, ii, p. 200. ⁸¹ Green, Castruccio Castracani, p. 49. ⁸² Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, p. 283. ⁸³ ASL Diplomatico, Archivio dei Notari, 5 Aug. 1333, where Rodolfo is described as ‘conestabilis francorum’. ⁸⁴ Cianelli, Dissertazioni, i, p. 285. The grant included the castello of Cotrozzo in the pieve of Brancoli, thereby exempted from Lucchese jurisdiction. ⁸⁵ Ibid., ii, p. 67. In 1356 the same Guido had been appointed to Camaiore through the intervention of the Anziani of Pisa: ibid., i, pp. 377–8. In any event, by the first semester of 1374 he had been replaced by Giovanni di Poggio: Riformagioni della Repubblica di Lucca (1369–1400), iv, (Febbraio 1373–Dicembre 1374), ed. G. Tori (Rome, 1998), p. 315. ⁸⁶ Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, p. 45. ⁸⁷ Seghieri, ‘Piazza e Sala’, pp. 13–24; Savigni, ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche’, pp. 79–82.


97

ecclesiastical immunities.⁸⁸ Thereafter the relationship, as in earlier centuries, seems generally to have been a cooperative one. Under the restored republic both bishop and cathedral chapter contributed men for military service.⁸⁹ The bishop accepted from the commune the military protection and the police services that he was unable, through lack of resources, to provide for himself.⁹⁰ Practical cooperation, as always, remained fully compatible with periodic assertions of episcopal rights. Episcopal statutes of the fourteenth century forbade Lucchese citizens from buying and selling land in the Iura without the bishop’s licence;⁹¹ during the period of Pisan rule, the bishop of Lucca might appeal to Pisa (not very successfully) against Lucca’s infringements of his rights;⁹² in 1369 a more serious quarrel erupted over the bishop’s final effort to assert his historic jurisdiction over Collodi and Villa Basilica.⁹³ None of these points of tension seriously ruptured a relationship that was based on the bishop’s ultimate need of the support of the communal authorities. In the fourteenth century the Lucchese state underwent many changes, both temporary and permanent. Boundaries changed. The process was a fluid one, but the state was much smaller in 1400 than it had been in 1308. Vicariates had passed into the hands of foreign powers and of local lords (often the surrogates of foreign powers). During the years of Pisan rule, communities had had the opportunity to appeal against Lucchese exactions to an external ruling power. The situation is reminiscent of the sometimes favourable response of Florence to complaints emanating later in the century from the contadi of Pistoia or Arezzo.⁹⁴ It is impossible to ignore the changes, all against the background of plague, famine, and war with which the present chapter began. But none of these changes affected the highly interventionist policies of Lucca towards its subject communities, or the centralization of power upon the city that was always a characteristic of the Lucchese state. This is particularly clear in the case of the Sei Miglia, which, despite frequent military occupations, remained under Lucca’s rule throughout the period. ⁸⁸ Bongi (ed.), Inventario, ii, p. 342; ASL Libri di corredo alle carte della signoria, 4, fos. 12r , 16r . See also: ASL Capitoli, 1, pp. 49–71, where some witnesses attribute attacks on episcopal jurisdictions to Castruccio (others to the popular commune that had preceeded him). For earlier tensions: above, pp. 80–1. ⁸⁹ Meek, Lucca 1369–1400, p. 120. ⁹⁰ Ibid., pp. 15–16, 103–4. There were various agreements between Lucca and the bishops and canons. For example, that between Lucca and the canons of S. Martino of 22 Apr. 1374 (Riformagioni, ed. Tori, iv, pp. 410–12). In 1372–3 Lucca manned, lost, recovered, and dismantled the castello of Moriano with no recorded protest from the bishop: Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, i, pp. 268–9. ⁹¹ ASL Vescovato di Lucca, 1, fo. 23r – v . ⁹² Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, p. 35. ⁹³ Riformagioni, ed. Romiti, i, pp. 88–9. In 1369 Charles IV had confirmed the bishop in all his possessions. ⁹⁴ Chittolini, ‘Ricerche sull’ordinamento territoriale’, pp. 295–6, 310–17.

98


The context is one of rapidly declining populations. Within Pieve S. Paolo an assembly of the men of the commune of Parezzana in 1340 provides twenty-two names; in 1352 a similar gathering consisted of only ten.⁹⁵ The numbers are very unstable. Remaining with the same piviere, in December 1379 twelve men claimed to represent the major and ‘saner’ part of the men of Tassignano; six months later those attending a communal assembly had risen to eighteen; by the end of July 1380 a list of twenty-two men was said to include three-quarters of the men of the commune.⁹⁶ Such fluctuations must be explained, at least in part, by the long- and short-term mobility of the population of the Lucchese plain.⁹⁷ But, making allowances for temporary absentees and for a more elitist representation, nothing in the mid- and late-fourteenth-century records compares with the congregation of eighty-nine men of Tassignano sub porticu of the church of S. Stefano in 1287.⁹⁸ In neighbouring Paganico, the communal parliament was attended by between 73 and 81 men in 1312; already by 1323 attendance ranged from 41 to 45; in the 1370s and 1380s the adult male population seems to have been reduced to little more than a dozen.⁹⁹ These figures, like those to be drawn from the estimi, are a very imperfect indication of the true number of village residents. The official acts of village assemblies were often witnessed by new immigrants, still at this time excluded from active participation in the affairs of rural communes: Braccio di Giovanni late of Pistoia, Ardoyno Neri and Nero Cheli both of S. Maria a Monte, resident in Lammari, for example, who witnessed the acts of a public assembly of the men of that pieve in March 1340.¹⁰⁰ But it is implausible that newcomers ever truly compensated for the drainage of the indigenous population, and at very least we can insist on the dislocation of stable village communities throughout the Lucchese plain. There was nothing new, of course, about the drift of wealthy individuals and professional talents to the city. Notwithstanding this natural migration, Andreas Meyer is able to write of the extraordinary number of thirteenth-century notaries active in rural centres throughout the diocese of Lucca, with at least one resident notary in every pieve within and beyond the Sei Miglia.¹⁰¹ In Compito, on the southern edge of the Lucchese plain, the notarial establishment after 1245 was ⁹⁵ AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), pp. 245–8, 990. On both occasions one of those named was absent. ⁹⁶ AN 219 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fo. 339r – v ; 220, fos. 131r –132r , 173v . ⁹⁷ During the month following an agreement made on 13 Aug. 1381 in Tassignano by fourteen men, ‘maior et sanior pars dicti comunis’, a further five (clearly absent from Tassignano at the time of the original contract) appeared separately and individually in the city of Lucca to ratify the pact. The document is incomplete. AN 221 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fos. 384r –386r . ⁹⁸ AN 11(I) (ser Giunta Renieri), pp. 159–62. ⁹⁹ AN 34(IV) (ser Paganello Bonaiuti), fos. 158r – v , 170r ; 100(III) (ser Iacopo Lotti), pp. 55–6, 99–100; 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti), pp. 52–6, 73–4, 162–3, 211–13, 337–8; 217 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fo. 255v ; 218 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fo. 255r – v ; 310 (ser Lorenzo Nuccorini), fo. 41r – v . If these records are a true guide, there appears to have been a large-scale displacement of the population of Paganico in the turbulent decade after 1312, with further departures during the 1330s. ¹⁰⁰ AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), p. 207. ¹⁰¹ Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 391.


99

relatively modest at three or four resident notaries; in the villages of Moriano, distinctive both as an important centre of communications and as an episcopal possession, a number of notaries (and judges) had their permanent residence; similarly in thirteenth-century Segromigno, despite its nearness to the city and the extent of Lucchese investment in the area. In S. Gennaro, more distant, more mountainous, and less accessible, local notaries and their clients met in front of the church of S. Maria or outside the houses of the contracting parties; here Lucchese notaries seldom penetrated, though the population was sometimes serviced by notaries from Segromigno or Villa Basilica.¹⁰² By the fourteenth century a change had clearly taken place. Notaries originating from the Sei Miglia might still cultivate a clientele in their home villages, but generally they did so from Lucca. They might return to the countryside to record the acts of village parliaments, or deathbed testaments, or the contracting of a marriage.¹⁰³ Certainly rural communes were not appointing their own scribes, as they had frequently done in the thirteenth century. For routine legal transactions it was the contracting parties themselves who travelled to the city. Inevitably there are exceptions: ser Iacopo di Lotto da Capannori, for example, who patrolled the pivieri of Lunata and S. Paolo in the 1320s.¹⁰⁴ But resident village notaries were becoming increasingly exceptional, as was the resident village medical doctor.¹⁰⁵ At the top of village society, for the time being, only the parish priest might remain as a resident of local origin¹⁰⁶ (though rectors, too, were as likely to be Lucchese priests or Pisans, often the canon or chaplain of an urban church).¹⁰⁷ ¹⁰² Ibid., pp. 391–435. ¹⁰³ AN 219 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fo. 338v —coinciding with a meeting of the village parliament. ¹⁰⁴ AN 100(III) (ser Iacopo Lotti). In 1330 ser Ricciardino Aiuti not infrequently drew up private as well as public contracts in Paganico, Carraia, and Capannori: AN 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti). ¹⁰⁵ In the mid-thirteenth century, Johannes qd. Jacobi Scotti of S. Andrea in Caprile appears in Segromigno as ‘notarius et medicus’: Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 425. ¹⁰⁶ Pbr. Dino son of Giovanni Tinucci of Tassignano was prior of S. Stefano of Tassignano in the 1370s and 1380s: AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), pp. 1402–3; 223(II) (ser Iacopo Turchi) fo. 268r – v . Dino is once described as ‘of Lucca’: AN 183 (ser Conte Puccini), 8 Sept. 1378. For his father, Giovanni Tinucci of Tassignano: AN 144 (ser Nicolao Salani), pp. 306–7. ¹⁰⁷ At the end of the thirteenth century, S. Stefano of Tassignano had been held by the pievano of Pieve S. Paolo, a canon of the cathedral and of S. Maria Forisportam: AN 36 (ser Diodato Arlotti), fo. 123r . In 1407 the prior of S. Stefano, Giovanni di Andruccio de’Berrettani of Lucca, delegated the cure of souls to a Pisan priest, Nicolao di Currado of Valdiserchio: AN 349(III) (ser Francesco Antelminelli), fo. 221r – v ; 355 (ser Vito Pini), fo. 324v . Later in the fifteenth century S. Stefano was often served by chaplains (sometimes a local man like Iacopo Antonelli of Toringo) appointed by the canon of the cathedral who held the benefice as rector and prior (Antonio di Giovanni da Gallicano and subsequently members of the Gigli family). The rector of Paganico at the end of the fourteenth century was a Pisan normally resident in Lucca: AN 334(I) (ser Nicolao Massei), fo. 95r – v . See also: AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), pp. 969–70, 1074–7 ( Toringo); pp. 1218–19 (Parezzana, S. Margherita); 217 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fo. 255v (Carraia); 219 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fos. 336r –337r (Paganico); 326(II) (ser Antonio Morovelli), fo. 17r – v (Capannori); 359 (ser Bendino Federigi), 183r –198v (Paganico).

100


More surprisingly, perhaps, one trawls the fourteenth-century notarial records largely in vain for artisanal designations. No doubt many homely skills fell within the capabilities of a versatile peasant population. But of professional builders, garment- or tool-makers there is little sign.¹⁰⁸ Some individuals (often women or priests) seem to have specialized in the provision of small consumption loans, though credit within the village was more likely to be in the form of unstructured, reciprocal loans between kinsmen and neighbours. Women in the countryside around Lucca were engaged as silk-spinners by urban manufacturers.¹⁰⁹ The dominant activities remained agrarian and pastoral. It was not an egalitarian world. The assessment for the estimo on households of varying complexity in Lammari in 1340 ranged from £16 5s. to 1s.¹¹⁰ Wills, like that of Bonaiuto di Bianchuccio of Tassignano, might grant legacies to specified paupers of the village.¹¹¹ But it was a world almost exclusively of small peasant proprietors, and of the lessees of land, whether from local men and churches, or from urban residents and institutions. If individual villagers might be named as poor and destitute, there are abundant indications of a more general impoverishment. Looking again at the rural communes of Pieve S. Paolo, in April 1340 a general assembly of the men of Parezzana came to an agreement with Francesca, widow of Terello Sornachi and daughter of the late ser Alderino Ghiandulfini of Lucca. The agreement concerned unpaid rent on land leased in perpetuity to the commune by Francesca in 1329. Half the debt was cancelled in consideration of the poverty of the men of Parezzana; the rest was to be paid over nine years.¹¹² Forty years later the men of Tassignano were awarded a significant reduction of a similar perpetual rent in view of the depopulation of the area and the poverty of the commune resulting from recurrent plague and war (though with no concessions on the 108 staia of grain still owing for unpaid rent in past years).¹¹³ Throughout the fourteenth century a very high proportion of the acts of village assemblies ¹⁰⁸ Men identified by craft—e.g., Angiolo Piovani of Capannori fabbro (1330)—almost always appear as resident in the city: AN 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti), p. 73. I am not suggesting, of course, that artisans were entirely absent from the Sei Miglia. The 1383 gabella of Compito makes reference to both a tailor and a smith, and to specialist woodworking at Ruota: GCV Valle di Compito, 90, fo. 3v and passim. ¹⁰⁹ The point is abundantly illustrated in the earlier volumes of Cause civili of the Corte de’mercanti. A century earlier, silk artisans (including weavers and spinners) seem to have been widely dispersed throughout the Lucchese countryside: D. J. Osheim, A Tuscan Monastery and its Social World: San Michele of Guamo (1156–1348) (Rome, 1989), pp. 20–2. For the notary Boncristianus, who, with his wife, was active in silk manufacture in S. Gennaro in the late thirteenth century: Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, p. 433. ¹¹⁰ AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), pp. 248–50. Village appointments might be divided equally between men of the highest, medium, and lowest assessment: ibid., pp. 207–8. ¹¹¹ AN 100(III) (ser Iacopo Lotti), p. 91. ¹¹² AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), pp. 245–8. ¹¹³ AN 220 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fos. 131r –133r , 171r –175v . The community was given the opportunity to redeem the reduced rent on payment of 100 gold florins payable in five instalments over twenty years. See also: AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), pp. 1402–3.


101

were concerned with the raising of loans to meet communal expenses.¹¹⁴ Mostly these expenses related to dues and taxes owed to Lucca, though they might also be for the payment of legal costs in defence of local interests in cases before city and ecclesiastical courts. Usually, though not invariably, the lenders were city-based landowners, merchants, and notaries—often men with some ties to the communities to which they lent.¹¹⁵ Loans were renegotiated, and not infrequently repayments were late, though it is unclear from the notarial records how often the penalty clauses for late payment were actually enforced.¹¹⁶ Neither the loans themselves, nor the delays in honouring them, constitute sufficient proof of communities in severe financial difficulties.¹¹⁷ Such arrangements facilitated payments to city authorities, as (apparently) in 1310 in a very obscure transaction involving the commune of Paganico and two city merchants.¹¹⁸ But, in context, the very frequency of these loans in the middle and late decades of the fourteenth century probably reflects communities struggling to meet their fiscal obligations. From the end of the twelfth century, legal disputes between citizens and the residents of the Sei Miglia, and between the latter themselves, had been heard by the consules foretanorum. In the notarial registers of the fourteenth century, the communities of the Sei Miglia, when appointing syndics and procurators, frequently produced lists of urban courts where their representatives might be required to appear: notably before the Podestà; the curia dei foretani; the curia nuova di giustizia; the curia del fondaco; the curia dei ribelli; and the curia della gabella. Changing regimes are reflected, as when in March 1330 the men of S. Michele, Mugnano (Pieve S. Paolo), appointed two Lucchese citizens to represent them before the new lord of Lucca, Gherardo Spinola, his vicar, and the (largely familiar) Lucchese officials of the Spinola era.¹¹⁹ In 1398 even a dispute over inheritance between two brothers of Orbicciano (pieve of Monsagrati), a ¹¹⁴ AN 34(II) (ser Paganello Bonaiuti), fo. 26v ( Tassignano); 77 (ser Rabbito Toringhelli), p. 217 (Paganico); 100(III) (ser Iacopo Lotti), pp. 55–6, 99–100, 111–12 (Paganico); 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti), pp. 52–4, 73–4, 154–5, 162–3, 211–13 (Paganico); 128 (ser Francesco Salani), pp. 205–7 (Lammari); 128 (ser Francesco Salani), pp. 959, 969, 971, 973, 1026–7, 1034–5, 1047–9, 1117–20 ( Toringo); 144 (ser Nicolao Salani), pp. 306–7 ( Tassignano); 217 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fos. 255v –256r (Paganico). ¹¹⁵ Advances might also be made to rural communes by the opera of the local church: AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), p. 207. In 1323 the commune of Paganico received a small loan from three men of Porcari: AN 100(III) (ser Iacopo Lotti), pp. 111–12. See also: 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti), pp. 63–5, 78–9. ¹¹⁶ According to the formula, the lender might reserve the right to seek the penalty: AN 34(II) (ser Paganello Bonaiuti), fo. 26v ; 128 (ser Francesco Salani), p. 1049. ¹¹⁷ A. Barlucchi, ‘Il credito alle comunità del contado’, in A. Duccini and G. Francesconi (eds.), L’attività creditizia nella Toscana comunale, Atti del Convegno di Studi, Pistoia-Colle di Val d’Elsa, 26–27 settembre 1998 (Pistoia, 2000), pp. 107–11. ¹¹⁸ AN 60 (ser Rabbito Toringhelli), fo. 112r – v . The forced loan imposed by Lucca in 1371–2 seems to have been paid for the commune of Camigliano (piviere of Segromigno), at least in part, by third parties—rights to the recovery of which the men of Camigliano were attempting to sell in Dec. 1372: AN 239 (ser Giovanni Tangrandi), pp. 166–8. ¹¹⁹ AN 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti), pp. 109–10. Similarly for Paganico from the following May: ibid., pp. 162–3, 211–13. Later, the new officials introduced into Lucca in the early years of Pisan

102


matter reserved by Lucchese statute to the arbitration of relatives and neighbours, was referred in the first instance to the vicar, judge, and assessor of the Podestà in Lucca, through whom it was handed over to local arbitrators.¹²⁰ The expanding notarial records of the fourteenth century show the Sei Miglia firmly under the juridical control of the city. By contrast the evidence of private power has become even less intrusive. Despite everything said in earlier chapters on the limitations of seigneurial jurisdiction within the Lucchese plain, in the mid-thirteenth century the lords of Porcari remained sufficiently powerful in S. Gennaro and Gragnano that 133 men of S. Gennaro were driven to seek Lucca’s protection against them.¹²¹ In the fourteenth century, citizens with extensive landed possessions might enter into negotiations with the rural communes of the Sei Miglia. The changing emphases are well illustrated in relations with the Antelminelli family of Lucca (including its Bovi, Castracani, Mugia, Saggina, and Savarigi branches). In 1327 Chello di Alessio degli Antelminelli, for himself and for Cialupo Bartholomei, reached an agreement with the communes of Tassignano, Paganico, Colognora, and Villora for the safe custody and protection of meadows and sedge-beds belonging to the two Lucchese citizens. The agreement was for twenty-nine years; recompense for damages were payable by the men of the communities named, who in return were to receive an annual payment of 2s.¹²² Often the landed proprietors were new possessors, if not new men; it is striking how often legal disputes revolved around land recently acquired through purchase or inheritance.¹²³ Particularly when ties were of longer duration, citizen patrons might share the governance of the local church with the local community.¹²⁴ The ancient links of the Antelminelli with the communes of Pieve S. Paolo ensured that it was to the Antelminelli that the men of those communes were likely to turn for leadership and support. Lemmo del fu d. Ruberto Bovi degli Antelminelli was procurator of the church of S. Stefano, Tassignano, in 1340; later in the same year Ganuccio di Petruccio Savarigi degli Antelminelli was in Tassignano witnessing a contract on behalf of rule are listed by the men of Matraia when appointing a procurator to represent their commune: AN 137 (ser Francesco Finocchi), pp. 4–6. ¹²⁰ AN 349(III) (ser Francesco di Gabriello Antelminelli), fos. 8r –9v . The case involves a division of land made twenty-one years earlier. ¹²¹ Meyer, Felix et inclitus notarius, pp. 426–7. ¹²² AN 35(II) (ser Paganello Bonaiuti), fos. 36v –37r . ¹²³ Thus various members of the Di Poggio clan obtained through a succession of inheritances and legacies, ultimately deriving from Guidotto di Bandino of Tassignano, extensive property rights around Tassignano: AN 220 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fos. 131r –133r , 171r –175r . For land recently acquired by the Balbani in Tassignano: AN 221 (ser Iacopo Turchi), fos. 384r –386r (renewal of lease). ¹²⁴ In 1370 Gherardo del fu Bettinello Del Gelso, citizen of Lucca, holder of the giuspatronato of S. Giorgio, Parezzana, approved an appointment to the said church made by the men of Parezzana: AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), pp. 1218–19. In neighbouring Toringo the parishioners claimed for themselves by ancient right the nomination of the rector of S. Pietro: ibid., pp. 969–70, 1074–7.


103

that commune.¹²⁵ In 1345–6 Lodovico del fu Galvano Bovi degli Antelminelli was acting as procurator for his brother, Guglielmo, rector or prior of the church of S. Stefano, Tassignano.¹²⁶ In 1330 the men of Paganico turned to Valloro degli Antelminelli—a frequent witness to the public acts of the commune—to choose the two men who were to be entrusted with reviewing the accounts of local officials.¹²⁷ Generally, in the Sei Miglia, even in the unsettled conditions of the fourteenth century, the fragmentation of citizen holdings precluded the emergence (or reemergence) of more formal ties of protection of the kind described by Pirillo in the areas of maximum citizen investment around Florence.¹²⁸ No doubt individual citizens as landed proprietors were immensely influential in local affairs. There were likely to be tensions and conflicts in which landed proprietors, as prominent citizens, enjoyed a potential advantage. But relations were mediated through the city; by the fourteenth century there is very little sign of private individuals exercising even the loosest of private jurisdictions within the traditional area of Lucchese control. The point is true even for Matraia. In the fifteenth century Nicolao di Dino Avvocati advanced (unsuccessfully) the anachronistic claim that the men of Matraia had no right to form a commune, since they were his subditi and vassalli by ancient imperial grant.¹²⁹ Despite hopes that may have been raised with the confirmation of the privileges of the Avvocati by Charles IV in 1355, the acts of the consuls, councillors, and men of Matraia are recorded in the notarial records throughout the fourteenth century with no reference to the pretensions of the domo Advocatorum.¹³⁰ The notarial records suggest that, at least in the more easterly parts of the Lucchese plain, a considerable amount of land remained in the hands of countrymen.¹³¹ Nevertheless, one might have expected that the continuing drift to the city, the impoverishment and insecurity of village communities, and, above all, the growing presence of newcomers would have gravely undermined local loyalties and group identities. It is noteworthy, therefore, that some village ¹²⁵ AN 143 (ser Nicolao Salani), pp. 30–3; 144 (ser Nicolao Salani), pp. 306–7. ¹²⁶ AN 147 (ser Francesco di Giusfredo Sembrini), pp. 11–12. ¹²⁷ AN 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti), pp. 73–5, 78–9, 122–3, 154–5, 211–13. ¹²⁸ Pirillo, ‘Controllare e proteggere’, in id., Costruzione di un contado, pp. 34–7. Cf. the role played by the Frescobaldi in the Valdipesa: id., ‘La formazione dei grandi domini fondiari’, in ibid., pp. 217–28. ¹²⁹ ASL Podestà di Lucca, Curia Civile, 1180, fos. 14r –16v . ¹³⁰ AN 131 (ser Tommaso Finocchi), p. 28/2; 137 (ser Francesco Finocchi), pp. 4–6, 75; 165 (ser Tommaso Buonmesi), pp. 113–14. In 1359, during the period of Pisan rule, two men of Coldipozzo, presumably encouraged by the Avvocati, claimed that they were subjects of the Avvocati, and that the Podestà of Lucca had no jurisdiction over them. Following initial support for the Avvocati from the Pisan authorities, the claim was successfully rebutted by Lucca: ASL Capitoli, 1, pp. 91–6. ¹³¹ Much, of course, was already in the hands of Lucchese citizens. In 1308 the consuls or vicars of Tassignano, Ciucho Arrighetti and Meluccio Datoni, reported on sixty-one men and one woman who held land from Lucchese citizens—many of them themselves originating from Tassignano: ASL Estimo, 8, no foliation.

104


statutes continued to test the boundaries of local autonomy, as they had done in the previous century. The 1345 statute of Mutigliano (pieve of S. Stefano), drawn up in the city of Lucca in the shop of the recording notary early in the period of Pisan rule, illustrates the point. The statute was made to the honour of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles, the patron saints of the local church, and the whole company of heaven; there is no mention of Lucca (or, indeed, of Pisa). Many of the clauses are unremarkable, though very detailed: in particular those relating to the well-ordering of the parish church, the enforcement of religious observances and social responsibilities, and the rules for the appointment and eligibility of office-holders. The consuls were responsible for the observation of orders coming from Lucca, specifically with regard to taxes and services, the latter defined in largely military terms. But the intermediary role of the consuls is stressed, and those chosen by the consuls for service outside the village were to go at the expense of the commune. Powers of summary justice were bestowed upon the consuls, who could impose fines for a comprehensive list of civil and criminal offences against persons and property, including assault with the shedding of blood (punishable with a fine of 20s.); no member of the commune should dare to have recourse to any official of Lucca, or appeal against any fine incurred by virtue of the present statute. Every semester the new consuls were to appoint a messenger or bandaiolus to cite accused persons and to effect sequestrations. Finally, no member of the community should presume to elect any podestà without the agreement of the whole village. The word podestà appears to be a synonym for rector, syndic, procurator, or advocate. But it would seem a challenging term in the context of the sensitive political vocabulary of the fourteenth-century Lucchese state. No doubt the statute had to be submitted to Lucca for approval. There is no record of the submission, or of its outcome.¹³² At root the statute of Mutigliano still confined itself to the unexceptionable issues of local responsibility and effective local administration, however far the sub-text seems concerned rather with the avoidance of outside interference. The mechanics of local administration within the Sei Miglia were themselves far from uniform, and clearly depended on not inconsiderable differences in landuse, micro-economies, social structures, and—perhaps—historical evolution. Within the piviere of Arliano, in 1376, the commune of Nozzano, like other communes, produced its own statute: a statute directed against manual labour on Sundays.¹³³ But between 1378 and 1386 the pieve of Arliano framed a series of statutes that provided a body of regulations for the entire piviere. In 1378 ¹³² AN 110 (ser Nicolao Lupori), pp. 345–58. The problem with this and other fourteenthcentury statutes is that we have no way of knowing how far, and how effectively, local claims were subsequently revised and corrected from above. ¹³³ AN 261(I) (ser Michele Manni), fos. 73r –74r . In other respects, too, the constituent communes of the piviere of Arliano might act as independent corporate entities: AN 304 (ser Giovanni Nesi), fos. 104v –105v .


105

the capitano of the corpo della pieve¹³⁴ of Arliano summoned a meeting in the pieval church of S. Giovanni of the capitani of the constituent communes (or chapels) of the piviere. Not forgetting in the initial invocation to pay reverence to the Anziani of Lucca, the capitani for their respective communes¹³⁵ named a gonfaloniere ‘ad letanias’¹³⁶ and councillors, some present, others absent (in the case of Nozzano totalling seventeen names). Together they made a number of ordinances for the well-being of the pacific state of Lucca. The ordinances dealt with the familiar themes of defence, public order, and the authority of local officials (capitani).¹³⁷ A much more detailed statute was produced in 1383, and reissued in essentially the same form in 1386.¹³⁸ These statutes provide some pointers as to why, in this area at least, local government was organized at the level of the piviere rather than of the individual communes. The society (società) of capitanei in Arliano was claimed to be of ancient formation. A prominent responsibility related to the hospital of Santa Maria of Canabbia, which the capitani were sworn to maintain, govern, and defend. The appointment of the rector belonged by ancient right and custom to the capitani as patrons, rather than to an individual commune. The duties of the capitani to organize the entire territory when wolves entered the piviere reflect the geographical situation of Arliano in the foothills on the western borders of the Lucchese state.¹³⁹ The specific concern to mobilize the men of the piviere to capture or drive away banniti of the commune of Lucca reflects the political position of Arliano on the frontier with Pisa. It is difficult to tell how far the distinctiveness of Arliano is an illusion created by the haphazard survival of rural statutes from the fourteenth century. Obviously in the case of Lammari, a piviere with no constituent communes outside the corpo della pieve, the pieval territory always formed the unit of administration. It may be significant that the only other example in the Sei Miglia that I know where local affairs were organized (at least partially) at the level of the piviere comes from the fifteenthcentury statutes of Segromigno. The situation of Segromigno in the foothills of the eastern margins of the Lucchese plain, and on the road to Pescia, in some measure mirrors that of Arliano in the west. In Segromigno there was the added common concern for the safe custody of the plain of Segromigno, with which, in fact, the Segromigno statutes are exclusively concerned. But the statutes of Segromigno suggest arrangements more limited in focus, and ¹³⁴ i.e. the commune that was the seat of the pieve —in this instance Arliano itself. ¹³⁵ Corpo di Arliano, Nozzano, S. Maria a Colle, Farneta, Maggiano, Formentale, Stabbiano, and Compignano. ¹³⁶ Presumably standard- or flag-bearers appointed to lead the community in rogation processions, on which: Angelini, Una pieve toscana, p. 130. ¹³⁷ AN 261(I) (ser Michele Manni), fos. 126v –128r . The notary signs himself Michele di ser Nicolao da Nozzano—further evidence that communities were likely to turn to local men, even if the notaries themselves were unlikely to be resident in the countryside. ¹³⁸ AN 249 (I) (ser Simone Alberti), fos. 324v –326r ; 304 (ser Giovanni Nesi), fos. 106v –108r . ¹³⁹ For the incidence of wolves in the Garfagnana: Angelini, Una pieve toscana, p. 112.

106


less formal and permanent in design, than those described for Arliano.¹⁴⁰ Arliano appears, therefore, to be an aberration; the Segromigno example suggests only that the representatives of the communes, here and perhaps elsewhere, might find it convenient to come together where there were pressing common interests that might more profitably be addressed by the men of the piviere as a whole.¹⁴¹ The essential units of local administration remained the rural communes. Mutigliano was certainly not unique in its attempt to keep domestic affairs within the commune. The 1391 statute of Fagnano contained sanctions against anybody complaining (unsuccessfully) about the local consuls before any Lucchese court.¹⁴² But the evidence as a whole, including that of the rural statutes, suggests an attempt to mediate the local impact of Lucchese rule rather than resistance to urban power itself. Thus, while Lucca unquestionably exercised the power to impose and assess taxes, there are indications that village authorities might intervene to achieve a more equitable local distribution. In 1340 the men of Lammari met to address complaints arising every day with regard to their estimo. It was decided that a new estimo was to be made, which should be valid until the next estimo was ordered by Lucca. The initiative came from the locality, though the authority for the new estimo came from the official (exactor) appointed to the commune by Lucca, Gadduccio Talgardi, citizen of Lucca. The proceedings involved a debate within Lammari on how the new calculations should be made, whether through an entirely new estimo, or on the basis of values recalculated from the previous book of land measurements as preserved in the chancery of Lucca.¹⁴³ Newcomers escaped the fisc. In 1352 this did not prevent the consuls of S. Pietro of Toringo (Pieve S. Paolo) from appointing estimatores to value the property of Piero Guidi of neighbouring Mugnano, assessed in Mugnano but at present living in Toringo—an indication that communities ¹⁴⁰ AN 931 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 82v –84r ; 1004(VII) (ser Domenico Domenici), fos. 13r –14r . There are many instances of the individual communes of Segromigno acting corporately (e.g., Camigliano in 1372: AN 239 (ser Giovanni Tangrandi), pp. 166–8); and there are statutes surviving from the fifteenth century for individual communes of the piviere (including Gragnano: AN 929 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 14r –16r ). ¹⁴¹ On other occasions common interests might cut across the boundaries of pivieri, as in the pasturing agreement reached in 1371 between the men of Camigliano (piviere of Segromigno) and those of Tofari (piviere of S. Gennaro): AN 260(II) (ser Nicolao Cinacchi), pp. 9–10. ¹⁴² ‘Item che chi si richiamasse d’alcuno de’consoli ad alcuna corte di Lucca e perdesse lo irato debbia sodisfare alli dicti consoli delle spese e dell’opre e oltra ciò pagare al comune soma i di vino per ciascuno e per ciascuna volta per bere in comune in carità’: AN 179(II) (ser Conte Puccini), pp. 1–7. Similarly in Arliano: AN 249(I) (ser Simone Alberti), fos. 324v –326r ; 304 (ser Giovanni Nesi), fos. 106v –108r . ¹⁴³ AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), pp. 200–4, 248–50. The documents provide useful information of the role of correptores and provisores, estimatores, calculatores and ratiocinatores. For examples from Paganico, where appointment to office and the financial management of the commune resulted in lively—if unspecified—debate within the village assembly: AN 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti), pp. 74–5, 78–9, 122–3, 207–8, 337–8.


107

had some power to redistribute at a local level the taxes owing to Lucca.¹⁴⁴ A prime responsibility of communal officials was to report offences to the city authorities. The Lucchese statute of 1372 affirmed that this responsibility related only to murder, to other serious crimes defined by statute, and to offences against Lucchese citizens.¹⁴⁵ Men clearly did pursue their fellow villagers, individually and corporately, before the city courts.¹⁴⁶ But it was in Lucca’s interests, too, that local disputes should be settled locally. There was little reason for the city to contest the petty local jurisdictions that the rural communes claimed in their statutes for themselves. Individual villages in the Sei Miglia might be temporarily abandoned: thus S. Martino in Vignale in the piviere of S. Stefano, which was uninhabited for a period after 1350.¹⁴⁷ There is no indication that the troubles of the midand late fourteenth century significantly affected settlement patterns; communes might be united for administrative purposes, but this did not mean that the inhabitants of smaller settlements moved into larger (and more easily defended) centres.¹⁴⁸ Villages reduced to a handful of residents clearly struggled to perform the most basic services required of them by the Lucchese state. Although a large commune like Matraia might retain its traditional governing structures at least into the 1350s,¹⁴⁹ references to the election of a body of councillors to assist the consuls cease in many rural communes after the middle years of the century; ¹⁴⁴ AN 128 (ser Francesco Salani), p. 970. The role of the consuls in extracting payments and services from those excluded from the estimo, and the responsibility of consuls and councillors for the equitable distribution of all impositae and collectae owing to Lucca are explicitly mentioned in the 1345 statute of Mutigliano. Here, and presumably elsewhere, the redistribution seems to have been achieved partly by a local valuation of the property of those exempt from the estimo; partly by the collection of expenses demanded by Lucca not only according to the estimo, but also by head and by hearth: AN 110 (ser Nicolao Lupori), pp. 345–58. Rural communes, of course, had a clearer discretion over the imposition of dues to meet local expenses: AN 260(II) (ser Nicolao Cinacchi), pp. 141–2. ¹⁴⁵ ASL Statuti del comune di Lucca, 6, lib. II, cc. lxxxviii, xci. The appended Statutum iudicis appellacionum lucani comunis concurred with the rural statutes in forbidding appeals from small fines locally imposed: c. xxviiii. ¹⁴⁶ AN 144 (ser Nicolao Salani), p. 307. The information is too laconic to reveal the points at issue. Iacobo Fornari of Tassignano seems in some sense to have been the agent or dependant of a Lucchese citizen. Presumably the same Iacobo Fornari is elsewhere listed as a man of neighbouring Paganico: AN 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti), p. 211; 144 (ser Nicolao Salani), p. 198. ¹⁴⁷ Leverotti, ‘La crisi demografica’, pp. 113–14. ¹⁴⁸ Ibid., pp. 144–5. The population continued to live in open villages, and incastellamento was no more characteristic of the Lucchese Sei Miglia in the fourteenth century than it had been in earlier periods. ¹⁴⁹ AN 131 (ser Tommaso Finocchi), p. 28/2; 137 (ser Francesco Finocchi), pp. 4–6, 75; 165 (ser Tommaso Buonmesi), pp. 113–14. An assembly of the men of Matraia lists 80 names (some of them crossed out) in 1344, reduced to 57–64 in 1345, and to 49 in 1354. In the 1345 statute of Mutigliano the three councillors were to be appointed by the consuls from those estimated at lesser, greater, and average tax assessments respectively: AN 110 (ser Nicolao Lupori), pp. 345–58. Massaciùccoli continued to have both consuls and council in 1377: AN 261(I) (ser Michele Manni), fos. 87v –88v .

108


so too do references to the village chamberlain.¹⁵⁰ Nevertheless, some villages still maintained quite sophisticated internal administrative arrangements, often designed to address the difficulties arising from depopulation and insecurity, and extending in the case of Fagnano to the registration of births, the assessment of newcomers resident for more than a year, and the fining of returning emigrants.¹⁵¹ Against a background of pervasive insecurity, all the village statutes assumed that men were likely to be carrying arms, and barred arms from civil and religious assemblies.¹⁵² Similar challenges confronted the inhabitants of the mountains. But the administrative history of the vicariates is complicated by long periods when some vicariates were subtracted altogether from Lucchese rule. The organization of areas temporarily lost to Lucca during the course of the fourteenth century is difficult to reconstruct, precisely because these areas escape the Lucchese archival record. A partial exception is Pietrasanta, where quite a lot of information on the preceding Pisan regime can be gleaned from the first book of criminal proceedings produced by the restored Lucchese vicariate in 1370.¹⁵³ The terminology changes: a Lucchese vicariate replaced a Pisan capitanìa; a Lucchese vicar (Nicolao di Lazzaro Guinigi) replaced the last Pisan capitani (domino Giovanni Bolcioni and domino Arnoldo). There was a change of notaries in the vicar’s court: ser Antonio Pigiani of San Miniato was succeeded by a notary appointed from Lucca (initially by ser Iacopo di Nicolao Domaschi). A member of the Lucchese college of judges, ser Marchese Gigli, was appointed as judge of the vicariate to oversee the sentences of the vicarial court—I do not know whether there was a Pisan equivalent. Half of most fines now went into the Lucchese treasury rather than to the Pisan capitani, though, for a short time, the Pietrasantesi were allowed to keep everything in consideration of payments already made to their late rulers. Although the vicariate of Pietrasanta had been appropriated by Pisa for three decades, it would appear that, administratively, the change of regime made very little difference. Local officials continued to be appointed for the rughe (divisions) of Pietrasanta and for its surrounding villages, ¹⁵⁰ In 1328 payments in large villages like Paganico were made and received by a chamberlain (camerarius)—in this instance Balduccio Riccii: AN 77 (ser Rabbito Toringhelli), p. 217. See also: AN 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti), pp. 74–5 (1330). For the two consuls (or vicars) and four councillors of Paganico (1312): AN 34(IV) (ser Paganello Bonaiuti), fos. 158r – v , 170r ; 107 (ser Ricciardino Aiuti) (1330), pp. 52–6, 73–4, 162–3, 207–8, 211–13. The pattern of consuls and councillors seems to have been the rule in the thirteenth-century countryside: AN 2(I) (ser Cassiano Cassiani da Romano), pp. 243–4. In the context of late-fourteenth-century Arliano, councillors seem to mean all men representing their commune in the parlamento of the piviere: AN 249 (I) (ser Simone Alberti), fos. 324v –326r ; 261(I) (ser Michele Manni), fos. 126v –128r ; 304 (ser Giovanni Nesi), fos. 106v –108r . ¹⁵¹ AN 179(II) (ser Conte Puccini), pp. 1–7. The 1391 statute of Fagnano provides for the appointment of one consigleri to assist the consuls and to collect ‘tutte le imposte al modo uzato’. In Fagnano, two terminatori and two stimatori were to handle matters of danno dato; guardiani de’campi watched over sown fields during the months from April to October. ¹⁵² AN 110 (ser Nicolao Lupori), pp. 345–58; 249(I) (ser Simone Alberti), fos. 324v –326r ; 261(I) (ser Michele Manni), fos. 126v –128r ; 304 (ser Giovanni Nesi), fos. 106v –108r . ¹⁵³ VP ACr. 101. The Atti Civili recommence only in 1375.


109

to report crimes to the vicar—and were fined for failing to do so timeously, even in cases that were punctuated by the change of regime. There are various references to the acts of court of the last Pisan vicar. These acts are now apparently lost. But incidental references suggest that court procedures had remained the same under Pisa after 1340, and were not changed by Lucca after 1370. Nicolao Guinigi might claim to minister justice in terms of the statutes of the commune of Lucca and of his vicariate, but the seamless way in which he was able to take over suits begun under his predecessors provides eloquent testimony that only the formulae must have changed. If Lucca’s recovery of Pietrasanta probably made little difference at the level of local administration, the end of Pisan rule was clearly marked by a good deal of internal conflict. It was an environment in which neighbours accused each other of disloyalty.¹⁵⁴ Even in a case without obvious political motivations, a band of robbers was able to take advantage of the troubled political situation, not only by sheltering in Pisan territory, but also through their abortive attempt to take victims with nothing worth stealing into ‘the territories of the enemies of the commune and popolo of Lucca’ (Sarzana) with a view to ransoming them. The captives were released by the Lucchese garrison of Motrone.¹⁵⁵ The execution of the robber leader without reference to the judge appointed for the vicariate, and the action against a prominent Lucchese citizen, Vallerano di Perotto dello Strego (for a theft of a sword from his brother),¹⁵⁶ suggest that Nicolao Guinigi was entrusted with special powers when he was sent to subdue his new vicariate. But more significant are the forty men placed in bannum of the vicariate by Nicolao Guinigi on orders received from the Anziani and Gonfaloniere di Giustizia of Lucca. All, or most, were Pisans. Some were the sons of Pisan fathers and mothers from Pietrasanta, showing the extent of the Pisan settlement in Pietrasanta after 1340. Some may have been guilty of serious offences—indeed Piero Albertini had already been placed in bannum by the previous Pisan capitano of Pietrasanta. All seem to have been acted against as Pisans. They were to leave Pietrasanta and its territory immediately, and were not to return without special licence under pain of the cutting-off of a hand or foot—the penalty to be administered by the vicar. Gradually they returned to Pietrasanta in terms of a reciprocal agreement reached between Lucca and Pisa on 8 August 1372.¹⁵⁷ Tensions between Lucca ¹⁵⁴ VP ACr. 101, fo. 6v , where Bellometto del fu Dinelli of Ratignano accuses ser Francesco del fu ser Lotti of Pietrasanta of disloyalty, saying ‘io sono più leale di voi’. ¹⁵⁵ VP ACr. 101, fos. 11r –12r . The case must have involved some political sensitivities. Only Marco Vici of Montopoli was apprehended and executed. The court records discreetly pass over in silence the names of his companions. ¹⁵⁶ VP ACr. 101, fo. 26r . ¹⁵⁷ VP ACr. 101, fos. 27r –28r , followed by unfoliated and loose folios. Release from the ban came to depend on whether the petitioner had been regarded as a Pisan or as a Pietrasantese by Pisan officials at the time of Pisan rule, and by Lucchese officials at the time when the petitioner was placed in bannum, and on whether or not the ban had been imposed upon him as a Pisan. The cancellations were enacted in Lucca, and continue through until Oct. 1377.

110


and Pisa at the end of Pisan rule, not to mention the machinations of the followers of Alderigo de’Antelminelli,¹⁵⁸ clearly had serious consequences for people living in this part of the Lucchese state in the early 1370s. Entirely different was the situation in Gallicano, ruled throughout the 1350s by a series of Pisan vicars. The Pisan appointments were plainly an act of political control in a particularly turbulent part of the state.¹⁵⁹ The vicars were appointed by Pisa, but they ruled according to the constitutions of their vicariate—which basically meant Lucchese statute supplemented by local ordinances. They placed people in bannum in the name of Lucca. The notary of their court was appointed in the regular way by Lucca. Fines of the court were paid to Lucca through the treasurer (camarlingo) of the court of the vicariate.¹⁶⁰ Different again were the grants of Lucchese vicariates made by King John of Bohemia in the 1330s. What King John really granted to Rodolfo count of Eu was the guardianship of the fortified villages and fortresses in and around Pietrasanta, and it was this that Rodolfo subsequently entrusted to Nicolao di Vanni Porco di Poggio. Rights of jurisdiction over the vicariate, custody of its resources, and the reward of its revenues were dispensed to Rodolfo in return for essentially military service.¹⁶¹ Similarly, the vicariate of Camaiore was granted by Charles, son of John of Bohemia, to the Lucchese citizen Vanni di Iacopo Forteguerra.¹⁶² Vanni was entrusted with the custody, and garrisoning of the castello of Cotrosso in the piviere of Brancoli. For this, and for other unspecified services, Vanni received the vicariate of Camaiore for five years, and longer at Charles’s pleasure. The grant was made in terms of the fullness of power exercised by King John and his son; the grant was irregular, contrary to custom, and contrary to promises made to Lucca. But ultimately it was a temporary interruption of customary election procedures that changed nothing. Vanni had a house in Camaiore; presumably he hoped to use imperial favour to consolidate his local influence. But royal favour was an unstable support, and he had lost the vicariate at least by 1337. A single volume of acts survives for the period of Vanni Forteguerra’s vicariate in which there are only fleeting references to the new vicar.¹⁶³ Under Vanni Forteguerra the court of Camaiore was regularly presided over by the judge appointed for the vicariate, Appollenario de’ Mercati, whose judgments were issued according to the statutes of the city of Lucca, the statutes of the courts of Lucca, and the constitutions of the vicariate. ¹⁵⁸ VP ACr. 101, fo. 28r . ¹⁵⁹ In Aug. 1342 Lucca had dealt with the fluid situation within the then vicariate of Barga by appointing a notary to administer an ad hoc combination of the communes of Brucciano, Cascio, Fiattone, and Perpoli: ASL Anziani avanti la libertà, 54, Lettere, pp. 5–6. ¹⁶⁰ VG ACiv. 7, for 1353, when the Pisan vicar was Betto de’Orlandi; 937, for 1355, when the vicar was Bettino di d. Guiccho de’Lanfranchi. ¹⁶¹ ASL Diplomatico, Archivio dei Notari, 5 Aug. 1333. ¹⁶² ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, 17 Aug. 1333, 6 Oct. 1333. ¹⁶³ VC ACiv. 3 (1334).


111

On one occasion the initiative appears to have come from below. On 18 December 1330 there was a meeting of a general council of the commune and village of Pietrasanta. It was a large gathering called by the consuls of the commune because, they claimed, Pietrasanta and its vicariate were without a rector or governor. Perotto del fu Iacopo dello Strego, citizen of Lucca, was then elected as rector and governor with full juridical powers, and with the title of defender—by seventy-three votes in favour, and only ten against.¹⁶⁴ Two months later, 22 February 1331, instead of an enlarged council there was a meeting of a general assembly (parlamento) of the men of Pietrasanta. The meeting was again summoned by the consuls, together now with four men described as capitani of the commune of Pietrasanta. More explicit reference was made to the threat to Pietrasanta by enemies of the Empire (‘ab inimicis sacri imperii’). Perotto was seen as the man to protect Pietrasanta from present dangers, and he and his male heirs were unanimously elected as lords (domini) of the commune and vicariate of Pietrasanta in perpetuity—again with full judicial and administrative powers. The grants are made as transfers of power from the commune—power that the commune hardly possessed. Perotto accepted his appointment in Pietrasanta in the house in which the court of the vicar was held.¹⁶⁵ In the 1320s Perotto, and his brothers Giusfredo and Ghirardo (Ghirarduccio), had been acquiring lands around Pietrasanta—especially buying up portions of the lake of Porta Beltrame.¹⁶⁶ In 1329 Louis the Bavarian had granted Porta Beltrame to Perotto. And he continued to enjoy imperial favour; in April 1332 Charles son of John of Bohemia sympathetically received his complaint that he was being unjustly molested by Lucca with regard to his rights over Porta Beltrame.¹⁶⁷ Even with royal favour and communal support, grants in perpetuity in Lucca in the early 1330s were likely to be remarkably brief. By March 1332 Perotto was appearing before the court of the vicariate of Pietrasanta as a private suitor. The posts of vicar and judge were clearly vacant, and cases were being heard by a deputy (luogotenente), ser Tommaso da San Miniato.¹⁶⁸ ¹⁶⁴ ASL Diplomatico, Corte dei Mercanti, 18 Dec. 1330. ¹⁶⁵ Ibid., 22 Feb. 1331. The election made by the general parlamento was by open vote, rather than by the secret ballot of the council. ¹⁶⁶ Ibid., 15 Feb. 1321, 11 Feb., 4 Mar., 5 June (two documents), 11 June, 18 July 1322. By this time Perotto was living in Pietrasanta, in the house that had belonged to domino Bacciomo Cannavecchie of Lucca. ASL Diplomatico, Spedale di S. Luca, 18 Apr. 1334, probably relates to disputes in Massa Lunigiana resulting from Perotto’s acquisition of the lake. For other land acquisitions: ASL Diplomatico, Spedale di S. Luca, 6 Sept. 1323, 4 Aug. 1330, 2 Mar. 1333. ¹⁶⁷ ibid., 26 Apr. 1332. In his petition, Perotto did not neglect to mention the labours and dangers that he had endured in defence of both Lucca and Pietrasanta. ¹⁶⁸ ASL Diplomatico, Spedale di S. Luca, 27 Mar. 1332. At this time the notary of the court of the (unnamed) vicar was ser Michele di Chele of San Miniato. King Charles also seems to have had his own notary in the court of Pietrasanta: Lapo de’ Bonfilioli of Pistoia.

112


Individuals might be foisted into public office by Lucca’s rulers (occasionally by harassed communes) in the unsettled conditions of the mid-fourteenth century. The exercise of private power within the Lucchese state was for the most part limited to individual villages—and to specific imperial grants. Monteggiori, originally part of the vicariate of Pietrasanta, had been granted to the widow and sons of Castruccio by Louis the Bavarian in 1328.¹⁶⁹ In 1359 Orlando and Giovanni, grandsons of Castruccio, had recovered their forfeited possession of Monteggiori from Lucca’s Pisan rulers, though not the right to rebuild its fortifications.¹⁷⁰ By the peace between Lucca and the Antelminelli of March 1371, Monteggiori and the fortezza of Argentiera di Versilia were once more recovered by the Antelminelli, again without the right to refortify, but with rights of civil and criminal jurisdiction (the inhabitants were not to be summoned ‘nisi in dictis locis et per officiales rolandi et vallerani civiliter vel criminaliter’)—a private jurisdiction that was to endure until the fifteenth century.¹⁷¹ The condition, here as elsewhere, was that the returned lands should be held loyally for Lucca (‘ad devotionem comunis lucani’). Even in the well-documented fourteenth century we know little of the dayto-day workings of these enclaves of private power—a fact that should caution us against drawing conclusions about the limitations of seigneurial power from the silence of the documents in earlier centuries. In part the authority of the Antelminelli remained that of local landholders; Castruccio’s daughter Dialta purchased land and a substantial house from leading men of Monteggiori, which was then given back on a perpetual lease.¹⁷² As landholders the Antelminelli were challenged by the nobles of Lombrici (‘de nobilibus de Montemagno’), from whom the commune held its woods,¹⁷³ and later by the rising local influence of the Forteguerra.¹⁷⁴ In the 1370s, nevertheless, they had sufficient coercive power to be able to insist that Bartolomeo di Nino of Monteggiori, ‘of his own free will’, should build a house on monte Monteggiori, and that he should never leave to live elsewhere without the express permission of Orlando di Arrigo and Giovanni di Vallerano de’Antelminelli.¹⁷⁵ Presumably, like the di Poggio in Sorico at the ¹⁶⁹ ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, Tarpea, 17 Dec. 1328, 10 Apr. 1329. ¹⁷⁰ ASL Capitoli, 17, p. 504. The men of Monteggiori were to be treated by Pisa and Lucca as they had been before the destruction of the fortifications—presumably a reassertion of seigneurial power. ¹⁷¹ Ibid., pp. 508–9. The peace treaty also refers in passing to the seigneurial jurisdiction of Antelminelli allies in the far north of the Lucchese state such as the nobles of Albiano and Pugliano, Marchio Spineta del fu d. Federigo di Villafranca, and the nobles of Dallo (none of whom were required to defortify their possessions). ¹⁷² ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, Tarpea, 18 Aug. 1336. One of the sellers, Micuccio di Martino, was consul of the commune in 1333. ¹⁷³ Ibid., 24 Jan. 1333. ¹⁷⁴ Ibid., 31 Jan. 1334. ¹⁷⁵ Ibid., Tarpea, 18 Dec. 1378. The contract was drawn up in Pisa, and witnessed by Savarigo del fu dno Guglielmo Savarigi de’Antelminelli.


113

end of the thirteenth century,¹⁷⁶ the Antelminelli after 1371 appointed a steward, or rector, or podestà to administer justice in civil and criminal matters, with the assistance of the officials of the commune. Notarial acts, at least those produced outside Lucca, described fourteenth-century Monteggiori as being in the diocese of Lucca rather than in the vicariate of Pietrasanta; penalty clauses conceded that Monteggiori might recognize lords other than Lucca.¹⁷⁷ We are rather better served with regard to the prime examples of the privatization of power in the fourteenth-century Lucchesia: Spinetta Malaspina in Camporgiano, and Francesco Castracani in Coreglia. Of the two, Castracani’s rule in Coreglia was the more stable. His beginnings are familiar: the grant of a vicariate to a knight (miles) by John of Bohemia in recognition of loyalty and for the defence of territory—with special reference to the castello of Ghivizzano.¹⁷⁸ In 1334 the court of Francesco’s vicariate was established in the house of the commune of Borgo a Mozzano, and was presided over by a vice-vicar and judge, Ciasdino da Reggio.¹⁷⁹ Perhaps for this reason, Francesco appointed a podestà or rector in Coreglia itself: Giovanni di Dino Honesti of Lucca in the first semester of 1341; Gucciarello Bizzari in the second semester of 1345.¹⁸⁰ From the beginning of the period of Pisan rule over Lucca, there is evidence of the Pisan Anziani sending forceful instructions to the vicar of Coreglia and to his officials—in particular commanding that Lucchese citizens should be treated in the vicariate according to the terms of the agreement reached between the communes of Lucca and Pisa.¹⁸¹ After various vicissitudes, in May 1355 Francesco and his heirs were appointed as counts palatine by Charles IV, and were invested with the vicariate of Coreglia, now designated as a county (a vast area extending as far west as Piegaio, Convalle, and Pescaglia).¹⁸² I know of only one document among the pergamene of the Archivio Diplomatico that refers ¹⁷⁶ ASL Diplomatico, Archivio dei Notari, 4 Aug. 1283. In fourteenth-century Monteggiori, unlike thirteenth-century Sorico, it is unlikely that the podestà and commune could claim the services of their own notary. ¹⁷⁷ ASL Diplomatico, Certosa, 27 Mar. 1356. ¹⁷⁸ ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, Tarpea, 5 Oct. 1333. ¹⁷⁹ ASL Diplomatico, S. Agostino, 13 June 1334. The case is interesting in part because it lists the fees payable to the court. ¹⁸⁰ ASL Anziani avanti la libertà, 54, Lettere, p. 230. For the role of the podestà of Coreglia in the months after Francesco’s murder: AN 162(III) (ser Nicolao da Corsegna), p. 49. Coreglia was one of the few communes within the core area of the Lucchese state that continued to have its own podestà under Castruccio: ASL Libri di corredo alle carte della signoria, 4, fo. 12v . Francesco, therefore, may have been following the practice of the preceding decades. ¹⁸¹ ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, 8 Oct. 1345. The concern was that the property of Lucchese citizens and subjects, their tenants and workers, should not be molested in any way. Lucchese citizens seem to have had substantial landholdings around Anchiano, where Vanni di Iacopo Forteguerra and, later, his son Bartolomeo maintained a house: ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, 25 June 1340 (two documents), 16 Sept. 1340, 25 Feb. 1344, 7 Oct. 1366. ¹⁸² Ibid., Tarpea, 8 May 1355. As counts palatine they had the right to appoint notaries and legitimize bastards.

114


to Francesco under his new—and short-lived—title of count: an arbitration award in which Francesco was acting, through the procuratorship of the rector of the church of S. Pietro of Anchiano (situated within his county), not as count but in his private person as the guardian of the young son of Ciuccio di Puccino Castracani of Lucca.¹⁸³ The documentation becomes relatively rich only for the period immediately after Francesco’s murder, when Pisa received payments from Coreglia by virtue of a composition made with the communes of the county—and from which the sons of Francesco were given the sums of 525 florins in April, and 1,075 florins in December 1356.¹⁸⁴ In February 1360 Pisa made a further series of pacts with the communes of the vicariate of Coreglia, beginning with Ghivizzano, and including an agreement that the named banniti of certain communes, among them Pescaglia and Villa Roggia, should have their sentences cancelled.¹⁸⁵ One beneficiary of these agreements of 1360 was Ciomeo di Puccino de Boellio, who had been among the defenders of the roccha of Coreglia for Iacopo Castracani before the roccha had surrendered to Pisa.¹⁸⁶ During these years, and no doubt at other times of Castracani weakness, Pisa was able to deal individually or jointly with the component communes of the vicariate. Immediately after Francesco’s murder, Pisa, probably prodded by the Emperor, sent instructions that military assistance be given to his widow.¹⁸⁷ This did not prevent Pisa from taking advantage of the situation to seize control of Coreglia. We have an extract from the civil court records of the vicar, Andrea Gualandi, citizen of Pisa, explicitly described as vicar for Pisa for the semester July to December 1357.¹⁸⁸ But Pisa soon became reconciled to the rule of Coreglia by the sons of Francesco Castracani, at least under the title of governors and ¹⁸³ ASL Diplomatico, S. Ponziano, 25 Sept. 1354(3). The rector was prete Angelo di Berto of the nobles of Bozzano. The document indicates that Francesco was using the title of count before the imperial diploma of May 1355; indeed, he is described as count palatine throughout the late 1340s. A private land sale involving two men of Ghivizzano suggests that Coreglia was being called a county as early as 1343: ASL Diplomatico, Certosa, 15 June 1343. By 23 Aug. 1355 the communes were coming to be located, ambiguously, in the county or vicariate of Coreglia: AN 162(III) (ser Nicolao da Corsagna), p. 44. ¹⁸⁴ ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, Tarpea, 5 Apr., 17 Dec. 1356. Both documents are dated in Ghivizzano, the latter enacted in the house of Francesco’s widow Tobia. Clearly there was an agreement that the full revenues of the county/vicariate should be paid to Francesco’s heirs. For the initial negotiations between the communes and Pisa: AN 162(III) (ser Nicolao da Corsagna), pp. 47–9. ¹⁸⁵ VG ACr. 937, fo. 2r – v ; VVl. ACr. 1074, fo. 89v . ¹⁸⁶ ASL Diplomatico, Recuperate, 19 May 1361. ¹⁸⁷ VG ACr. 937, fos. 30r –33v . Instructions were sent to the communes of Gallicano through the Pisan vicar of Gallicano to dispatch foot soldiers in support of Tobia. They were subsequently fined for disobedience. To this troubled period (29 July 1355) belongs the obscure reference to a number of men from Coreglia (provincia di Garfagnana) presenting themselves before the Capitano generale di guerra appointed for Pisa and Lucca by the Anziani of Pisa as vicars of the Emperor Charles IV: AN 158(II) (ser Giovanni Arlotti), p. 167. ¹⁸⁸ ASL Diplomatico, Spedale di S. Luca, 1358 (Pisan style, in fact 18 Dec. 1357). The Pisan vicar held his court ‘ad solitum banchum iuris’ in the house of the late Francesco Castracani.


115

administrators.¹⁸⁹ On 24 August 1358, in a document that provides context for the above grants, Francesco’s sons Iacopo, Giovanni, Nicolao, and Andrea, with the consent of their mother Tobia, concluded a peace treaty with the communes of the county of Coreglia.¹⁹⁰ The Antelminelli promised that they would arrange for the communes to be freed from all obligations that they had contracted with Pisa, and from sentences in bannum imposed by Pisa or by themselves. The agreement was to last for six years and provides much useful information on the administration of the county under Francesco’s sons. With the implication that the entire county consisted of 775 nuclear families (fuochi), the representatives of the communes agreed to pay the brothers 775 florins annually, in six-monthly instalments. Similarly the customs and other revenues of the county were to be collected by the officials of the sons of Francesco, to be spent as they wished. The brothers also controlled the sale of salt, with the obligation to maintain two depositories—one of which was to be in Borgo a Mozzano. Much more interesting is the degree of control that had come to be exercised by the communes, and ultimately by Pisa. Without prejudice to the grant made by the Emperor to Francesco Castracani (thus the formula), a body of eight councillors was to be elected every six months—initially by the syndics appointed by the communes in 1358; later by their successors and by the outgoing councillors. These councillors appointed the vicar and treasurer (subject to the approval of both Pisa and the Antelminelli); only the choice of the notary of the vicar’s court remained with Iacopo Antelminelli. The councillors, together with ser Giovanni da Rasignano (a Pisan citizen living in the suburbs of Lucca, who apparently enjoyed the trust of all the parties), were given powers to determine the salary of officials, and to make laws for the county, especially with regard to the taxes due to the Antelminelli. Finally, a series of clauses limited the power of the Antelminelli to make demands on their subjects, which, in some cases, required the consent of the councillors. The restrictions were clearly intended to endure beyond the six years of the pact, and show how far the powers granted by Charles IV had been tempered by current political realities. Outside the Sei Miglia, areas of the Lucchese state were temporarily lost to Lucca as a result of military conquest, imperial interventions, and later the consequences of Pisan rule. Other losses were to become permanent, and by the last decades of the fourteenth century the Lucchese state had assumed the shape that it was largely to retain until the wars with Florence at the end of the 1420s. Lucca’s geographical boundaries were contracting; in marked contrast to the emerging regional state of Florence, Lucca (excluding the brief conquests ¹⁸⁹ There are very few references to the county as opposed to the vicariate after the death of Francesco. In 1357 the vicariate of the vicar is pointedly juxtaposed with the county of the late Francesco. ¹⁹⁰ ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, Tarpea, 24 Aug. 1358. More specifically the agreement was with the representatives of the communes of Coreglia, Ghivizzano, Gioviano, Cerreto, Colognora, Gello, and Pescaglia.

116


of Castruccio Castracani) never came to rule over other urban centres of real significance. Camaiore, Pietrasanta, Gallicano, Castiglione were local centres of population with relatively complex social structures and with communities of artisans serving local—and more than local—needs. Other villages such as Lupinaia or Brucciano in the vicariate of Gallicano were reduced to a handful of adult males, compelled to elect the same man to all three local offices of syndic, reporter of crimes, and custodian of lands.¹⁹¹ By 1355 assemblies of the men of Lupinaia, Vergemoli, Treppignana, Brucciano, and Molazzana consisted of one, two, three, five, and again five men respectively (the number representing tiny Calomini is unspecified).¹⁹² Whether large or small, these communes, as in the Sei Miglia, constituted the basic units of administration within the vicariates. Even a commune as small as Spulizano (S. Romano di Coreglia), with its general assembly of eight men in 1386, expressed the desire to be governed by local statute ‘et leges municipales’.¹⁹³ The three men deputed by the commune produced a detailed set of ordinances largely concerned with the protection of private property from trespass and pilfering, with the regulation of communal office, and with listing communal responsibilities. Particular attention was paid to the control of animals, partly to preserve pastures and woods, partly to prevent damage to cultivated areas, partly for the protection from wolves of the animals themselves. Disobedience to these and other regulations incurred a summary fine from the elected officials of the commune. Reverence to Lucca was emphasized throughout; clauses that infringed Lucca’s jurisdiction were invalid.¹⁹⁴ And the officials were to have recourse to the Lucchese vicar of Coreglia against any member of the commune who failed to pay fines and taxes (with half the fine then going to the vicar). In some communes, the possession and maintenance of a valuable local plant, such as the communal olive press of Diecimo,¹⁹⁵ or the communal mill that was being constructed by the men of Borgo a Mozzano in 1362,¹⁹⁶ produced a more narrowly focused piece of local legislation. Communes ¹⁹¹ AN 158(II) (ser Giovanni Arlotti), pp. 3, 9. A number of neighbouring communes were scarcely better provided. There is a ranking of communes according to resources in June 1355 that lists the smallest communes of the vicariate as Calomini, Burciano, Lupinaia, and Vergemoli: VG ACr. 937, fos. 30r –33v . ¹⁹² AN 158(II) (ser Giovanni Arlotti), pp. 151–2, 154–5. ¹⁹³ AN 202 (ser Lorenzo da Barga), fos. 220v –224v . Only six men were initially present at the drawing-up of the (rather perfunctory) statutes of Lugliano in the same vicariate: AN 198(III) (ser Lorenzo da Barga), fos. 164r –166r . Cf. the earlier statutes of Fornoli and Corsagna (Jan. 1355), also in the vicariate (then county) of Coreglia, which gives rather more emphasis to the obligation of foreigners and to the collection of communal dues: AN 162(III) (ser Nicolao da Corsagna), pp. 10–12, 22; 13–14. ¹⁹⁴ A further stipulation was that the laws should not be against the Catholic faith, or the liberties of the church. ¹⁹⁵ AN 202 (ser Lorenzo da Barga), fos. 4r –5v . ¹⁹⁶ AN 164(I) (ser Nicolao da Corsagna), pp. 125–9. For purposes of comparison, the general assembly called by the two consuls of Borgo a Mozzano in 1362 consisted of only twenty men. Concern for the mill and the preservation of its water supply is a feature of many communal statutes: e.g., AN 162(III) (ser Nicolao da Corsagna), p. 12.


117

like Diecimo, within the jurisdiction of the bishop of Lucca, continued to appoint their own scribe or notary.¹⁹⁷ For major centres of the Lucchese state, statutes survive only from the last decade of the fourteenth century. There is the Montecarlo statute of 1388 (approved by the Republic in 1399).¹⁹⁸ There are some revisions to the existing statutes of Castiglione di Garfagnana dating from c. 1390.¹⁹⁹ And there are the seventy-six chapters of the statute produced in Camaiore in March 1390.²⁰⁰ The Camaiore statute is of particular importance because of the light that it throws on local administration within the vicariates, and on relations between local and central government. The governance of Camaiore was in the hands of four capitani, but these almost always acted together with the chancellor, who was a notary appointed by Lucca and who, therefore, represented the ruling city. In the communal statute, there are no references to the vicar of Camaiore once he had consented to the meeting of the General Council that promulgated the new statute, excepting only a passing mention of the vicar’s house. Much of the statute is concerned with the fines due for a large number of offences, which themselves fall into a few well-defined categories: trespass and damage to property, breaches of religious observances, neglect of public service and hygiene, and the buying and selling of land that might affect the estimo. The capitani and chancellor had some powers to assess the reliability of evidence.²⁰¹ But wide credence was given to the testimony under oath of the officials responsible for reporting damage and trespass (cafaggiari). The role of the chancellor seems to have been largely limited to recording the denunciations of the cafaggiari, and to receiving his share of the fine. Two chapters show that the commune of Camaiore aspired to withhold a portion of the chancellor’s salary for failing to collect fines.²⁰² The overall impression is of a statute concerned exclusively with local administration and regulation, which were conducted under the constant supervision of the official sent from Lucca as chancellor and notary to the commune (who, in the more important vicariates such as Camaiore and Pietrasanta, is to be distinguished from the notaries of the vicar’s court). There is no sign of a genuine civil or criminal code, and the ancient statute of Montecarlo was annulled in 1371 precisely because it conflicted with the statute and ordinances of the vicariates.²⁰³ ¹⁹⁷ AN 162(III) (ser Nicolao da Corsagna), pp. 5–6. ¹⁹⁸ D. Corsi (ed.), ‘Statuto del Comune di Montecarlo (1388)’, in Fonti sui comuni rurali toscani, iv (Florence, 1966), pp. 1–150. ¹⁹⁹ AN 408(I) (ser Federigo Nardi), fos. 109r –112v , 114r –115v . ²⁰⁰ A. Romiti, ‘La comunità di Camaiore e la sua organizzazione negli ultimi anni del Trecento’, Campus Maior: Rivista di studi camaioresi, 1 (1988), pp. 37–86. The text of the statute is reproduced on pp. 55–86. ²⁰¹ ‘Statuto del comune di Camaiore: Anno 1390’, in ibid., c. xxxvii: ‘Et ipsam adcusam si est vera vel falsa Capitanei qui tunc fuerunt, una cum Cancellario habeant cognoscere tam per testes quam per eorum iudicia quomodo eis placuerit’. ²⁰² Ibid., cc. xlviii, lxii. ²⁰³ ASL Anziani al tempo della libertà, 132, p. 120: ‘de inceps potestas comune et homines offitiales et universitas terre montis karoli in causis civilibus et criminalibus et mistis observent et

118


The vicar himself is not mentioned in the Camaiore statutes. Elsewhere, in communes both large and small, there is evidence of a cooperative and intimate relationship between local communities and the court of the vicariate headed by the Lucchese officials of vicar and notary. In c.1390, when an earlier statute of Castiglione was revised under the supervision of the vicar, Francesco de’ Matafelloni, there was concern, inter alia, with the enforcement of prices as determined by the vicar. The officials of Spulizano envisaged the support of the vicar when dealing with those who refused to pay their fines; though in the fourteenth century (at least in those rural statutes that have survived) more precise provisions for a division of fines between the commune and the count are a peculiarity of communes of the county of Coreglia, which was then outside Lucchese jurisdiction.²⁰⁴ Whatever the hopes for cooperation between communal and vicarial structures, communal officials are most likely to appear in the records when, usually for unspecified reasons, they are cited before the court of the vicar by their fellow villagers, or when they are cited by the vicar himself for neglecting to report crimes within their communities. These cases of negligence by village officials often involved the most minor affrays between neighbours, or relatively trivial instances of damage to property by foraging animals—again often involving men of the same village. In 1355 the mandate of the procurators of the men of Trassilico included the reporting of injurious words to the vicar, ‘according to the laws and statutes of the vicariate and of Lucca’;²⁰⁵ similarly gambling in Perpoli.²⁰⁶ No doubt the vicar was happy to leave the detailed ordering of village life to local communities.²⁰⁷ But, perhaps because the profits of justice were an important part of the vicar’s remuneration, perhaps because minor incidents in the mountains were so likely to escalate into factional violence, vicars in their vicariates often drew minor offences away from the local settlement processes envisaged in some of the surviving rural statutes. The vicars gave justice according to law, the statutes of the city of Lucca, and the constitutio of their vicariate. The formula varies, in part according to the matter before the court. Unfortunately we lack copies of the constitutions themselves, excepting the ‘Constitutiones Maleficiorum’ issued in 1287 for the observare debeant statuta et constitutiones vicariarum comitatus lucani’. For the revised statute of 1388: Corsi (ed.), ‘Statuto del Comune di Montecarlo’. ²⁰⁴ AN 162(III) (ser Nicolao da Corsagna), pp. 10–12, 22; 13–14. The early fifteenth-century statute of Castiglione certainly required the vicar and his notary to investigate cases of danno dato, and to impose penalties determined by communal statute, with a portion of the fine going to the vicar and notary: GPG 2, pp. 39–41. ²⁰⁵ AN 158(II) (ser Giovanni Arlotti), p. 145. The very first extant volume of criminal prosecutions (from the vicariate of Valdilima in 1328 under Castruccio Castracani) contains a number of cases that involve no more than injurious words between neighbours. ²⁰⁶ Ibid., p. 149. ²⁰⁷ To this end there was to be no appeal against fines of less than 10s. (sometimes more according to local statutes) imposed by communal officials: ASL Statuti del comune di Lucca, 6 (1372), Statutum iudicis appellacionum lucani comunis, c. xxviiii.


119

whole province of the Garfagnana.²⁰⁸ In 1287 the emphasis was on control rather than on the recognition and codification of local custom. Punishments might differ from those of Lucca: notably, for offences not covered by the constitutions, the fine was to be a third less than in the Lucchese statutes. But inquisitions, condemnations, absolutions were all to be according to Lucchese legislation—as were cases involving dowries, inheritance, wills, and disputes between relatives (consortes). For the fourteenth-century constitutions of the individual vicariates we can reconstruct something from the court records themselves.²⁰⁹ Clearly the formulae refer to the legislation regarding the vicariates that was contained within the Lucchese statutes, and to the orders from Lucca that the vicar presented on his appointment, or later as required, to the syndics of the communes under his jurisdiction. The constitutions defined procedures: for example, the number of days that local officials were allowed within which to denounce civil and criminal offences to the vicar. Local conditions and topography resulted in localized ordinances regarding highways, rivers, and fishing and mining rights. But litigants seldom referred to local ordinances; almost always when they appealed to statute it was the statutes of the city or commune of Lucca that they cited.²¹⁰ The law administered by Lucca’s vicars in the administrative centres of the mountains was the law of Lucca, with sentences monitored by a member of the Lucchese college of judges,²¹¹ and with serious criminal cases reserved to the Podestà of Lucca. By the time that Lucca recovered its political independence in 1369, the constitutions of the vicariates meant (with a few qualifications) the powers granted to vicars in the Lucchese statutes.²¹² In these respects fourteenth-century Lucca mirrors Chittolini’s model of the old-style city republic, with the focus of judicial process upon the city, and the centralization of administrative and fiscal powers. It was distinguished from other old-style city republics by the relatively large size of its contado (even as shorn of territories in the fourteenth century), and by the pervasiveness of urban control, which has been the theme of earlier chapters. By the mid-fourteenth century there ²⁰⁸ Corsi, ‘Le ‘‘Constitutiones Maleficiorum’’ ’, pp. 347–70. ²⁰⁹ Particularly helpful are the quotations from the constitutions of the vicariate of Pietrasanta in 1339: VP ACiv. 4, fos. 8r –9r , 12r –13v . ²¹⁰ VVl. ACr. 1074 fos. 16r –17r , 83r . ²¹¹ In the case of Valdilima in 1380, the judge Bartolomeo Forteguerra was exempted from visiting the vicariate because of his many responsibilities in Lucca. The notary of the court was to bring the court procedings to Lucca for examination: VVl. ACr. 1107, fo. 2r – v . Individual vicars might be permitted to sentence offenders without resorting to the judge, as was the vicar of Pietrasanta in 1381: ASL Anziani al tempo della libertà, 132, pp. 119–20. ²¹² In the Lucchese statute of 1372, the phrase ‘per formam constitutionum vicariarum’ seems to relate to the powers and jurisdiction of the Podestà of Lucca vis-à-vis the vicars in their vicariates: ASL Statuti del comune di Lucca, 6, lib. III, c. cxxxviiii. See also lib. IV, c. xvi. When Lucca was under Pisan rule in 1354, the constitutions of the vicariates clearly emanated from Lucca, revised and corrected by Lucca’s Pisan masters: ASL Anziani avanti la libertà, 49, pp. 59–60. When statutes for the vicariates become available from the mid-sixteenth century onwards, they confine themselves to the most basic details of administration and representation.

120


was already much to remind us of Berengo’s famous description of the Sei Miglia of the Cinquecento: an area without its own institutions, administered from and serviced by the city. But local consuls still had powers to enforce religious observance; to arbitrate disputes between local men; and to impose fines for the breach of local statutes regarding office-holding and land usage. In the vicariates, the powers of vicars seem to have become more intrusive, though in practice these powers were limited by distance and resources—as the court records often show.²¹³ There are signs of a further tightening of controls in the fifteenth century. Change has sometimes been attributed to Florentine influences, but can be explained more convincingly by the very serious dislocations faced by Lucca after the 1390s, and later as a response to the challenges of the renewed pressure of population on finite resources after 1450. The next chapter considers the place of the thirty-year rule of Paolo Guinigi in the final shaping of the Lucchese state as it was to evolve by the end of the Quattrocento. ²¹³ VVl. ACr. 1074, fos. 20r –30r , 84v –85r , records various acts of defiance by communal authorities, all of whom—apart from Montefegatesi—were quickly disciplined.

5 The Signoria of Paolo Guinigi and the Evolution of the Fifteenth-Century Lucchese State The republic restored in 1369 was increasingly torn apart after 1392 by factional strife, which centred around the families of the Forteguerra and the Guinigi. The murder of Lazzaro Guinigi in February 1400 was followed in October by the creation of his brother Paolo as ‘capitano e difensore del popolo’, and soon thereafter as lord (signore) of Lucca.¹ Paolo Guinigi’s political fortunes were linked from the beginning with his family’s standing in the contado. In May 1400 Paolo’s brother Bartolomeo died in Castiglione, where the two brothers had fled in an attempt to escape the plague then ravaging Lucca.² A few months later, when Paolo Guinigi seized power in Lucca, his supporters included a contingent brought to the city by ser Iacopo di Bertolino da Castiglione. The vicariate of Castiglione figures prominently in Lucchese historiography as a centre of entrenched Ghibelline loyalties—loyalties usually contrasted with those of neighbouring Camporgiano.³ The chronicler Giovanni Sercambi counselled the new lord of Lucca to cultivate his family’s traditional allies ‘con tucti loro seguaci et ghibellini e loro aderenti’. Sercambi’s list included the Ghibellines of Castiglione, but he also named Guinigi supporters in the vicariates of Massa, Pietrasanta, Camaiore, Valdriana, Valdilima, Coreglia, Gallicano—even Camporgiano—and throughout the Sei Miglia.⁴ Lords with greater or lesser claim to influence the politics of the city had always drawn support from the countryside. During the fourteenth century the great nobles of the north had exercised some measure of control over the communities of the Lunigiana and High Garfagnana. After 1313 Pontremoli, never really part of the Lucchese state, was ruled periodically and insecurely by ¹ The essential text for the rise to power of Paolo Guinigi is Meek, Lucca 1369–1400. ² Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, iii, p. 5. In the late 1390s Lazzaro di Francesco Guinigi spoke in support of petitions from Castiglione in the Consiglio Generale of Lucca: Rif. 13, pp. 64, 119. ³ Pacchi, Ricerche istoriche, pp. 133, 151–2; Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, pp. 77–9. ASL Capitoli, 10, p. 114. ⁴ Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, iii, p. 18.

122


the Fieschi.⁵ In 1315 the men of Minucciano, however orchestrated, sold their village, including dominion and jurisdiction over both people and property, to Spinetta Malaspina.⁶ Castiglione, itself, after a long tradition of rebellion against Lucchese rule,⁷ was held from time to time throughout the years of Pisan rule by the Antelminelli (or their Milanese patrons, the Visconti); in 1370 many communes of the vicariates of Castiglione and Camporgiano were again seized by the Antelminelli with external support from the Visconti, and clearly with internal support from within the communes themselves. The agreement of 1371 between Lucca and Alderigo di Franceschino Antelminelli included not only the pardoning of Alderigo, but also the release from ban of 240 of his adherents.⁸ And the phenomenon was not peculiar to the mountains. During the politically turbulent 1390s, in legal proceedings redolent with urban and mercantile imagery, Nicolao Sardini and Michele Leoni boasted of their ability to raise a force of 100 men (famuli) from cappella S. Lorenzo and the pivieri of Torre, S. Pancrazio, and Marlia.⁹ The plot came to nothing. But we should be cautious of dismissing such claims when we recall that nearly 150 years later the Buonvisi were able to bring a significant force from their estates around Pieve S. Stefano to crush a popular rising of Lucchese silk workers (tumulto degli Straccioni).¹⁰ The urban base of Lucca’s great families over the centuries has been cited to prove the continuing urban focus and control of the Lucchese state.¹¹ But the other side is represented by powerful rural pressures on the political life of the city. In the case of the Sardini and Leoni, within the pivieri of the Sei Miglia expectations of support came presumably from tenants and rural dependants. In the mountains, too, support was likely to be rooted in landownership. But in the mountains there is more likelihood of references to vassalli and fideli. Indeed, Lucca invested families such as the Nobili of Dalli with powers of local jurisdiction in return for oaths of loyalty and recognition of Lucchese overlordship—just as Florence was to do (in accomandigia) with various branches of the Malaspina. Everywhere, but particularly in the mountains, relations were further complicated by the continuing potency of the old political labels of Guelf and Ghibelline. ⁵ Sforza, Memorie e documenti, i, pp. 191–345; iii, pp. 311–12. ⁶ Dorini, Un grande feudatario, p. 68. ⁷ Ibid., pp. 145–6, 149, 159, 169–70, 211. ⁸ ASL Capitoli, 10, pp. 112, 114–16. ⁹ SB 85, fos. 13r –18v ; 86, fos. 3r –5r . For background: L. Galoppini, ‘I Lucchesi a Bruges ai tempi della signoria di Paolo Guinigi (1400–1430)’, Quaderni Lucchesi di Studi sul Medioevo e sul Rinascimento, 4 (2003), pp. 78–80. ¹⁰ M. Berengo, Nobili e mercanti nella Lucca del Cinquecento (Turin, 1965), p. 143. Forces were also brought from Camaiore: G. B. Rinuccini, Di Camajore come città della Versilia e sue adiacenze (Florence, 1858), p. 97. ¹¹ A codicil to the will of Alderigo di Franceschino Antelminelli, drawn up in exile in Milan in 1401, displays an extraordinary mixture of family pride, emphasis on Lucchese citizenship, determination to preserve and increase the family’s property and religious foundations in Lucca, and aspirations of independence from Lucchese jurisdiction: ASL Diplomatico, Archivio di Stato, Tarpea, 20 Nov. 1401.

The Signoria of Paolo Guinigi

123

In 1393 Lorenzo di Giano of Cardoso in the vicariate of Pietrasanta, Guidone di Guido, and Michele di Giovanni alias Pizanello, both of Pietrasanta, were alleged to have plotted to subtract the castelli of Pietrasanta and Camaiore from Lucca, and to place them under the governance of the Guelf party (‘et ipsa castra ad regimen et gubernationem partis ghelfe reducere et dominio alterius quam lucani comunis subere’). The plot was said to involve attacks on the persons and property of local Ghibellines (who were to be cut to pieces). And the conspirators aimed to rally Castiglione and the whole of the Garfagnana to the Guelf cause—optimistic aspirations if the chroniclers are right in attributing to Castiglione an entrenched Ghibelline self-identity.¹² Confidence in the precise details of the case is undermined a few weeks later by the conviction for false testimony of Pero di Bartolomeo alias Marzuolo of Pietrasanta, clearly one of the chief witnesses against Guidone and Michele.¹³ But the stylized conversations reported in evidence represent dissident views that were credible to the authorities, and the Pietrasanta conspiracy helps therefore in disentangling contemporary understanding of the fluid terms Guelf and Ghibelline. In the context of the late fourteenth-century Lucchesia, the labels were useful in defining relations with both the dominant city and the neighbouring powers. In the narrative, the conspirators clearly identified Lucca as Ghibelline and expected military assistance from Florence, bastion of Guelfism—though this neat polarity is shattered when the plotters, hedging their bets, hoped for alternative support from Ghibelline Milan. The terms were also useful in identifying friends and enemies: the conspirators were depicted as pursuing personal grievances against local enemies whom they automatically labelled as Ghibellines. Paolo Guinigi seized power in 1400 with the backing of rural supporters who identified themselves as Ghibellines. Within the urban politics of the 1390s the terms Guelf and Ghibelline had been useful for much the same reasons: the Rapondi identified as Guelf, their rivals the Guinigi as Ghibelline. But the association of the Guinigi family with Ghibellinism had been somewhat opportunistic from the beginning,¹⁴ and Paolo Guinigi seems to have mobilized support in the countryside that cut across the old factional divisions. Certainly, once in power, the Guinigi regime enforced earlier legislation that prohibited the use of the old, divisive party labels.¹⁵ The theme of pervasive support for the Guinigi throughout the Garfagnana reappeared, after Paolo Guinigi’s fall in August 1430, in a number of conspiracies involving Paolo’s eldest son Ladislao. As in 1400, the castello of Castiglione figured prominently. In the 1440s Giovanni di Matteo of Agnino was assuring Ladislao Guinigi that the ¹² SB 86, fos. 71r –74r , 95r –96r . ¹³ SB 86, fos. 96v –97v . The discrediting of the evidence of Pero di Bartolomeo does not seem to have discredited the case against Lotto di Antonio of Camaiore. A few weeks later similar accusations were brought against other Pietrasantesi, though with less emphasis on popular support either locally or in the Garfagnana: SB 86, fos. 168r –171r ; ASL Capitano del popolo, 13, fos. 10r –13v . ¹⁴ Meek, Lucca 1369–1400, pp. 229–35. ¹⁵ SB 120, fo. 58v .

124


entire population of Castiglione would rise in support of a Guinigi restoration.¹⁶ In these later plots, the emphasis tended to be on the alleged universality of support for the Guinigi in the countryside, rather than on a distinct Guinigi party or set of Ghibelline alliances. In 1430 Nicolao di Lazzaro Guinigi boasted of his great following throughout the countryside, and of his ability to hold the Garfagnana against the entire world. Sensitive to the current political situation, Nicolao di Lazzaro offered to use his great following in Lucca and its contado in the interests of Guelf Florence, promising to preserve the Garfagnana in its loyalty to Florence.¹⁷ In the 1440s Paolo’s son Ladislao claimed, somewhat erratically, the backing of both Guelfs and Ghibellines.¹⁸ The more extravagant of these claims can be dismissed as the dreams of political exiles. But widespread support there certainly was: more solid for Paolo as lord of Lucca; less confident for the claimants and adventurers who aspired to his inheritance. If Paolo Guinigi was able to retain the support of the countryside, this seems to have had less to do with factional labels than with tensions between city (particularly citizen rule) and countryside that date back to the period of Lucchese expansionism in the second half of the thirteenth century. Virtually every political conspiracy in Lucca (including those against the Guinigi themselves in the 1390s) involved plans to introduce countrymen (contadini) into the city.¹⁹ Lucca had not been unresponsive in the late fourteenth century to appeals from the countryside for concessions and exemptions; local factions might identify with Lucca in conflicts with their opponents.²⁰ But there also seems to have been a very widespread sense of exploitation by citizens in the interests of citizens. ‘My commune has been coerced and abused by the college of Anziani’ (‘lo mio comuno e fforzato et inghanato da questo collegio’), complained Giovanni alias Bucharino Buche of Ciserana (or Ceserana) in the vicariate of Castiglione—and was fined £30 for his pains.²¹ The support given to the Guinigi by mountain-dwellers probably owes something to the relative advantages that princely rule offered to the inhabitants of the contado.²² One conspirator of the 1440s explicitly drew the comparison between prince and city-republic: ‘At the time of the signore [Paolo Guinigi] we had one lord, now everyone wants to lord it over us’ (‘al tempo del ¹⁶ ASL Cause Delegate, 3, p. 18. ¹⁷ SB 159, fos. 166r –167v , 178r –179r . Later the Guinigi were to find support from Pisan exiles plotting to free Pisa from Florentine rule: SB 163, fos. 138r – v , 157r – v . ¹⁸ ASL Cause Delegate, 3, pp. 13–15, 17, 38. ¹⁹ Thus the plans hatched in Nov.–Dec. 1393 by Stefano di Iacopo and Nicolao Forchini: SB 86, no foliation. ²⁰ See above, pp. 90–4. ²¹ SB 86, fo. 7r – v . For an earlier rebellion by the castello of Ciserana, apparently in support of the Antelminelli: Dorini, Un grande feudatario, pp. 280–1. ²² Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 66–7. Francesco Guicciardini, Ricordi, ed. R. Spongano (Florence, 1951), cvii: ‘È da desiderare non nascere suddito; e, pure avendo a essere, è meglio essere di principe che di republica: perché la republica deprime tutti e sudditi e non fa parte alcuna della sua grandezza se non a’ suoi cittadini; el principe è più commune a tutti e ha equalmente per suddito l’uno come l’altro; però ognuno può sperare di essere e beneficato e adoperato da lui.’


125

segnore avevamo uno segnore; hora tutti ce volgliono segnorigiare’).²³ However explained, the support that Paolo Guinigi received from dominant factions of the mountains ensured that, in the Garfagnana at least, the Guinigi signoria was an interlude of unaccustomed tranquillity. The years after 1400 can be contrasted with the preceding decade, when the Lucchese republic was frequently alarmed by reports of suspicious meetings and plots of rebellion within the Garfagnana.²⁴ The period can also be contrasted with the decades following Paolo Guinigi’s fall, when the rallying potential of the Guinigi name, and more especially the political ambitions of Ladislao, added—for a time—to the insecurities of the republic restored in 1430. Some tensions, of course, there were—most famously between Camaiore and Pietrasanta. Men from Camaiore had initially joined other contadini in support of Paolo Guinigi: Marco di Giovanni Nelli, head of the Malugelli, led 100 men to Lucca from Camaiore in 1400.²⁵ Thereafter, the chroniclers of Camaiore portray the Guinigi period as a time of unparalleled oppression. And, while the complaints relate partly to fiscal oppression,²⁶ the main grievance was the favours shown by Guinigi to neighbouring Pietrasanta at the expense of the Camaioresi.²⁷ This view of Camaiore’s history—where all subsequent evils can be directly attributed to Guinigi tyranny—was clearly coloured by later events (more especially by the acrimonious border disputes and conflicts over water resources and fisheries that characterized the decades following Lucca’s loss of Pietrasanta in 1436).²⁸ Nevertheless, Camaiore’s reputation for loyalty to the republic restored in 1430 owes something to local tensions accentuated (if not created) under princely rule. Similarly, the loss of favoured status after Paolo Guinigi’s fall may have been one, though only one, of the reasons why the Pietrasantesi transferred their political loyalties to Genoa in 1436.²⁹ Certainly the decades of Guinigi rule, like any other period, saw incidents of active and passive resistance to central authority. Banniti were sheltered from the forces of the Capitano del contado in the homes of friends and relatives: in 1406 Bartolomeo di Martino of the unquiet commune of Ceserana found refuge with his neighbours (including his brother, Matteo).³⁰ Taxes (gabelle), and particularly the imposition of the salt monopoly, were unpopular in the ²³ ASL Cause Delegate, 3, p. 18. ²⁴ BSL MS 927, Sebastiano Puccini, Croniche overo Comentarj de’ fatti di Lucca, fos. 156v –157v . ²⁵ R. Antonelli, Bianco Bianchi: Cronista del ’500 (Camaiore, 1995), p. 109. ²⁶ Ibid., p. 126. ²⁷ Ibid., pp. 168, 189, 214; ead., ‘Le liti fra Camaiore e Pietrasanta secondo Pellegrino Bartolomei’, Rivista di archeologia storia costume, 19/1 (1991), pp. 15–16, 22–3; ASL Biblioteca Manoscritti, 30, Pellegrino di Bartolomeo Pellegrini, ‘Memorie’, fo. 57v . ²⁸ Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 249–50. ²⁹ Antonelli, Bianco Bianchi, pp. 130–1, 161–2, 192–6; Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 245–50. ³⁰ ASL Capitano del contado, 31, no foliation. Or, within the Sei Miglia, a small band of banniti sheltered in the home of Cursino di Matteo of S. Quirico di Moriano: SB 120, fos. 98v , 101r . See also SB 137, fos. 156r –157r .

126


countryside. An independent spirit like Iacopo di Landino, alias Bucha, of Casoli oltre Giogo was willing, for apparently disinterested motives, to conceal from the local podestà the passage of an unknown ‘Lombard’ bringing a consignment of salt through the territory of the podesterìa of Casoli to the lands of the Malaspina. The court records are too laconic to provide certainty, but it appears that Iacopo was expressing a general contempt for authority rather than specific support for a smuggler whom he probably never met.³¹ For much of the Guinigi period acts of politically inspired violence seem to have been confined largely to the far north, and to regions of recent acquisition like Carrara. We do not know the reasons for the acts of arson committed by Francesco di Giannino and Giovanni Orlandi of S. Vitale in the vicariate of Massa Lunese against the commune and men of Carrara (one with the suggestive name of Castruccio). Clearly it had something to do with changing patterns of political control in the area.³² It is not difficult to collect allegations of seditious talk.³³ But plots against the Guinigi state itself were most likely to involve the foreign stipendiaries and their commanders, with whom the whole region was awash in the late Trecento and early Quattrocento: for example, the entirely mysterious conspiracy in 1406 of the influential and powerful Sicilian, domino Filippo da Puteo.³⁴ Private feuds over marriage and guardianships might threaten the peace of entire vicariates.³⁵ Especially in the Garfagnana, the age of Paolo Guinigi remains, nevertheless, a time of relative internal harmony. It was also a period of unusual territorial stability, at least when compared with much of the fourteenth century, and at least until the disasters of 1429–30. The boundaries of the Lucchese state had been redefined by imperial grant in 1369. Thereafter there were few permanent changes, though individual castelli were periodically lost and recovered: first because of conflicts with the Malaspina; after 1393 because of war with Pisa.³⁶ During the early years of Guinigi rule, Lucca’s boundaries were extended to embrace the vicariate of Carrara. Carrara had formed part of the ³¹ SB 109, fos. 124v , 131r –132r . ³² ASL Capitano del contado, 31, no foliation. Similarly obscure are the reasons why a group of eight men banished from the castello of Pariana plotted to return, burning and killing indiscriminately: SB 121, fos. 3r –4r . The struggle for control extended beyond the borders of the Lucchese state, as shown by plans allegedly hatched in Minucciano in 1412 to subtract the castello of Ugliano from the obedience of the Marchesi Leonardo and Galeotto Malaspina: SB 124, fos. 27r –28r . ³³ ‘Questo pagese avira novita subito,’ said Landuccio di Landuccio of Ombreglio di Brancoli in 1411—and got his neighbours in trouble as a result: SB 120, fos. 97v –98r . See also SB 122, fo. 11r – v . ³⁴ SB 109, fos. 128r –129v . Other plots against Lucchese castelli involved foreigners apparently of lesser status: e.g., magistro Zannobio Tuccii of Florence (1411), SB 120, fos. 124r –125v . ³⁵ The marriage plans of Attolino di Guglielmo of Agliano for his niece-by-marriage Fiore, daughter of Iacopuccio of Ramulato (Gramolazzo?), threatened the peace of the entire Garfagnana, specifically the vicariates of Camporgiano and Castiglione, and the podesterìa of Casoli oltre Giogo (Casola in Lunigiana): SB 122, fos. 86r – v , 89v , 87r –88r . ³⁶ Pugliano and neighbouring places had rebelled with the encouragement of the Malaspina in 1373: Civitale, Historie, ii, pp. 209–11. Lucchesi rebels took Palleroso in 1383: ibid., p. 224.


127

Lucchese state at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and was now restored to Lucca by virtue of an arbitration award.³⁷ The Ghibellines of the Lunigiana seized Ortonuovo for Paolo, though the attempt by the Ghibellines of the Garfagnana to recover Barga was unsuccessful.³⁸ Border disputes in the mountains between Lucca and Pistoia continued throughout the Guinigi period.³⁹ Banniti sheltering across the border in Pisan territory (apparently, for the most part, ordinary criminals) posed a continuing threat to lives and property in the Sei Miglia.⁴⁰ Areas, including the Sei Miglia, were periodically devastated by compagnie di ventura.⁴¹ But, with few qualifications, the state ruled by Paolo Guinigi after 1400 consisted of those territories confirmed to Lucca by Charles IV in 1369. Things were to change dramatically, of course, during the wars with Florence in the final months of the Guinigi signoria. Then Florentine troops under Niccolò Fortebraccio invaded the Lucchesia, and besieged Lucca itself. Castelli, including Coreglia, Camporgiano, Castiglione, Cerageto, Ceserana, Palleroso, Roggio, Vagli di sopra, and S. Donnino were captured by the Florentines. Rather than fall under Florentine rule, other villages in the vicariates of Castiglione, Camporgiano, and Gallicano gave themselves to Niccolò d’Este, Marchese of Ferrara.⁴² One consequence of territorial stability was the preservation of the territorial fragmentation of north-western Tuscany that had been the most obvious product of the wars of the fourteenth century. The plethora of contiguous jurisdictions facilitated the activities of the criminal bands that appear frequently in the records of the countryside throughout the Guinigi years. In August 1412 three natives or residents of Villafranca (Pietro di Bernardo, Francischino, and Princivale da Milano) conspired with two men of Rozzo (Sassorosso?) in the vicariate of Castiglione to rob and kidnap in the adjoining territories. First they went to Florentine Barga, where, at a place called ‘el ponte del populo’, they captured and subsequently killed Cristoforo di Giovanni of Barga. Then, crossing back through Lucchese territory, they moved on to a place called Sasallo (Sassalbo?) After Iacopo d’Appiano’s seizure of power in Pisa, there was continual conflict between Lucca and Pisa—with much devastation of territory but few lasting consequences. ³⁷ GPG 1, pp. 259–60, 262–3; Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, iii, pp. 77–9. ³⁸ Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi, iii, pp. 49, 96, 118. ³⁹ Ibid., p. 366; BSL MS 112(1), Lettere autografe dai vari a Paolo Guinigi Signore di Lucca, 182–8. ⁴⁰ See the inquisition against Bartolomeo di Antonio Franchutii, alias Passarino, a tenant in Pieve S. Paolo: ASL Capitano del contado, 32, no foliation, sentence dated 23 Dec. 1412; SB 122, fos. 181r –182r . ⁴¹ There is a graphic description of the damage caused in 1418 by Braccio da Montone and Cristoforo da Lavello: SB 137, foliation destroyed by humidity: case against Antonio di Nicolao, alias Astor, of Empoli and Angelo di Lorenzo of Pistoia. ⁴² Silico in the vicariate of Castiglione; Castelnuovo, Corfino, Villa, Sassorosso, Massa, Magnano, Pieve Fosciana, Ponticosi, Gragnanella, Bargecchia, and Eglio in the vicariate of Camporgiano; Gallicano, Trassilico, Valico di sotto, Valico di sopra, Fabbriche, Forno Volasco, Gragliana, Vergemoli, Calomini, Brucciano, Molazzana, Montaltissimo, Cascio, Perpoli, Fiattone, Ariana, Lupinaia, Treppignana, Verni, Cardoso, and Bolognana in the vicariate of Gallicano: Pacchi, Ricerche storiche, pp. 159–62.

128


in the lands of Niccolò Marchese of Fivizzano, where they seized the nipote (nephew or grandson) of Giovanni di Andrea of Regnano, whom they held (presumably for ransom) in the castello of Villafranca.⁴³ Potentially more serious were the plans in 1419 of a group of men from Avenza and Nicola to seize the fortress of Castelnuovo in Lunigiana (Castelnuovo di Magra), apparently with the intention of turning it into a nest for robbers, who would then prey on the residents of the northern parts of Paolo Guinigi’s state, and on those of adjacent territories—plans that were initially successful, in so far as an armed band managed briefly to take and hold Castelnuovo.⁴⁴ Such stories litter the records of the criminal court of the Podestà. They show why the security of the countryside—both the Sei Miglia and the vicariates—figured consistently among the chief concerns of Paolo Guinigi’s government. Lucchese chroniclers tend to treat the period of the Guinigi signoria in a very cursory way. But one reform in particular captured the imagination of the sixteenth-century chronicler Giuseppe Civitale.⁴⁵ On 27 April 1411 Paolo Guinigi appointed nine podestà for the Sei Miglia, each with one servant (famiglio), and with a salary of 6 florins per month, supplemented by expenses, and by certain profits deriving from the office. According to this reform, the old pivieri and their constituent communes were regrouped into nine new podesterìe. The new podestà were required to record the names of all able-bodied males between the ages of 16 and 70 within each piviere, and were to receive from them oaths of loyalty to Paolo Guinigi. They were responsible for the equitable distribution of services; the prompt payment of the salt tax; the driving-away of vagabonds; and for ordinary administration such as the maintenance of roads, bridges, and ditches (fossi). They were to ensure the observance of local statutes; and, so that residents of the Sei Miglia should not be burdened with unnecessary visits to Lucca (‘a cio che li homini dele Sei Miglia non abbino per ogni piccola cosa a dovere venire a Luca’), the new podestà were granted summary jurisdiction (‘sine strepitu et figura iudicii’) over local disputes within their podesterìa that involved sums of less than 2 lire.⁴⁶ Franca Leverotti has argued that the decree of 1411 reflects the weakening of parish and commune as local foci of loyalty, and marks the disappearance ⁴³ SB 121, fos. 59v –60v . The court records distinguish between private and public prisons. ⁴⁴ SB 136, fos. 18r –19r . It is less clear, though alleged, that the conspirators aimed to produce conflict between Paolo Guinigi and the Genoese as lords of Castelnuovo di Magra. Generally, the relations between Lucca and the Marchesi Malaspina appear to have been cooperative, though on at least one occasion the Podestà of Lucca refused to convict on the evidence provided by the Marchesi: SB 124, fos. 27r –28r . An exception was the Marchese Antonio Alberico of Fosdinovo. In the 1420s reprisals granted against the territory and subjects of Antonio Alberico were to cause considerable difficulties for the podesterìa of Casoli: PC ACiv. 29, pp. 399–401. ⁴⁵ Civitale, Historie, ii, p. 278. Civitale dates the decree to 1412. ⁴⁶ GPG 2, pp. 102, 104–8. Two days earlier, the notary ser Antonio di Bartolomeo Corradi had been appointed podestà of the pivieri Valdottavo, Sesto Moriano, and Brancoli. This appointment was confirmed on 27 Apr.: ibid., pp. 101, 102.


129

of ancient communal fragmentation within the Sei Miglia.⁴⁷ It is certainly true that consular officials have long since ceased to appear in the notarial records as judges and arbitrators, roles in which they are depicted in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries—in the case of seigneurial Moriano with powers delegated explicitly by the bishop.⁴⁸ By the fifteenth century there is less evidence of the complex political structures and lively political debate within the communes of the Sei Miglia that we can glean from the notarial records through to the 1330s. I have no doubt that we are witnessing the declining vitality of the rural communities of the Lucchese plain.⁴⁹ The decline is intimately connected with the depopulation of the countryside, the growing presence of foreign migrants, urban investment, and—from the fifteenth century—the alienation of communal lands (all processes richly illustrated by Franca Leverotti herself ). It was a gradual process, within which Paolo Guinigi’s decree of April 1411 does not seem to represent a significant milestone. Certainly the decree makes no attempt to create an alternative bureaucratic apparatus to replace or modify the administrative functions long since assumed by the communes. The administrative functions of the new podestà were limited to the summoning of the communes to lecture them on their traditional obligations, and to the oversight of honest and efficient government by existing communal officials. In assessing the functions that communal officials continued to fulfil in the early decades of the fifteenth century, we might expect some help from the statutes of the rural communes. Unfortunately very little has survived from the Sei Miglia for the Guinigi period. And it may not only be a matter of survival. The act of April 1411 instructed the new podestà to enforce the observance of local statutes where communes have statutes of their own (‘dove li comuni avesseno loro statuti’)—with provision for future statutes to be authenticated by Paolo Guinigi.⁵⁰ In Lammari, memory of local statutes went back only as far as the signoria of Paolo Guinigi. In 1495 the men of Lammari recalled that they had been governed by just laws (‘buoni, discreti, iusti et sopportabili ordini et statuti’) that were first compiled on 13 December 1416, confirmed by Paolo Guinigi on 20 March 1417, and reconfirmed by the restored republic on 19 March 1435.⁵¹ Of course, many communes (and perhaps Lammari, too) possessed their own statutes long before 1411. In Arliano, we are able to compare a rural statute ⁴⁷ Leverotti, ‘ ‘‘Crisi’’ del Trecento’, p. 232. Elsewhere Leverotti is more inclined to trace the decadence of the rural communities of the Sei Miglia to the large-scale alienation of communal lands, which was a feature of the early sixteenth century: ead., Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento, p. 11. ⁴⁸ Unfortunately, the best evidence comes from Moriano, within the Sei Miglia but clearly atypical: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ∗ M29, ++P 78. But in Paganico, too, we have a glimpse of the consuls, Guicciardo and Lamduino, settling a dispute over rents between the rector of S. Maria of Paganico and Rustichello del fu Giglio: AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ++H34. ⁴⁹ By the time of Paolo Guinigi, leaders of the communes are likely to be called officials rather than consuls, and the shortage of suitable candidates is suggested by the holding of the office by father and son: AN 339 (ser Nicolao Migliori), fo. 167r (Tassignano). ⁵⁰ GPG 2, p. 105. ⁵¹ AN 941 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fo. 25r .

130


of 1421 with what had gone before. In 1421 the men of Arliano continued to meet in a general parlamento representing all the chapels (and communes) of the pieve. The men of Arliano, to the honour of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. John Baptist, and all the company of heaven, of Lucca, and of Paolo Guinigi as lord of Lucca, reaffirmed the good ancient customs and statutes of their piviere. References to the Anziani and Gonfaloniere di Giustizia were changed to the Magnificent Lord of Lucca; the wording and ordering of the capitoli were amended somewhat; the entry on gambling was reworked. There is a greater emphasis on the role of the capitani in settling internal strife, and new privileges were granted to the capitani during their term of office. The prohibition of appeals against sentences issuing from the capitani was repeated (though—if we exclude gambling—the jurisdiction of the capitani seems always to have related to disobeying executive orders rather than to trespass and petty rural crime). The revised statutes differed little from those of the late fourteenth century, and show the continuance of a considerable measure of local self-regulation.⁵² Unfortunately it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of this self-regulation under Paolo Guinigi, because it has left virtually no trace in the records of central administration or (perhaps more tellingly) in the notarial archives. A case before the Capitano del contado in 1411 shows a group of men from the pieve of Segromigno, headed by Jontella Lucchesini, going to sequester (predare) property from the house of Iacopo Bonamici. Iacopo had refused to participate with his community in the repair of roads, and, although the court case does not say so, those acting against him were presumably doing so in some kind of official capacity as representatives of the commune of Verglano (Valgiano?). The affair resulted in an affray, for which the Capitano del contado fined both sides even-handedly in accordance with the seriousness of the wounds received.⁵³ More typically, communal officials appear regularly before the court of the Podestà of Lucca to report incidents of damage to property (danno dato), often by grazing animals. After 1395 separate registers survive for a branch of the court of the Podestà that specifically handled such offences (the curia dei danni dati).⁵⁴ In all the many actions that I have examined from the Guinigi period, one party was a citizen, or the tenant of a citizen, a resident or non-resident foreigner, or a man from a neighbouring village.⁵⁵ This is hardly surprising, given the expansion of urban property ownership in the Sei Miglia, the peasant mobility ⁵² AN 481 (ser Marco Martini), fos. 12r –15r . Cf.: AN 249(I) (ser Simone Alberti), fos. 324v – 326r ; 261(I) (ser Michele Manni), fos. 126v –128r ; 304 (ser Giovanni Nesi), fos. 106v –108r . ⁵³ SB 119, fos. 32r –33r , 69r –70r . ⁵⁴ The period 1395–1500 is covered by the volumes ASL Podestà di Lucca, 7236–7425. ⁵⁵ In 1406, for example, the official charged with reporting danno dato in the commune of the corpo della pieve of Torre, Bartolomeo di Piero, informed the Podestà of Lucca of damage, estimated at 12 bolognini, committed on the land of Nuccono of the same commune by Bartolomeo di Perotto of Gugliano within the piviere of Torre, then living in the corpo della pieve of Torre: SB 109, fo. 18v . Similarly, in 1412 the guardian of the commune of Montuolo dutifully reported the damage done by two cows of Nicolao Bianchini of the same commune to the crop of Antonio di


131

that characterized the Lucchese countryside, and the great wave of immigration from outside. But, in the context of the early Quattrocento, the jurisdiction of communal officials must have been limited indeed if it extended only to native-born residents of the same village. In any event, a decree of April 1410, which aimed to remove the ambiguities in the laws relating to danno dato, made it clear that village officials were obliged to report all cases to the Podestà, and severe penalties were incurred by those failing to do so.⁵⁶ As in the case of Arliano, the authority of communal officials everywhere was probably largely confined to the punishment of villagers who disobeyed executive orders. At first glance, the decree of 1411 was significant less as an attack on the primary administrative units of parish and commune than as a comprehensive—even revolutionary—attempt to restructure Lucca’s governance of the Sei Miglia as a whole.⁵⁷ The statute of 1308 shows a centrally appointed podestà at the head of each piviere, normally resident in the village that was the seat of the pieve.⁵⁸ These officials had disappeared by 1331. Thereafter the appointment of capitani or podestà was not unknown within the Sei Miglia; but these appointments were short-term expedients in border areas, at times of trouble, and often limited to the control of a specific fortress.⁵⁹ In 1411 the appointment of the nine new podestà seems to reverse the trend of the previous century, which had seen the virtual elimination of an intermediate layer of city representatives from the Sei Miglia. But the most important point about the new policy direction is that it has left so little trace in the political records of the period. Podestà continued to be appointed for Nozzano, as had been the practice from the time of the republic.⁶⁰ From 1405 podestà were appointed for the piviere of S. Gennaro, with responsibility for the custody of the castello, and with jurisdiction over cases of danni dati.⁶¹ After 1409 there is a continuous record of the appointment of podestà for Ruota and the piviere of Compito.⁶² For some years after 1412, a podestà was named Giovanni, a Pisan living in Montuolo: SB 122, fo. 142r – v . In all these cases, according to statute, three times the value of the damage was paid to the victim, four times to the commune of Lucca. ⁵⁶ GPG 1, p. 580. ⁵⁷ A. Potenti, ‘Proprietà cittadina e comitatina nelle Sei Miglia lucchesi attraverso gli estimi del 1411–1413: I pivieri di S. Gennaro e Segromigno’, Quaderni Lucchesi di Studi sul Medioevo e sul Rinascimento, 4 (2003), pp. 100–2. ⁵⁸ Statutum del 1308, lib. II, cc. xiiii–xv. ⁵⁹ F. Leverotti, ‘Gli estimi lucchesi del 1411–13: Una fonte per lo studio dell’amministrazione, del paesaggio agrario e della demografia’, in Scritti in ricordo di Giorgio Buratti (Pisa, 1981), pp. 206–7. ⁶⁰ In 1412 there is an indication of the kind of responsibilities that might be entrusted to the podestà of Nozzano when Tegrimo Sabolini was instructed by the Capitano del contado to detain Giovanni di Coluccino of Castiglioncello (which the podestà failed to do): SB 122, fo. 22r – v . ⁶¹ GPG 1, p. 313. ⁶² Ibid., p. 533. Ruota had had a podestà or capitano in 1396, at the time of war between Lucca and Pisa, whose salary should have been paid by the entire piviere of Compito: ibid., p. 575. The pivieri of S. Gennaro and Compito constitute two of the nine podesterìe named in the decree of Apr. 1411.

132


for Capannori—again the location of important fortifications.⁶³ Clearly Paolo Guinigi continued and extended the traditional policy of appointing podestà in regions of strategic sensitivity. I have found no evidence that the Sei Miglia was divided between nine podestà after the first appointments of 27 April 1411.⁶⁴ Their administration for the period from 1 May until the end of December 1411 was scrutinized in February 1412 by Giovanni di Matteo ‘de Platea’ of Modena, Maggior Sindaco e Giudice degli Appelli. Thereafter there is only silence.⁶⁵ There is considerable danger in arguing from silence. There are some indications, both before and after 1411, of a grouping of pivieri along the lines of Paolo Guinigi’s decree. In 1403 Paolo Guinigi ordered that the defences of the castello of Nozzano should become the responsibility of the pivieri of Arliano and Massaciùccoli.⁶⁶ The pivieri visited by the Capitano del contado were sometimes grouped together, as in Paolo Guinigi’s decree.⁶⁷ It is unclear whether this shows some form of administrative integrity, or merely reflects geographical proximity. It is possible that Bonacorso Lanfredi, ‘vostro servidore in Torre’ in 1419, may have been acting in some official capacity; perhaps he was a local podestà, though he is not described as such.⁶⁸ The only unambiguous example that I have found of one of the new podestà fulfilling the role prescribed in the decree of 1411 dates back to the year of their initial inauguration.⁶⁹ A comprehensive survey of the records of the Maggior Sindaco e Giudice degli Appelli and of the Podestà of Lucca might reveal that some parts of the new arrangements continued into the later years of Paolo Guinigi’s rule.⁷⁰ But the wording of the syndication of 13 February 1412 clearly distinguishes the podestà of the united pivieri, appointed for eight months at the end of April, from the more regularly appointed podestà assigned to the fortresses of Ruota (piviere of Compito), Nozzano, Collodi, and S. Gennaro.⁷¹ Everything points towards an ad hoc arrangement with no future, and perhaps never intended to be permanent. In summary, in the Sei Miglia little remains of the administrative revolution once attributed to Paolo Guinigi. The attention given in village statutes, both before and after the Guinigi era, to religious observances and to the regulation ⁶³ Podestà for both S. Gennaro and Capannori cease to appear among the officials appointed in the series Governo di Paolo Guinigi after 1419. ⁶⁴ Though there is a reference to the podesterìe of the Sei Miglia on 10 July 1411: GPG 2, p. 126. ⁶⁵ SB 122, fos. 30r –32r . There is no mention of the new podestà among the syndications for the first semester of 1412, or those of 1413: SB 122, fos. 128r –129r ; 124, especially fos. 21r –22v , 75r – v , 78r – v . ⁶⁶ GPG 1, p. 165. See also GPG 2, p. 123 (Lunata). ⁶⁷ E. Lazzareschi (ed.), Regesti del R. Archivio di Stato in Lucca, vol. iii, pt. ii, Carteggio di Guido Manfredi Cancelliere della Repubblica di Lucca Segretario della signoria di Paolo Guinigi MCCCC–MCCCCXXIX (Pescia, 1933), nos. 286, 645, 991. ⁶⁸ GPG 22, pp. 325–6; 24, pp. 195–6; Lazzareschi (ed.), Regesti, iii, pt. ii, nos. 353, 592. ⁶⁹ GPG 2, pp. 145–6. ⁷⁰ Upon taking office, the new podestà were required ‘iurare in mano del sindaco’. They were required to report various offences to the Podestà of Lucca or to the Capitano del contado. ⁷¹ SB 122, fos. 30r –32r .


133

of the affairs of the local church suggests the survival of some sense of village identity based on the parish. With or without statutes, communal officials were the responsible agents of local government, and answered to central government for their administration and for crimes committed within their territories. These duties were not without their perils, as Matteo di Antonio, consul of the commune of Torre, discovered when he went to collect the salt tax from Giovanni Vianucii.⁷² By contrast, the administrative role of the pivieri has always been problematic. The grouping of communes into pivieri —for purposes of taxation (the estimo)—was convenient for record-keeping purposes. But the podestà who headed the pivieri in the 1308 statute are shadowy figures, while the podestà entrusted with groupings of pivieri in 1411 seem to have lasted a mere eight months. Evidence exists only in the cases of Arliano and Segromigno of broader regional structures that united the whole piviere, and that extended beyond the borders of its component communes.⁷³ Most of the functions attributed in 1411 to the podestà of the Sei Miglia were already being exercised by the Capitano del contado, whose jurisdiction within the Sei Miglia is abundantly illustrated in letters to Paolo Guinigi and to his Secretary Guido Manfredi,⁷⁴ and in the surviving proceedings of his court. Here, also, there is little sign of radical change. The office of Capitano del contado was inherited by Paolo Guinigi from the preceding republican regime, and its historian has described the Guinigi era as a time of continuity and stabilization.⁷⁵ In the mountains too, I would argue, the years of the Guinigi signoria did not divert the logic of past Lucchese development. The vicariates into which the Lucchese state was divided are those of the 1308 statute, pruned of the substantial territories lost to Lucca during the wars of the fourteenth century. The Guinigi state consisted of the core vicariates of Gallicano, Camaiore, Valdilima, and Valdriana—the latter much modified during the wars, and as a result of the loss of the Valdinievole. It included the vicariates of Castiglione and Camporgiano, recovered from the Malaspina during the period of Pisan rule, and those of Massalunese, Pietrasanta, and Coreglia, reconfirmed to Lucca with the recovery of independence in 1369–70. It also included the new podesterìa of Casoli oltre Giogo with Minucciano, created in the 1370s, and the new vicariate of Carrara that resulted from Paolo Guinigi’s reacquisition of Carrara, Avenza, and Moneta in 1404. Under Paolo Guinigi there are rare instances of special powers being granted to the Podestà of Lucca, or to the vicars in their vicariates, to try cases ⁷² ASL Capitano del contado, 31, no foliation, case dated 17 May 1413. Interestingly, a few folios later, a case of seduction was brought against Matteo di Antonio himself. ⁷³ AN 249(I) (ser Simone Alberti), fos. 324v –326r ; 261(I) (ser Michele Manni), fos. 126v –128r ; 304 (ser Giovanni Nesi), fos. 106v –108r ; 481 (ser Marco Martini), fos. 12r –15r ; 931 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 82v –84r ; 1004(VII) (ser Domenico Domenici), fos. 13r –14r . ⁷⁴ Lazzareschi (ed.), Regesti, iii, pt. ii, passim. ⁷⁵ A. Casali, ‘L’amministrazione del contado lucchese nel ’400: Il Capitano del Contado’, Actum Luce: Rivista di studi lucchesi, 7 (1978), pp. 132–3.

134


that would normally have been reserved to the other. Such were the extraordinary powers granted to the vicar of Castiglione to sentence Lando di Francesco of Gazzano for a capital offence, or those granted to the Podestà of Lucca to proceed with a case that might normally have fallen under the jurisdiction of the vicar of Valdilima.⁷⁶ Generally the traditional spheres of authority were respected: lesser criminal cases, and all civil matters, remaining the responsibility of the vicar’s court, with serious crimes (and all offences against citizens) reserved for the Podestà of Lucca. In criminal cases, vicars were able to examine the accused under torture.⁷⁷ In the early years of the Guinigi signoria, each vicariate continued to be visited by a member of the college of judges, who was responsible for determining sentences in all criminal cases tried before the local court. Later, a record of the court proceedings was brought to Lucca by the vicar’s notary, and cases were reviewed from Lucca by the Esattore Maggiore and the avvocato of the camera.⁷⁸ Under Paolo Guinigi, as under the republic, a vast number of appeals flowed from the vicariates to Lucca from men requesting the reduction or modification of their sentences ‘by special grace’. When Camporgiano submitted to the rule of Florence in May 1438, it was agreed that the new Florentine vicar would settle matters summarily, ‘senza forma di giudizio’, and according to the ordinances and statutes of the commune of Barga, until such time as Camporgiano had time to produce statutes and ordinances of its own.⁷⁹ The fact that, in the 1430s, the Florentines could regard the former Lucchese vicariate as being without statutes reinforces my view, expressed in the previous chapter, that the often-cited statutes and ordinances of the vicariates consisted essentially of those statutes and decrees produced in Lucca for government and administration of justice within the vicariates. In fact, formulaic references to the constitutions of the vicariates under Paolo Guinigi often indicate a common body of law for the governance of vicariates.⁸⁰ Other references are to particular chapters that were clearly drawn directly from the statutes of the city. Thus, in 1412, Antonio di Cristoforo of Borgo a Mozzano, ⁷⁶ GPG 1, p. 483; 2, p. 638. ⁷⁷ ASL Vicario di Camporeggiana, ACr. 288, fo. 4r : case against Giovanni di Baldo of S. Romano, accused of armed aggression (without actual contact) against a fellow villager—and unwise enough to deny the charge. ⁷⁸ The change is difficult to chronicle, but had taken place by July 1413: GPG 2, p. 222; Lazzareschi (ed.) Regesti, iii, pt. ii, no. 504. Provisionally, I would suggest that the transition can be dated to 1412: ASL Vicario di Coreglia e Borgo a Mozzano, ACr. 602–3; PC ACr. 44. In the middle years of Paolo Guinigi, the Esattore Maggiore acted together with Tommaso da Ghivizzano (the latter variously named as judge of the vicariates, as vicar general of Paolo Guinigi, and as avvocato of the camera). Later the Esattore Maggiore was associated either with the Sindaco Maggiore or with the avvocato of the camera. ⁷⁹ Guasti (ed.), Capitoli, i, pp. 585–6. ⁸⁰ The formula in court cases under Paolo Guinigi often reads: ‘contra formam iuris et statutorum lucane civitatis et constitutionum vicariarum magnifici domini lucani’. All ambiguities are removed in Aug. 1421 when Paolo Guinigi revised the statute, ordinance, and constitutions of the vicariates—a universal body of law applicable in all the vicariates: GPG 2, p. 558.


135

citing the constitutions of the vicariate of Coreglia, referred himself to the chapter under the rubric ‘De pena turbantis possessionem alicui’—presumably to be identified with lib. II, c. cxv, of the Lucchese statute of 1372.⁸¹ No doubt, the ordinances of the vicariates were always supplemented by more specific provisions tailored to local needs. A case before the vicar of Valdilima suggests that the Valdilima may have had its own ordinances that regulated fishing on the river Lima, which the vicar was obligated to enforce.⁸² More interesting are the statutes of individual communes within the vicariates: not because the content has changed significantly, but because the encouragement of rural statute-making does seem to represent a new direction, or at least new emphases. Under Paolo Guinigi, effective local government seems to have become associated with rule by local statute. In 1419 the vicar of Gallicano, Nicolao di Martino Manni, wrote of the poor administration of the community of Cardoso (‘è troppo male in ordine’), which he attributed to the lack of a statute (‘et sono insieme male dacordio et vivono sensa nessuna ordine et non anno tralloro nessuno istatuto’).⁸³ In 1408 conflict between the men of Galleno in the vicariate of Pietrasanta (eight men named, including the consul) had reached such a pitch that they appointed three independent arbitrators to settle their disputes—arbitrators who produced a settlement that contains many of the characteristics of a rural statute.⁸⁴ The concern of central government with public order at the village level, rather than the mere survival of texts, may explain why there are many more rural statutes from the early fifteenth century than for the fourteenth,⁸⁵ and why communities sometimes dated their tradition of statutemaking to the rule of Paolo Guinigi. Conflict, of course, continued. The mobility of the rural population resulted in dissension over eligibility for public office and the distribution of public lands.⁸⁶ In Carsciana in the Valdilima in 1415 debate during a meeting of the commune became so heated that it resulted in violence.⁸⁷ When the challenge to central authority was more overt, the response might be savage. In 1412 the settlement by Paolo Guinigi’s commissioner of a border dispute within the vicariate of Coreglia between Corsagna and Anchiano so enraged the men of Corsagna that their council of twelve resolved to destroy the offending markers. All received substantial fines, graded according to their degree of culpability; the ringleaders were kept in prison without the option of ⁸¹ ASL Vicario di Coreglia e Borgo a Mozzano, ACr. 602, no foliation. The chapter seems to be the same as that for the city, suburbs, Sei Miglia, and forcia in ASL Statuti del comune di Lucca, 6, lib. II, c. cxv: ‘De pena turbantis possessionem alcui’. ⁸² VVl. ACr. 1179, fos. 30r –32r . Though the penalties are identical with those provided in Paolo Guinigi’s decree of 26 July 1403: GPG 1, p. 185. Special attention to fishing regulations in the vicariate of Valdilima are confirmed by the orders given by its vicars on assuming office: e.g., VVl. ACiv. 97, fo. 3v . ⁸³ GPG 22, no. 15; Lazzareschi (ed.), Regesti, iii, pt. ii, no. 223. ⁸⁴ AN 330 (ser Bartolomeo Orsucci), fos. 449r –451v . ⁸⁵ I know of nine for the fourteenth century, thirty-one for the fifteenth century. ⁸⁷ VVl. ACr. 1179, fos. 6r –22r . ⁸⁶ AN 330 (ser Bartolomeo Orsucci), fos. 449r –451v .

136


posting securities, and were threatened with the amputation of a hand if they failed to pay within the allotted time.⁸⁸ During the Guinigi period there seems to have been a proliferation within the vicariates of local podestà. In the first three decades of the fifteenth century there are passing references to podestà in Avenza, Casoli oltre Giogo, Castelnuovo, Castelvecchio, Collodi, Controne, Coreglia, Frignano, Medicina and Fibbialla, Montefegatesi, Monteggiori, Pontito, and Villa Basilica. As shown in previous chapters, the office was not new. As in the Sei Miglia the appointment of local podestà appears to have become a favoured policy option rather than an attempt radically to restructure the government of the Lucchese state. Some of Paolo Guinigi’s podestà were essentially vicars with limited juridical powers and territorial authority. This was true, for example, of Casoli oltre Giogo (Casola in Lunigiana), which was already organized as a podesterìa by c.1373,⁸⁹ and which bordered the Malaspina podesterìa of Monzone. The right of the podestà of Casoli oltre Giogo to hear civil cases may have been taken away in the last years of the republic (Bongi suggests for the period 1399–1405).⁹⁰ In November 1404 Paolo Guinigi, in terms that foreshadow his later decree of 1411 for the Sei Miglia, ordered that residents of the podesterìa should not be inconvenienced by the need to travel to Camporgiano for every minor civil dispute. In future the podestà of Casoli oltre Giogo had sole jurisdiction in all civil cases between, or instituted by, the men of Casoli that involved sums of less than £10.⁹¹ A little later, the responsibilities of the podestà of Casoli were spelt out under the rubric ‘De officio potestatis Casulis ultra iugum’.⁹² Attention was given first to the safe custody of the territory. The jurisdiction of the podestà over all civil cases involving less than 3 florins was confirmed—though disputes arising from notarial contracts were reserved to the vicar of Camporgiano. In criminal cases the podestà was able to impose fines of up to £25—again with more serious offences reserved to the vicar of Camporgiano. In 1417 representatives of the communes of the podesterìa complained to Paolo Guinigi that, considering that Camporgiano was inconveniently far away, the judicial powers of the podestà were still too restricted.⁹³ In consequence, his jurisdiction was extended to cover all civil disputes, though with no concessions with regard to criminal jurisdiction, and with the reminder that all penalties that involved corporal punishment or the shedding of blood were reserved to the Podestà of Lucca. The practical administration of the podesterìa of Casoli oltre Giogo is revealed in a series of letters from the podestà, ser Giovanni da Castiglione, to Paolo Guinigi (largely concerned with the political and military situation in this ⁸⁸ SB 122, fos. 107r – v , 110r – v . ⁸⁹ ASL Capitoli, 10, p. 119. ⁹⁰ Presumably on the basis of the lacuna in the court records: Bongi (ed.), Inventario, ii, p. 384. ⁹¹ GPG 1, p. 268. The decree established the jurisdiction of the podestà of Casoli oltre Giogo vis-à-vis the vicar of Camporgiano. It may not provide evidence (as Bongi believed) that the podestà had lost the right to try all civil (and criminal) cases. ⁹² GPG 1, p. 350. ⁹³ GPG 2, p. 415.


137

border region);⁹⁴ and (more particularly) in the rich series of civil and criminal proceedings extant for the Guinigi era. The criminal records are of limited interest. They are contained in meagre volumes dealing with minor assaults, damage to property, gambling, contraventions of custom regulations, and acts of disobedience to the podestà.⁹⁵ Of more interest are the civil proceedings, which also include cases of danno dato. The court records show the routine handling by the podestà of cases of danno dato (usually involving damage to crops by grazing animals), against both individuals and communities. Accusations might be brought directly to the podestà by the aggrieved party;⁹⁶ in other instances the podestà seems to be enforcing penalties imposed within the village communities themselves.⁹⁷ Disputes arose over the fees charged during local settlement processes,⁹⁸ which again suggests that part of the role played by the podestà of Casoli was to support or moderate the acts of village officials.⁹⁹ Most other actions involved small debts incurred for consumption loans, for the purchase of food and clothing, and for unpaid rent or wages. But Nicolao del fu Turino Bianchi, podestà between 1421 and 1426, also handled complicated property disputes involving notarial contracts, which indicates that the extended authority granted in 1417 was effectively implemented.¹⁰⁰ Often cases were referred to the arbitration of local men: in terms either of the Lucchese statute on the settlement of disputes within the family, or of Paolo Guinigi’s own decree beginning ‘Gloria principis’.¹⁰¹ The refusal by one of the parties to accept the resulting arbitration award might then bring the case back before the court of the podestà.¹⁰² All of Paolo Guinigi’s podestà were responsible for the safe custody of fortified towns and villages. Some were basically capitani whose responsibilities seem largely to have been confined to their military role. Others, as under the preceding ⁹⁴ BSL MS 113(1), Lettere autografe dai vari a Paolo Guinigi Signore di Lucca, nos. 315–23. ⁹⁵ PC ACr. 38–71. ⁹⁶ Even in disputes between men of the same commune. In 1421, for example, Gianello Guassi of Casoli accused the men and commune of Casoli (represented by their consul, Ginolo Guassi) of cutting and removing two chestnut trees: PC ACiv. 29, p. 58. ⁹⁷ Thus in 1411–12, in a case involving two men of Sermezzana, damages were determined, or at least assessed, by two local men apparently acting in an official capacity: PC ACiv. 16, p. 9. Possible procedures are clarified in PVB ACiv. 29, fo. 3v . ⁹⁸ PC ACiv. 29, p. 15. ⁹⁹ At the petition of the consuls of Minucciano, the messenger (nuncio) of the court of the podestà publicly proclaimed the penalties incurred by anyone causing damage with animals, or by cutting wood, ‘in iuriditionibus dicti communis’: PC ACiv. 29, p. 117. See also: ibid., p. 67 (where the status of Pietro Calandri of Bergiola is unclear—though he appears as a private individual in a later action against the commune and men of Bergiola: ibid., p. 250). ¹⁰⁰ Much depended on competence and reliability. A trusted official like Nicolao Bianchi might be entrusted even with the handling of cases that might normally have been referred to Lucca: PC ACiv. 29, p. 172. ¹⁰¹ Sometimes the parties agree to arbitration after the commencement of a civil suit; sometimes the podestà is required to enforce an arbitration award already made: e.g., PC ACiv. 16, p. 25; 29, p. 5. ¹⁰² PC ACiv. 29, pp. 89–95.

138


republican regime, were appointed to important centres of population when these were different and distant from the seat of the vicar. Thus, when the vicar of Coreglia was resident in Borgo a Mozzano, the podestà of Coreglia was granted powers to settle disputes in and around Coreglia that involved sums of less than 1 florin.¹⁰³ Montecarlo and the ambiguous piviere of Villa Basilica were added to the vicariate of Valdriana when Lucca lost the Valdinievole. Both became the seat of a podestà. Civil, though not criminal, court proceedings from both podesterìe of Montecarlo and Villa Basilica survive from the Guinigi period.¹⁰⁴ And they show how little things had changed over more than a century. In the late thirteenth century, the court of the podestà of Vivinaia had been able to handle cases of danno dato and civil disputes that involved small sums—with more important civil cases, and all criminal cases, referred to the vicar of the Valdinievole in Pescia.¹⁰⁵ The early fifteenth-century records of the podesterìa of Villa Basilica reveal a similarly circumscribed jurisdiction.¹⁰⁶ The podestà of Coreglia and Castelnuovo, during the later years of Paolo Guinigi, were notaries attached to the courts of their respective vicariates.¹⁰⁷ Here the office of podestà must have blurred with that of the chancellors (cancellieri) attached to the courts of the vicars of important centres such as Camaiore and Pietrasanta. These cancellieri were also notaries appointed from Lucca. They kept the public records, coordinated aspects of local administration, and—acting together with local officials—often exercised a judicial function (particularly in the settlement of cases of danno dato).¹⁰⁸ The rule of Paolo Guinigi inevitably brought some changes: more, I think, because of the general dynamics of princely rule and the specific socio-economic challenges faced by the Guinigi signoria than because of the often-cited Florentine influences. Even before 1400, the narrowing of political control associated with the triumph of the Guinigi faction heralded some changes for the administration ¹⁰³ GPG 2, p. 60. See also Lazzareschi (ed.), Regesti, iii, pt. ii, no. 408. ¹⁰⁴ I have consulted ASL Podestà di Montecarlo, 3; PVB 6–32. ¹⁰⁵ M. Seghieri, ‘Il Cerruglio tra Vivinaia e Montecarlo’, in Castelli e borghi della Toscana tardo medioevale: Atti del Convegno di Studi, 28–29 maggio 1983 (Pescia, 1985), p. 80. ¹⁰⁶ In 1406 the podestà of Villa Basilica was taunted as impotent by Giovanni Corsini called Cataldo, then official of Villa Basilica, because he was not willing to grant Giovanni’s (illicit) request without the consent of the consiglio of the castello. ‘Va fatte fotterie tu et gl’altri offitiali,’ Giovanni said to the podestà, in disrespect of Paolo Guinigi who had appointed him: SB 109, fos. 135v –136v . Endowed with a lesser authority, podestà were perhaps more likely to be defied than vicars. See, e.g., the experience of ser Francesco Pieri, podestà of Collodi in 1412: SB 122, fo. 151r – v . ¹⁰⁷ The salary of the podestà of Castelnuovo was paid partly from sums due to him as notary of the court of Castiglione, partly by the men of Castelnuovo: GPG 2, p. 363. ¹⁰⁸ GPG 1, pp. 104, 143, 314. For the circumstances in which a cancelliere and notary ‘custodie terre castilionis’ was appointed for Castiglione in Oct. 1399: Rif. 13, p. 269. For the acts of one cancelliere in Camaiore during the Guinigi period: AN 391(XV) (ser Dino di Dino di Giovanni da Castiglione), fos. 1r –11r . For the office of cancelliere, see above, p. 117. Paolino di Tomuccio of Pietrasanta contemporaneously held the office of podestà of Villa Basilica and cancelliere of the commune of Villa Basilica, which clearly produced conflicts of interest: PVB ACiv. 28, fos. 13v –14r . The arrangement was probably standard practice by the early fifteenth century.


139

of the Lucchese state. In the decade before Paolo became lord of Lucca, the Guinigi were already concerned to control appointments to sensitive vicariates. In 1392 a balìa of twenty-four citizens, dominated by the Guinigi, replaced the vicars of Massa and of Castiglione.¹⁰⁹ After 1400 vicars were directly appointed by Paolo Guinigi, and they were likely to be reaffirmed in their vicariates over long periods—in sharp contrast to normal practice under the preceding and succeeding republican regimes. The stability of vicarial appointments must have forged special ties (and perhaps generated special tensions) between a vicar and his vicariate. As vicar of Montecarlo, reappointed regularly by Paolo Guinigi between 1401 and 1408, Nicolao degli Onesti frequently identified himself with local petitions and local grievances.¹¹⁰ The institution of a court culture in itself brought some changes in relations with the centre. Correspondence shows a new concern on the part of vicars to supply delicacies for Paolo Guinigi’s table, or to prepare for the arrival of the prince and his entourage.¹¹¹ Paolo Guinigi clearly relished the role that he had assumed. There was nothing particularly new about the commutation of judicial sentences by central government for practical, political, and fiscal reasons. But the records of Paolo Guinigi are littered with favourable responses to petitioners, poor and desperate countrymen, who trusted in the mercy of the prince, and in whose interests officials were instructed to judge according to equity rather than the strict letter of the law.¹¹² Guinigi paternalism was accompanied by, and was perhaps indistinguishable from, a constant and vigilant supervision of the affairs of the state. It is not surprising, therefore, that under the Guinigi signoria central power seems to have been particularly intrusive. In December 1401, at the petition of the men of Pietrasanta, Paolo Guinigi intervened to establish the payments due in Pietrasanta to three local office-holders.¹¹³ From March 1405 the representatives (sindici) and treasurers (camerari) of the vicariate of Gallicano were henceforth to be chosen directly by Paolo Guinigi.¹¹⁴ The initiative for the reform and correction of the statutes of the commune of Castiglione in 1410 seems to ¹⁰⁹ Civitale, Historie, ii, p. 244: ‘Questa balìa, sì come dependeva dalla fattione guinigia, secondo il parere di quella casa fece molte cose insolite, renovò e cambiò offitiali, premiò e punì nel modo che più li pareva, come brevemente sarà da noi narrato. E prima privorno messer Carlo de Ronghi del vicariato di Massa, mettendo in suo cambio Arrigo Quartigiani; levorno messer Nicolao Maulini da Castiglione, dandolo al Quartigiani dopoi Massa’. See also Civitale, Historie, ii, p. 245. ¹¹⁰ G. Tori, Nicolao degli Onesti vicario di Montecarlo: Carteggio con Paolo Guinigi 1401 e 1408 (Pescia, 1977), xxxiv, lvi, lxxxiii. ¹¹¹ Ibid., passim; Lazzareschi (ed.), Regesti, iii, pt. ii, no. 615. In 1406 the commune of Ghivizzano received a reduction of its salt tax for the attention that it had lavished on Paolo’s eldest son Ladislao: GPG 1, p. 427. ¹¹² SB 109, fos. 19r – v , 21r ; PC ACiv. 29, pp. 89–95. More generally, I have the impression that the syndication of vicars and their officials was less of a formality under Paolo Guinigi than in earlier or later periods. See, e.g., SB 137, fos. 108r –109v . ¹¹³ GPG 1, p. 106. Guinigi’s ruling was to be enforced by the vicar of Pietrasanta. See also Lazzareschi (ed.), Regesti, iii, pt. ii, nos. 369, 642. ¹¹⁴ GPG 1, p. 326.

140


have come from Guinigi. In order to restore peace in Castiglione, the capitani, camerari, council of fifteen, and general council of the commune were all to be elected in Lucca by Paolo Guinigi or his Council.¹¹⁵ Changes in 1417 to the appointment and numbers of the capitani, councillors, and invited members of the council (invitati) of Camaiore (rendered necessary by declining population) were similarly effected by decree from the centre.¹¹⁶ More generally, Guinigi issued many decrees to remove ambiguities in the statutes,¹¹⁷ and his vicars, in providing justice, promised to observe the decrees of Paolo Guinigi as well as the statute of the city of Lucca and the constitutions of the vicariates. The meticulous researches of Franca Leverotti have singled out the early decades of the fifteenth century as the years of most profound demographic crisis for Lucca.¹¹⁸ Clearly Paolo Guinigi was fully alert to the impoverishment of the contado and the declining resources of his state. It was this concern that prompted Guinigi’s tour of inspection of the contado, which began in December 1403.¹¹⁹ The great catasto (fiscal census) ordered by Paolo Guinigi in 1411–13 was an attempt (perhaps counterproductive) to quantify losses caused by war, plague, and famine, and to revitalize the contado through a more equitable distribution of taxes.¹²⁰ Historians from Civitale to Leverotti have enthused on the catasto of 1411–13 both as an administrative tool and as a historical source. The detailed measurements were not to be repeated, and even in the sixteenth century people continued to have recourse to the catasto guinigiano.¹²¹ The catasto provides further testimony to Guinigi’s energetic response both to individual and community grievances, and to wider problems of the Lucchesia in the early Quattrocento. Claims that the catasto represents a new departure in the political or administrative history of the Lucchese state are more difficult to justify.¹²² The estimo of the 1380s had been ordered for precisely the same reasons: the more equitable distribution of civic obligations (oneri) and the recovery of the contado.¹²³ Paolo Guinigi’s other reforms similarly lacked novelty. He sought to reduce burdens and expenses through the administrative union of rural communes (Deccio and Tramonte, for example, in 1412).¹²⁴ He ¹¹⁵ GPG 2, pp. 39–41. ¹¹⁶ GPG 2, p. 420. ¹¹⁷ e.g., GPG 1, p. 580; 2, p. 558. ¹¹⁸ Leverotti, Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento, pp. 6, 180, 181. These years are certainly characterized by very frequent references to depopulation, poverty, and hardships: GPG 1, pp. 47, 52, 64, 74, 86, 87, 107, 108, 111, 113, 114, 124, 165, 187, 193, 194, 195, 200, 209, 267, 361, 554; 2, pp. 91, 145–6, 209, 240, 249, 266, 286, 420. ¹¹⁹ GPG 1, pp. 206–7; Cianelli, Dissertazioni, ii, pp. 125–6. ¹²⁰ For the immediate background: Leverotti, Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento, p. 76. The detailed census may well have promoted a further exodus: ibid., pp. 42–3. ¹²¹ Ibid., p. 20. ¹²² For a forceful recent restatement of the contrary view: Potenti, ‘Proprietà cittadina e comitatina’, pp. 97–158. ¹²³ Leverotti, Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento, p. 38. For the 1360s: Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, pp. 112–13. ¹²⁴ Leverotti, Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento, pp. 176–7, 179. For the union of Gorfigliano and Castagnola in 1411: ASL Capitoli, 10, pp. 139–40. Such unions are, in fact, confined to


141

aimed to repopulate the Lucchese countryside through the return of emigrants (foretani) and the immigration of foreigners (forensi).¹²⁵ Both measures replicate the policies of the 1370s and 1380s; and they are entirely familiar to historians of Lucca after 1430.¹²⁶ Guinigi hoped to win and retain loyalty through the granting of wide-ranging exemptions—to Pietrasanta, Carrara, Lucchio;¹²⁷ the fifth book of the statute of 1308 records similar pacts and agreements, as does a large collection of capitoli that cover the entire history of the Lucchese state. The transition to princely rule in Lucca was accompanied by administrative reforms, and by a new court culture that affected the whole Lucchesia. The person of the prince provided a new focus of loyalty. The concentration of power in the hands of a single family may have curbed factional rivalries in the contado as in the city. But, for the wider Lucchese state, the signoria of Paolo Guinigi heralded few structural changes to existing patterns of organization and control. At first sight this might seem surprising: the Guinigi period is often portrayed in Lucchese historiography as marking a very distinct break with the republican past. The ruling councils of Lucca, the Anziani, the Council of Thirty-Six (Consiglio dei Trentasei), and the General Council (Consiglio Generale)—which had survived all the vicissitudes of the fourteenth century—were abolished by Paolo Guinigi within a few months of his seizure of power. The number of citizens involved in important political (as distinct from administrative) office was dramatically reduced. And, at the centre, Paolo Guinigi ruled through a small council of about nine men chosen directly by himself.¹²⁸ Yet the considerable number of studies on the theme of Italian despotism have tended recently to stress how far princes were inclined to leave essential structures in place. The work of Isabella Lazzarini on Mantua, for example, has shown the slow and partial impact of princely rule over a much longer period than that enjoyed in Lucca by the Guinigi.¹²⁹ The comparison is not entirely helpful. Princes, particularly in northern Italy, ruled their territories through the manipulation of local interests, local immunities, and juridical exemptions. In Lucca, the main remnants of seigneurial power were confined to the Malaspina lands on the northern fringes of Lucca’s the middle years of the Guinigi signoria: GPG 2, p. 91 (Gorfigliano and Castagnori), pp. 145–6 (Deccio and Tramonte), p. 240 (Massa Pisana and S. Maria del Giudice), p. 249 (S. Gennaro and Borgonuovo), p. 251 (S. Giusto di Compito and Villora), p. 251 (S. Lorenzo di Massa Macinaia and Colognora), p. 286 (S. Pietro a Guamo and S. Cassiano a Guamo). ¹²⁵ GPG 1, p. 266. ¹²⁶ The administrative union of neighbouring communes was taking place regularly from 1363: Leverotti, Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento, p. 186; Cianelli, Dissertazioni, ii, pp. 107–8. See also: Meek, The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, pp. 53–6. ¹²⁷ GPG 1, pp. 209–10, 262–3; 2, p. 351. More general concessions resulted in 1418 following the depredations of Braccio da Montone: GPG 2, p. 459; Antonelli, Bianco Bianchi, p. 188. ¹²⁸ C. E. Meek, ‘Paolo Guinigi, parenti e amici’, Quaderni Lucchesi di Studi sul Medioevo e sul Rinascimento, 4 (2003), pp. 9–32, particularly pp. 11–14. ¹²⁹ I. Lazzarini, ‘Il diritto urbano in una signoria cittadina: Gli statuti mantovani dai Bonacolsi ai Gonzaga (1313–1404)’, in G. Chittolini and D. Willoweit (eds.), Statuti, città, territori in Italia e Germania tra medioevo ed età moderna (Bologna, 1991), pp. 381–417.

142


territories. There, Paolo Guinigi entered into accomandigia arrangements with local feudatories—after the pattern of other seigneurial regimes, but also as republican Lucca and republican Florence had done (and were to continue to do after Guinigi’s fall). Elsewhere the power of the nobility had long since been subordinated to that of the vicars appointed from Lucca.¹³⁰ By 1400 there were few surviving juridical exemptions within the core territory of the Lucchese state. As has been shown in the preceding chapters, the most important of these were ecclesiastical: the temporal jurisdiction of Lucca’s bishop along the middle and upper Serchio, and the lands of the cathedral chapter on the western borders of the Sei Miglia.¹³¹ The rule of the bishop over Moriano had been vigorously and comprehensively reasserted by the court of the Podestà in 1276.¹³² In practice, the ecclesiastical immunities had come to depend upon the administrative structures and coercive power of the state,¹³³ while under Paolo Guinigi relations between bishop and signore seem to have been close and cooperative.¹³⁴ Among secular lords, the heirs of the Porcaresi in 1410 continued to claim jurisdiction over Porcari.¹³⁵ The formulae were a legacy of the past; I have been unable to find practical expressions of seigneurial power in the public records. Paolo Guinigi himself, as part heir of the Antelminelli through his mother, Filippa Serpenti, inherited seigneurial rights of low justice over certain communities in the vicariate of Pietrasanta.¹³⁶ It may be significant that the communes of Monteggiori and Vegghiatoia (forming the Guinigi inheritance) had their own podestà under Paolo Guinigi.¹³⁷ But the men of both communes continued to appear before the court of the vicar of Pietrasanta, with no indication that they had been in some sense subtracted from the vicariate. ¹³⁰ See also: Antonelli, Conviene chio tamassi, pp. 45–8, 120. ¹³¹ By this time the powers of jurisdiction of the abbots of Sesto to the south amounted to very little, and, for the most part, covered territories that had long since been lost to Lucca. ¹³² AAL Fondo Diplomatico, ∗ G31. ¹³³ See, e.g., the case of Giovanni di Iacopo of S. Stefano di Moriano: GPG 1, p. 197. I have been unable to clarify the details of the case from the records of the Podestà. For the pursuit of banniti by the Capitano del contado within the communities of Moriano, contado of Lucca: SB 120, fos. 98v , 101r . In 1413 the Capitano and Maggiore Officiale di Custodia della Città sentenced to death in absentia a number of men from Moriano who had plotted in Pisa against the lord and city of Lucca: SB 123, fo. 3r – v . When Landuccio del fu Landuccio of S. Pancrazio resisted arrest in the palace of the bishop at Marlia, he did not seem to be claiming any special ecclesiastical immunity: SB 137, fos. 118r –119v . ¹³⁴ Meek, ‘Paolo Guinigi’, pp. 16–17; Potenti, ‘Proprietà cittadina e comitatina’, pp. 118–19, 140–6. ¹³⁵ The Porcaresi inheritance in 1410 included ‘totum Territorium & Burgos & Castrum de Porcari cum jurisdictione in homines de Porcari tamquam in vassallos, & totum terrenum & locum de Porcario excepta dumtaxat Turri dicti Castri, quam tenet & possidet sub sua obedientia magnificus Dominus Lucanus’: Cianelli, Dissertazioni, iii, pt. i, p. 128. ¹³⁶ AN 327(IV) (ser Antonio Morovelli da Castelnuovo), loose and unfoliated instrument dated 23 Jan. 1409, fos. 10v –35r ; ASL Archivio Arnolfini, 2, fos. 14v –16v , 19v –22r . In Feb. 1409, Paolo Guinigi ‘entrò in possessione di Monteggiori, come suoi beni proprij, non come Signore’: Antonelli, Bianco Bianchi, p. 187. ¹³⁷ GPG 2, p. 355.


143

We are left, therefore, with the conviction that the thirty-year rule of Paolo Guinigi consolidated rather than changed Lucca’s governance of the Sei Miglia and vicariates. Guinigi seized power with substantial backing from the contado, where his rule gave new direction to Guelf/Ghibelline identity. He faced formidable problems in the countryside, which he tackled with energy and imagination. Even more, perhaps, than in the past, there was a focus of judicial process upon the city; certainly there was a centralization of administrative and fiscal power around the person of the prince. Until the conflict with Florence in 1429, Paolo Guinigi successfully defended the geographical integrity of the Lucchese state, as created with the recovery of liberty in 1369. Recent attempts to attribute to the Guinigi period a more revolutionary role in the processes of state formation appear to be unfounded. And in the last months of Guinigi’s rule everything threatened to unravel as, once again, Lucca’s very existence as an independent state was threatened by neighbouring powers. From the wars of the late 1420s and 1430s emerged the Lucchese state that was to endure until the French Revolutionary wars at the end of the eighteenth century. The character of that state as a politico-administrative and economic entity becomes the theme of the final two chapters.

6 Lucca and its Territories in the Fifteenth Century: Politics and Administration The Florentine invasion of 1429 that led to the fall of Paolo Guinigi was caused, or justified, by the support given by Guinigi to Ladislao, King of Naples, and by the more recent employment of Guinigi’s son, Ladislao, in the military service of the Duke of Milan.¹ Niccolò Fortebraccio, first with the encouragement, then in the employ of Florence, devastated the Lucchese contado and closely besieged the city. From Barga the Florentines invaded the Garfagnana, parts of which sought security by handing themselves over to the Marchese Niccolò d’Este. During the wars of 1429–33 and 1436–8 the territories controlled by Lucca changed dramatically and frequently. Very few castelli were held by Lucca over the entire period 1429–42: Nozzano and Montecarlo, defended in the first war, were lost in the second. In terms of the league with Florence of March 1441, Lucca recovered most—though not all—of the lands lost to Florence since 1428. The loss, since 1436, of the vicariate of Pietrasanta to Genoa was to prove more permanent.² So too were many of the losses in the north to the Este and Malaspina, though the lands around Minucciano were recovered in 1449, and those around Gallicano in 1450. By 1450 the Lucchese state had assumed the strange configuration that it was to retain throughout the remaining centuries of independence. The Sei Miglia was firmly under the rule of the city, as it had been since antiquity. The eastern border was essentially that established in the fourteenth century—Lucca retaining the vicariate of Valdilima, with fragments of the old vicariates of the Valdinievole and Valdriana (now excluding Montecarlo). To the west, Montignoso was an isolated enclave after the loss of Pietrasanta. To the north were various fragments—territory formerly belonging to the vicariate of Gallicano, the scattered components of the reduced vicariate of Castiglione, and Minucciano—separated from Lucca, and from each other, by territories subject to Modena and to Florence.³ ¹ Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, p. 17; P. Pertici, ‘La caduta di Paolo Guinigi e la parte senese nei fatti di Lucca’, in Quaderni Lucchesi di Studi sul Medioevo e sul Rinascimento, 4 (2003), pp. 211–12. ² Pietrasanta was recovered briefly by Lucca (from Florence) in 1494, before passing finally under the rule of Florence. ³ The material is treated in more detail in Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 209–55. Curiously, in 1482 Gramolazzo is described as being in the vicariate of Castiglione: AN 1041 (ser Bartolomeo da Treppignana), fo. 169v .

The Fifteenth Century: Politics and Administration

145

In many respects fifteenth-century Lucca was a very weak state, though a state with a powerful historical memory of past boundaries. Lucca appealed periodically for outside intervention or arbitration for the recovery of lost territories; occasionally the support of local factions might reverse the losses of the 1430s and 1440s.⁴ But Lucca showed little capacity to win back territories for itself, and little inclination to antagonize more powerful neighbours by attempting to do so. Loyalty, especially that of newly recovered territories, was encouraged and rewarded by wide-ranging privileges and exemptions. A plethora of such rewards followed the peace with Florence in 1433: in particular the agreements reached with the vicariates of Castiglione and Camporgiano.⁵ Further exemptions and privileges to vulnerable communities followed after 1438: for example, the men of Castiglione, in compensation for their suffering, and in reward for their faithfulness, were exempted from all property tax (excluding the salt tax) for three years.⁶ Even more lavish were the rewards granted to Minucciano and Gallicano, restored to Lucchese rule in 1449 and 1450 respectively.⁷ The policy was hardly new: Castiglione and Camporgiano themselves, with the podesterìa of Casoli oltre Giogo, had been similarly favoured by exemption from the Lucchese customs (gabelle) when recovered by Lucca in the early 1370s.⁸ Nor is the policy helpful as an index of Lucchese weakness. The exemptions granted by the Este to the communes of the Garfagnana,⁹ or by Genoa to Pietrasanta,¹⁰ were more extravagant than any of the encouragements offered by Lucca. The Florentine state, itself, in the fifteenth century remained ‘a mosaic of fiscal communities’.¹¹ Within those territories that remained under Lucchese control, and particularly in the more mountainous and least accessible areas, the power of the state was clearly very fragile indeed. The eastern borders with Pistoia were especially difficult to control. At a local level, an attempt to address the problem in 1471 through the appointment of a podestà for Vico Pancellorum failed to produce the desired results.¹² More generally, the forces of the Capitano del contado might provide a military solution in specific instances of disobedience and civil unrest, but were no answer to the wider problem of stable, routine administration. And, even as a military solution, the nine or ten retainers of the Capitano del contado might prove woefully inadequate when confronted by determined local resistance or cross-border raiders. In the Garfagnana, problems of government ⁴ Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 250–4. ⁵ Rif. 14, pp. 450–2, 503–4; ASL Capitoli, 10, pp. 142–4. ⁶ ASL Capitoli, 10, p. 146. ⁷ Rif. 17, pp. 167–9, 181; ASL Capitoli, 10, pp. 18–22. ⁸ Rif. 3, p. 221; ASL Capitoli, 10, pp. 112–25. Grants were made to the vicariates themselves, and to individual communes within them. In the case of S. Donnino, the aim was explicitly to encourage local communities to become an example to others. ⁹ ASL Capitoli, 10, pp. 140–2. ¹⁰ Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 248–9, with appropriate caveats. ¹¹ Cohn, Creating the Florentine State, p. 7. ¹² Rif. 19, pp. 770–1; 20, pp. 452–3.

146


are well recorded in the writings of the Estense governor, Ludovico Ariosto;¹³ the parallel difficulties of a Lucchese counterpart are clear from a series of letters written from Lucca in the 1490s to the vicar of Castiglione, Giovanni de’Medici—exacerbated in Castiglione by the continuing faith of the Anziani of Lucca in the power of their local representative to discipline mountaindwellers and to show them the error of their ways.¹⁴ Again, in this respect too, Lucca (and Ferrara) were hardly distinctive. Even the vicars, capitani, and podestà of the sixteenth-century Florentine state were endowed with very slender coercive powers; though, of course, the capacity of Florence for shortterm military interventions within and beyond its borders was immeasurably greater.¹⁵ Whether Lucca’s demonstrable difficulties in the administration of peripheral areas can be translated as a light and enfeebled fiscal regime is a difficult question to answer. Many demands were made of the inhabitants of the countryside. They might be required to send a specified quantity of wheat and barley to the city. The grain was paid for, but its dispatch might result in local shortages.¹⁶ Local men were responsible for the supply and repair of the fortifications situated within their commune. The obligation was frequently resisted by contadini, who were then accused by Lucca of ingratitude, and of refusing to contribute even towards their own defence and security.¹⁷ Local communities were also responsible for the maintenance of roads and bridges.¹⁸ In 1471 a committee of Lucchese citizens, the Sei Cittadini sopra le Entrate, were granted powers to raise money from contadini for the upgrading of the via di Montramito that linked Lucca to the developing port of Viareggio.¹⁹ Such obligations were again often resisted, or unenthusiastically performed: in the 1440s men of the vicariate of Valdilima were fined for their failure to repair the bridge at Calavorno.²⁰ ¹³ G. Fusai, Ludovico Ariosto poeta e commissario in Garfagnana nel quarto centenario della morte (Arezzo, 1933). ¹⁴ ASL Anziani al tempo della libertà, 654(1). See particularly the letter dated 23 Aug. 1491, no foliation. ¹⁵ E. Fasano Guarini, ‘Potere centrale e comunità soggette nel Granducato di Cosimo I’, Rivista storica italiana, 89 (1977), pp. 499–504. ¹⁶ VVl. ACiv. 97, fos. 7v , 8r , 10r . In Valdilima the grain was collected on the basis of the estimo: 10 staia of wheat and 12 staia of barley per libbra. For the demand of 1,200 staia of wheat from the communes of Camporgiano in July 1409: ASL Vicario di Camporeggiana, ACiv. 113, fo. 8v . The obligation was distributed locally at the rate of 1 21 staia for every ‘fuoco vecchio’ and 1 43 staia for every ‘fuoco nuovo’: ibid., fo. 9r . In 1410, 3,000 staia of wheat were required from the vicariate of Massa: ASL Vicario di Massa Lunese, ACiv. 88, fo. 4v . ¹⁷ e.g., ASL Anziani al tempo della libertà, 654(1), letter dated 23 Aug. 1491 and appended extract from statute. ¹⁸ The responsibilities of the communes of the vicariate of Camporgiano in this regard were confirmed to their representatives by the newly appointed vicar, Neri de’Dombellinghi, in July 1409: ASL Vicario di Camporeggiana, ACiv. 113, fo. 24v . Negligence was punishable with a fine of £25 per commune. For Camaiore, see, e.g., VC ACiv. 173, fo. 13v . And equivalent orders survive from the other vicariates. ¹⁹ Rif. 19, p. 700. ²⁰ Rif. 16, p. 474.


147

In the troubled fourteenth century, repeated imposts had been imposed on the inhabitants of the vicariates for the support of troops.²¹ Throughout the wars of the 1430s, Lucca had been in no position to make heavy demands on its devastated and fragile territories: during the lull after 1433 a demand of 600 ducats from Pietrasanta was one factor that led to Lucca’s loss of Pietrasanta in 1436.²² After the 1440s, Lucca was in a stronger position, but now had less need for military services and extraordinary impositions.²³ The regular taxes of the vicariates remained: the taxes to cover the expenses of local administration; the salt tax;²⁴ and the taxes on mercantile and legal transactions (gabelle)—generally replaced by fixed compositions at the end of the 1440s. There is no difficulty in listing the dues and obligations that might be required from the inhabitants of the vicariates and of the Sei Miglia. Nor is there a shortage of data relating to individual impositions. For the first semester of 1415, residents of the vicariate of Valdriana were required to make two payments to cover the expenses of the vicarial court. Assessments were based partly on property valuations (the estimo), partly on the number of nuclear families (fuochi): in March at the rate of 50s piccoli per pound (libbra or libbra estimale) and 10s. per fuoco; in June at 60s. per libbra and 10s. per fuoco.²⁵ Comparable figures from Valdriana for the first three months of 1399 (though including expenses for the fortifications of Collodi) were 65s. per libbra and 8s. per fuoco.²⁶ In Valdilima, on 2 September 1408, the expenses of the vicariate since 20 May were calculated at £920 18s. piccoli, to be paid through an imposition based on the estimo at the rate of £9 4s. per libbra. For the following months of October to December expenses amounted to £820 14s. piccoli, which, deducting £103 2s. 6d. owed by the treasurer (camarlingo), could be met through a tax based on the estimo of £7 3s. 6d. per libbra.²⁷ To assess the overall burden on the countryside, one would need a complete record of all the miscellaneous taxes and services due.²⁸ Clearly ²¹ e.g., VP ACiv. 4, fos. 16r –18r . ²² ASL Amministrazione delle comunità soggette e delle vicarie, 38, fos. 21r –26v , 28v –30r , 30v –32v . ²³ During the conflict with the Este over Gallicano in 1450, a military force of 500 fanti and cerne was raised from the countryside for the recovery of places in the Garfagnana: ASL Anziani al tempo della libertà, 532, no. 32, fos. 88v , 98v . ²⁴ In 1401 the salt tax of the villages of Molazzana, Vallico di Sotto, Vallico di Sopra, Verni, and Cardoso in the vicariate of Gallicano amounted to 56 florins and £288 5s. 8d . (reduced to 50 florins): GPG 1, pp. 52, 111. There were frequent protests during the Guinigi years that communities were no longer able to pay the salt tax because of the growing gulf between the number of mouths assessed and the number of remaining residents. For an example that includes Cardoso: ibid., p. 361. ²⁵ The imposition is described as a datio ‘ad libras et focos’: ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv. 97, no (visible) foliation. ²⁶ ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv. 82, no (visible) foliation. ²⁷ VVl. ACiv. 97, fos. 10v , 11v . Cf. the tax approved by a general parlamento of the vicariate of Camaiore on 23 Feb. 1410 at the rate of £6 per libbra and 12s. per fuoco: VC ACiv. 173, fo. 15v . ²⁸ Failure to pay (on time) their proportion of the salary of the Capitano del contado was one of the most frequent reasons for the fining of communities during the early years of the fifteenth

148


the burden varied from year to year according to the precise needs of local and central government.²⁹ Clearly the obligations of some communities were greater (or, at least different) from those of others; though the residents of important castelli, who carried special responsibilities for manning and maintaining local defences, were likely to be compensated through exemptions from many of the regular obligations imposed on other communes of their vicariate. Everything depends on the relationship between fiscal assessments and property values; on the potential for evasion and non-payment; and on the equitable (or inequitable) distribution of taxes and services. There are too many variables and unknowns to permit us to speak of fiscal oppression—or, indeed, of a light fiscal regime—with any confidence. We can say, however, that a relatively small proportion of Lucca’s total revenues seems to have been derived from the vicariates. Christine Meek has calculated the total revenues of the late-fourteenth-century Lucchese state at between 65,000 and 70,000 florins per annum.³⁰ Two volumes in the archival series Camarlingo Generale, one for the second semester 1405, the second for the second semester 1410, provide an overview of state finances at the beginning of the fifteenth century.³¹ In the last six months of 1405, the gabelle of the vicariates together (including compositions and the gabelle farmed) brought a total revenue of £16,421 5s. 7d . at £3 16s. to the florin (approximately 4,320 florins). A further £1,245 0s. 1d. (approximately 330 florins) came to Lucca from the profits of justice. The vicariates paid £2,121 6s. towards the salary of the Capitano del contado (with the communes of the Sei Miglia paying a further £2,416 12s.); and they paid £8,244 11s. 4d . towards the salaries and expenses of the vicars, podestà, and their respective courts. Individual vicariates and communes (including communes of the Sei Miglia) made more century: GPG 1. Failure to pay for wax for the vigil of Santa Croce might similarly result in fines: ibid., p. 103. ²⁹ The demands made on the men of the commune of Camaiore seem to have been substantially more onerous in the war years on either side of 1430 than they were later to become. Expenses for the three months Jan.–Mar. 1428 were covered by a tax of £14 10s. piccoli per libbra, £1 3s. per testa, and 15s. per fuoco. In Apr. 1428 the salt tax was assessed at £14 per libbra and 17s. per mouth (bocca)—in a community of 670 bocche. Paolo Guinigi was also demanding specified quantities of grain to be sent to Lucca, and fodder for the horses of his son Ladislao and the Camaiore garrison. In 1431 many men of the commune were absent on military service. Camaiore was required to assist in the rebuilding of the fortress of Viareggio, and thereafter the regular and extraordinary contributions remained high. The burden was accentuated by the prevalence of citizen and ecclesiastical property. For example: Archivio Comunale, Camaiore, Deliberazioni, 112, fos. 10v –11r , 15v , 24v , 26r , 37r –40r (which lists 692 bocche); 113, fos. 1v , 9v , 13r , 24v , 29r–v , 34r –36v , 38r , 39r , 47v , 48v , 50r – v , 51v . Impressionistically the tax burden after the 1440s appears to have been lighter (no doubt aided by the beginnings of demographic recovery), and part of the extraordinary expenses could now be met from the regular revenues of the commune. e.g., Archivio Comunale, Camaiore, Deliberazioni, 113, fos. 287v –288v (Sept. 1452). ³⁰ Meek, Lucca 1369–1400, pp. 48–54. ³¹ ASL Camarlingo Generale, 84 (1405), 85 (1410). These volumes were kindly brought to my attention by Professor Meek. For comparison, I have also looked at 83 (1383–9).


149

miscellaneous payments for the maintenance of fortresses, amounting in total to £1,127 16s. (of which £1,081 16s. derived from the vicariates). Assuming that sums paid in arrears from previous accounting periods roughly equal amounts remaining unpaid from the second semester of 1405, it would appear that Lucca received from the main sources of revenue due from the vicariates a total of nearly 7,800 florins (or 15,500 per annum)—of which 28 per cent was directly allocated to local administration. In the second semester of 1410 the revenues of the gabelle of the vicariates (with payment for farms and compositions) amounted to £15,065 12s. 5d., the profits of justice to £993 10s. 11d ., and the costs of vicarial administrations totalled £8,053 5s. 4d . The sums are sufficiently similar to inspire confidence, but both sets of figures relate to the second semester of the year, and, in order to calculate annual revenue, it would have been useful to have the accounts for the months January to June. The records do not furnish comparable information for the rest of the fifteenth century. But, whatever Lucca’s total revenues from the vicariates, the contribution of the gabelle even of the valuable vicariate of Pietrasanta, in the two decades before it was lost to Lucca, was relatively modest: 451 florins and £2,774 11s. 1d. (approximately 1,200 florins in total) for the first semester 1415;³² 309 florins and £1,790 9s. 9d. (approximately 790 florins) for the first semester 1425;³³ 163 florins and £2,091 11s. 1d . (approximately 720 florins) for the first semester 1426.³⁴ In the compositions reached with the vicariates in 1449, contributions ranged from the 225 florins auri in auro (at 40 bolognini per florin) required per annum of Valdriana to the 800 florins (reduced to 600 florins on appeal) that were the annual assessment for Coreglia.³⁵ Rather more might be expected from the richer and more fertile Sei Miglia. Berengo has shown tax returns of £15,075 from the Sei Miglia in 1522, rising to £23,246 in 1554 (with, in 1553, a further £9,616 due in terms of an agreement on the salt tax and for payment of the bargello, and £4,230 to cover local administrative expenses).³⁶ We can add that Lucca, whether from compassion or weakness, generally responded sympathetically to the plethora of petitions emanating, particularly in the first half of the fifteenth century, from ³² GCV Pietrasanta, 70, first foliation, fo. 90r . Gabelle accounts were calculated in part in florins, in part in libbre, soldi, and denari. ³³ GCV Pietrasanta, 77, second foliation, fo. 92v . ³⁴ Ibid., fifth foliation, fo. 92r . Christine Meek has calculated that 11.94% of total Lucchese revenues (7,829 florins) came from the gabelle of the vicariates in 1377: ‘Finanze comunali e finanze locali nel quattordicesimo secolo: L’esempio di Montecarlo’, in Castelli e borghi della Toscana tardo medioevale: Atti del Convegno di Studi, 28–29 maggio 1983 (Pescia, 1985), p. 153. ³⁵ Rif. 17, pp. 86–8, 91–2, 99–101, 103–6. For further details: Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 222–4. ³⁶ M. Berengo, ‘Il contado lucchese agli inizi del xvi secolo’, in G. Chittolini (ed.), La crisi degli ordinamenti comunali e le origini dello stato del Rinascimento (Bologna, 1979), p. 271.

150


rural communities seeking redress and relief. The petitions speak uniformly of poverty and of an inability to meet obligations.³⁷ How far this can be used as evidence that the scarce profits drawn by Lucca from her territories still resulted in unbearable hardships, and how far these hardships were alleviated by specific concessions, is impossible to assess. One can only say that any taxation would have been unpopular, and that severe local dislocations were gradually removed with the demographic recovery and more settled conditions after the mid-century. If fifteenth-century Lucca was weak, even in the context of the limited resources and coercive powers of all fifteenth-century states, it was also highly centralized and intrusive. Most obviously, the Lucchese state was largely free of rival, autonomous jurisdictions within its borders, though a partial exception is provided by the lands of the bishop and chapter. The canons and chapter of the cathedral of S. Martino, for example, claimed temporal jurisdiction over the villages of Massarosa, Fibbialla, Gualdo, and Ricetro. On these western margins of the Lucchese plain, they asserted their full lordship in matters temporal and spiritual, and recognized no superior authority.³⁸ The canons appointed their own podestà, whose court, normally held in the cloisters of the cathedral, exercised jurisdiction over both civil and criminal cases. Many volumes of court records are preserved in the Archivio Capitolare di Lucca. They show the podestà handling civil cases between or involving churchmen; between residents of the lands of the canons and chapter; or instituted by citizens in matters involving the men and lands of the canons and chapter. The cases mostly relate to disputes over tithes, leases, petty debts (often owed to citizens), and unpaid rents (including those claimed by the canons themselves). In the borderland between civil and criminal actions, there are also frequent claims of danno dato, and suits against the communal officials who neglected to report such offences within the allotted eight days.³⁹ The criminal cases concern resistance to the sequestration of property (the taking of preda) by communal officials, the lighting of uncontrolled fires, injurious words, and assaults (including assaults with weapons that resulted in the shedding of blood). In 1411 there was a well-reported case of domestic violence, in which Lexio di Giovanni alias Riccio of Fibbialla successfully defended himself ³⁷ Rif. 14, pp. 324, 430, 435, 494, 495, 593; 15, pp. 243, 490; 17, pp. 57–8, 87, 91, 101, 202, 827–8; ASL Capitoli, 7, Libri di Sentenze, p. 63. The compositions reached with the vicariates in 1449 rested on the assumption that their capacity to pay had been significantly reduced as a consequence of war and depopulation: Rif. 17, pp. 86–7, 91, 99–101, 103–5, 111, 105–6. ³⁸ ‘Sunt meri domini nec alium superiorem recognoscunt’: ACL A+30 Liber Reclamorum etc, 1410–1413 (ser Antonio qd. Morovelli qd. Landi), no foliation. The claims (with regard to Fibbialla) were vindicated in a judgment of 1333, preserved in a seventeenth-century copy in the chapter archives: ACL y.1, Documenti di svariate materie, 12. ³⁹ According to the formula, communal officials of Massarosa, Fibbialla, Gualdo, and Ricetro were bound to report damages in terms of the statute of the court of the podestà, but also in accordance with the decrees and statutes of Lucca.


151

by invoking his statutory right to discipline members of his own family.⁴⁰ Fines of those found guilty were paid to the camarlingo of the chapter, with appeals addressed to the canons and chapter.⁴¹ The autonomy of the ecclesiastical territories should not be exaggerated. The men appointed as podestà for the lands of the cathedral chapter were citizens and notaries of Lucca. They held court in the house of the Gabella Maggiore of Lucca, or at the seat of the gabella at the city gates (as well as in the cloisters of the cathedral, and in the palace of the canons at Massarosa). Their court did not always appoint agents of its own; rather its messengers (nuncii) might be drawn from those of all the city courts—just as those of the bishop’s court might be nuncii of the commune of Lucca.⁴² The podestà of the canons was certainly hearing cases such as highway robbery, which would have been beyond the jurisdiction of Lucchese vicars in their vicariates. But there are no signs (at least in the volumes that I have read) that the podestà was hearing the most serious criminal cases, or, at least, any offences that were punishable with more than a fine.⁴³ The court held by the vicar of the bishop had more diverse functions, in so far as it handled cases that were reserved to ecclesiastical jurisdiction from the whole diocese: usury, for example, or the legitimacy of a marriage. The episcopal court also heard civil cases from the lands under the secular jurisdiction of Lucca’s bishop (Diecimo, Aquilea, Sesto di Moriano, S. Stefano di Moriano, S. Cassiano, S. Lorenzo, S. Michele, and S. Quirico di Moriano). These cases were very similar to those handled by the podestà of the cathedral chapter. Few records have survived for the bishop’s criminal jurisdiction; those we have are dominated (though not exclusively) by breaches of canon law, assaults on clerics, and other cases that fall under the general heading of ⁴⁰ Interestingly, the attack on Lexio’s wife, Sanctuccia, was reported to the podestà by the officials of Fibbialla. The statute cited by Lexio was the statute of the court of the podestà. ACL A+30, no foliation, case beginning 20 Sept. 1411; sentence dated 22 Mar. 1412. ⁴¹ The language of the appeal to the cathedral chapter by Pietro di Bonello and Sancto di Giovanni of Massarosa, motivated in terms of their poverty, their loyalty, and the veiled threat of their departure, is very reminiscent of appeals made elsewhere to the Consiglio Generale of Lucca. ACL A+30, no foliation, 2–7 Sept. 1412. ⁴² e.g., Lorenzo da Aquilea and Giovanni di Paolo: AAL Tribunale Ecclesiastico, 138, 1479–1480 (ser Acconcio Nuccorini). But, in 1450, Bartolomeo ser Cambi was specially described as sworn nuncio of the court of the podestà of the chapter of Lucca: e.g., ACL B+5, fo. 34v . And there are many references to the nuncii of the court of the lord bishop of Lucca. ⁴³ For an alleged case of highway robbery (admittedly involving only the violent theft of a cloak): ACL B+5, fos. 47r –48r . Fines imposed by the podestà seldom exceeded £30 buona moneta (@ 58s. to the florin). In 1470 the chapter’s podestà announced his intention ‘ex nostro mero offitio’ to proceed in a case against a man accused of armed assault with a lance in the street of Massarosa that had resulted in the shedding of blood. If the accusation were proven to be true, he would sentence and punish according to the statutes of the city of Lucca. The podestà was ordered by the cathedral chapter not to proceed (perhaps because of the local importance of Piero Poveri, father of the accused; perhaps because the case had been claimed by the city courts): ACL B+15, fo. 33r – v . Serious criminal cases against priests were heard by the Cathedral chapter, and the role of the podestà was reduced to that of notary of the court: ACL y.3, Documenti vari, 6.

152


benefit of clergy.⁴⁴ The court of the bishop’s vicar remained jealous of its prerogatives, which it defended not only against the courts of Lucca but also against those of neighbouring powers.⁴⁵ The extant records show the bishop’s vicar hearing the testimony of witnesses in a case from Diecimo that involved allegations of murder by poisoning.⁴⁶ But, like that of the chapter’s podestà, the bishop’s court seems seldom to have tried the most serious, unambiguously secular criminal cases. By a pact of 1443, the bishop enjoyed the use of the communal prison;⁴⁷ in practice, the episcopal administration was dependent on the law-enforcement agencies of the city, and criminals detained by the Podestà of Lucca were likely to appear before the city courts.⁴⁸ One consequence of this dependence on the military and police functions of the commune (though hardly new) was that the ecclesiastical jurisdictions of both bishop and chapter had become firmly integrated into the Lucchese fisc. The men of the chapter’s lands had long been subject, jointly with those of the vicariate of Camaiore, to the Lucchese official responsible for the local collection of gabelle —whose claims were enforced in the court of the chapter’s podestà.⁴⁹ Agreements of 1443 and 1446 confirmed Lucca’s right to collect gabelle, proventi, and the salt tax within the episcopal Iura and in the lands of the chapter; in return, bishop and chapter continued to enjoy the aid and protection of Lucca.⁵⁰ If we exclude the lands of the bishop and cathedral chapter of Lucca, always much less autonomous in practice than in theory, one measure of Lucchese centralization is the almost total absence in the fifteenth century of treaties (accomandigie) with the nobles of the countryside. The expansion of the Florentine state was accompanied by a great number of accomandigie, many of them negotiated with various branches of the Malaspina, whose territories covered the northern reaches of Lucca’s traditional area of influence.⁵¹ In 1373 Marco and Lucchino, marchesi Malaspina de Olivola, had requested Lucchese citizenship, and submitted all their lands (‘omnia eorum castra, fortilitias atque ⁴⁴ AAL Libri Antichi, 99A, 99B. ⁴⁵ e.g., that of the capitano of Castelnuovo Garfagnana, by 1479 in the distretto of Ferrara though still in the diocese of Lucca: AAL Tribunale Ecclesiastico, 138, fo. 28r . In fifteenth-century Piazza e Sala minor civil cases were judged by a local podestà, other cases continued to be reserved to the visconte and vicar general of the bishop’s court: Angelini, Problemi di storia longobarda, p. 44. ⁴⁷ Rif. 16, pp. 311–18. ⁴⁶ AAL Libri Antichi, 99A, fos. 42r – v . ⁴⁸ There is reference to a potentially interesting case among the political records of Paolo Guinigi (GPG 1, p. 197), but I have been unable to locate the case in the Atti Criminali of the court of the Podestà. ⁴⁹ Claims of Nicolao del fu Cardino of Camaiore against Nicolino di Domenico da Vezzano (living in Massarosa) and Nicolao di Guido, called Chierico, of Massarosa: ACL A+30, no foliation. See also ACL B+15, fos. 21r –23v for the sale of proventi in the chapter’s lands by Lucchese officials. ⁵⁰ Rif. 16, pp. 311–18, 609, 628–30. ⁵¹ Guasti and Gherardi (eds.), Capitoli. For discussion of agreements that remained a live political issue in the late eighteenth century: Maccioni, Difesa del dominio, particularly pt. 2, pp. 171–268, 611–15.


153

rocchas, villas et eius homines’) to Lucca.⁵² Paolo Guinigi concluded treaties with the Malaspina; Bartolomeo marchese Malaspina addressed Paolo from Verrucola as ‘mio magnifico Signore e padre’.⁵³ Tommaso and Fioramonte Malaspina de Villafranca entered into an alliance with the Lucchese republic re-established after Guinigi’s fall. They promised military aid and pledged obedience to Lucca, symbolized by the offering of candles at the vigil of S. Croce; in return, Lucca promised to defend their castelli and lands.⁵⁴ But this treaty with the lords of distant Panicale and Virgoletta was essentially an alliance with external powers. It tells us little about the organization or governance of the Lucchese state. The civil and criminal court registers of the vicariates are much richer and more complete than the administrative record. Nevertheless, the acts in civilibus and the acts in criminalibus are supplemented by the occasional liber memorialis or liber memorie describing at least some aspects of the vicarial administration. In total, there are more than 260 volumes entitled ‘Liber memorialis’ or ‘Liber extraordinariorum sive memorie’. Some vicariates (Valdriana, Camporgiano, Camaiore) are better represented than others, with virtually nothing surviving from Castiglione and Pietrasanta.⁵⁵ As far as I can see, the collection ends during the second decade of Paolo Guinigi’s rule, with the last (for Valdriana) dated 1415.⁵⁶ Volumes begin with the name of the vicar and of the notary, or notaries, of his court, all appointed by Lucca. They also record the name of the judge of the vicariate: an office held for all the vicariates during the first half of the Guinigi period (from the second semester 1401) by Tommaso da Ghivizzano. Even before Tommaso da Ghivizzano, the judge was no longer permanently resident in the vicariate, nor was he now involved in the routine administration of the vicariate, as seems to have been the case when records first began in the 1330s.⁵⁷ Finally, the introductory page provides the names of the camarlingo generale (sometimes described as factor—factore) and the nuncii of the vicarial court. ⁵² Riformagioni, ed. Tori, iv, pp. 133–4. ⁵³ Lazzareschi (ed.), Regesti, iii, pt. ii, no. 94. For the murder of Bartolomeo Malaspina marchese of Verrucola and Fivizzano in 1418, and its consequences: Sforza, Memorie e documenti, i, pp. 326–8. ⁵⁴ Rif. 14, pp. 583, 586–9; Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, p. 174. ⁵⁵ I know of only one volume from Pietrasanta: VP ACiv. 4 (1339). For Castiglione: ASL Vicario di Castiglione, ACiv. 5 (1373). ⁵⁶ ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv. 97. The file for ASL Vicario di Coreglia, ACiv. 259 (Liber memorie. Moroellus de Mordecastellis vic. ser Antonius qm. Morovelli not., July–Dec. 1499) is empty (vaca). ⁵⁷ In the first semester of 1339, the judge of the vicariate of Pietrasanta (initially Pietro Cacciaguerra de Cortona, later Bartolomeo de Connis of Bologna) played a leading role at the side—and often in the place—of the vicar (initially Bernardino de Magredo, later Brunetto Malizardi): VP ACiv. 4, fos. 1r –40v . An advocate of the court (the lawyer Nicolao Gigli) and a procurator (the notary ser Gerardo di ser Ugo), both of Lucca, were appointed on behalf of vicar, judge, notaries, and camarlingo: ibid., fo. 10r . By the fifteenth century, the earlier practice of members of the college of judges visiting the vicariates had been replaced by the notaries of the vicarial courts bringing the records of criminal proceedings to Lucca: GPG 2, p. 222.

154


These (especially the camarlingo) were likely to be local men who were usually appointed by the representatives of the communes of the vicariate, meeting together with their vicar. But the podestà of Casoli oltre Giogo seems to have appointed his own camarlingo.⁵⁸ And in Gallicano, in March 1405, for the peace and good governance of that vicariate, Paolo Guinigi assumed sole responsibility for the appointment of both syndics and camarlinghi.⁵⁹ After the appointment of each new vicar, usually in early January and early July, there was a general assembly (parlamento) of the representatives (sindici) of all the constituent communes of the vicariate.⁶⁰ The parlamento, in the presence of the vicar, appointed the camarlingo generale, the court messengers (nuncii), a committee to fix (with the vicar) the retail price of meat and other foodstuffs, and perhaps two or more men to review (syndicate) the accounts of the outgoing camarlingo.⁶¹ At this first meeting, the new vicar instructed the sindici that the statute and constitutions of the vicariate were to be inviolably observed. These were then read out, and the list was essentially the same across all the vicariates, with few changes of order or wording. The residents of the vicariate were forbidden to blaspheme God, His mother the Blessed Virgin Mary, or His saints; to play, or encourage the playing of forbidden games of chance; to say anything against Lucca or Paolo Guinigi its lord; to assist or communicate with banniti and rebels; to carry offensive or defensive weapons; or to export prohibited victuals from Lucchese territory. The sindici were instructed to report these and other offences to the vicar and his court. The nuncii (in this sense, heralds) were then sent to proclaim these orders at the usual places at the seat of the vicariate, and sometimes explicitly also in its component communes. At subsequent meetings of the general parlamento further decrees might be issued. These were sometimes a reiteration of individual ordinances, or additions to them. Sometimes they were ⁵⁸ GPG 1, p. 350. ⁵⁹ GPG 1, p. 326. They could not be substituted during their term of office, under pain of £10 buona moneta for each offence. Similarly, see the revised statutes of Castiglione of 15 Apr. 1410: ibid., 2, pp. 39–41. ⁶⁰ Each commune had one representative, though some of the smaller communes (Lupinaia, Treppignana, and Riana, for example, in the vicariate of Gallicano), might be represented by the same man. Exceptional was the vicariate of Massa Lunese, which had no general parlamento of the sindici, and where the vicar met separately with the sindici of the three communes of Massa, S. Vitale, and Antonia, or jointly with a larger body of consuls and sindici representing the three communes (distinguishing the three vicini into which the commune of Massa itself was divided): ASL Vicario di Massa Lunese, ACiv. 88. ⁶¹ In July 1409, in Camporgiano, there is a curious reference to an order that the sindici should appoint a ‘cancellarium’ or ‘scriptorem’ for the vicariate: ASL Vicario di Camporeggiana, ACiv. 113, fo. 24v . In fact, there is no further mention of the chancellor, and the councillors and camarlingo were appointed, or at least approved, by Paolo Guinigi himself: ibid., fo. 26v . Sometimes representatives were appointed to syndicate the outgoing camarlingo during the first parlamento of the semester; sometimes in the last. The office might be burdensome, and there are several references to camarlinghi who had died leaving significant debts to the vicariate: e.g. VC ACiv. 173, fos. 26r –27v .


155

decrees of limited scope to deal with a specific problem that had arisen: the order forbidding residents of Camporgiano and Casoli oltre Giogo to render any rents to the men of Argigliano and other places under the obedience of the marchese of Lunigiana (in fact, Leonardo Malaspina); three months later the order forbidding them to receive any persons from Fragniano, where an outbreak of plague had been reported.⁶² Routine business dictated that the parlamento of communal representatives should be summoned three or four times each semester. There are some variations, perhaps only idiosyncrasies of the written record, but the pattern was largely standardized across the vicariates, and had hardly changed in almost 100 years. At the first meeting, the sindici were instructed to produce their mandate, to swear obedience to the vicar, to name the local officials responsible for reporting offences against the statutes, to report the number of nuclear families (fuochi) and able-bodied males (teste) within their communes, and to list their artisans.⁶³ They might also be reminded of their obligation to repair and maintain roads, bridges, ditches, fountains, and aqueducts. Later, each semester, the general parlamento of sindici met twice (roughly at three-month intervals) to determine the rate of taxation that was required to cover the expenses of the vicariate. A separate parlamento was called to provide for the imposition and collection of the salt tax. Additional business might be introduced at the three or four routine assemblies: instructions to denounce, within a specified period, the misdemeanours of outgoing Lucchese officials; reminders of old ordinances and the issuing of new ones. But the parlamenti of the vicariates were summoned at other times too; the sindici met irregularly as and when they were ordered to do so by the vicar. During the Guinigi period, the occasion was often the reading of letters emanating from Lucca. On 29 January 1413, for example, by virtue of letters received from Paolo Guinigi, the vicar of Gallicano instructed the assembled sindici to disseminate within their respective communities the order that none should dare or presume to enter the paid military service of other lords or communes.⁶⁴ Usually, the sindici of the communes gathered in a general parlamento reached their decisions unanimously and without dissenting voices—a sign of the ⁶² ASL Vicario di Camporeggiana, ACiv. 113, fos. 5r , 27v . In 1410 the consuls of the communes of Massa Lunese were similarly ordered to receive no one from the city or district of Pisa because of an outbreak of plague there: ASL Vicario di Massa Lunese, ACiv. 88, fo. 4v . ⁶³ Both the officials appointed to denounce danno dato and artisans practising their crafts locally were required, within a specified period, to take an oath that they would exercise their office or art well and faithfully. All men between the ages 14 and 70 were to take an oath of loyalty before their consuls and officials—or to the chancellor of the vicariate: VVl. ACiv. 97, fo. 7v ; ASL Vicario di Massa Lunese, ACiv. 88, fo. 2r – v . In 1339 the responsibility had been to report men between the ages of 16 and 70: VP ACiv. 4, fo. 13r . ⁶⁴ VG ACiv. 96, fo. 6r . In 1408 essentially the same provision had been included among the general list of ordinances and bans proclaimed for the vicariate of Coreglia: ASL Vicario di Coreglia, ACiv. 93, fo. 2v .

156


leadership and orchestration of affairs by Lucca and its officials.⁶⁵ Occasionally, there are indications of internal tensions, particularly between a dominant commune and the minor centres of the vicariate. Such tensions were most likely to be generated by the distribution of taxes and other burdens. Thus in January 1410 the representative of the commune of Camaiore dissented from the response of all the other delegates when Paolo Guinigi offered choices for the correction and review of a recent tax assessment (estimo).⁶⁶ The books of administrative acts provide much more than a record of the meetings (and, more rarely, the discussions) of communal representatives. They contain copies of letters addressed from Lucca to the vicar, sometimes in response to embassies sent to Lucca by the men of the vicariate. It was the responsibility of the sindici to communicate messages from the centre to their communities, but government also communicated directly through proclamations made by the nuncii in the squares and public places. Vicars responded to the petitions of the constituent communes of their vicariates. Thus in July 1409, at the behest of the commune of Magliano, a nuncio of Camporgiano was instructed publicly to proclaim in the piazza of Camporgiano that no one was to cause damage in either the cultivated or uncultivated lands of Magliano.⁶⁷ Vicars frequently received petitions from individuals as well as from communities, petitions that often follow from cases before the vicar’s court. And the volumes often continue (or begin) with a record of fines, sequestrations, and the taking of preda, which are outside our present concern, and which overlap with the more properly legal registers of the civil and criminal proceedings of the vicar’s court. No libri memorie curie appear to have survived from any of the vicariates after 1415. But among the protocolli of the notarial archives there are a series of notebooks (vacchette) in the hand of ser Antonio Nuccorini that cover the years between 1432 and 1473, and that were written in ser Antonio’s capacity as notary variously to the courts of the vicariates of Pietrasanta, Camaiore, Valdilima, Valdriana, Gallicano, Castiglione, and Coreglia, and as the frequently reappointed podestà of Monteggiori.⁶⁸ The vacchette are working notes that are often difficult to understand and to interpret. But they provide invaluable insights into the daily administration of the vicariates over the central decades of the fifteenth century. We consider, for example, the first semester of 1445, ⁶⁵ In Castiglione in 1373 there had been some disagreement over the election of Pace del fu ser Gualtrone of Castiglione as camarlingo: ASL Vicario di Castiglione, ACiv. 5, fo. 17r . ⁶⁶ VC ACiv. 173, fos. 14v –15r . ⁶⁷ Similarly the men of Vibbiana and Verrucole: ASL Vicario di Camporeggiana, ACiv. 113, fo. 4r . On behalf of the commune of Crasciana: VVl. ACiv. 97, fo. 35r . ⁶⁸ AN 504(I–XIII) (ser Antonio Nuccorini). 504(X) is a record of ser Antonio’s periodic appointments as podestà of Monteggiori between 1433 and 1462. 504(IX) contains private acts from 1474 to 1475, mostly drawn up in Lucca in the deteriorating hand of the aged notary. There are references to similar vacchette compiled by other court notaries that have not survived: ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv., no foliation.


157

when ser Antonio Nuccorini was notary to the court of Valdilima.⁶⁹ Here we can trace the continuing meetings of the general parlamento of the vicariate, though there is not the same uniform representation of each commune by a single representative that seems to have been characteristic of the court records up to 1415. In the parlamento of 18 April 1445 the commune of Controne was represented by no less than six syndics and procurators.⁷⁰ The less formal and formulaic notarial record gives rather more prominence to discussions within the parlamento. Sometimes instructions clearly came from the vicar, but the means of fulfilling these instructions were debated within the assembly—as was the case, for example, when the communes of Valdilima were required to furnish the fortress of Lucchio with 200 staia of chestnut flour.⁷¹ Alternatively, the initiative might come from the syndics themselves, though proposals were discussed only with the consent of the vicar: in March the proposal was made and accepted to send representatives to the Consiglio Generale of Lucca to petition in favour of the men of the vicariate, sentenced for unspecified offences, and to reward Lucchese citizens who were willing to speak in the Consiglio Generale on their behalf.⁷² The notarial notes also provide a more detailed record of the precise expenses of the vicariate, which are usually referred to only in the most general way in the Atti Civili of the vicariates. A distinctive feature of the vicariate of Valdilima, in terms of the statutes of Lucca, was the election of a podestà for the baths of Corsena. Michele Totti was elected podestà by Lucchese citizens (including the vicar) who were resident at the baths.⁷³ Totti later acted as vice-vicar for a brief period when the vicar, Giovanni Sbarra, was absent from his vicariate, though on other occasions the office of vice-vicar—in Valdilima as elsewhere—was filled by the notary of the court. In accordance with orders received from the Anziani of Lucca, the vicar collected men from the communes of the vicariate to serve with him in the Garfagnana, with later forces sent specifically for the garrisoning of Castiglione.⁷⁴ Periodically, the vicar ordered the officials of individual communes to travel to Lucca to appear before the Anziani or officials of the Gabella Maggiore. More often, letters would be sent to local communities instructing them to fulfil their ⁶⁹ AN 504(XIII). ⁷⁰ Ibid., fo. 28v . At the parlamento of 28 Feb., Controne had five representatives; at that of 30 Mar., four: fos. 14v , 22v . At public meetings of the men of Controne, names are divided between those of cappella S. Cassiano and those of cappella S. Gimignano, each with its own officials, syndics, and procurators: fos. 3r , 29r , 48v . ⁷² Ibid., fos. 22v –23r . See also 28v –29r . ⁷¹ Ibid., fos. 2v –2v (sic), 11v . ⁷³ Ibid., fos. 43r , 44r ; VVl. ACiv. 111, fo. 1r . For the subsequent elections of Piero di Bettino Dati and ser Banduccio de’Cattani as podestà: AN 504(XIII), fos. 48v , 56v . Further references to the affairs of the baths at Corsena: fos. 44v –45r ; Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 188–9. ⁷⁴ AN 504(XIII), fos. 39r , 40r – v , 41v , 42r , 44r , 48r , 51r , 56r , 57v . Sending men to the Garfagnana was by far the largest expense incurred by the vicariate between Apr. and June 1445: fo. 46v . The notary of the court substituted for the vicar when the latter was absent on the expedition to the Garfagnana and Castiglione: VVl. ACiv. 111, fo. 15v .

158


tax obligations or to identify offenders—sometimes thieves; more likely those responsible for damages and trespass. Besides the regular meetings with the sindici in parlamento and the summoning of communal officials, the vicar might require entire communities to appear before him. On 25–26 April 1445, twenty-seven men of Vico Pancellorum met in the presence of the vicar on the orders of the vicar and of the official of the community to sort out accounts, to elect new officials, and to present new communal statutes.⁷⁵ The vacchetta contains a number of new or revised statutes. This is no accident. The new statutes of Vico Pancellorum were drawn up at the command of the vicar;⁷⁶ local statutes were clearly seen by central government as a means of introducing order and control, and there was a conscious policy of encouraging or forcing communes to produce them. On occasion we find the vicar enforcing local customs (consuetudines).⁷⁷ But more often these notes relate to matters that might more fittingly have appeared in the ordinary records of the vicar’s civil and criminal proceedings:⁷⁸ fines for failing to attend the parlamento; the reporting of danno dato (often by communal officials); the appointment of arbitrators; the taking of preda;⁷⁹ the calling of witnesses; the resolution of cases brought before the vicar’s court.⁸⁰ The border between administrative and judicial acts is often hazy, not least because some of the offences were committed against ordinances recently made in public parlamento,⁸¹ and many others involve local officials, whether as plaintiffs or defendants. In large measure, these vacchette duplicate what we already know about the vicarial administration. They record the appointment of the nuncio—a Spaniard in the case of Valdilima. The unpopular, sometimes dangerous job of court messenger was not infrequently filled by outsiders in the fifteenth century. They include the bans issued by each new vicar when he assumed office.⁸² They refer to the need to report artisanal activity (though, as in many volumes of Atti Civili, the names themselves are mostly missing). More interesting is the evidence that relates to the office of the notary of the vicar’s court. In ⁷⁵ AN 504(XIII), fos. 31r –39r . It is not clear whether three of the twenty-seven were actually present. ⁷⁶ Ibid., fo. 22v . See also fo. 24r . ⁷⁷ Ibid., fo. 24v . The new statute of Vico Pancellorum included the clause that non-observance was to be reported to the vicar: fo. 39r . ⁷⁸ There is considerable overlap, both in the record of civil proceedings and in that of the receipts of the local gabelle, between the vacchetta and the contemporary volume (111) of VVl. ACiv. ⁷⁹ Usually in disputes between individuals, but sometimes on behalf of communal officials trying to collect local taxes: AN 504(XIII), fo. 16v . ⁸⁰ Including the vicar’s order to Giovanna, wife of Antonio Turini, apparently the mother of an illegitimate child, that she must return to live with her husband: ibid., fo. 5r . ⁸¹ The inquisition against the men of Casabasciana, for example, who had disobeyed a recent order not to depart the territory without a licence: ibid., fo. 21r . The order itself was hardly new. See, e.g., GPG 2, p. 319. ⁸² The bans reflect the new fifteenth-century preoccupation with sodomy; they may reflect a concern that village officials report the more serious crimes rather than every minor domestic incident: AN 504(XIII), fo. 55r .


159

Corsena, the notary occupied a house adjoining that of the vicar, but he was clearly often on the move. Ser Antonio Nuccorini accompanied the vicar to inspect the garrison of Lucchio.⁸³ He travelled to the individual communes to record the meetings called by their consuls, usually for the election of syndics and procurators. On 14 March the officials and men of Lugliano promised to pay ser Antonio 5 florins for his valuation (estimo) and written record of the property, real estate, and movables belonging to the commune. The sum did not include the notary’s expenses for subsistence and paper.⁸⁴ Jottings of April seem to refer to a visit to Vico Pancellorum to sort out various things for himself and for the vicariate.⁸⁵ The accounts of the vicariate of Valdilima show payments to ser Antonio in his official capacity as notary to the court, gabella, and vicariate; but there is also a list of sums owing to him for instruments drawn up on behalf of communities and private individuals.⁸⁶ All the vacchette contain instruments that are unambiguously ordinary notarialized contracts. It is striking how far the drawing-up of private instruments seems to have become the prerogative of the notary attached to the vicar’s court.⁸⁷ Communes might still aspire to appoint their own scrivener,⁸⁸ but the official business of the communes also appears to have become largely monopolized by the notary sent from Lucca to service the vicariate. It is true that the writings of village notaries are less likely to have survived than the protocolli of their urban colleagues, but, up until the rule of Paolo Guinigi, there are numerous, casual references to the work of the former in both the court and notarial records. In Camaiore in 1410 the mandates of the syndics of both Migliano and Puosi were drawn up in public form by a local man: ser Michele di ser Bonaiunta of Migliano.⁸⁹ In distant Massa Lunese, in 1410, ser Arismino del fu dno. Cresciano, locally resident, not only drew up acts of procuratorship, but also acted as notary and chancellor of the constituent communes of Massa, S. Vitale, and Antonia.⁹⁰ In Valdilima itself, in 1408, the representative of Controne produced his mandate in the hand of ser Simone Nuti of Controne.⁹¹ Later registers from Valdilima (including that ⁸³ Ibid., fo. 63r – v . ⁸⁴ Ibid., fo. 17v . The agreement was witnessed in Corsena by the vicar. Payment was calculated at 36 bolognini per florin (2s. per bolognino). ⁸⁶ Ibid., fos. 46r , 64r –68r . ⁸⁵ Ibid., fo. 30v . ⁸⁷ The mixture of official, semi-official, and private business was not in itself new. Similar functions were performed in the previous century by notaries like ser Giovanni Arlotti. ⁸⁸ AN 504(XIII), fo. 36r . In Mar. 1445 there is a reference to Iacopo di Bartolomeo Turini as scriptor of the commune of Controne: VVl. ACiv. 111, fo. 9v . ⁹⁰ ASL Vicario di Massa Lunese, ACiv. 88, fos. 2r –3r . ⁸⁹ VC ACiv. 173, fo. 22r . ⁹¹ VVl. ACiv. 97, fo. 26r . The mandates of the other, smaller, communes of the vicariate are in the hand of the notary of the court. Compare with the situation forty years earlier when the mandates of the syndics of the communes of Castiglione were all in the hands of local notaries (ser Guglielmo called Lemmo of Castiglione, ser Iacobo del fu Francesco of Mursigliano, living in Castiglione, ser Niese di Stefano of Vagli Sopra, ser Giovanni Baroni of Vagli Sotto, ser Dino Franceschini of Sala): ASL Vicario di Castiglione, ACiv. 5, fos. 6r –9v .

160


of ser Antonio Nuccorini himself) refer back to instruments from the Guinigi period in the hands of men like ser Donato of Casoli or ser Michele Cechi of Casabasciana.⁹² Public writings in the isolated villages of the mountains continue to be drawn up by local priests (pievani).⁹³ Except perhaps in Castiglione, the passing references to resident local notaries become increasingly rare. As in the Sei Miglia a century or so earlier, the men and communities of the mountains depended increasingly on the professional services and administrative apparatus provided by the city. Of course the records of the vicariates are likely to privilege the services and controls of the city at the expense of local autonomy and self-administration. Communes had their own councils; the proceedings of council meetings in the larger communes are preserved in the communal archives of Pietrasanta,⁹⁴ Gallicano,⁹⁵ and—particularly—Camaiore.⁹⁶ In the state archives of Lucca, there is a vacchetta of ser Dino di Dino di Giovanni of Castiglione, chancellor of Camaiore, which gives brief notices of meetings of the general council of Camaiore.⁹⁷ Summoned by local officials (capitani in Camaiore and Gallicano, anziani in Pietrasanta), these councils appointed communal officials, procurators,⁹⁸ the rectors of churches and altars; they provided the taxes and services required of them by the parlamento of the vicariate; they leased communal lands, or sold them to meet local expenses; and they produced and enforced local statutes. The recorded meetings of the assemblies of smaller communities sometimes deal with pressing local problems,⁹⁹ but are largely dominated by general and formulaic mandates of procuratorship to act on behalf of the commune, or by the more specific mandates of the procurators of the opera of the parish church.¹⁰⁰ In both the Sei Miglia and the vicariates, from communes large and minuscule, there was a veritable proliferation of local statute-making—or, at least, there are many ⁹² VVl. ACiv. 111, fos. 40r –41r . ⁹³ e.g., VVl. ACiv. 111, fo. 25r – v . ⁹⁴ For Pietrasanta: Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 241–2. ⁹⁵ Archivio Storico di Gallicano, MS 13—which provides a record of the proceedings, 1482–96, of the parlamento and council of dieci buoni huomini of the commune of Gallicano, and also of the meetings of the parlamento that represented the entire vicariate. ⁹⁶ Rinuccini, Di Camajore, pp. 81–2. ⁹⁷ AN 391(XV) (ser Dino di Dino di Giovanni da Castiglione). ⁹⁸ Perhaps for embassies to Lucca; perhaps to represent them in disputes with the local pievano: AN 349(III) (ser Francesco di Gabriello Antelminelli), fo. 186r . ⁹⁹ In 1404, presumably with the consent of the vicar, the men of Controne (Valdilima) appointed procurators to represent them in a dispute over pastures with men of the mountains of Pistoia: AN 383 (ser Masino Masini), fo. 45r – v . In 1472 the men of Tassignano (Sei Miglia) agreed to the alienation of valuable communal lands in order to settle unpaid rents owing to Giusfredo Cenami in terms of a perpetual lease of lands that had since reverted to waste: AN 728 (ser Benedetto Franciotti), fos. 17r –19v . More momentous, in 1496, the decision of the men of Pedona to unite with the commune of Camaiore: AN 1342 (ser Giovanni Medici), fos. 164r –175r . ¹⁰⁰ In Pieve S. Paolo: AN 339 (ser Nicolao Migliori), fo. 167r ( Tassignano); 464 (ser Michele di Giovanni Pieri), fo. 103r ( Tassignano); 465 (ser Michele di Giovanni Pieri), fos. 243r – v , 244r ( Tassignano).


161

more statutes that have survived.¹⁰¹ Fifteenth-century statutes were concerned with the structures of local government: the election and duties of officials; obedience to elected officials; seemly behaviour at council meetings. A series of bye-laws protected property and regulated the rhythm of rural life.¹⁰² Particular attention was paid to the dues and obligations of foreigners, whether resident or transient. Many clauses relate to the good maintenance of infrastructures. By the late fifteenth century statutes were often in the vernacular,¹⁰³ and suggest a heightened concern to conserve communal lands and to reverse their alienation; also to prevent the damages caused by foreigners to communal chestnut woods and pastures.¹⁰⁴ In all these respects the primary level of administration was delegated to the localities. ¹⁰¹ Those preserved in the notarial archives are often only revisions and corrections to what were clearly very substantial volumes of village statutes: AN 504(XIII) (ser Antonio Nuccorini), fos. 29r –30r (Controne); 1277 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fos. 175r –178v (Menabbio/Benabbio); 941 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 25r –27v (Lammari). Some concern themselves with a single issue: the avoidance of plague (Gignano di Brancoli, 1479): AN 1014 (ser Domenico Domenici), fo. 63r – v ; the pasturing of animals by foreigners (Gramolazzo, 1482): 1041 (ser Bartolomeo da Treppignana), fo. 169v ; or the settlement of internal disputes over the use of the commons (S. Gemignano di Ponte a Moriano, 1469): 1328 (ser Francesco Morovelli), fos. 159r –160r . See also: 1035 (ser Pietro Tucci), fo. 73v ( Torcigliano); 1279 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fo. 210r – v , 213r – v ( Treppignana); 1577 (ser Giuliano Granucci), fos. 189r – v , 192v (Verni). For the difficulty of determining what should be recognized as a true statute: R. Savelli (ed.), Repertorio degli statuti della Liguria (secc. xii–xviii) (Genoa, 2003), pp. vii–xxi. ¹⁰² ASL Statuti delle comunità soggette, 11 (Cicerana); AN 208(III) (ser Lorenzo da Barga), fos. 289r –291v (Bergiola); 504(XIII) (ser Antonio Nuccorini), fos. 17v –19v (Lugliano), fos. 33v –39r (Vico Pancellorum); 770(III) (ser Giovanni Roffia), fos. 62r –65r (Sermezzana). Some statutes focus on the number and movement of animals: AN 552 (ser Ciomeo Pieri), fos. 34r – v , 68r , 303r –304v (Capannori). Danno dato remained a grey area, despite periodic attempts to resolve the ambiguities. Communes continued to legislate (sometimes under the guise of private contracts, voluntarily approved) for the amendment of damages committed by persons or animals, and with some part of the fine going to the camera of Lucca (or, in the vicariates, to the camera and to the vicar and his notary): AN 1644 (ser Lorenzo di Poggio), fos. 34r –39v ( Tassignano); 929 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 14r –16r (Gragnano); 1420 (ser Lodovico Ghilardi), fo. 328r – v (Pariana); 830 (ser Acconcio Nuccorini), fo. 52v (S. Martino in Freddana); 556 (ser Ciomeo Pieri), fo. 372r – v (Fibbiana di Monsagrati); 1279 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fos. 210r – v , 213r – v ( Treppignana). The aim of many of the late-fifteenth-century rural statutes seems to be a summary local settlement, after which the case was to be reported, in the Sei Miglia, to the curia dannorum datorum of Lucca; in the vicariates to the court of the vicar. See, e.g., AN 931 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 82v –84r (piviere of Segromigno). For claims to a limited criminal jurisdiction one needs to turn to the statute of Magnano, in the podesterìa of Castelnuovo and no longer subject to Lucca: AN 595 (ser Pietro del Camarlingo), fo. 34r . ¹⁰³ AN 1240 (ser Iacopo Donati), fos. 21r –28v (Corsagna); 1267 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fos. 228r –229v (Cune); 1014 (ser Domenico Domenici), fo. 63r – v (Gignano di Brancoli); 929 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 14r –16r (Gragnano); 941 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 25r –27v (Lammari); 1420 (ser Lodovico Ghilardi), fo. 328r – v (Pariana); 1268 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fos. 147r –148r (Pedona); 1226 (ser Pietro Lupardi), fos. 121r –124v (Pedona); 770(III) (ser Giovanni Roffia), fos. 62r –65r (Sermezzana). There are statutes recorded in the vernacular from the late fourteenth century: AN 179(II) (ser Conte Puccini), pp. 1–7 (Fagnano). ¹⁰⁴ AN 1277 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fos. 175r –178v (Benabbio/Menabbio); 1267 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fos. 228r –229v (Cune); 929 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 14r –16r (Gragnano); 1268 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fos. 147r –148r (Pedona); 1226 (ser Pietro Lupardi), fos. 121r –124v (Pedona); 1401 (ser Tommaso Ricciardi), fo. 46r – v (S. Pietro a Marcigliani); 1115(I) (ser Pietro Berti),

162


In 1405 Paolo Guinigi had re-enforced the power of the anziani of Pietrasanta by restoring to them the right (together with their centrally appointed chancellor) to punish acts of danno dato committed within their territory.¹⁰⁵ Many rural statutes aspired towards the internal settlement of disputes;¹⁰⁶ some explicitly required the reporting of offences first to the commune before accusations were made to the Lucchese authorities.¹⁰⁷ This did not affect, in a sense it structured, the statutory obligation of village officials to report offences. It is often specified that local fines were in addition to those imposed by the statutes of the commune of Lucca. The rural statutes show a concern for the protection of local interests and for the prevention of conflicts. But the underlying aim often seems to have been the effective implementation of communal responsibilities, and the prevention of the penalties that might be imposed on the community for non-observance. Any notion of independence is dispelled by the fact that the statutes of the communes of the Sei Miglia might well be drawn up in Lucca in the palace of the Podestà or the palace of the Anziani;¹⁰⁸ those of the vicariates in the vicar’s court. Even the clauses preserving the rights of Lucchese citizens and protesting the precedence of city law and the constitutions of the vicariate appear more shrill and insistent than in earlier texts.¹⁰⁹ Similarly supervised was the role of communal councils. Those of the largest centres met only with the consent of vicar and chancellor. Even the imposition of a tax (datia) to meet basic expenses and obligations required Lucca’s approval.¹¹⁰ There is nothing in the rural statutes or in the deliberations of local councils that contradicts the image of a highly centralized state under firm urban control. It is far from easy to place Lucca in the wider context of Italian stateformation. Interest has lain with the creation of regional or territorial states. There has been considerable debate over the relative merits of the concepts of territoriality and regionalism—stati territoriali or stati regionali? However defined, Lucca was clearly neither. For this reason alone, Lucca is difficult to fo. 65r – v (Valdottavo). The concern to preserve communal resources was balanced by the need to protect the common rights of villagers against the lessees of public lands. ¹⁰⁵ GPG 1, p. 314. The men of Pietrasanta claimed that this was a right enjoyed by other parts of Guinigi’s dominion. Cf. the situation in Castiglione 100 years later: BSL MS 764, particularly cc. l–li. ¹⁰⁶ AN 481 (ser Marco Martini), fos. 12r –15r (Arliano). ¹⁰⁷ AN 1277 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fo. 177r – v (Menabbio/Benabbio); 1240 (ser Iacopo Donati), fo. 26r – v (Corsagna). Internal disputes over core constitutional issues might be handed over to formal arbitration: AN 330 (ser Bartolomeo Orsucci), fos. 449r –451v (Galleno). ¹⁰⁸ AN 552 (ser Ciomeo Pieri), fos. 34r – v , 68r , 303r –304v ; 929 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 14r –16r (Gragnano). ¹⁰⁹ Notable is the 1495 revision of the statute of Lammari (Sei Miglia), which at every level sought to accommodate the demands of Lucca and city law: AN 941 (ser Bartolomeo Guargualia), fos. 25r –27v . See also: 1261 (ser Nicolao Provenzali), fos. 8v –9v (Partigliano); 1226 (ser Pietro Lupardi), fos. 121r –124v (Pedona). ¹¹⁰ ASL Amministrazione delle comunità soggette e delle vicarie, 38, fo. 13v .


163

relate to the rich modern literature on the nature of the Renaissance state. Neighbouring Florence, on occasion, pursued a policy of domination; sometimes a policy of integration. At the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries, the prevailing Florentine policy towards its dominions was one of increasing centralization and uniformity; after the Medici ascendancy there was a loosening of formal controls and the growth of clientism.¹¹¹ Sometimes Florentine policy was inclined to align the ruling city with the interests and grievances of the rural inhabitants of its subject communes; sometimes Florence supported the urban oligarchs of its subject communes against the demands and presumptions of the countryside.¹¹² It is very difficult to draw comparisons when the models for comparison are so very fluid. The discussion is yet further complicated by the ideologically charged debate on whether the new regional states were more or less ambitious, centralized, ‘modern’ than the city-states (like Lucca) that had preceded them. In its most extreme formulation, the modern state derives from the city-state; the larger territorial agglomerations of the Renaissance were retrogressive by comparison.¹¹³ The contrast is sharpest between Lucca and the territorial states of northern Italy: the duchy of Milan and the republic of Venice. It is true that (for historical and topographical reasons) many towns of the northern plain were able to exercise a particularly firm control over their contadi; sometimes even over those territories extending high into the Alps.¹¹⁴ But seigneurial power was also stronger in many parts of the north,¹¹⁵ for reasons discussed in earlier chapters. The political organization of the Visconti state accommodated seigneurial territories, and was founded on concordats with them. Indeed, the impact of princely rule was to strengthen the authority of local lords as intermediaries between the localities and central power. In the Milanese territories and in Ferrara¹¹⁶ (in republican Venice too) the process was accompanied by the recognition and diffusion of fiefs, both those of the old aristocracy and those of newer families of courtiers and condottieri. In Milan the concession of rural territories in ¹¹¹ The contrast is drawn (and qualified) by A. Zorzi, ‘The ‘‘Material Constitution’’ of the Florentine Dominion’, in Florentine Tuscany, pp. 16–31. The sharp distinction between a first and second phase of Florentine policy is questioned by G. Petralia, ‘Fiscality, Politics and Dominion in Florentine Tuscany at the End of the Middle Ages’, in ibid., pp. 65–89. ¹¹² Chittolini, ‘Ricerche sull’ordinamento territoriale’, pp. 292–352, particularly pp. 303–9. ¹¹³ G. Chittolini, ‘Introduzione’, in Chittolini (ed.), La crisi, pp. 35–40. For a general survey of the Italian historiography within which these more specific debates can be located: Milani, L’esclusione dal comune, pp. 1–18. ¹¹⁴ G. Chittolini, ‘Per una geografia dei contadi alla fine del Medioevo’, in Città, pp. 4–5, 11; id., ‘Principe e comunità alpine’, in ibid., pp. 128–30. ¹¹⁵ See, e.g., M. Della Misericordia, ‘Dividersi per governarsi: Fazioni, famiglie aristocratiche e comuni in Valtellina in età viscontea (1335–1447)’, Società e storia, 86 (1999), pp. 715–66. ¹¹⁶ Chittolini, ‘Città e stati regionali’, in Città, p. 28; id., ‘Feudatari e comunità rurali (secoli XV–XVII)’, in ibid., pp. 228–32; Dean, Land and Power.

164


fief was accelerated by the financial difficulties of the duchy after 1466.¹¹⁷ Paradoxically, the general process seems to have been least successful in the mountains, where the fiefs introduced by the Visconti and the Sforza were vigorously contested as an alien implant.¹¹⁸ Accepting all the problems intrinsic to the differences of scale, the contrast with the Lucchesia—a region long free of significant areas of independent seigneurial jurisdiction—could hardly be greater. The north (even in comparison with Tuscany) was characterized by the number and importance of its cities. The development of the territorial states of the north was not prejudicial to the autonomy of the cities, particularly in their dealings with their own contadi. Here, the new regional states have been described as the (ever-changing) sum of the old city-states.¹¹⁹ Internally, important subject cities of the Venetian Terraferma—Verona, Brescia, Padua—retained their own magistracies,¹²⁰ though the precise relationship of cities with the Dominante seems to have differed widely throughout Venetian territory. Externally, the cities of the Po lowlands were confirmed in their judicial, administrative, and fiscal powers over provinces that were very largely identical with their former contadi.¹²¹ The pacts that the rural communities of Lombardy attempted to negotiate with Francesco Sforza between 1447 and 1454 were aimed at preserving local interests not only, perhaps not primarily, against Milan, but against proximate cities and citizen controls. Villagers petitioned (largely unsuccessfully) that they should be subject only to the lord (Francesco Sforza) and his officials, particularly in matters relating to the distribution of taxes and other burdens.¹²² Again it would be difficult to imagine a sharper contrast with a Lucchese state that was entirely bereft of subordinate cities; where lord and citizen rights (privilegium civilitatis) were one and the same thing. If the fifteenth-century Lucchesia embraced no urban centres (città) other than Lucca, it contained a number of communities that were rather more than castelli, and that approached sub-urban status: borghi or quasi-cities (quasi-città).¹²³ With Pescia and, perhaps, San Miniato, it had once contained more. In the north these quasi-urban centres were increasingly privileged at the expense of the cities and ¹¹⁷ Chittolini, ‘Alienazioni d’entrate e concessioni feudali nel ducato sforzesco’, in Città, pp. 145–66. ¹¹⁸ Chittolini, ‘Principe e comunità alpine’, in Città, p. 135. ¹¹⁹ ‘i nuovi stati regionali non sono che la somma dei vecchi stati cittadini, ora passati sotto la signoria di un principe o di una città dominante’: Chittolini, ‘Per una geografia’, in Città, p. 10. ¹²⁰ Zorzi, ‘The ‘‘Material Constitution’’ ’, p. 29. ¹²¹ Chittolini, ‘Per una geografia’, in Città, pp. 12–13; id., ‘Città e stati’, in ibid., pp. 30–1. Claims extended to ‘mero et mixto imperio’. ¹²² Chittolini, ‘I capitoli di dedizione delle comunità lombarde a Francesco Sforza’, in Città, pp. 39–60. ¹²³ For the concept of the quasi-città: Chittolini, ‘ ‘‘Quasi-città’’: Borghi e terre in area lombarda nel tardo Medioevo’, in Città, pp. 85–104.


165

the surrounding countryside, even if their newly recognized autonomy might be frequently contested. Casalmaggiore, in the contado of Cremona, came to govern an area of about 34 square miles, covering ten or twelve villages.¹²⁴ Throughout Lombardy some semi-urban communities had long claimed direct dependence from the duke (the so-called terre separate); more aspired to this position under the last of the Visconti and under the new rulers, the Sforza.¹²⁵ The rising status of the quasi-città was advanced by the production of local statutes that reflected claims to a limited jurisdictional, administrative, and fiscal independence, though formal juridical separation remained an ideal that was seldom and imperfectly realized.¹²⁶ The sub-urban communities of the Lucchesia, like those of northern Italy, were not infrequently in conflict with the countrymen of surrounding villages. But the conflict was confined within the political structures of the vicariate. The statutes of Camaiore, Castiglione, or Gallicano are more detailed and more pretentious than those of smaller communities.¹²⁷ Individual clauses are predicated upon the apparatus of the court of a resident vicar, or on the physical presence of a podestà. The statutes do not seem to me different in kind from those of neighbouring villages.¹²⁸ The decline of the city-state has been viewed as a precondition for the emancipation of sub-urban centres. It is unremarkable, therefore, that the development is not one that can easily be related to Lucca. At first sight, a comparison with Florence is more promising. The Florentine state was organized (somewhat tardily) into compact vicariates. As with Lucca, the vicars, capitani, podestà dispatched by Florence were (usually) citizens of the ruling city.¹²⁹ Generally (though less distinctively than the Lucchesia), Florentine Tuscany was characterized by a weak seigneurial presence, largely confined to the geographical margins. In Florentine Tuscany (though again less distinctively than in the Lucchesia) there was a relative paucity of the large and rival cities that confronted ducal Milan or republican Venice. In the late fourteenth century, certainly by the early fifteenth century, Lucca (in a rather fragmentary way) was encouraging subject communities to produce local ¹²⁴ Chittolini, ‘Le ‘‘terre separate’’ nel ducato di Milano in età sforzesca’, in Città, pp. 79–80, and the other examples there cited. ¹²⁵ Chittolini, ‘Le ‘‘terre separate’’ ’, in Città, pp. 61–83, id., ‘I capitoli’, in ibid., pp. 47–8. The privilege of ‘separazione’ had initially been granted to noble fortresses, but was extended to important borghi and even to small rural communities. The status was unstable, and depended on immediate—and changing—political and strategic considerations. ¹²⁶ Chittolini, ‘Premessa’, in Città, pp. xvii–xviii. ¹²⁷ Romiti, ‘La comunità di Camaiore’, pp. 37–86; A. Roncoli, ‘Le istituzioni camaioresi alla luce dello statuto comunale del 1402’, Campus Maior: Rivista di studi camaioresi, 1 (1988), pp. 87–125; BSL MS 764, Statuta et Ordines Oppidi Castilioni Garfagnana (1523); Archivio Storico, Gallicano, MS 6, Statuti (1461). ¹²⁸ For a typology of statutes, with reflections extending far beyond Bergamo: Chittolini, ‘Legislazione statutaria e autonomie nella pianura bergamasca’, in Città, pp. 105–25. ¹²⁹ L. De Angelis, ‘Territorial Offices and Officeholders’, in Florentine Tuscany, pp. 165–82, which charts the growing attractiveness of territorial office.

166


statutes. In Florence the process was an integral part of a particular kind of state-building founded on the recognition of established local institutions;¹³⁰ in Lucca the aim was the more narrow one of the control and good governance of firmly subordinate communities under the unifying statute law of Lucca. The resultant Florentine state has been described as ‘a mosaic of smaller arrangements held together by a thick web of negotiated links’.¹³¹ All fifteenthcentury power relationships were ‘negotiated’ to a greater or lesser extent. But the description fails to capture the defining characteristics of Florence’s western neighbour. Florentine administrative practice was fully consistent with the extraordinary powers throughout the territory of the citizen magistrature, the Eight of Security (Otto di guardia), and with miscellaneous, intermittent challenges to territorial rights—though curiously at variance with broader theoretical claims of Florentine sovereignty (imperium).¹³² Differences from Lucca are highlighted if we look at those substantial parts of the fifteenth-century Florentine state that were former Lucchese territories. Barga was lost to Lucca in the 1340s. Thereafter the administration of justice was in the hands of a podestà sent from Florence, but the law that he administered was encapsulated in Barga’s full penal and civil code of 1360, which has no parallels in the (surviving) statutory traditions of the Lucchese state.¹³³ The right of the people of Barga to govern themselves according to their own statutes, specifically the circumstances in which appeal might be made to Florentine law, continued to be the subject of debate among jurists in the mid-sixteenth century.¹³⁴ In the 1560s a new Florentine magistrature, the Nove Conservatori della Giurisdizione e del Dominio fiorentino, began to nominate chancellors (cancellieri) for subject communities. These replaced local appointees, and they could not be removed by the communities without the consent of the Nove. In 1564 one such cancelliere was appointed for Pietrasanta, a quasi-città that had been lost to Lucca in 1436.¹³⁵ The remarkable thing for a historian of fifteenth-century Lucca is less that the Pietrasantesi should have protested against the appointment of a foreign official (cancelliere forestiere), but that the appointment of such core agents of central government appears ¹³⁰ Chittolini, ‘Ricerche sull’ordinamento territoriale’, pp. 303–9; J. Black, ‘Constitutional Ambitions, Legal Realities and the Florentine State’, in Florentine Tuscany, pp. 48–64; L. Tanzini, ‘Un aspetto della costruzione dello Stato territoriale fiorentino: Il registro di approvazioni degli statuti del dominio (1393–1403)’, Società e storia, 28 (2005), pp. 1–36. ¹³¹ L. Mannori, Il sovrano tutore: Pluralismo istituzionale e accentramento amministrativo nel principato dei Medici (secc. XVI–XVIII) (Milan, 1994), p. 21, quoted, in English, by Zorzi, ‘The ‘‘Material Constitution’’ ’, p. 22. The effectiveness and limitations of central control remains a matter of debate among Florentine historians. ¹³² A. Brown, ‘The Language of Empire’, in Florentine Tuscany, pp. 32–47. For the extensive, vaguely defined, powers of the Otto di guardia: W. J. Connell, ‘The Humanist Citizen as Provincial Governor’, in ibid., pp. 144–64. ¹³³ L. Angelini (ed.), Lo statuto di Barga del 1360 (Lucca, 1994). ¹³⁴ Black, ‘Constitutional Ambitions’, p. 62—quoting the consilia of Marianus Socinus. ¹³⁵ Fasano Guarini, ‘Potere centrale’, pp. 513–24.


167

previously to have been controlled by the communities themselves in terms of local statutes.¹³⁶ The most convincing similarities link fifteenth-century Lucca to the citystates of the communal era, and to those same city territories as subsumed into the regional states of the Renaissance. Of course, the concept of the city-state includes a range of possibilities—including the minuscule civitates (cities with their contadi) of the Marche.¹³⁷ But compelling parallels can be drawn with city territories like Arezzo, divided into four viscontarie, before its incorporation into the Florentine state;¹³⁸ or with fifteenth-century Siena, a regional power with many of the characteristics of a city-state.¹³⁹ There remain difficulties in comparing an independent state like Lucca with territories that had lost—or were in the process of losing—their independence. By the fifteenth century, in the extreme case of Florentine Tuscany, large subject cities (Arezzo, Pistoia, Pisa) had lost juridical control of all, or most of their contadi. Even in the north, the territorial jurisdiction of subject cities was qualified, to a greater or lesser extent, by prince or hegemonic metropolis. The difficulties are compounded by the fact that Lucca inherited from the communal era resources and sophisticated structures of territorial rule that far surpassed those of most city-states. In Perugia a more rational organization of the territory only followed Perugia’s submission to the regional power in 1424.¹⁴⁰ And the ramshackled structures of the Pisan or Sienese states, even at their height, cannot comfortably be compared with Lucca.¹⁴¹ Atypical, powerful within limits, it is nevertheless as an anachronistic survival from the communal era that Lucca must be assessed. The survival into the sixteenth century and beyond of this model of an Italian city-state (‘the most fly-in-amber little town in the world,’ as Hilaire Belloc was later to describe it)¹⁴² invites concluding reflections on how far the disappearance of such entities represents a stage on the path to modernity. Political theorists who have stressed the modernity of the city-states at the expense of their regional successors have tended to associate the former with the dominance of a bourgeois, merchant class; the latter with the retrogressive rule ¹³⁶ For Pietrasanta, cf. Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 234–50. More generally on communal chancellors and notaries of the danni dati, though with focus on Florentine patronage rather than communal independence, see p. Salvadori,‘Florentines and the Communities of the Territorial State’, in Florentine Tuscany, pp. 210–12; R. Black, ‘Arezzo, the Medici and the Florentine Regime’, in ibid., pp. 295, 300–11. ¹³⁷ G. Chittolini, ‘Città, terre e castelli nel ducato di Urbino al tempo di Federico di Montefeltro’, in Città, pp. 181–210. ¹³⁸ Delumeau, Arezzo, ii, pp. 1280–1303. Similarly Bologna: Milani, I comuni italiani, p. 140. ¹³⁹ Ginatempo, ‘Uno ‘‘stato semplice’’ ’, pp. 1073–1101. ¹⁴⁰ V. I. Comparato, ‘Il controllo del contado a Perugia nella prima metà del Quattrocento: Capitani, vicari e contadini tra 1428 e 1450’, in S. Bertelli (ed.), Forme e tecniche del potere nella città (secoli xiv–xvii) (Perugia, n.d.), pp. 147–90. ¹⁴¹ Above, pp. 58–9. ¹⁴² H. Belloc, The Path to Rome (London, 1902), p. 385.

168


of a prince or landed aristocracy.¹⁴³ The image of city-states as ruled by associations of merchants has not fared well in the writings of recent Italian historians—even with regard to the cities of the economically most dynamic parts of the peninsula.¹⁴⁴ True, the ‘myth of the bourgeoisie’ has undergone revision. Philip Jones himself recently produced a much more nuanced picture for the communal age: the co-option of the nobility into a bourgeois society; the fusion of the commercial and non-commercial worlds into a single official culture—sometimes through the intrusion of mercantile values; sometimes through the absorption of courtliness into urbanity.¹⁴⁵ Within the spectrum, despite the privileges granted to knights (cavalieri) and the preoccupation of fifteenth-century Lucchese chroniclers with gallant deeds of chivalry, Lucca should probably be placed among the more mercantile, least aristocratic of Italian societies. Even in the more self-consciously aristocratic sixteenth century, aristocratic fashions have the aura of exotic imports. None of this turns Lucca into a bourgeois commune; and Lucca’s modernist pretensions must suffer as a result. More seriously, the debate over modernity has been derailed by a growing awareness that centralization and bureaucratization were the prime aims and achievement of neither city nor regional states.¹⁴⁶ Informal controls were probably less important in the Lucchesia than in neighbouring Florence,¹⁴⁷ though Lucchese citizens too had interests in the contado and might act as the informal representatives of local groups.¹⁴⁸ In contrast with Florence, Lucchese vicars were less ambiguously the representatives of the ruling city rather than officers of the localities themselves. There is little doubt that the Lucchese state was particularly interventionist and intrusive, even if interventions were always moderated by the practical need to pacify and accommodate—because of limited resources and encroaching neighbours. In all these respects (appropriately qualified), Lucca epitomizes the very model of the Italian city-state: with government centred on a single city and in a single governing class, with a unitary constitution, and with a marked uniformity of institutions throughout the territory. But ¹⁴³ The association of bourgeois with modernity is hardly distinctive to this particular debate, but is developed in the present context by J. Macek, Il Rinascimento italiano, Italian edn. (Rome, 1974). ¹⁴⁴ P. J. Jones, ‘Economia e società nell’Italia medievale: Il mito della borghesia’, in id., Economia e società nell’Italia medievale ( Turin, 1980), pp. 3–189. ¹⁴⁵ Jones, The Italian City-State. In consequence, at least prior to the Renaissance, the contrast with the cities of antiquity becomes sharper. ¹⁴⁶ Zorzi, ‘The ‘‘Material Constitution’’ ’, pp. 20–2. ¹⁴⁷ Salvadori, ‘Florentines and the Communities’, pp. 207–24. The article presupposes very substantial local autonomy within Florentine territories. ¹⁴⁸ Domenico Bertini of Gallicano, scrittore apostolico, for example, spokesman in the Consiglio Generale of Lucca for the men of his native village: Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 71, 253. A parallel might be drawn in Colle Valdelsa with the Florentine chancellor Bartolomeo Scala: O. Muzzi, ‘The Social Classes of Colle Valdelsa and the Formation of the Dominion (Fourteenth–Sixteenth Centuries)’, in Florentine Tuscany, p. 277.


169

much governance was concerned with mediation. And so too in Lucca. I have written elsewhere of the importance of rivalries and factions in the localities; the history of the Lucchese state is very largely a history of Lucca’s successes (and failures) in responding to events at village level.¹⁴⁹ The notion of Lucca as the harbinger of the modern state is as bizarre as it is ahistoric. Lucca was a highly distinctive polity, institutionally strong, politically weak, which provides a useful point of comparison with the regional states (themselves not be evaluated against an anachronistic yardstick of modernity) with which the future, in Italy, was to lie. ¹⁴⁹ ‘Obviously Lucca was the central player. But as in other late medieval societies, too rigid a focus on the centre can obscure the essential truth that the ambitions and rivalries that really mattered were likely to have been generated in the localities and to have revolved around precisely those inner dynamics of rural life which the sources so imperfectly capture.’ Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, p. 255.

7 Lucca and its Territories in the Fifteenth Century: Economy and Society Interest in concepts of sovereignty and in the nature of political action has been accompanied by debates on economic and social organization in Italy at the end of the Middle Ages. The two themes are self-evidently connected. But, for our purposes, it is convenient to treat them separately. Stephan Epstein has argued, with qualifications, that ‘late medieval political centralisation gave rise to greater market integration’.¹ Yet the changes were regionally specific. Florentines, like the citizens of traditional city-states, continued to treat their extended territories ‘as a source of taxation and of personal gain for office-holders and as a market to be monopolized’.² In consequence, the presence of strong cities with extensive jurisdictional control (institutional privileges) has been interpreted as a factor retarding economic growth.³ The point might be argued for the regional state of Siena even more convincingly than for Florence itself.⁴ Tuscany can be contrasted with Lombardy, where, at least from mid-century, power was slowly passing from cities to territorial prince.⁵ A range of factors, including ducal policy and the strength of other Lombard cities, ensured that Milan would not enjoy the kind of privileges over its subordinate communities that characterized contemporary Florence. The thesis lies at the heart of Epstein’s well-known (and generally negative) comparison of Tuscany with the kingdom of Sicily.⁶ Much of the general literature is concerned with the development of markets and the preconditions for economic growth: broader issues than those at the ¹ S. R. Epstein, ‘Market Structures’, in Florentine Tuscany, p. 119. ² S. R. Epstein, Freedom and Growth: The Rise of States and Markets in Europe, 1300–1750 (London, 2000), p. 32. For Epstein’s attempt to reconcile jurisdictional privileges with political centralization: ibid., p. 152. ³ An additional factor in Tuscany may have been the spread of share-cropping (mezzadria poderale) that accompanied Florentine expansion: C. M. Belfanti, ‘Towns and Country in Central and Northern Italy, 1400–1800’, in S. R. Epstein (ed.), Town and Country in Europe, 1300–1800 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 294–7. ⁴ Ginatempo, ‘Uno ‘‘stato semplice’’ ’, pp. 1073–1101. ⁵ Epstein, Freedom and Growth, particularly pp. 89–105. ⁶ S. R. Epstein, ‘Cities, Regions and the Late Medieval Crisis: Sicily and Tuscany Compared’, Past and Present, 130 (1991), pp. 3–50; id., An Island for Itself: Economic Development and Social Change in Late Medieval Sicily (Cambridge, 1992).

The Fifteenth Century: Economy and Society

171

centre of the present study. In so far as the literature explores contrasts between city and princely rule, or the consequences of the greater stability that was a general feature of much of the fifteenth century, it provides us with useful points of reference. The cities of communal Italy had developed as centres of privilege (‘rights’ or ‘freedoms’), with extensive powers of jurisdiction over the subject countryside. These freedoms included economic privileges, which were reflected, among other things, in the restraint of rural manufacture. In fifteenth-century Florence, rural woollen manufacture in the contado and distretto was restricted to the production of rough quality cloth for domestic consumption using only local wool (lana nostrale).⁷ In this respect, the Lucchese state perfectly mirrors contemporary Florence (though without the complication of subject cities). A considerable body of Lucchese legislation defined and limited the artisanal activities that could freely be practised in the Sei Miglia and in the vicariates. Essentially, there was an attempt to confine rural manufacture to the production of goods and necessities for local peasant consumption. The urban monopoly of luxury manufacture was re-enforced by periodic efforts to force rural craftsmen to translocate to the city or to the walled suburbs.⁸ In the vicariates, village officials were obliged to report resident artisans to the vicar. Village artisans were required to take an oath promising to exercise their respective mysteries rightly and honestly.⁹ The returns (though erratic) provide an invaluable overview of artisanal and retail activities in the vicariates. Those surviving from the early fifteenth century show that many mountain villages were very small indeed: Puosi in the vicariate of Camaiore with four nuclear families (fuochi) and four adult males (teste),¹⁰ or Terzone in the vicariate of Coreglia with two-and-a-half fuochi and two teste.¹¹ It is not surprising that many of these minuscule communes claimed to have no artisans at all. Where favoured by fast-running mountain streams, even very small villages might house millers, who presumably serviced a wider territory than that of the village itself: Schiappa with its six hearths;¹² Lugnano also with six.¹³ Ubiquitous was the presence of female weavers of linen and rough woollen cloths.¹⁴ Cloth-weaving was a basic peasant ⁷ Epstein, Freedom and Growth, pp. 136–7. Concessions, which did not prejudice Florence’s monopoly of the production of the best-quality cloths, were granted to subject cities with established woollen manufactories. ⁸ Rif. 17, pp. 372, 561–2. ⁹ In the Libri memorie the reports of artisans are sometimes not recorded. If the surviving texts provide an accurate record, it appears that some artisans (particularly women) failed to take the oath. Internal evidence suggests that immigrants (those not subject to the fisc) were rather haphazardly listed. ¹⁰ VC ACiv. 173, fo. 22r . ¹¹ ASL Vicario di Coreglia, ACiv. 93, fo. 24v . The likely relationship between teste and fuochi is clarified in the detailed listings for the vicariate of Gallicano in 1401: VG ACiv. 65, fos. 6r –10v . ¹² ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv. 80, fo. 26r . A year later, now with one miller instead of two, Schiappa reported 12 teste and 7 fuochi: ibid., 81, fo. 16r . ¹³ ASL Vicario di Coreglia, ACiv. 93, fo. 17v . ¹⁴ Sometimes, though rarely, linen-weavers are distinguished from wool-weavers.

172


skill; female weavers were probably recorded (and then patchily) only when they were producing on a significant scale for local or regional markets. Certainly a very large proportion of them failed to take the oath that was demanded from all artisans. In the smallest villages, those with less than twenty hearths, artisans were likely to be restricted to millers, weavers (overwhelmingly female), and carpenters, with a scattering of shoemakers, tailors, and roofers. Depending on geographical location, they might also report the presence of innkeepers, metalworkers, or fullers. More substantial communities, those of between twenty and forty hearths, sometimes reveal a degree of specialization: the nine tavern-keepers who serviced the baths of Corsena, for example.¹⁵ Size was no guide to the prominence of non-agricultural pursuits. Medicina (a substantial village of forty fuochi and forty-two teste high in the Valdriana) in 1398 reported just one miller, one tailor, and one female weaver.¹⁶ Other villages of comparable size contained significant concentrations of six or seven weavers (still almost exclusively female), together with a broad selection of the kind of retailers and craftsmen who were to be found everywhere throughout the Lucchese countryside. At the top were a number of semi-urban communities: Gallicano (reporting 47 12 hearths in 1411);¹⁷ Camaiore (with 106 hearths in 1410);¹⁸ Villa Basilica and Montecarlo (with 112 12 and 91 hearths respectively in 1398).¹⁹ These, like Castiglione and Borgo a Mozzano, were highly stratified communities. They housed a wide range of artisanal occupations, and were headed by men often identified by the title of mercer or speziale.²⁰ In the case of Camaiore, the dearth of manufacturing and retailing in the surrounding countryside would seem to suggest that Camaiore (like Lucca itself) tended to draw within its walls much of the artisanal activity of its hinterland.²¹ If the opportunities for manufacture in the countryside were severely circumscribed by urban monopolies, the most obvious exceptions were linked to the ¹⁵ VVl. ACiv. 97, fo. 27r . ¹⁶ ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv. 81, fo. 16v . ¹⁸ VC ACiv. 173, fo. 19r . ¹⁷ VG ACiv. 89, fo. 20r . ¹⁹ ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv. 81, fos. 19r , 20r . Surprisingly Borgo a Mozzano reported only 37 teste and 20 fuochi in 1405: ASL Vicario di Coreglia, ACiv. 84, no foliation. In 1362 twenty-two men had claimed to represent the required two-thirds and more of the same commune: AN 164(I) (ser Nicolao da Corsagna), p. 125. I have not been able to draw comparable figures from the Atti Civili for Castiglione. In c. 1390 seventy-seven men attended a parlamento, or at least were listed as men of the commune of Castiglione: AN 408(I) (ser Federigo Nardi), fos. 111r –112v . Pietrasanta (lost to Lucca in 1436) was assessed at 419 households for the estimo of 1407: ASL Estimo, 126; Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, p. 237. In 1408 Controne reported ninety-five hearths: VVl. ACiv. 97, fo. 26r . But, except in terms of size, Controne does not seem to me to fit neatly into the kind of communities presently under discussion. ²⁰ It is difficult to find an English synonym for speziali. They were apothecaries and pharmacists, who also sold miscellaneous merchandise ranging from candles to paper and ink. They were often the source of small consumption loans. For the social composition of Pietrasanta and Gallicano: Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 237–9, 251–2. For Camaiore: Antonelli, Conviene chio tamassi, pp. 31–3. ²¹ VC ACiv. 173, fos. 19r –22r .


173

availability—or legacy—of local mineral deposits. It is true that mineral rights were ultimately claimed by the commune of Lucca, and that individual Lucchese citizens, and even outsiders like Baldassare di Antonio Attolini of Castelnuovo, petitioned from time to time for the right to lease the mineral deposits of a specific region or even of the entire Lucchese state.²² Government leases had fiscal implications, but, in practice, iron was mined, smelted, and turned into manufactured articles by local men. In any event, the citizen petitioners probably had their eye on precious rather than base metals. The smiths of Pietrasanta and its surrounding villages were supplied with raw materials produced locally, or (to an increasing extent after the collapse of the Pisan monopoly) with ore that was imported from Elba by merchants (speziali) from Pietrasanta and elsewhere.²³ Pietrasanta was lost to Lucca in 1436, but another area endowed with local iron deposits was the vicariate of Gallicano. In 1407 the commune of Gallicano itself (a community of less than fifty hearths) reported nine smiths, two blacksmiths, and a speziale —as well as the usual assortment of three female weavers, three cerdoni,²⁴ two woodworkers, a tailor, two innkeepers, two bakers, and a butcher. Smiths were proportionately as numerous (or more numerous) in the satellite villages of the vicariate: fourteen in Vallico di Sotto, six in Trassilico, five in Verni. Only Fiattone and the tiny hamlets of Treppignana, Lupinaia, Vergemoli, Calomini, and Cascio were without ironworkers: all, except Fiattone with its two female weavers, were minute communities reporting less than six hearths and no artisanal activities.²⁵ The civil court records of the vicariate of Gallicano provide useful insights into the smelting of iron and iron manufacture in the decades after Lucca’s recovery of the (reduced) vicariate of Gallicano in 1450.²⁶ Some of the iron seems of local provenance, though there is mention of iron coming from Monzone in the Lunigiana, and much presumably continued to be imported through the Versilian port of Motrone.²⁷ Throughout the 1450s and 1460s there are numerous ²² Rif. 16, pp. 110, 601–2. In the preceding century, the families of Castracani/Antelminelli and Streghi had mining and manufacturing interests in both the Versilia and the Lunigiana: Galoppini, ‘Alderigo Antelminelli’, pp. 198–9. ²³ Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 236–9; P. Pelù, Cenni sull’industria e sul commercio del ferro in Versilia nei secoli xiv e xv (Lucca, 1975). For commissions in 1385 to the smiths of Pietrasanta from Datini: J.-F. Belhoste, ‘Mutations techniques et filières marchandes dans la sidérurgie alpine entre le xiiie et le xvie siècle’, in P. Braunstein (ed.), La sidérurgie alpine en Italie (xiie –xviie siècle) (Rome, 2001), p. 550. ²⁴ Cerdoni appear quite frequently in the Lucchese sources. The word is derived from the Latin cerdo/cerdonis (a workman or artisan)—which is not very helpful. As far as I can see from context, the word in Lucca was used for a cobbler. ²⁵ VG ACiv. 80, fos. 14r –20r . Cf. ibid., 71 (1403), fos. 8r –11r . At the beginning of the century, the smiths of Trassilico were described as fabricherii; those of Vallico di Sotto and Vallico di Sopra as clavarii and agutarii; in 1401 those of Gallicano retain the designation fabri: ibid., 66 (1401), no foliation; 69 (1402), fos. 16r –22r . ²⁶ What follows is based on a reading of VG ACiv. 129–38 (1454–61) (1467). ²⁷ Presumably, as in later centuries, the iron worked in the Garfagnana was often a mixture of ore extracted locally and supplies imported from Elba: A. Lodovisi, ‘Strade incerte; viabilità, cartografia

174


incidental references to the work in Gallicano of the smith, maestro Antonio di Giovanni da Barigasso. The best information relating to maestro Antonio concerns his work on the mill of Bertachino di Leonardo of Gallicano, but more generally we find him making pikes, making or repairing agricultural instruments, and sharpening razors. Much of the information relates to the manufacturers of nails and staples (agutaioli). We know of a company formed between Iacopo di Martino and Giovanni di Antonio, both of Gallicano, for the production of nails. Similar partnerships clearly existed between Toto Moni and Simone Dini, and between Simone di Bartolomeo and Paolo di Iacopo Dini. Some details of the workshop of Frediano di Nicolao Masini of Gallicano are preserved as a result of a violent quarrel that broke out—interestingly at night—between two of Frediano’s employees (Filippo di Piero Colucci and Nicolao di Michele di Nicolao Masini), during which Filippo assaulted Nicolao with the hammer that he was using for the manufacture of nails.²⁸ Employment seems to have been very casual. There is frequent mention of men ‘helping to make nails’ in order to pay off debts to agutaioli. And the agutaioli themselves were hardly specialist manufacturers. Men like Iacopo Dini, Amadeo di Giovanni, Giovanni di Antonio, or Cola di Pellegrino were as often involved in agricultural pursuits, or in the sale of general merchandise, as they were in the production of nails. Many of the details are shadowy, but one thing seems certain. Smelting and manufacturing activity around Gallicano were in the hands of local men. There is no mention in any of the sources of citizen involvement or of the intrusion of urban capital.²⁹ Another example of specialist manufacture based (or partly based) on local mineral resources is provided by the sword-makers of Villa Basilica. In the 1340s iron (ferro sodo) was exported from Villa Basilica to the Valdinievole and to Pistoia.³⁰ The records of the gabella of the early fifteenth century show substantial e marginalità nella Garfagnana in età moderna’, in Garf. 2005, pp. 134–5. On the basis of some records of the Gangalandi company of Camaiore, M. Seghieri has argued that—at least in the fourteenth century—the foundries of the middle Serchio were entirely supplied by ore from Elba: ‘Metallurgia e siderurgia nei territori delle Vicarie di Barga e di Coreglia agli inizi del xiv secolo’, Notiziario Storico Filatelico Numismatico con rubriche di scienze, lettere, arti, 200 (1980), pp. 85–92; id., ‘Una compagnia di mercanti operante in Camaiore agli inizi del xiv secolo’, Rivista di archeologia, storia e costume, 8/4 (1980), pp. 39–44. On the importance from earliest times of the ‘vie del ferro’ from Elba: Mencacci and Zecchini, Lucca Romana, p. 52. My sampling of the gabella registers for early fifteenth-century Gallicano (GCV Gallicano, 36) shows the frequent export from Gallicano of ‘ferro’, ‘ferro sodo’, ‘ferro sottile’, and ‘lavori di ferro’. I have been unable to find much information on either iron or iron ore—‘vena di ferro’, ‘materiale di ferro’—entering Gallicano (if we exclude some consignments of ‘acciaio’ passing through Gallicano in transit from Lombardy to Villa Basilica). ²⁸ VG ACiv. 131, fos. 23r – v ; 25r –26r . The case is a criminal action appended to a volume of civil suits. ²⁹ Pelù makes the point that the centralized nature of iron foundries in itself limited the role of the (often urban-based) ‘mercante-imprenditore’: Cenni sull’industria, p. 25. Recent immigrants, specifically lumbardi, seem to be playing a less prominent role in the extraction and manufacturing processes than appears to have been the case in earlier centuries: R. Savigni, ‘Fenomeni migratori e vie dei commerci in Garfagnana nei secoli xii–xiv’, in Garf. 2005, pp. 75–8. ³⁰ GCV Villabasilica, 91 (1343–1408), second foliation, fo. 2v ; third foliation, fo. 5r .


175

quantities of iron (sometimes a migliaio or 1,000lb) sent to Florence.³¹ But iron was also imported into Villa Basilica to supply the long-established specialist manufacture of swords and other instruments of war (together with knives and agricultural instruments).³² Some may have been mined locally; some came from neighbouring Pescia and, especially, from Pietrabuona.³³ In the later fourteenth century, iron was also imported into Villa Basilica from Gello in the vicariate of Coreglia;³⁴ more was purchased at Borgo a Mozzano.³⁵ Iron exports from Borgo a Mozzano to Villa Basilica continued to figure in the local gabelle in the mid-fifteenth century—though perhaps not quite so prominently.³⁶ Part of the iron from the Lucchese vicariates of Gallicano and Coreglia may have been mined in the Garfagnana, though in the early fifteenth century (as earlier) significant quantities of iron were being sent to the vicariate of Coreglia, specifically to Gello, from Pietrasanta.³⁷ Some of the iron that fed the manufactories of fifteenthcentury Villa Basilica certainly originated in the Versilia, and more especially in Elba.³⁸ For the fifteenth century, there seem to be no surviving lists of artisans from the vicariate of Valdriana. But in 1398 fourteen men of Villa Basilica were recorded as rotatores —employed in the manufacture of swords and knives.³⁹ Four years earlier, four men of Villa Basilica, with others from Sesto di Moriano and Brancoli, had attacked the cottages of thirteen of the rotatores on the above list (and also of Dominico Pardellini and Giovanni Neri), destroying their grindingwheels (rotae lapidis) and—at least in the case of Nerotto di Dino—burning down the cottage.⁴⁰ The attackers were incited and armed by ser Antonio di Mannato di Bartolomeo of Villa Basilica.⁴¹ We do not know the motives behind ³¹ GCV Villabasilica, 91, fifteenth foliation, fo. 10v ; 92, seventh foliation, fo. 6r . ³² C. Gabrielli Rosi, Villa Basilica e il suo territorio nella storia, nell’industria, nell’arte (Lucca, 1991), pp. 53–5. There are useful details on the working equipment of a smith in the list of items sequestered in 1403 from the smith Piero of Cascina, who was then resident in Montecarlo: ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv. 73, fo. 25r . ³³ GCV Villabasilica, 91, fourth foliation, fos. 59v , 60v ; fifth foliation, fos. 32v , 35r . ³⁴ GCV Coreglia, 24 (1369), no foliation (15 June). The records of the gabella of Coreglia of 1369 show a fabbrica in Gello belonging to Ayardus, Rynaldus, and Pilatus: ibid., no foliation. Rynaldus was Ranaldo Benvenuti: ibid., second foliation, fo. 23r . For Panello Bertacche of Corsagna sending iron to Villa Basilica: ibid., 25 (1370–1), second foliation, fo. 28r . In return, a number of entries show men of Villa Basilica sending grinding-wheels to Gello (as well as to Borgo a Mozzano, Castelnuovo, and Coreglia): GCV Villabasilica, 91, fourth foliation, fos. 56r , 61r , 62r . ³⁵ Ibid., 25 (1370–1), second foliation, fos. 6r , 8r , 12v . ³⁶ Ibid., 31 (1443–67). ³⁷ See, e.g., GCV Pietrasanta, 70 (1415), first foliation, fos. 54r –58r . ³⁸ Iron exported from Pietrasanta may, in turn, have been produced locally from vena silvestra or imported from Elba. By the 1450s we begin to get explicit references to iron from Elba passing through Villa Basilica to Pietrabuona: GCV Villabasilica, 93, twelfth foliation, fo. 3r . ³⁹ ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv. 81, fo. 20r . ⁴⁰ SB 85, fos. 29v –32r . More than half a century later one of the attackers, Pardello di Giovanni (presumably the same man), was engaged in importing silk cocoons into Villa Basilica: GCV Coreglia, 31, 23 Sept. 1446, 22 Aug. 1448, 29 and 31 Aug. 1467. ⁴¹ See also: SB 85, fo. 59r – v .

176


an action that was clearly aimed at the destruction of the equipment of all the sword-makers resident in Villa Basilica. Presumably there was a clash of interests between the metalworkers and other sections of local society. All stages of iron manufacture consumed very considerable quantities of wood. Whatever the ratio of local to imported iron used by the sword-makers of Villa Basilica, the forges were certainly fed by local chestnut wood.⁴² Sword-making in Villa Basilica was adversely affected in the late fifteenth century as a result of Lucchese legislation aimed at the conservation of local timber resources,⁴³ and local tensions at the end of the fourteenth century may well have been generated by very much the same concerns. More difficult to assess are the references to silk manufacture in Villa Basilica. The area around Villa Basilica provides some of the earliest evidence for the cultivation of mulberry trees within the Lucchese state, and we know that from an early period local women were engaged as silk-winders (maestre/incannatrici)—drawing silk from the cocoons. In the 1340s there is mention of silk cocoons sent to Pistoia from Villa Basilica;⁴⁴ from the end of the fourteenth century there are many references to cocoons being imported into Villa Basilica from Pescia and the mountains of the Pistoiese;⁴⁵ even to the export of silk from Villa Basilica to Borgo a Buggiano.⁴⁶ The records of the gabelle for the 1440s to the 1460s show consignments of as much as 425lb of silk cocoons (filugellorum crudorum or filugellorum in vermibus), some from Lombardy, some from the vicariates of Castiglione and Coreglia, being sent to Villa Basilica through Borgo a Mozzano and Castelnuovo.⁴⁷ The references are puzzling. The silk was imported into Villa Basilica by local men; even if it had been owned ⁴² On the use of local chestnut wood: PVB 13, fo. 36r – v . See also: ibid., 11, fos. 18v , 20v . Chestnut produced a charcoal that was particularly suitable for ironworking: G. Cherubini, ‘La ‘‘civiltà’’ del castagno in Italia alla fine del Medioevo’, AM 8 (1981), p. 252. The records of the gabelle of Villa Basilica show purchases of charcoal, but do not usually specify where the charcoal was coming from; the implication is that it was produced locally, and some certainly came from Colognora. The ‘titulus carbonum’ appears as a separate account in 1416: GCV Villabasilica, 92, seventh foliation, fos. 28r –30r . ⁴³ Gabrielli Rosi, Villa Basilica, pp. 55, 65. Sword-making clearly continued in Villa Basilica (with the Biscotti, among others) long after the restrictive legislation of the late fifteenth century: G. Arrighi, ‘I maestri spadai di Villa Basilica’, in Atti del convegno su artigianato e industrie in Valdinievole dal medioevo ad oggi: Buggiano Castello, giugno 1986 (Buggiano, 1987), pp. 61–9. In 1467 there are references to the spadario Biscottino Biscotti of Villa Basilica (presumably the son of Nicolao di Antonio Fornacchini, called Biscotto): GCV Coreglia, 31, sixteenth foliation, fo. 5r – v (9 and 24 Oct. 1467)—importing steel from Borgo a Mozzano. ⁴⁴ GCV Villabasilica, 91, second foliation, fo. 4r . Small quantities of silk also seem to have been exported from Villa Basilica to Pistoia: ibid., fifth foliation, fo. 15v . ⁴⁵ Ibid., 91, fourth foliation, fos. 38v , 39r ; fifth foliation, fo. 36v ; sixth foliation, fos. 26r –27v , 28r , 29r . ⁴⁶ Ibid., 91, sixth foliation, fo. 15v . ⁴⁷ GCV Coreglia, 31, 23 Sept. 1446, 3 Apr., 6 July 1447, 22 Aug. 1448, Sept. 1460, 29 and 31 Aug. 1467. We do not know the provenance of the cocoons recorded in the gabella of Villa Basilica for 1453, though we are told that they were brought for the drawing of silk: GCV Villabasilica, 93, twelfth foliation, fos. 3r , 44r .


177

by Lucchese citizens, it should still have been directed to Villa Basilica through Lucca. In the sixteenth century, maestre from Villa Basilica were employed by local contractors on behalf of Lucchese silk merchants.⁴⁸ Already in the 1390s there was clearly citizen involvement: in 1399 Brunetto Malizardi paid 16s. to export defective cocoons (faloppe) from Villa Basilica out of Lucchese territory.⁴⁹ For the fifteenth century, it remains unclear whether entrepreneurs from Villa Basilica were sometimes producing silk thread on their own account (from local and imported cocoons) for the Lucchese market; whether subsequent stages of manufacture (spinning and weaving) were also being practised in Villa Basilica; and whether these manufacturing processes were firmly under the control of Lucchese silk merchants (as they should have been). On the evidence of the gabelle, I would speculate that there may have been some locally controlled silkspinning, and perhaps the manufacture of minor silk-products (purses, ribbons) in fifteenth-century Villa Basilica. No such problems relate to the production of rough woollen cloth (panni albagi). There was a lively market for various types of cheap cloth within, and beyond the borders of, the Lucchese state. The lists of artisans in the Libri memorie provide the names of woollen cloth merchants (lanaioli/pannaioli), wool-beaters, fullers, and numerous (female) wool-and linen-weavers living in Villa Basilica and its surrounding villages.⁵⁰ A tax was payable on the weaving of woollen cloth, and the records of the gabelle of late-fourteenth- and early fifteenth-century Villa Basilica include detailed lists of cloths on the loom, and of those who were engaged in their manufacture. There are 104 such entries for the second semester of 1399, which identify 45 individuals as paying gabella on woollen cloth.⁵¹ All were natives of Villa Basilica (or of the neighbouring villages of Pariana, Colognora, and Boveglio). Most were men; none of the eight women named seems to have been commissioning more than two cloths over the course of the semester⁵²—though one of them, Ricchuccia Tinguccii, appears more regularly in some of the later lists, and in 1404 is recorded as exporting her cloth to Montecarlo (through the male agency of Paganuccio Dinghi).⁵³ Six of Ricchuccia’s male counterparts were engaged in the manufacture of cloth on a relatively large scale (each paying tax over the entire semester on five or more cloths). Buono Faloppe, Vannello Iunctini, and Iacopo Buonaccorsi were ⁴⁸ ASL Corte dei mercanti, 187, Cause Civili (1517), fos. 160r – v , 173v . The case relates to men and women engaged by Domenico and Bernardo Salvini of Villa Basilica to go to Messina in Sicily to draw silk from cocoons on behalf of the Lucchese merchant Filippo Calandrini. ⁴⁹ GCV Villabasilica, 91, fourth foliation, fo. 44v . In 1404 Brunetto imported 63lb of cocoons from the Valdinievole: ibid., sixth foliation, fo. 28r . ⁵⁰ ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv. 80, fos. 26r –29r ; 81, fos. 15r –21r . For Caterina Bonami, who span wool and wove cloth on behalf of maestro Iuntore of Villa Basilica: PVB 12, fos. 6r , 39v . ⁵¹ GCV Villabasilica, 91, fourth foliation, fos. 26r –31v . ⁵² Some were weavers like Caterina Giovanni Nieri and Margarita Parigii, who sometimes owned the cloth that they wove: GCV Villabasilica, 91, fourth foliation, fo. 27v ; fifth foliation, fo. 11v . ⁵³ GCV Villabasilica, 91, fourth foliation, fo. 53r .

178


all described as pannari in 1398.⁵⁴ Only Buono Faloppe, Vannello Iunctini, and perhaps Antonio Antonii seem to have been specialist cloth-manufacturers; the others can more accurately be described as general traders, and the most prolific of them all, Iacopo Buonaccorsi (responsible for 12 of the 104 cloths), appears in the general gabella of 1399 as a purchaser of pigs rather than as a seller of woollen cloth. Production may have become more specialist by the 1420s, when at least some of the entrepreneurs established in Villa Basilica were outsiders: the lanaiolo Leonardo da Pistoia, for example.⁵⁵ The weavers (or possessors of looms), in contrast to the entrepreneurs, and with two exceptions, were all female (sometimes the wives or mothers of the men who supplied them).⁵⁶ The wool that they worked was probably mostly of local provenance, from the mountainous area bordering the Pistoiese (the Pistoiese Montagna).⁵⁷ Linen-weaving figures much less prominently than wool, and in the gabelle of Villa Basilica for the Guinigi years linen cloth is sometimes registered as an imported rather than an exported item. The individual details are obscure, but the overall picture seems clear. In the west, Camaiore had long been an area of early citizen penetration. Lucchese citizens held landed property there, and invested in local manufacture; leading local families (including many engaged in commerce and manufacture) held Lucchese citizenship. Non-agricultural economic activity was very diverse in Camaiore, as befitted its size and close contacts with Lucca. In 1407 Camaiore housed fourteen weavers (seven of them noted as weavers of linen cloth),⁵⁸ four smiths, and two leather-workers; the retail trades were represented by butchers, bakers, and vintners; shoemakers and tailors serviced local needs and supplied local markets.⁵⁹ In the east, at Villa Basilica, on the edge of the Sei Miglia, and with its resources of wood and hydraulic power, there were also early indications of citizen investment: probably in silk production; certainly by the fifteenth century in the manufacture of paper (an activity that, a century earlier, seems to have been in the hands of local men).⁶⁰ In the valley of the Serchio, citizen interest petered out in the vicinity of Anchiano; in this respect ⁵⁴ ASL Vicario di Valleariana, ACiv. 81, fo. 20r . ⁵⁵ PVB 32, no (visible) foliation. ⁵⁶ Later the names of the weavers are given less frequently, and looms are attributed to the (generally male) entrepreneurs. It is unclear whether female weavers were losing possession of the means of production, or whether the change merely relates to the reportage. ⁵⁷ In 1404 Buono Faloppe imported 500lb of wool from S. Macello (presumably S. Macello Pistoiese): GCV Villabasilica, 91, sixth foliation, fo. 30r . Earlier in the same year, residents of Villa Basilica were sending wool to Collodi and, further, to Montefegatesi: ibid., fifth foliation, fo. 36v . ⁵⁸ Three years later there is reference to a weaving establishment that included the linen-weaver Francesco Perucci of Camaiore, his wife (already named in the 1407 list), his son, and Bartolomea, a female linen-weaver from Corsanico: VC ACiv. 173, fos. 4r , 19r . The name of Francesco’s wife raises some problems of identity. ⁵⁹ VC ACiv. 166, no foliation. See also ibid., 173, fo. 19r . ⁶⁰ R. Sabbatini, ‘La cartiera Buonvisi di Villa Basilica XVI–XIX secolo’, ASI 140 (1982), pp. 263–5. Paper manufacture at Villa Basilica already appears in the earliest records of the


179

little had changed since the beginning of the fourteenth century. In areas of rich mineral deposits, or with metallurgical traditions, local partnerships were formed for smelting and manufacture: around Stazzema in the vicariate of Pietrasanta; around Gello and Motrone in the vicariate of Coreglia; in Trassilico and Vallico di Sotto in the vicariate of Gallicano. In the larger communities, trade and the organization of manufacturing processes were conducted by men variously called mercers, speziali, caseari. Particularly in the manufacture of textiles, these men performed (on a smaller scale) essentially the same functions as the merchant capitalists of the city. In 1407 the court of Coreglia, at the petition of Biagio di Nicolao of Anchiano, sequestered linen cloth and weaving equipment from Michele, a German weaver living in Anchiano.⁶¹ We cannot be certain, but we might guess that Biagio di Nicolao was a small-time merchant who collected and imported linen thread, which he distributed to local linen-weavers for the manufacture of cloth. Citizen investment would eventually spread at least to the middle Serchio, but the utilization by Lucchese silk merchants of the material and artisanal resources of more distant villages like Gallicano seems to me a new development dating only from the sixteenth century.⁶² Things were very different within the Sei Miglia, the area par excellence of citizen involvement and control. Artisans were certainly settled around Lucca in the suburban communes (comuni suburbani). From the 1450s we have evidence of two smiths working just outside the city at S. Pietro a Vico.⁶³ Often we find partnerships with citizens (or at least with urban residents). In 1458 the wool merchant Lorenzo di Piero da Prato formed a company with the brickmaker (fornacerius) Lunardo di Andrea da Menabbio for the manufacture of bricks—apparently at Pontetetto. The labour and furnace were to be provided by Lunardo; the capital by the merchant Lorenzo. At the end of the partnership, Lorenzo was to recover his capital, and the profits and losses were then to be divided equally.⁶⁴ In the case of individuals, personal names incorporating toponymics cannot be used as evidence of actual and current residence. But so many female silk-winders (maestre) appear in the records of the court of merchants with toponyms from villages of the Sei Miglia that we can only assume that the great Lucchese silk companies were employing maestre in large numbers throughout the Lucchese plain. The phenomenon is confirmed in any event from other sources. To the south, the torrents of the Monte Pisano provided motive power. Some of the fulling mills that serviced the nascent woollen manufacture of fifteenth-century Lucca (itself largely in the hands of Pisan or Florentine exiles) gabelle (1344), where the entrepreneurs seem to be local men: GCV Villabasilica, 91, second foliation, passim. ⁶¹ ASL Vicario di Coreglia, ACiv. 90, fo. 30v . ⁶² G. Lucchesi, ‘Regolamenti della lavorazione della seta nella vicaria di Gallicano—1593’, Rivista di archeologia storia costume, 12/4 (1984), pp. 17–22. ⁶³ AN 704 (ser Benedetto Franciotti), p. 24. ⁶⁴ AN 702 (ser Benedetto Franciotti), p. 56.

180


were situated around Vorno.⁶⁵ It would be rash to argue from the above that manufacturing in the communities of the Sei Miglia was entirely confined to the hydraulic plants of city merchants, the artisans of the suburbs, the maestre of the countryside. Indeed, in 1484 the inhabitants of the Sei Miglia were explicitly confirmed in their right to innkeeping, to repair and sharpen farm instruments (though not to manufacture them anew), to weave and tailor rough woollen cloth (albagi), and to weave linen cloth (on prior payment to Lucca of a six-monthly fee of 1 florin per loom).⁶⁶ Nevertheless, the overall aim of this and previous legislation was restrictive: to concentrate artisanal activity in the city, and to prevent loss to city revenues (gabelle) through manufacture in the countryside. An extensive sampling of the records of the court of merchants and the curia del fondaco suggests to me that Berengo was largely right when he insisted that peasants from the Sei Miglia went to the city for goods and services.⁶⁷ The overall aims of Lucchese policy are sufficiently clear: the preservation of citizen rights; the supply of the city with victuals and raw materials; the prevention of the export from Lucchese territory of essential foodstuffs—particularly grain and chestnut flour. In the early years of the fifteenth century the vicariates were regularly required to supply the city granaries with specified quantities of wheat and barley: the 200 staia of wheat demanded of the communes of the vicariate of Gallicano in 1403;⁶⁸ the 1,500 staia of barley imposed on the communes of the vicariate of Coreglia in the first semester of 1405;⁶⁹ the 1,200 staia of wheat to be sent from the vicariate of Camporgiano to the granaries of Lucca in the second semester of 1409.⁷⁰ The ordinances issued by each new vicar on assuming office routinely included a clause prohibiting the exportation from the Lucchese state variously of wheat and other cereals, wine, oil, wood, and fodder (sometimes just of all victuals).⁷¹ More specific prohibitions might be issued by vicars on an ad hoc basis. The ban on the export of grain was a constant of Lucchese policy; other restrictions were imposed or lifted according to circumstances.⁷² Wheat itself might be exported under licence, though in difficult years there were attempts to control the issuing of licences.⁷³ In 1435 there was the oft-cited ban on the ⁶⁵ ASL Corte de’ mercanti, Cause civili 152, fo. 30v . ⁶⁶ Rif. 21, pp. 585, 590–1. For earlier legislation, see ibid., 17, pp. 578 (where the list of permitted activities includes barbers); 19, pp. 339–40. In 1468 the concern was to clarify that residents of the unwalled suburbs were encompassed in the ban on most manufacture within the Sei Miglia. ⁶⁷ Berengo, ‘Il contado lucchese’, p. 266. ⁶⁸ VG ACiv. 71, fo. 6r . Much larger quantities were demanded in the second semester 1401 (750 staia of wheat and barley), but the amount seems to have been substantially reduced on appeal: ibid., 66, no foliation. ⁶⁹ ASL Vicario di Coreglia, ACiv. 84, no foliation. ⁷⁰ ASL Vicario di Camporeggiana, ACiv. 113, fo. 8v . ⁷¹ See, e.g., VG ACiv. 96, fo. 5v ; ASL Vicario di Camporeggiana, ACiv. 113, fos. 2v , 5r . ⁷² In 1483 the Anziani were confirmed in perpetuity in their right to prevent the export from Lucchese territory of all manner of victuals: Rif. 21, pp. 491–2. ⁷³ Rif. 16, p. 203.


181

exportation from Lucca and its territory (contado, forze, and distretto) of mulberry leaves, silk cocoons, and raw silk.⁷⁴ In this respect, and in its preoccupation with price controls,⁷⁵ Lucca typifies the mentality of the city-state (and of more recent Italian regional formations).⁷⁶ Characteristic too was Lucca’s insistence on the use of the city’s weights and measures throughout its territories,⁷⁷ and its concern to maintain the road system—exemplified in the innumerable instructions sent to subject communities for the repair of roads and bridges.⁷⁸ Centralization does not seem to have led to specialization; nor is there evidence that Lucca pursued a policy of allocating specific economic functions to its subject communities—as has been claimed with regard to Florence, for example. It is true that the Lucchese authorities were concerned to protect the sword-makers of Villa Basilica from foreign competition, and to preserve their high reputation for craftsmanship⁷⁹—but Villa Basilica seems to have been a special case. In so far as specialist manufacture evolved (ironworking in Gallicano, swords in Villa Basilica), this was a product of natural resources and historical legacies rather than of conscious Lucchese policy—whether political or economic. Similarly with regard to agriculture. In a chapter appended to his study of the Garfagnana in the early middle ages, Chris Wickham looked ahead to reflect on the changes that had taken place in the mountains by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.⁸⁰ According to Wickham, by 1500 landownership in the mountains was largely confined to small peasant owner-cultivators. But the subsistence economy and mixed cultivation of earlier centuries had been replaced by a specialist silvo-pastoral economy orientated towards the market.⁸¹ By the late Middle Ages, the Garfagnana was integrated into the regional economy of the Lucchesia, though the mountain communities themselves had become increasingly insulated from the culture of ⁷⁴ ‘Quod deinceps nulla persona cuiuscunque gradus aut conditionis existat audeat vel presumat de lucensi civitate eiusque comitatu fortia vel districtu extrahere aut extrahi facere aliquam quantitatem sete facte in districtu lucensi cuiusvis maneriei existat que cruda sit nec similiter filugellorum in vermibus aut aliquas frondes gelsi’: Rif. 14, p. 733. ⁷⁵ In the Libri memorie, one of the main tasks of the syndics of the communes when they met in the parlamento of the vicariate was to appoint a committee of perhaps four men responsible for fixing the prices of essential commodities in consultation with the vicar. The price of supplies of victuals to the city were similarly controlled. ⁷⁶ The negative consequences of these protectionist and defensive choices are argued by Epstein, ‘Market Structures’, pp. 108–19. ⁷⁷ For the general argument, see ibid., pp. 92–3. ⁷⁸ The point can be abundantly illustrated from the Libri memorie. In 1471 powers were granted to a committee, the Sei cittadini sopra le entrate, to raise money from contadini to complete the via di Montramito: Rif. 19, p. 700. ⁷⁹ Arrighi, ‘I maestri spadai’, pp. 63–5. ⁸⁰ Wickham, The Mountains and the City, pp. 365–80. See also ibid., pp. 134–49. ⁸¹ Elsewhere Wickham has argued that pastoralism is not a subsistence strategy, but predicates a certain level of sophistication and exchange: ‘Pastoralism and Underdevelopment in the Early Middle Ages’, Spoleto: Settimane di studio, 31 (1983), pp. 401–55, repr. in id., Land and Power: Studies in Italian and European Social History, 400–1200 (London, 1994), pp. 121–54.

182


the ruling city. The image of peasant owner-cultivators we can accept without reservation. In the fifteenth century, even in the relatively accessible vicariate of Gallicano, there is little sign of landed investment by Lucchese citizens.⁸² The argument for a specialist and complementary silvo-pastoral economy is more problematic. The importance of animal husbandry for the communes of the mountains is not in question. Communes of the middle and upper Serchio recognized the value of animals for the village economy,⁸³ but also that the flocks and herds posed problems of control that needed to be addressed. The statutes of the villages of the vicariates are full of regulations regarding the keeping and movement of animals, both large and small.⁸⁴ Of general concern were the number and movement of pigs.⁸⁵ The rural statutes provide detailed punishments for damage by animals to the fields and pastures of private individuals, while regulating access to the communal pastures. By the end of the century, they were increasingly likely to list fees due from outsiders for the use of communal pastures,⁸⁶ sometimes attempting to exclude from the Alpine pastures all animals not belonging to the village.⁸⁷ Many provisions relate to the vicenda—a Lucchese institution whereby the men of the village were obligated, by means of a roster, to watch over the animals grazing in the communal pastures. Clauses specified the duty of villagers to participate in the vicenda; the obligation of local men to put their animals in the vicenda (often providing for a separate vicenda for pigs; sometimes for cows, sheep, and goats); and the circumstances in which the guardians were freed of responsibility for losses (occasioned, for example, when the flock was attacked by wolves).⁸⁸ Similar preoccupations exercised some villages of the plain. In 1444, to control the damage caused by animals, and to prevent the resulting quarrels, the men of Capannori decided to limit the animals kept within the commune by each family to three pairs of working oxen, two cows (and their young calves), two pigs for meat, but as many riding animals and beasts of burden as were needed. ⁸² A vacchetta attached to a register of ser Manfredo Domaschi contains many acts relating to Gallicano in the late 1460s and early 1470s: AN 1160. It shows a lively exchange of land between the men of Gallicano, but no sign of citizen investment. ⁸³ The point is explicitly made in the 1476 statute of Cune: AN 1267 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fos. 228r –229v . ⁸⁴ See especially the jumbled but very detailed 1497 statute of Corsagna: AN 1240 (ser Iacopo Donati), fos. 21r –28v . ⁸⁵ Particularly for communes like Castiglione, where chestnut woods were at the centre of the local economy: AN 408(I) (ser Federigo Nardi), fos. 109r –115v . Similarly Vico Pancellorum: AN 504(XIII) (ser Antonio Nuccorini), fos. 33v –39r . ⁸⁶ AN 1277 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fos. 175r –178v . But differential tariffs for foreigners were also a feature of the fourteenth-century statutes: AN 408(I) (ser Federigo Nardi), fo. 115v . ⁸⁷ BSL MS 764, Statuta et Ordines Oppidi Castilioni Garfagnana, cc. xlii, liii; AN 770(III) (ser Giovanni Roffia), fos. 62r –65r ; 1041 (ser Bartolomeo da Treppignana), fo. 169v . ⁸⁸ BSL MS 764, cc. xxvi–xxvii; AN 162 (ser Nicolao da Corsagna), pp. 1–12, 22; 198(III) (ser Lorenzo da Barga), fos. 164r –166r ; 202 (ser Lorenzo da Barga), fos. 220v –224v ; 504(XIII) (ser Antonio Nuccorini), fos. 33v –39r ; 770(III) (ser Giovanni Roffia), fos. 62r –65r ; 1226 (ser Pietro Lupardi), fos. 121r –124v ; 1279 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fos. 209v –210v .


183

Only in the event of a failure of water supplies were special concessions granted to move the flocks and herds of the villagers of Capannori temporarily and directly from the pastures of Porcari to the watering-place in Capannori (‘il fregione’).⁸⁹ Nor is there any doubt about the large-scale movement of animals, and of its great value to the Lucchese treasury. In Pietrasanta in the first semester of 1426 taxes on transhumance produced a revenue of 71 florins and £74 7s. 10d ., out of a total revenue from all the gabelle of the vicariate of 163 florins and £2,091 11s. 1d .—or about 13 per cent of the total.⁹⁰ In 1438 and 1439 there was considerable concern in Lucca that the recent wars had so reduced the Lucchese state that shepherds and their animals could easily avoid Lucchese territory altogether. A reduction of transit dues was proposed as a way of enticing the shepherds back, as well as the reduction of dues for animals brought to pasture within Lucchese territory itself.⁹¹ The records of the gabelle of Pietrasanta show that in the early decades of the fifteenth century large flocks, sometimes of more than 400 ‘small animals’ (sheep, lambs, and goats) were being brought annually from Comano in the northern Lunigiana, or from the Appennino Modenese (Casarola, Succiso, Pieve S. Vincenzo, Compiano), to the pastures of the coast (the Maremma). On 30 April 1415 Bertolo Armannini of Casarola paid dues of 10 florins (plus a small fee for the counting of the animals) on a flock of 720 returning from the Maremma.⁹² By contrast, the records of the gabella of Coreglia highlight much more diverse movements of flocks from the mountainous regions of the Soraggio and the Appennino Modenese (Piolo, Ligonchio, Bismantova, Fiumalbo). These flocks were more modest in size than many of those passing through Pietrasanta—often of between twenty and eighty-five animals. And they tended to be coming to pastures within Lucchese territory: in the vicariates of Coreglia, Gallicano, and the Valdilima; occasionally in the Sei Miglia.⁹³ ⁸⁹ AN 552 (ser Ciomeo Pieri), fos. 34r – v , 68r , 303r . ⁹⁰ GCV Pietrasanta, 77 (1425–6), fifth foliation, fos. 87v , 92r . The equivalent figures for the first semester of 1425 are 59 florins and £45 14s. 3d., and 309 florins and £1,790 9s. 9d .—with transhumance representing about 9%: second foliation, fos. 86v , 92v . The revenue from transhumance had remained relatively stable—it had amounted to 49 florins and £35 18s. 9d. in the first semester of 1415. But in 1415 total receipts from the gabelle were much higher—451 florins and £2,774 11s. 1d .—of which transhumance represented only about 5%: GCV Pietrasanta, 70 (1415), first foliation, fos. 82r , 90r . ⁹¹ The measure was concerned with merchandise other than animals: Rif. 15, pp. 400–1. A debate had raged for more than a year whether it was in Lucca’s interest to reduce the gabelle in order to attract trade (especially the movement of goods and animals between Pisa and Pistoia): ibid., pp. 243, 294. ⁹² GCV Pietrasanta, 70 (1415), first foliation, fo. 79r . Flocks passing through Lucchese territory in no way compare with the millions of sheep brought annually in the late sixteenth century from summer pastures in Abruzzi to winter pastures in Apulia. Nor indeed with the fifteenth-century migrations between the Romagna and the Tuscan Maremma: G. Pinto, ‘Attraverso l’Appennino: Rapporti e scambi tra Romagna e Toscana nei secoli xiii–xv’, in Toscana medievale: Paesaggi e realtà sociali (Florence, 1993), pp. 25–36. ⁹³ Information drawn largely from the gabelle collected at Borgo a Mozzano: GCV Coreglia, 24 (1369), 25 (1370–1), 31 (1443–67). For a rare mention of sheep and goats passing through

184


The movement of pigs (often in great numbers) was even more complex and even less predictable: directly between ‘Lombardy’ and the vicariates of Lucca (Coreglia, including Pescaglia, Camaiore, the Valdilima, Villa Basilica); in transit from Lombardy to Pescia, the Valdinievole, and Pistoia; between Barga and Castelfranco; or between Florence and Coreglia. The great transhumance route to the Maremma was dominated by flocks travelling large distances from the north. There is little sign of sheep and goats originating from the Lucchesia, though the gabelle of Pietrasanta do show a more localized movement of flocks of twenty to fifty animals between Montignoso, the vicariate of Camaiore and the pastures of the Garfagnana (particularly Vagli).⁹⁴ The same preponderance of sheep and goats that originated from outside Lucchese territory is probably also true of the transhumance pattern to the south, eastward from Pisa to Pistoia and beyond.⁹⁵ A local historiography (somewhat short on empirical evidence) has portrayed Lucchese shepherds since Roman times bringing large flocks across the Garfagnana and down the valley of the Serchio to winter pasture in the Maremma.⁹⁶ Popular memory suggests that the phenomenon of large flocks (‘vere fiumane di pecore’) passing down the Serchio to pasture in the Maremma were a familiar feature of the very recent past.⁹⁷ But in the Garfagnana, at least in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it would appear that the flocks owned by local men were usually smaller than those brought from beyond Lucca’s borders, and that the seasonal movement of local flocks between mountain pastures and the plain was geographically quite regional. One of the many problems of the gabelle as a historical source is that often they only capture transactions that crossed the confines of the individual vicariates. Consequently we have lots of details on the regular movement of animals between Perpoli and Ponte a Moriano, the Alps of Camporgiano and Diecimo, Sillano and Anchiano, Coreglia and Brancoli, or Castiglione and the Alps of Pescaglia. We may suspect from other sources that such relatively long-range migrations may have been exceptional. One of Borgo a Mozzano on the way from Soraggio to the Maremma: ibid., 31, thirteenth foliation, fo. 9r (11 Oct. 1460). ⁹⁴ GCV Pietrasanta, 70, first foliation, fos. 80v –81v ; 77, fifth foliation, fos. 83r , 86r , 87r . ⁹⁵ Though some flocks were reaching the Maremma from the Valdilima via Villa Basilica: GCV Villabasilica, 91, fourth foliation, fo. 24r . And, from an earlier century, there is the rather curious evidence of a flock of 2,000 sheep and rams that was apparently brought from the Garfagnana to Fucecchio, and thence shepherded along the Arno to the Maremma: A. Malvolti, ‘Fucecchio nella seconda metà del xiii secolo’, iii, ‘Un notaio, un paese: Cittadini e contadini nel protocollo di ser Rustichello’, Erba d’Arno, 18 (1984), pp. 61–2. ⁹⁶ P. Pelù, ‘Cenni sull’economia della Garfagnana medievale’, in Garf. 1995, pp. 239, 242; id., ‘Le risorse economiche e il loro rilievo in rapporto ai mercati urbani e allo sfruttamento delle direttrici di traffico viario, fluviale e marittimo in Garfagnana (secc. xii–xv)’, in Garf. 1997, pp. 147–8; Baroni, ‘Rapporti e collegamenti viarii medievali’, pp. 172–9. See also: N. Criniti, ‘ ‘‘Carneade! Chi era costui?’’: Veleia e la Tabula alimentaria oggi’, Archivio storico per le province parmensi, 4th ser., 56 (2004), p. 520. ⁹⁷ L. Angelini, ‘La via di San Pellegrino nell’ultimo tratto toscano’, in Garf. 2005, pp. 152–3.


185

the most bitter conflicts of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was fought over the right of the men of Gallicano and Barga (originally of the same vicariate) to bring their animals for pasture on Monte di Gragno. Here the disputes were complicated by the fact that Barga had been lost to Lucca in the early fourteenth century. But precisely the same kind of complaints against the animals of one commune trespassing on the common pastures of another were very common throughout the Garfagnana: between S. Romano and Silicagnana, for example, in 1434;⁹⁸ or between Castiglione and Fontanaluccia, Mescosa, and Agazano in the 1480s.⁹⁹ The latter dispute suggests less transhumance than a group of shepherds and herders wandering without any discernible pattern over a vast tract of mountainous terrain in the border area between the Lucchese and Modenese states. It is not suggested that either the ownership of large flocks or regular longdistance migrations were entirely foreign to the men of the Lucchese vicariates. Christine Meek has provided examples from the Valdilima and Valdriana which show not only that men of the mountains of Pistoia were bringing very large numbers of animals to winter in Lucchese territory, but that taxes were also being paid by local men on substantial flocks of more than 200 sheep, lambs, and goats. Meek cites the example of Menabove Landucci, a wine-retailer and butcher of Villa Basilica, who sent 283 animals to pasture ‘in alpibus Fiumalbi’.¹⁰⁰ The valley of the Lima, then as now, was a very different region from the Garfagnana or Versilia. But, in all the vicariates, there is no particular difficulty in finding taxes paid by local men (often by butchers) on the transit of flocks of 100 animals and more. Unfortunately, it is often impossible to determine whether the flocks were owned by a single individual, or were the aggregate of village stock,¹⁰¹ though in the winter of 1452 Simone di Piero Stefanelli of Coreglia sold 107 sheep to Iacopo Pierucci ⁹⁸ ASL Vicario di Camporeggiana, ACr. 289, fos. 5r –6v . ⁹⁹ ASL Capitoli, 10, pp. 167–9. ¹⁰⁰ Meek, ‘Finanze comunali e finanze locali’, p. 146. Meek also cites the example of Michele di Giovanni of Casuli in Valdilima, who paid taxes on 248 animals that had wintered in the territory of Montecarlo, and that were being taken back to the Valdilima before moving on to summer pastures around Fiumalbo. See also: GCV Villabasilica, 91, fourth foliation, fo. 48v . Even in the Valdilima, most movement of animals was probably much more limited. The men of Menabbio were prohibited from taking animals ‘nella pastura del monte dalla Salda a Martignana in su e dalla fontana a monte in su’ between the months of March and May: AN 1277 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fo. 176v . ¹⁰¹ On 30 June 1464 Guaspare di Stefano, Piero di Lorenzo, Antonio di Iacopo, and Giovanni di Bartolomeo, all of Anchiano, were joint payers of the tax due for the passage of a flock of 250 animals, some ‘in alpibus Corellie’, some ‘in alpibus Barghe’. They promised that the animals would be returned to Anchiano by the end of September: GCV Coreglia, 31, fifteenth foliation, fo. 7r . See also entry in the sixteenth foliation, fo. 2v (28 July 1467). Paolo Pelù writes of the flocks owned by the Guinigi around Castiglione: ‘L’economia della Garfagnana e le sue relazioni col porto di Motrone (secc. xiv–xv)’, in La Garfagnana: Storia, cultura, arte: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana il 12–13 settembre 1992 (Modena, 1993), p. 221. I have not found the reference, and citizen involvement seems to be exceptional.

186


of Camaiore—which Iacopo subsequently took back with him to Camaiore (without paying pasturage dues).¹⁰² Despite such cases, it remains that, particularly in the Garfagnana, the rural statutes seem to assume that the average stock of individual villagers would be less than twenty sheep and goats;¹⁰³ in the communal world of the mountains the private ownership of a larger number of animals might be viewed with disfavour—certainly it was often discouraged by punitive tariffs. The 1470 statute of Sermezzana prohibited natives or residents of the commune from holding more than fifty small animals (bestie minute) in the pastures of the commune, a measure accompanied by provisions for the equitable division of the commune’s agricultural land. Contraventions were punished by the substantial fee of 1 12 bolognini per animal.¹⁰⁴ A serious concern of communities like Sermezzana was the introduction of foreign animals under cover of partnerships called in soccidia. Earlier in the century, in one of the larger of such contracts, a man from Aiola—Giorgio di Francesco—made two separate agreements whereby he leased sheep and goats in soccidia to Pietro di Martino of Sermezzana: the first for 42 sheep and 24 goats; the second for 30 sheep and 15 goats. Aiola is in the Val-di-Magra, high in the Apuan Alps; Sermezzana is on the slopes of monte Tea, on an ancient mule trail linking the high valley of the Serchio with the Val-di-Magra. The agreement—which re-emphasizes the likelihood of migrations over quite short distances—was for four years. The intention was that the animals should be pastured in the territory of Sermezzana, though there seems to have been an understanding that the flocks should not be removed from the territory of Aiola during the current war.¹⁰⁵ Despite a general suspicion of contracts in soccidia, and the penal tariffs for grazing too many animals in the communal pastures, concessions were sometimes granted to the holders of larger flocks (defined in Ceserana as those with more than forty animals).¹⁰⁶ They might, for example, be permitted to make private arrangements for the safe custody of their own animals, instead of having to send their flocks to the communal vicenda. For this reason, and no doubt because of the frequent delegation by richer villagers of the obligation to participate in the vicenda, villages often contained specialist (or semi-specialist) shepherds and herders.¹⁰⁷ Many were probably employed on a very casual basis: Nicola Ianni of Naples, for example, who spent seven nights looking after the sheep ¹⁰² GCV Coreglia, 31, eighth foliation (second semester, 1452), fo. 3v . ¹⁰³ ASL Statuti delle comunità soggette, 11, pp. 6–7. ¹⁰⁴ AN 770(III) (ser Giovanni Roffia), fo. 63v . ¹⁰⁵ PC ACiv. 30, fos. 15r –16r . Pietro seems to have appropriated the animals amid the confusions of the time, though the precise details are unclear. Leases in soccidia of large animals (oxen, cows) were likely to be for individual beasts. ¹⁰⁶ ASL Statuti delle comunità soggette, 11, p. 7. ¹⁰⁷ F. Leverotti, ‘Gabelle e Atti Civili come fonte per la storia del paesaggio agrario medievale’, in R. Martinelli and L. Nuti (eds.), Fonti per lo studio del paesaggio agrario: Atti del 30 Convegno di storia urbanista, Lucca 3–5 ottobre 1979 (Lucca, 1981), pp. 216–17. Claims for alleged non-payment


187

of two men of Villa Basilica before moving on to the neighbouring village of Pariana.¹⁰⁸ And, as in comparable societies today, very young children often acted as shepherds and herdboys: thus the two boys found watching a flock of thirty sheep that belonged to Domenico Balbani of Cuna in the piazza in front of his house;¹⁰⁹ or the young son of Caterina, widow of Giovanni Guazelli of Albiano, a village situated—like Sermezzana—in the far northern reaches of the Lucchese state.¹¹⁰ The case of Caterina is instructive. She claimed impoverishment. Many neighbours provided her with services only for the love of God (‘amore dei’), and she protested—somewhat ingenuously—that debts for ploughing services owed to Nicolao and Bartolomeo di Lorenzo of Albiano should also rightly be discounted as acts of charity. There is no need to doubt Caterina’s poverty (perhaps alleviated by her aggressive pursuit of every small obligation that might be due to her). She won a precarious living repairing garments of linen and fustian (perhaps of wool), sewing on buttons, replacing sleeves. She sent her small son to herd cattle for 36 bolognini over four months and for the apparently more substantial costs of his living expenses. But Caterina planted both wheat and beans, and she held arable land large enough to be worked by oxen.¹¹¹ In this borderland between the Garfagnana and the Lunigiana, countless references in the notarial and court records show a promiscuous agriculture: not inconsiderable arable, cultivation of olives and vines, mixed with pasture, chestnut woods, and waste.¹¹² As in Caterina’s case, though not necessarily at the same modest level, landholding and agricultural labours were inextricably jumbled with artisanal and retail activities: the innkeepers and taverners along the mercantile routes northward at Bergiola, Argigliano, and Casoli; the millers of chestnut flour; and (in the larger centres) the blacksmiths, shoemakers, hosiers, producers of stout hempen fabrics and of coarse woollen cloth, the petty moneylenders, and the general traders. It was a world in which Antonio di Giovanni, tanner of Casoli, might sell shoes from his shop, but also traded in chestnut flour and red wine. Things were not substantively different further south. We have already discussed the diverse artisanal activities taking place around fifteenth-century Gallicano: milling; local cloth production and garment-making; tanning; the for the custody of animals appear quite frequently among the civil proceedings; e.g., PVB ACiv. 18, fo. 5r . ¹⁰⁸ PVB ACiv. 15, no visible foliation. ¹⁰⁹ ASL Vicario di Coreglia, ACiv. 90, fo. 40r . ¹¹⁰ PC ACiv. 30, fos. 12v , 30r . On the use of minors: A. Cortonesi, Ruralia: Economie e paesaggi del medioevo italiano (Rome, 1995), p. 80. ¹¹¹ PC ACiv. 30, fos. 30r , 31v . Caterina (probably optimistically) claimed 2 12 bolognini a day for her son’s subsistence costs, in comparison with his wages of only 36 bolognini. For Nicolao and Bartolomeo di Lorenzo (de’ Nobili of Albiano and Pugliano): Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 10–11, 174–6. ¹¹² For later centuries, see Duke Francesco IV’s description of the territory from Camporgiano to Gragnana: A. Cenci, ‘La Garfagnana Estense nei viaggi ottocenteschi di S.A.R. Francesco IV’, in Garf. 2005, p. 175.

188


company for butchering formed between Tommaso Bartolomei and Iacopo Dini;¹¹³ above all, iron smelting and iron manufacture.¹¹⁴ The butcher Tommaso Bartolomei was also a blacksmith, and we sometimes find him selling cloth. Artisanal and agricultural occupations were similarly intertwined. Simone Bartolomei repaid a debt to Cola Pellegrini (apparently for the purchase of cloth) by making nails for Cola, tending Cola’s vineyard, and helping to cart a tree trunk from Cola’s land.¹¹⁵ Valente di Giovanni from Vergemoli seems to have specialized in the supplying, cutting, and carting of hay for fodder and wood for charcoal. Valente also pastured pigs. Almost everyone owned some land, kept some animals, exploited the woods and meadows of the commune. Almost everyone claimed wages in cash or kind for the agricultural and artisanal labours that they performed for their neighbours; just as they paid wages to those same neighbours for comparable services rendered to themselves. This does not mean that the economy of the Garfagnana was a subsistence economy, or even that the Garfagnini were excluded from far-flung economic activities. But it is against this background that we need to consider claims for increasing economic specialization, and for the growing integration of the silvo-pastoral economy of the mountains into the wider economy of the Lucchesia as a whole. Whether the formation of the Renaissance state led to greater regional market integration is not something that concerns us here. We can insist, however, that the territories under the political control of Lucca bore little resemblance to an economic region. It is true, of course, that a whole series of laws channelled the resources of the countryside to the politically hegemonic city. But a map of the scattered territories under the political sway of fifteenth-century Lucca should suffice to dispel any idea of political boundaries that coincided with an economically functional region. We exclude the Sei Miglia—the granary of Lucca and always under firm urban control—though even here, around Compito, links with Pisan territory had long proved as enticing as those with Lucca itself. There is one surviving volume of the gabella of Valle di Compito, which covers the first semester of 1383.¹¹⁶ A very large number of entries relate to wood (including firewood and manufactured and semi-manufactured timber products) sent by boat by means of lago di Sesto to Bientina or onwards, following the Arno, to Pisa. Of the 245 entries, at least 136 relate to exports (mostly wood in various forms) to Pisa and Pisan territory (Bientina, Buti, Calci, Palaia, Ponte a Serchio); a further 25 relate to miscellaneous goods (including fishing equipment) imported ¹¹³ VG ACiv. 129, fo. 17r . Iacopo Dini later formed another company for selling meat with Battista Fiore. ¹¹⁴ Above, pp. 173–4. ¹¹⁵ VG ACiv. 137, fos. 12r , 12v –13r . ¹¹⁶ GCV Valle di Compito, 90. The official (Iacobus quondam Andreoli de Cella de Cremona) dates his period of office from the calends of December of the said year (1383), but 1383, the year of his period of office as given earlier, seems more likely to refer to the first semester of 1383 (plus the last few days of the preceding year).


189

from Pisa and Pisan territory. Three other entries concern licences granted to men of Campo and Bientina, both in Pisan territory, to cut and export firewood from Valle di Compito.¹¹⁷ Most of the remaining entries relate to the provisioning of the garrisons at Colle and Castelvecchio; to purchases by the podestà of Valle di Compito, resident in Colle; and, particularly, to the butchering of animals. There are relatively few references to internal traffic: an exception is the wood sent to Pieve S. Paolo for the manufacture of vats.¹¹⁸ It would be unwise to use the gabella of Valle di Compito as a comprehensive reflection of the commercial links of these south-eastern marshlands of the Sei Miglia. To the general problems relating to the use of the gabelle as a historical source are added the limitations of this particular record, which seems to have been created primarily (though not exclusively) to monitor and tax the movement of wood (gabella lignaminis et aliarum rerum). The gabella nevertheless shows the ease of water-borne communications with Pisa—which was clearly more accessible for heavy, bulk cargoes from Compito than was the ruling city of Lucca itself. A not dissimilar situation, where an integrated economic region seems to have ill conformed with the political boundaries of fifteenth-century Tuscany, is suggested by the sometime podesterìa of Villa Basilica. The records of the gabelle of Villa Basilica begin chronologically with two brief volumes from the 1340s—one (of seventy-three entries) certainly datable to 1344.¹¹⁹ A quire for the second semester of 1399 is followed by almost continuous accounts (though with many lacunae) for the entire Guinigi period (1403–29). The series ends with accounts for the second semesters of 1453 and 1454.¹²⁰ As far as we can tell from a historical record that relates mainly to the first three decades of the fifteenth century, commercial links were relatively unaffected by political vicissitudes; close ties were maintained with proximate territories on both sides of the shifting border with Florentine Tuscany. Throughout the period there were very close relations between Villa Basilica and neighbouring parts of the Sei Miglia, as far south as Lunata, Capannori, and Porcari. In the second semester of 1427, 62 of 271 entries relate to this region.¹²¹ Imports to Villa Basilica from the Sei Miglia, detailed in 42 entries, consisted almost entirely of wheat and wheat flour (444 staia of wheat, 81 staia of millet, 12 staia of lupins, 5 staia of beans, and 119lb of fish).¹²² Exports from ¹¹⁷ GCV Valle di Compito, 90, fos. 12v , 13r , 13v . ¹¹⁸ Ibid., fo. 18r . ¹¹⁹ GCV Villabasilica, 91. The first foliation is undated, but from internal evidence—especially the names of the individuals paying tax—seems to date from the 1390s. The third foliation has been dated to 1343, but the text is too mutilated to confirm this. The second foliation—also dated to 1343—covers the second semester of 1344 (a.n.d. mcccxliiii). ¹²⁰ The archival record is contained in GCV Villabasilica, 91–3. These three volumes combine a total of forty-one separate books, mostly from the Guinigi period, and with some breaks particularly between 1411 and 1419. ¹²¹ GCV Villabasilica, 93, eighth foliation, fos. 3r –12v . ¹²² In 1416 imports of wheat from the Sei Miglia to Villa Basilica were recorded separately (in twenty entries): GCV Villabasilica, 92, seventh foliation, fo. 46r – v .

190


Villa Basilica to the Sei Miglia were much more varied, with a preponderance of wine, but also of chestnut flour, woollen cloth (panni albagi), cheese, and oil. The overall picture can be confirmed from a comprehensive reading of the gabella accounts as a whole—though it should be extended to include the passage of animals (for example, the sheep and lambs sent by Menabove Landucci in 1404 to pasture in the Sei Miglia, or the forty-two goats similarly sent fifty years later by Menabove’s son Giovanni).¹²³ The overwhelming importance of very local transactions is confirmed by the recorded links with Montecarlo and with the communes administratively grouped with Villa Basilica (the vicinanza: Medicina, Fibbialla, Aramo, S. Quirico, Schiappa, Pontito, Colognora, Boveglio, Pariana, and Collodi). In 1427 Montecarlo¹²⁴ provides 42 entries (mostly wine and woollen cloth imported from Villa Basilica); the communes of the vicinanza account for 56 entries (including 44 some of wine sent to Collodi in 37 consignments). Again the 1427 figures are closely reflective of the series as a whole. Excluding Montecarlo, most of these communities remained within the Lucchese state following the re-establishment of stable borders in the 1440s. Further east, the natural economic interests of Villa Basilica stretched into a region that had been permanently lost to Lucca early in the previous century. Pescia and the whole Valdinievole figure largely in the customs records of Villa Basilica, as do the mountains of the Pistoiese. Men from Pescia sent cloth to be fulled in the mills of Villa Basilica;¹²⁵ from Villa Basilica cloth was sent for dyeing in Pescia. More regularly, large numbers of sheepskins (often accompanied by animal fats) were exported from Villa Basilica to Pescia for tanning. Since there is no record of the finished products returning to Lucchese territory, it would seem that Villa Basilica supplied Pescia and its hinterland with cheap cloth for domestic consumption,¹²⁶ and with the raw materials for leather manufacture and cloth finishing, often then destined for the market of Florentine Tuscany. In return, Pescia sent Florentine cloth to Villa Basilica (as well as linen, onions, and melons). The wool that fed the manufacture of woollen cloths in Villa Basilica itself came from Pescia, S. Marcello Pistoiese, and Cutigliano—all now under the rule of Florence. Pigs were sent to winter pastures around Cutigliano. The impression is of a coherent economic region that embraced the north-eastern Sei Miglia, the Lucchese vicariates of the Valdriana and Valdilima,¹²⁷ and the Florentine territories of the Valdinievole and the western mountains of the ¹²³ GCV Villabasilica, 91, fifth foliation, fo. 32r ; 93, twelfth foliation, fo. 7v . ¹²⁴ Including Montechiaro. ¹²⁵ e.g., GCV Villabasilica, 91, fourth foliation, fo. 25r . ¹²⁶ Quantitatively most references to Pescia probably relate to panni albagi. ¹²⁷ Villa Basilica always had close links with the adjoining Lucchese vicariate of Valdilima. Wine and chestnut flour were exported from Villa Basilica; pigs moved in and out of the territory of Villa Basilica from Menabbio; sheep passed between Villa Basilica and Corsagna; cheeses and nuts were brought from Lucchio; panni albagi were distributed from Villa Basilica to all the communes of the Valdilima.


191

Pistoiese. The market for Villa Basilica’s specialist manufactories was obviously more extensive. The earliest books of the gabella, dating from the 1340s, show various kinds of swords and weapons exported to Pescia, S. Miniato, Florence, and Siena. Consignments of iron were transported to Pescia (or, more vaguely, the Valdinievole), Pistoia, and Florence; reams (lisine) of paper were sent to Pescia.¹²⁸ Thereafter the paper seems to disappear from the record. But the export of swords continued—sometimes to Castelnuovo, Lombardy, or Pisa; more usually to Pescia, Pistoia, and Florence. The customs records of Villa Basilica, particularly the volumes for the 1450s, are full of payments of gabella for goods in transit.¹²⁹ Often we are told neither the provenance nor the destination. But, on the basis of the information given, it would appear that most commodities were moving through the territory of Villa Basilica in transit between Pescia and the Florentine and Estensi territories to the north: oil, wheat, millet, beans, and lupins from Pescia to Barga;¹³⁰ oil to ‘Lombardy’; beans and wheat to Castelnuovo (now politically subject to the Marchesi d’Este). Much is hidden from the records of Villa Basilica by the fact that dues for goods passing through the territory were clearly often paid elsewhere. A more comprehensive overview of internal and transit traffic can be obtained from the vantage point of the strategically placed customs house at Borgo a Mozzano (vicariate of Coreglia).¹³¹ Gabella accounts from Borgo a Mozzano for the post-Guinigi period are grouped into two substantial archival volumes.¹³² They show a lively exchange with the Valdilima. A great quantity of wine was dispatched to the baths at Corsena (Bagni di Lucca), though commercial links stretched much further along the valley of the Lima and beyond Lucchese territory to Cutigliano and S. Marcello Pistoiese. To the south, through Corsagna, goods and animals passed to Villa Basilica, Collodi, and onwards to Pescia (and the whole Valdinievole), Pistoia, and Florence. Some items originated in, or were destined for, the Lucchese vicariates of Coreglia, Gallicano, and Castiglione. Much was in transit: sheepskins from Siena to Lombardy; oil from Pescia to Parma; cheeses from Parma to Florence; endless exchanges through Borgo a Mozzano between Florentine Barga and the Florentine territories to the east. Barga also had close commercial links with Pisa, using the Serchio for the transportation of bulk cargoes such as timber.¹³³ Well-used land routes through the mountains, sometimes explicitly via ¹²⁸ GCV Villabasilica, 91, second and third foliations, passim. ¹²⁹ Ibid., 93, twelfth and thirteenth foliations, passim. ¹³⁰ In June 1429 a man of Barga was fined for taking a consignment of wheat from Pescia to Barga by way of Villa Basilica without paying the gabella: GCV Villabasilica, 93, eleventh foliation, fo. 24r . ¹³¹ Described as a typical ‘borgo di strada’: Savigni, ‘Fenomeni migratori’, p. 68. ¹³² GCV Coreglia, 30 (foliations seven and eight) and 31. The ninth foliation of vol. 30 is undated, but appears to relate to the second semester of 1383. ¹³³ Though heavy and bulky cargoes such as lees were also being carried to Pisa from the middle Serchio (specifically from Diecimo) by mule, e.g., GCV Coreglia, 30, third foliation, fo. 15v .

192


Pescaglia, carried goods to the Lucchese vicariate of Camaiore and to the newly Genoese territory of Pietrasanta.¹³⁴ Again we are talking in part of exchange between Lucchese (or former Lucchese) vicariates. But to the west, as to the north and east, the vicariate of Coreglia was a zone of passage: animals and commodities passed through Borgo a Mozzano to and from ‘Lombardy’ (mostly the Duchy of Ferrara and Modena), or from the Florentine territories that now encroached on the eastern margins of the Lucchese state. References to Lucca are quite rare in all the surviving gabelle registers from the vicariates. This is not surprising, and certainly does not reflect a lack of commercial contacts between the vicariates and the ruling city. Commodities entering Lucca would have paid gabella at the gates of the city, or—in the case of valuable merchandise—at the central seat of administration of the gabella. Exchange with the city is abundantly reflected in other, more incidental, references. In 1427 Paolo del Cazzata of Villa Basilica received a permit to carry fifty swords to the city of Lucca; we know because Paolo, attempting to defraud the gabella, carried the swords instead by mule out of the territory of Lucca to the mountains of Pescia.¹³⁵ An agent of Cola di Pellegrino of Gallicano delivered linen thread in Lucca to the house of Margarita, widow of Fornaino of Verni (a recent immigrant to the city).¹³⁶ Simone Dini of Gallicano gave Giovanni Bertolini two consignments of nails (one of 15lb, the other of 60lb), which Giovanni was to carry to Lucca.¹³⁷ Impositions on the vicariates, particularly during the Guinigi years, often included the obligation to send grain to the city.¹³⁸ But imports of grain from the city and Sei Miglia to the vicariates were probably of equal or greater importance. Current literature has stressed the growing dependence of the central Apennines on imported grain. When the records of the vicariate of Gallicano resume in the mid-1450s, following Lucca’s recovery of the area from the Estensi, we find Luchesio Gucciarelli of Verni obtaining quantities of wheat from Lucca (as well as more locally from the territory of Gallicano itself).¹³⁹ In 1460 Chele Bartolomei of Gallicano paid 6 soldi as gabella on 6 staia of wheat shipped from the Sei Miglia.¹⁴⁰ The problem is to balance the plethora of such anecdotal references against the statistical evidence of the gabelle, which largely factors out ¹³⁴ Further north, a route followed the Torrente Turrite Cava across the Foce delle Porchette to Stazzema and Seravezza: M. Lallai, ‘Tracce della viabilità antica medievale in Garfagnana’, in Garf. 2005, pp. 13–15. Another well-used mule track led from the Versilian coast through the Foce di Petrosciana and Fornovolasco to Gallicano: ibid., pp. 16–17. ¹³⁵ GCV Villabasilica, 93, eighth foliation, fo. 40r . Further details are provided in a loose unnumbered folio in the same volume. A little earlier a resident of Gallicano, Giovanni Turignoli (called Zappetta) da Barga, was supplying Lucca with cannon and cannonballs: Savigni, ‘Fenomeni migratori’, pp. 82–3. ¹³⁷ VG ACiv. 137, fo. 2r . ¹³⁶ VG ACiv. 130, fo. 11r – v . ¹³⁸ Above, p. 180. See also Archivio Comunale, Camaiore, 112, Deliberazioni del Consiglio (1428), fo. 24v . ¹⁴⁰ VG ACiv. 137, fo. 24v . ¹³⁹ VG ACiv. 130, fo. 14v .


193

Lucca, and which privileges the shipments of timber sent down the Serchio to supply the shipyards and domestic fires of Pisa and Genoa;¹⁴¹ or the iron and Sardinian cheeses brought across the mountains into the Garfagnana from Genoese Pietrasanta;¹⁴² or the lively exchange of persons, goods, and services between the vicariates of the Garfagnana and the Florentine territories of Barga and Sommocolonia. The fisc benefited from the dues on transit traffic and on transactions whether within and between vicariates or between the Lucchese vicariates and neighbouring states. Perhaps this explains Lucca’s rather ambivalent attitude towards economically productive activity within the subject territories. The court records show the heavy penalties imposed on those trying to defraud the gabella, or seeking to export prohibited merchandise (particularly grain, though the list of prohibited items varied according to circumstances).¹⁴³ The strict controls to which Lucca aspired must have been prejudiced by the paramount importance of what Samuel Cohn calls the ‘meandering animal paths and tracks’ connecting local mountain communities, which were more relevant locally than the grand arteries of long-distance exchange.¹⁴⁴ The mountains of the fifteenth-century Lucchesia were not characterized by a subsistence economy (if they ever had been), but the movement of animals and the exchange of goods were often very local and seem to have paid scant regard to the shifting political boundaries. In some respects we may be able to speak of the Garfagnana as an economic unit in itself, irrespective of its fluid political divisions. The really interesting questions seem to me to relate to the evolution of local economic systems and of local markets (largely lacking in specialization)—and the diverse links of these local economic systems with supra-regional ones (mediated through Castelnuovo and Barga, as well as through Lucca and Pisa).¹⁴⁵ ¹⁴¹ See, e.g., G. Puccinelli, Traffico di legname e vie dei remi nella montagna e nelle marine lucchesi (Lucca, 1996). The text is, in fact, almost entirely post-sixteenth century. But see: ead., ‘La fluitazione lungo il Serchio: Una pratica di lunga durata’, Società e storia, 95 (2002), pp. 66–7. For the fifteenth century, Lucchese legislation designed to protect the marina of Camaiore resulted in a number of prosecutions of men of Corsanico who continued to supply wood to Pisa and Genoa for both fires and shipbuilding. See particularly: SB 181, fos. 168r –169v ; ASL Capitano del contado, 70, no foliation. ¹⁴² Iron and ironware were also dispatched in the opposite direction, and wool from the Garfagnana clearly fed the fulling mills of Pietrasanta. ¹⁴³ When grain was exported, the entry normally records that it had originated from outside Lucchese territory (i.e., that it was in transit). ¹⁴⁴ S. K. Cohn, ‘Marriage in the Mountains: The Florentine Territorial State, 1348–1500’, in T. Dean and K. J. P. Lowe (eds.), Marriage in Italy 1300–1650 (Cambridge, 1998), p. 194. The artery of merchant trade through the Garfagnana itself underwent various vicissitudes as a result of changing patterns of regional trade and political developments: Pelù, ‘Cenni sull’economia della Garfagnana’, p. 244; id., ‘L’economia della Garfagnana’, pp. 219–20. See now: Lallai, ‘Tracce della viabilità’, pp. 13–49. ¹⁴⁵ See the interesting ideas in this regard in O. Gobbi, ‘Mercati e mercanti ‘‘minori’’ sull’Appennino marchigiano: Secolo XV’, ASI 159 (2001), pp. 337–57.

194


Of particular importance for the Garfagnini and for the men of the Valdilima were the fairs of Castelnuovo, newly privileged by the Este.¹⁴⁶ In the earlier volumes of the gabella of the vicariate of Coreglia, there are repeated references to the fairs of Borgo a Mozzano. These appear to have been primarily a centre for the exchange of cereals, wine, and cloth. The references continue. But by the midfifteenth century Borgo a Mozzano seems to have become very largely superseded (at least with regard to long-distance exchange) by the fairs of Castelnuovo. It was to Castelnuovo in the lands of the Estensi that men of Gallicano now went to buy their shoes. Commercial transactions within the Garfagnana were dated with reference to the fairs of Castelnuovo.¹⁴⁷ In 1476 the Este granted freedom from tolls to the men of Castiglione and Minucciano on their goods passing through the vicariate of Castelnuovo.¹⁴⁸ In the production of iron utensils—as in the construction of agricultural implements¹⁴⁹ and in the output of the lime-kilns (though not, of course, in the provision of salt)—we should balance our interest in regional and interregional exchange with a recognition of just how self-sufficient the mountain communities seem to have been in furnishing the necessities of everyday life. Despite the perennial pull of the city, Lucca’s attempts at economic centralization seem to have been less effective than the assertion of urban political control. In consequence, the mountain communes of the vicariates became (or perhaps remained) communities of peasant proprietors and small traders, with some concentrations of artisans. Village self-sufficiency was certainly limited. I argued earlier that the draining of professional talent and the encroaching political apparatus of the Lucchese state combined to make the villages of the vicariates less complete socio-political communities than they had been even a century earlier.¹⁵⁰ An exception should be made for the quasi-città of Camaiore, where, in 1428, the general council was anxious to import a master of grammar, Domenico Melchioni, from La Spezia to improve and educate the local youth.¹⁵¹ Elsewhere, from small rural communities that were more representative of the Lucchesia than Camaiore, the dynasties of rurally based notaries disappeared;¹⁵² ambitious ¹⁴⁶ The fairs of Castelnuovo were confirmed by the new ruler Niccolò Este in Feb. 1430: ASL Capitoli, 10, p. 141. ¹⁴⁷ e.g., VG ACiv. 134, fo. 25r . ¹⁴⁸ ASL Capitoli, 10, p. 166. The connections between Castiglione and Modena and Reggio were historically very close. ‘Lombards’ came annually to Castiglione to collect chestnuts—e.g., AN 408(I) (ser Federigo Nardi), fo. 111r . ¹⁴⁹ One thinks of the wooden plough made for Antonio Bertoni by Barghetta di Andrea of Barga, resident in Gallicano: VG ACiv. 134, fos. 3v –4r . Other agricultural equipment might be imported into the Garfagnana from Modena. ¹⁵⁰ Above, pp. 159–60. ¹⁵¹ Archivio Comunale, Camaiore, 112, Deliberazioni del Consiglio (1428), fos. 24v –25r . ¹⁵² Though ser Bartolomeo di Martino da Treppignana was probably quite representative of the notarial class when, in carving for himself a varied career in the service of Lucca, he retained—and occasionally operated from—his father’s house in Fiattone: AN 1036 (ser Bartolomeo di Martino da Treppignana), fos. 68v , 79r , 88v .


195

men sent their sons to school in Lucca or (in the case of the upper Garfagnana Lucchese) more often perhaps to Parma. Shorn of professional elements, the mountain communes of the vicariates nevertheless retained their character as complex and hierarchical socio-economic entities. Wickham has described the mountain vicariates of the fifteenth century as a world of peasant pastoralists ‘to whom all civic norms and values were culturally foreign’.¹⁵³ Economic activities and social structures were too diverse to be comfortably encapsulated in the phrase ‘peasant pastoralists’. Local norms and values, and the more general theme of mountain civilization, are a different matter, and one that has recently become very fashionable—not least because of the work of Giovanni Cherubini and, in English, of Samuel Cohn.¹⁵⁴ A central theme in the fifteenth century, as in the fourteenth, is that of mobility. It is one of the organizing motifs of Cohn’s study of the Florentine Alps that this movement was not downwards into the city, but upwards and out of the Florentine state. The argument is foreshadowed in a great deal of the Italian literature, and in general terms holds true for the fifteenth-century Lucchesia. Lucca (and other cities of the region) attracted ambitious artisans and professionals;¹⁵⁵ there was also a modest movement downwards from mountain villages to the larger centres of the Serchio valley: iron-workers from Fornovolasco to Gallicano; men of Montefegatesi appearing with some regularity in Borgo a Mozzano. The perennial threat of aggrieved mountain-dwellers was that they would come to enjoy a better life (‘a ben vivere’) in the Sei Miglia.¹⁵⁶ But this threat seems to have been little more than a rhetorical device. The fiscal and legal records show very few immigrants to the Sei Miglia from the Garfagnana Lucchese (or indeed from the Garfagnana Estense).¹⁵⁷ Migrants to the Sei Miglia were much more likely to come from beyond Lucca’s borders: from Pisa, Florence, and Pistoia in the early fifteenth century; later from the mountain villages north of Pontremoli, with other immigrants described unhelpfully as Lombards. In the mountains of the middle and upper Serchio, population movement, though intense, was likely to be very localized—and was channelled to a degree by the fractured political geography of the region. Throughout the Lucchese vicariate of Gallicano¹⁵⁸ we find a wide scattering of immigrants from the ¹⁵³ Wickham, The Mountains and the City, p. 146. ¹⁵⁴ Cohn’s ideas are brought together in Creating the Florentine State. For regions more properly the subject of the present study: F. Baroni, ‘Il triangolo commerciale Castelnuovo Garfagnana, Castelnuovo ne’ Monti, Fivizzano nella storia dell’Appennino’, in Garf. 2005, particularly pp. 220–1. ¹⁵⁵ The point is sufficiently illustrated in Savigni, ‘Fenomeni migratori’, pp. 59–103. ¹⁵⁶ ASL Capitoli, 10, p. 129. ¹⁵⁷ They were not, of course, entirely absent. In the 1440s, for example, two men from the Garfagnana were living in S. Pancrazio; two men from Casatico (Garfagnana Estense) lived in S. Alessio; Polo Paganini of Pugliano lived in Pieve S. Stefano; Martino di Duccio of Dalli (apparently a shepherd) lived in Maggiano in the piviere of Arliano: SB 163, fos. 51r , 80r , 127r – v , 131r , 201v . ¹⁵⁸ Particularly in Gallicano itself, but also higher up in the larger villages such as Verni.

196


Garfagnana Estense, from across the mountains in the territory of Reggio, and from the Florentine enclave of Barga.¹⁵⁹ Around Castiglione in 1458 the complaint was of illegal land acquisitions by the men of Reggio and Modena.¹⁶⁰ To the south and west, a century earlier, when Lucca was still under Pisan rule, the villages of the Valdilima had received many immigrants from across the border with Pistoia,¹⁶¹ and, throughout the fifteenth century, the porous and mountainous frontier between Lucca and Pistoia remained an area of continuing mobility. People uprooted themselves for a variety of reasons. Some were escaping the traditional scourges of plague and warfare. Small mountain villages were not immune from fifteenth-century plagues, as is abundantly attested in records from Albiano, Agliano, and Casoli oltre Giogo in the 1420s and 1430s; from Minucciano in the 1440s.¹⁶² More universally, the general pattern of mobility over small distances between one jurisdiction and another would seem to confirm a current orthodoxy that attributes migration very largely to the attentions of the judicial authorities and of the fisc. In the mountains of the Pistoiese, migrants were often banniti —and more precisely men who might be described as the enemies of all stable government.¹⁶³ Everywhere there was a flight from the burden of taxation in a world in which—despite all attempts to spread obligations—immigrants might still hope to escape the fisc through relocation. In the more inaccessible regions, at least in the early decades of the Quattrocento, resident noble families continued to exercise considerable social and economic control over local communities, though with little sign of formal judicial power. The point is best illustrated by the de’ Nobili of Pugliano and Albiano, obtrusively present in the law suits of the villages that were to form the northern reaches of the vicariate of Minucciano.¹⁶⁴ But, for a social history of the vicariates, the prime focus should be on community rather than on noble leadership—and on communities that were far from homogeneous or egalitarian. The 1410 statutes of Castiglione are predicated upon a threefold division of the community and its officials between the rich (maiores), those of middling status (mediocres), and the little people (minores).¹⁶⁵ In Camaiore, the same categories might be used—not uncontroversially—when assessing tax obligations. In ¹⁵⁹ The information is drawn from VG ACiv. 129–40. ¹⁶⁰ ASL Capitoli, 10, pp. 158–60. ¹⁶¹ VVl. ACr. 1074, fos. 4r , 7r –8r , 19r , 36r –37r , 89r . ¹⁶² PC ACiv. 29, p. 154; 31, fos. 3r – v , 9v –10v , 19r – v , 25r – v , 47r –48v , 51r – v ; Archivio di Stato, Firenze, Notarile AnteCosimiano, N115 (ser Nicolao di Coluccio da Pietrasanta), fos. 3r –6r , 30v –31v . ¹⁶³ Significantly, it is from this region that Cohn draws many of his examples of the endemic violence of the mountains: Creating the Florentine State, passim. ¹⁶⁴ For Bartolomeo, Nicolao, and ser Giovanni sons of Lorenzo de’ Nobili: Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 10–11, 174–6. There are early references to Bartolomeo (and his deceased brother ser Gabrielle) in PC ACiv. 29, pp. 554, 556. For the dealings of their father Lorenzo: PC ACiv. 29, pp. 89–95, 268, 286, 429. ¹⁶⁵ ASL Capitoli, 10, pp. 137–8.


197

September 1432, to meet expenses calculated at £732 10s. piccoli, the eligible taxpayers (teste) were divided into 37 maiores, 73 mediocres or mezani, and 69 minores: the maiores were each to pay £5 8s. piccoli, the mediocres £4 6s. piccoli, and the minores £3 5s. piccoli.¹⁶⁶ The records of smaller settlements show the presence of local elites, whose standing was reflected in local office, and whose wealth was often associated with transactions that their neighbours considered usurious.¹⁶⁷ Local status was not infrequently linked to military service—though whether as cause or consequence is less certain. Bartolomeo Nantini of Crasciana, a prominent figure in the villages above Bagni di Lucca, had been a conestabulus of Paolo Guinigi.¹⁶⁸ Chele Bartolomei’s service to Lucca as condottiere both preceded and coincided with the years of his contested political pre-eminence at home in Gallicano.¹⁶⁹ Village conflicts were likely to be internal (between local factions) rather than external (mountain villages against an exploitative urban authority).¹⁷⁰ In 1415 there was a general affray in the cemetery of the church of S. Iacopo of Crasciana, where the commune was meeting in general parlamento. Gratiano Curradini of Crasciana claimed that he was punched, throttled, and thrown over the cemetery wall by a group of men led by Antonio Marcucci. As so often in these cases, the precise issues in dispute escape us. We do not know why Gratiano was called a traitor (traditore). But we can trace the attempt by both sides to discredit the reliability of the witnesses produced by their opponents—largely in terms of some rather distant kinship ties (up to the fourth grade).¹⁷¹ The objections are interesting within a very small rural community, where there was likely to have been a high incidence of intermarriage, and more especially since it has often been argued that the elaborate kinship bonds of the city were foreign to the countryside.¹⁷² The nature and extent of familial bonds in the countryside remains a complex problem. We know that in the statutes of Menabbio of 1479, to avoid conflict (‘per evitare le confusioni et rixe’), only one man per family was to attend the communal assembly. The representative was to be the most experienced (‘più praticho et experto’) member of his family, but ‘famigla’ is not defined.¹⁷³ In the court records, opposing parties often consisted of attinenti and consanguinei, though again the terms are never precisely defined. There seems no doubt that villagers, like urban-dwellers, might expect the support of a wide body of relatives by blood and marriage—complicated always by the fact that in the more compact ¹⁶⁶ Archivio Comunale, Camaiore, 113, Deliberazioni del Consiglio (1431–56), fos. 34r –35v . ¹⁶⁷ M. E. Bratchel, ‘Usury in the Fifteenth-Century Lucchesia: Images of the Petty Moneylender’, Journal of European Economic History, 32 (2003), pp. 260–1. ¹⁶⁹ Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 253–4. ¹⁶⁸ VVl. ACiv. 111, fos. 40r –41v . ¹⁷⁰ The point is made irrespective of any assessment of the costs and benefits of Lucca’s rule. The Lucchese state was certainly strong enough and interventionist enough to provoke instances of local resistance: Berengo, Nobili e mercanti, pp. 350–3. ¹⁷² For Lucca by Berengo, Nobili e mercanti, pp. 345–6. ¹⁷¹ VVl. ACr. 1179, fos. 6r –22r . ¹⁷³ AN 1277 (ser Pietro Piscilla), fo. 178r .

198


societies of the mountains a man was likely to be linked to both sides.¹⁷⁴ Disputes might also show long memories and long-festering grievances. Returning to the Crasciana conflict of 1415, the objection raised to one witness was that he was a long-standing enemy, as proven by the fact that he had once burnt down a hut (capanna) and vineyard belonging to the father of one of the accused.¹⁷⁵ More contentious (at least in the Lucchesia) is the image of vast territorial networks of social intercourse, transcending all political boundaries, that Cohn has identified as one of the truly defining qualities of mountain civilization.¹⁷⁶ At a time when local village factions still tended to label themselves as Guelfs or Ghibellines—and thus defined themselves (at least nominally) in terms of external allegiances—the exile of opponents, and their subsequent reintegration, was a drama that was inevitably played out across rather than within political borders. But economic migrants, and presumably political exiles too, were given an ambivalent reception. They were needed to fill the manpower vacuum, yet even in the depopulated countryside of the 1420s and 1430s the problem of too many foreigners was at the centre of political debate;¹⁷⁷ attitudes were to harden perceptibly after the demographic recovery of mid-century. The counter-theme of cooperation and interchange has been developed particularly with regard to marriage politics. It is certainly true that there was a fierce competition for brides (often labelled as rape in the legal records) between the men of neighbouring mountain villages. In a case heard first by the Podestà of Lucca and later referred to the court of the vicar of Coreglia, a group of at least twenty men from the neighbouring villages of Cune, Villa a Roggio, Gello, Ansano, and Vitiana were accused of going armed to the house of Giovanni di Pietro of Vetriano in July 1443, where they assaulted Giovanni and his wife, and abducted the couple’s daughter Lorenza. Allegedly gagged, Lorenza was carried off to Cune, where she was married to Antonio Mei, one of the two leaders of the escapade. All the accused men were eventually found not guilty. Clearly we are dealing with the seizure of a bride, and perhaps of an elopement.¹⁷⁸ A notable feature of this case is that all those involved came from within the vicariate of Coreglia (though some hailed from places like Vitiana, Ghivizzano, and Terzone, which were some distance removed from the scene of the action). In territories ¹⁷⁴ Witnesses before the courts often describe their relationship to both contending parties. For further discussion: Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494, pp. 229–30; id., ‘Lucca and its Subject Communities (1430–1494)’, in I. Zilli (ed.), Fra spazio e tempo: Studi in onore di Luigi de Rosa, 3 vols. (Naples, 1995), i, pp. 175–89. ¹⁷⁵ VVl. ACr. 1179, fos. 6r –22r . ¹⁷⁶ Cohn, ‘Marriage in the Mountains’, pp. 192–6; id., Creating the Florentine State, pp. 31–5. ¹⁷⁷ The point is true even for the large quasi-urban community of Camaiore. In 1428, so that native residents (terrigeni) ‘revereantur et manuteneant terram istam et non superentur nec conculcentur ab hominibus advenis suprascriptis’, measures were taken to restrict office-holding to terrigeni: Archivio Comunale, Camaiore, 112, Deliberazioni del Consiglio, fo. 17r . ¹⁷⁸ SB 163, fos. 99r – v , 139r – v . For a fuller account, with the conflicting testimonies of witnesses: ASL Vicario di Coreglia, ACr. 649, no foliation.


199

less consolidated than the vicariate of Coreglia, the political mosaic of the middle and upper Serchio made it likely that wives and wet-nurses would be drawn from across political frontiers. But there is little sign in the Lucchese sources of more distant marriage networks of the kind that Cohn has posited for the Florentine Alps; the exceptions are almost entirely confined to migrants. Other features proposed as defining qualities of mountain civilization are equally intractable; at least they defy attempts at quantification. Historians speak of the endemic violence of the mountains. There can be no doubt that the jealous protection of communal pastures and water resources pitted whole communities against each other in distinctive ways.¹⁷⁹ Wild tracts of country sheltered bands of robbers; political borders—not least that with Pistoia—facilitated the operations and movements of lawless men; bands of relatives and supporters were easily mobilized to avenge injuries and pursue a vendetta.¹⁸⁰ But parts of the Sei Miglia also acquired a reputation for special lawlessness,¹⁸¹ and a reading of the criminal records of the city and vicarial courts shows a general propensity to resort to violence that was hardly the prerogative of mountain-dwellers.¹⁸² Whether or not more violent, for Samuel Cohn the mountain-dwellers of the Florentine Alps were also ‘more pious than those of the lowlands’.¹⁸³ The argument rests largely on the growing preponderance of recognizably Christian names (essentially saints’ names) among villagers of the mountains. The indicator is unreliable. In the countryside (as in the city), one son often bore the name of his paternal grandfather. In consequence, for a long time we find the alternation of saints’ names with names without clear Christian significance. Neither this, nor the later attraction in an urban setting of names like Cicero, Cesare, Pompeo, provides credible evidence of a periodic or generational pagan reaction. I have no doubt that in the fifteenth-century countryside a small number of names that are indeed those of Christian saints were becoming more popular; and that many old, traditional names were becoming very rare. In the city the appeal to patrician families of names resonant with classical significance has been convincingly explained in terms of a growing aristocratization of urban society. It is not at all clear what the changing fashions of the countryside tell us; I doubt that they point to the new-found piety of the mountains. The debunking of stereotypes is a popular and sometimes fruitful activity. Ariosto painted a familiar picture of the barbarity and incivility of the Garfagnana—at least of the Garfagnana Estense. Lucchese sources that speak of the ¹⁷⁹ For cross-border disputes over the pasturing of animals in the Alps of the commune of Castiglione: ASL Capitoli, 10, p. 168. ¹⁸⁰ On the border between Minucciano and the Malaspina vicariate of Gragnola, for example, in 1470: SB 181, fos. 176r – v , 189r . ¹⁸¹ e.g., around Torre: ACL B + 2, no foliation. ¹⁸² Indeed, some of the larger bands of offenders against the peace involved congregations drawn from both the vicariates and the Sei Miglia: SB 181, fos. 134r –137v , 172r – v . ¹⁸³ Cohn, Creating the Florentine State, pp. 8, 39–54.

200


‘rusticità de’comuni subditi’ echo the message from the perspective of the city. The records of the episcopal visitations of Barga, or Vico Pancellorum, or Montecalvoli speak persistently of ignorant priests and of villagers who lived ‘rustically’ and neglected religious observances.¹⁸⁴ Yet there is no shortage of wills drawn up in the small communities of the mountains that emulate (on an appropriate scale) the most lavish religious bequests in contemporary urban wills. And the mission of the Observant Franciscans to the Garfagnana brought individual conversions, gifts of communal land, and the establishment of local cults.¹⁸⁵ The frequent appeal in court cases to the books of artisans and small traders suggests that mountain-dwellers—at least those whose business required the keeping of accounts—were not innumerate. With the disappearance of resident notaries from hilltop villages such as Controne, Casabasciana, and Casoli, the inhabitants of the Valdilima sometimes turned to churchmen like the pievano of Casabasciana to draw up writings for them.¹⁸⁶ But such appeals probably show the absence of lay latinity rather than (though not necessarily excluding) a pervasive illiteracy. Civility remains the civility of the city—aped with whatever success by some of the larger communities like Camaiore and Castiglione. That ‘all civic norms and values were culturally foreign’ would seem unlikely, however, in the light of the exchange (including cultural exchange, and not only with Lucca) that has been the theme of the present chapter. Equally resistant to easy generalizations are the communities of the Sei Miglia. The history of the Lucchese plain from earliest times validates the traditional picture of an area always under urban jurisdiction. The sixteenthcentury chronicler Giuseppe Civitale began his chronicle with an extended description of the Sei Miglia of his own day.¹⁸⁷ Segromigno, Civitale tells us, was noted for it pleasure gardens, the ornate houses of citizens, and the beautiful centres for rural retreat (per villaggiare). Piviere by piviere the focus is on fertility, on the excellent wines and olives, and on the fine palaces and villas of the Lucchese patriciate. The prevalence of urban landownership within the Sei Miglia is not in question. But Alessandra Potenti’s study of the two pivieri of Segromigno and S. Gennaro shows the continued possession of land by countrymen, some of whom were lessors as well as cultivators of the land that they possessed.¹⁸⁸ The picture is confirmed by my own, less systematic, study of Pieve S. Paolo. Men of the corpo of the pieve (and, to a lesser extent, those of S. Margherita) still owned significant pockets of arable land in 1412. In other communes of the piviere, the land owned by the commune or by local men was more likely to be confined to ¹⁸⁴ AAL Visite Pastorali, 7, 9, 10. ¹⁸⁵ L. Angelini, Un Francescano nella Garfagnana del Quattrocento (Il Beato Ercolano da Piegaro) (Lucca, 1990), pp. 23–38, 43–8. The local cult of the Blessed Ercolano da Piegaio was not unconnected with Ercolano’s promise to protect the population of Pieve Fosciana against plague. ¹⁸⁷ Civitale, Historie, i. ¹⁸⁶ VVl. ACiv. 111, fo. 25r – v . ¹⁸⁸ Potenti, ‘Proprietà cittadina e comitatina’, pp. 97–158—as much as 35.5% of the land being in the hands of comitatini in the corpo of the piviere of S. Gennaro: ibid., p. 139.


201

the woods and the pastures.¹⁸⁹ Citizen landownership was clearly advancing, but it is difficult to trace the pace of change, and the processes by which the plain was reduced to the consolidated, tributary farms of citizens were far from completed over the course of the fifteenth century. If there was a survival within the Sei Miglia (at least regionally) of substantial peasant landholders, the appearance in the estimi of rural dwellers who seem to have owned or leased little or no land points to economic and social diversity within the Sei Miglia. Alongside small peasant proprietors were rural wagelabourers, many of them casually employed.¹⁹⁰ Wage-labourers constitute a social grouping within the Italian countryside that has been very largely ignored, mainly because they are frustratingly difficult to individualize and pursue within the extant sources. The survival of both peasant proprietors and agricultural wage labour, together with the associated absence of share-cropping arrangements, identifies the Lucchese plain with the Pisan countryside—and with patterns of agrarian organization distinctive to north-western Tuscany—rather than with the more familiar models of Florence and Siena. The Sei Miglia has traditionally been portrayed as an area of weak community identity. The presumption must be that the dislocations and population flows of the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries further weakened any sense of community solidarity. So, too, the continuing urban investment and (from the fifteenth century) the alienation of communal land. In many ways the sources seem to justify this expectation. I have looked at 110 public acts relating to the communes of Pieve S. Paolo between 1287 and 1500. The notarial records through to the 1330s suggest a degree of political and administrative independence. The documentation (significantly) is much less rich for the fifteenth century, by which time the focus has shifted almost entirely to the election of general procurators to receive instructions from Lucca or to represent the rural commune before the city courts. Yet the estimi of the early Quattrocento reveal the high incidence in the Sei Miglia of complex households that embraced married brothers and their children.¹⁹¹ This phenomenon was characteristic of established residents rather than of migrants, and shows that the larger villages of the Sei Miglia retained a core of local men despite the constant mobility of the rural population. Even in the plain, the fifteenth-century rural statutes were preoccupied with defences against outsiders: the assertion of village borders; the protection of common lands and pasturage rights. A current insistence on the ¹⁸⁹ ASL Estimi, 116. The estimo relates to the corpo of the pieve and to the communes of Carraia, Mugnano, Paganico, Parezzana, S. Margherita, Tassignano, and Toringo. ¹⁹⁰ Potenti, ‘Proprietà cittadina e comitatina’, pp. 132, 137. ¹⁹¹ The household of Nanni Barsotti of the corpo of Pieve S. Paolo, for example, consisted of twelve people: Nanni’s mother, Nanni and his wife, their two sons, their daughters-in-law, and five grandchildren: ASL Estimi, 161, fo. 1r . The largest household in the entire piviere, also in the corpo of Pieve S. Paolo, was that of Iacobo Francesci, 28 years old, who headed a family of fifteen people including his mother, wife, children, sister, married and unmarried cousins with their own children: ibid., fo. 2r .

202


malaise of religious life in the parishes of the plain seems particularly problematic. Religious observances and the regulation of the affairs of the local church were two areas that continued to excite the zeal of village statute-makers. If the villages of the mountains were becoming less complete socio-economic and socio-political communities than they had once been, and if the villages of the plain remained more fragile entities than those of the mountains, even the latter possessed and retained a measure of integrity and vigour that must be accommodated within any description of the mature Lucchese republic of the late fifteenth century. ∗ ∗ ∗ Fifteenth-century Lucca was an independent polity that never made the transition from city to territorial state. In the concluding chapters, I have attempted to revisit some of the defining qualities that have traditionally been attributed to the Italian city-state and to qualify the model in the light of the Lucchese experience. The model remains largely intact, though Lucca ruled over a relatively large city-territory (in part a legacy from classical antiquity), and was distinguished by the pervasive power exercised over its territory (largely a legacy of the political history of the region during the early and central Middle Ages). The middle decades of the fourteenth century had been an inglorious time for Lucca, but did not seriously change the course of development. The rule of one city by another did not necessarily lead to the subversion of the political or administrative structures of the subject city. At the beginning of the fifteenth century, the revolutionary restructuring accredited to Paolo Guinigi is almost entirely mythical. In consequence, the history of the Lucchese state shows a marked degree of continuity; the Lucchesia survived into and beyond the fifteenth century with a coherent administrative structure, within which political, economic, and juridical power was firmly centred on the hegemonic city. The qualifications essentially relate to practicalities and resources. The coercive powers and bureaucratic aspirations of any fifteenth-century state were distinctly limited, while Lucca’s own capacity for independent action was narrowly circumscribed by the proximity (and territorial enclaves) of more powerful and predatory neighbours. Centralization whether of political or economic power on the hegemonic city was therefore never entirely inconsistent with the survival of vibrant local village communities, to which Carlo De Stefani—writing at the end of the nineteenth century—was still able to bear personal testimony.¹⁹² Throughout the study, comparisons have been made between Lucca (and, by implication, the Italian city-state) and the emerging territorial or regional ¹⁹² De Stefani, ‘Ordini amministrativi’, pp. 31–66.


203

states with which the future was to lie. Comparisons are complicated by the fact that there is little agreement over the distinctive characteristics of the so-called Renaissance state—in part because of regional diversity; in part because of policy changes over time; in part because of contested interpretations. The most obvious comparison has been with the rest of Tuscany (Florentine Tuscany). But this region, too, was marked by changing objectives, internal contradictions, and local accommodations. While there is no clear and static model against which Lucca can be compared and contrasted, the distinctive (even aberrant) nature of Lucca’s political development is clearly apparent. The aim of the present study has been to describe and explain this development as a matter of interest in its own right, and as a contribution to the diverse experience of Italian state-formation in the medieval and early modern periods.

Glossary Anziani The college of Anziani, headed by a Gonfaloniere di Giustizia, exercised ordinary executive authority in Lucca. The office consisted of ten (originally eight) citizens, and dated back to the second half of the thirteenth century. The Anziani, like the Consiglio Generale (s.v.), were suppressed during the Guinigi years. Avvocato della camera A lawyer charged with the defence of the fiscal rights of the commune. bannito (imbannito) A word carrying the double significance of condemned and exiled. bocca See fuochi. buona moneta Buona moneta was initially valued at approximately £3 to the florin. In the accounts discussed in this book, buona moneta was worth either £3 10s. or £2 18s. to the florin. See piccoli. capitanìa Military governorship. One of the smaller administrative divisions of the Lucchese state, ruled by a capitano, and usually associated with border areas. Capitano del contado An office with wide powers for administering justice, created in the fourteenth century for the preservation of peace and for the pursuit of offenders in the distretto and contado (s.v.) of Lucca. Capitano del popolo An office first appearing in the mid-thirteenth century for the defence of the people and of popular government. It was revived after 1392 with miscellaneous powers that included the syndication of officials, the handling of appeals, and the hearing of cases of sedition. camarlingo Treasurer; more generally steward or bursar. castaldo See gastaldius. castello In Italian, a fortified settlement, as distinct from a castle (rocca). See incastellamento. civitas Administrative division comprising the city and its territory; the see of a bishop. comitatus The district governed by the count of a city. See contado. compagnia di ventura Company of mercenary soldiers. Consiglio Generale General Council. In Lucca, a council of citizens possessing supreme deliberative authority and legislative power, which emerged in the early fourteenth century out of two earlier councils: the Consiglio Generale del Comune (di S. Michele) and the Consiglio del Popolo (di S. Pietro Maggiore).

Glossary

205

Its membership varied from 550 councillors (consiglieri) in 1308 to 90 after 1432. consorteria Noble family association, sometimes large and complex, whose members were often—though apparently not invariably—linked by blood. contado Derived from comitatus —county. Used generally to refer to the territory (countryside) juridically controlled by the ruling city. A more precise, but fluid, vocabulary distinguishes contado, distretto, and forza. In Lucca distretto was often reserved for the plain immediately around the city (the Sei Miglia); contado for the vicariates; forza for recently conquered—and precariously held—border territories. In neighbouring Florence, contado refers (usually) to the area of traditional control; distretto to territories more recently acquired. corpo della pieve In the Sei Miglia (s.v.) the commune where the pieval church was constructed did not have its own name, but was called the corpo of that pieve (s.v.). curia foretanorum (or S. Alessandri) A city court that heard cases from the contado (s.v.). curia treguanorum A city court that, among other things, heard cases that involved the church. danno dato Damage inflicted, specifically on crops and property by persons or animals. Curia dei danni dati: a court or branch of a court that handled such offences. distretto See contado. districtus castri Territory in which the lord of a castello (s.v.) held judicial rights. dominatus loci Lordly power exercised over entire communities. Esattore Maggiore An official whose initial duties lay with the confiscated property of rebels; by the late fourteenth century he exercised wide powers of supervision over all the receipts of the commune. estimo Assessment for direct taxation on both moveables and immoveables (primarily on land), and per head. Originally in Lucca collected from both citizens and non-citizens; Lucchese citizens were exempted from the early fourteenth century, after which it became a tax on country-dwellers (contadini). finis A territorial subdivision, which may or may not have connotations of administrative autonomy. forza See contado. fuochi Nuclear families. Taxes and obligations might be assessed on the basis of nuclear families, or per bocca (person of more than 5 years), or per testa (able-bodied man aged 16–70). gabelle Indirect taxes on commercial transactions (including retail sales) and on legal contracts, both in the city and in the countryside. The salt tax was imposed only on inhabitants of the countryside. Valuable merchandise like

206

Glossary

silk was carried directly to the central seat of administration of the gabelle in Lucca—the Gabella Maggiore. gastaldius Administrator of royal (or episcopal) estates. incastellamento Extension of lordly power over a territory, and the process of social and settlement reorganization contingent to the building of a castello (s.v.). in soccidia A kind of share-cropping arrangement that involved animals, whereby animals were leased to a peasant, who tended them in return for half the progeny and half the produce. iudex A title, often of imperial origin, usually held by notaries, though not necessarily denoting a judge in the modern sense. iudiciaria Judicial circumscription or district. Iura Generally, territory subject to an Italian city. In Lucca used for the territorial lordships of the bishop and of the cathedral chapter. libbra Pound (monetary unit). Usually used in the text in the sense of libbra estimale —the unit of fiscal assessment on landed property and moveables as evaluated in the estimo (s.v.). In other contexts, the pound (libbra / lira) is represented by the £ sign. livelli Perpetual or hereditary leases; grandi livelli: such leases granted to noncultivators (grandi livellari). Maggior Sindaco e Giudice degli Appelli There are references to a judge of appeals in Lucca from the 1280s. The office rapidly became merged with that of the Maggior Sindaco, who was responsible for examining the conduct and accounts of officials of central government. In the late fourteenth century the office of Maggior Sindaco e Giudice degli Appelli was combined with that of the Maggior Offiziale della Gabella (responsible for the public revenues and for tax offences), and with the revived office of Capitano del popolo (s.v.). missaticum Office of a royal envoy (missus dominicus); the powers of, or the district subject to, the same. municipium In classical times, a town whose inhabitants were granted Roman citizenship, while governed by its own magistrates and laws. nuncio A court messenger, whose duties included the issuing of public proclamations, the citation of defendants and witnesses, and the sequestration of property. pagus Village; rural subdivision of a civitas (s.v.). piccoli The £ piccoli (or di piccoli) was valued at roughly £3 10s. to the florin in the 1330s. By the 1380s the florin was worth approximately £5 5s. piccoli. The rate of exchange between piccoli and buona moneta (s.v.) was very unstable throughout the fourteenth century. pieve Subdivision of an ecclesiastical diocese, centred on a church with baptismal rights to which other churches of the pieve were subordinate. The priest of the pieval church was called a pievano. piviere Administrative division corresponding with a pieve (s.v.).

Glossary

207

Podestà Originally an urban official holding supreme political authority, theoretically on behalf of the Emperor, whose powers in Lucca by the fourteenth century were largely confined to justice and public order. In lower case and italicized (podestà), a local official exercising coercive public power on behalf of the city; the head of a subdivision of rural administration called a podesterìa. preda Property (animals, household goods, barrels of wine or oil, etc.) sequestered from defendants by court officials during the course of legal disputes. provento In Lucca proventi were usually taxes that had been farmed to private individuals, usually by means of public auction. quasi-città A capital-centre of some size and economic sophistication that lacked the defining qualities (including an episcopal presence) that juridically defined a city. Sei Miglia Lucca’s hinterland; the cultivated plain surrounding the city, roughly—though very imprecisely—within a 6-mile radius. signoria fondiaria Seigneurial rights over property and tenants. signoria territoriale True territorial lordship. sub porticu In the porch or arcade (of a church); a place frequently chosen for meetings of village communes. testa See fuochi. vicenda A Lucchese institution whereby village flocks were taken to communal pastures by guardians drawn by roster from members of the village community.


Bibliography A RC H I V E A N D OT H E R U N P R I N T E D S O U RC E S Archivio di Stato, Lucca Diplomatico Statuti del Comune di Lucca, 6, 10, 12–13, 17 Statuti delle comunità soggette, 11, 20 Capitoli, 1, 7, 10, 17, 35 Anziani avanti la libertà, 49, 54 Consiglio Generale, 12–23 Colloqui, 1 Governo di Paolo Guinigi, 1–2, 22, 24, 26 Anziani al tempo della libertà, 5–6, 132, 134, 442, 531–2, 654, 674 Cause Delegate, 2–4 Libri di corredo alle carte della signoria, 4 Offizio sopra le differenze dei confini, 548, 552, 568, 570, 572, 574 Camarlingo Generale, 83–5 Gabelle del contado e delle vicarie: Coreglia, 24–5, 30–1 Gabelle del contado e delle vicarie: Gallicano, 36 Gabelle del contado e delle vicarie: Pietrasanta, 70, 77, 80–1 Gabelle del contado e delle vicarie: Valle di Compito, 90 Gabelle del contado e delle vicarie: Villabasilica, 91–3 Estimo, 8, 116, 126, 131, 161 Esattore Maggiore, 54 Imprestiti, 21 Corte de’ Mercanti, 82–6, 94–9, 150–2, 159, 164, 186–7 Arte della seta, 33 Amministrazione delle comunità soggette e delle vicarie, 38–9 Podestà di Lucca, 1176–80, 1246, 1251, 1306–9, 2131–2, 5224–5, 5229–30, 5232, 5237, 5253, 5257, 5268–70, 5283–4, 5329–30, 5362 Capitano del popolo e della città, 11, 13, 31–45 Vicario di Massa Lunese, 88, 260–7 Vicario di Pietrasanta, 1, 4, 101, 233, 236–7 Vicario di Camaiore, 3, 166, 173 Vicario di Valdilima o de’ Bagni di Lucca, 97, 111, 1050, 1074, 1107, 1179 Vicario di Coreglia e Borgo a Mozzano, 71, 84, 90, 93, 259, 560, 594, 602–3, 611, 624, 638, 649–50 Vicario di Barga, 12 Vicario di Gallicano, 7, 65–6, 69, 71, 75, 80, 93, 96, 129–38, 937 Vicario di Castiglione, 5, 22, 722, 733 Vicario di Camporeggiana, 113, 288–9 Vicario di Valleariana o di Villabasilica, 71, 73, 80–2, 97 Podestà di Villabasilica, 6–32

210

Bibliography

Podestà di Montecarlo, 3 Podestà di Casoli oltre Giogo, 16, 29–31, 38–40, 44–5, 72 Capitano del contado, 31, 33, 51–2, 55, 70, 79, 97 Curia del fondaco, 534–5, 693–4 Sentenze e bandi, 85–6, 109, 119–24, 136–7, 150–1, 159–63, 165, 171, 181, 192, 202, 544 Vescovato di Lucca, 1 Raccolte Speciali: S. Frediano, 4, 7, 14, 19, 20–1, 72, 76 Raccolte Speciali: S. Romano, 2 Raccolte Speciali: G. B. Orsucci, 28–30 Archivio Arnolfini, 2, 15, 18, 25, 138 Archivio Guinigi, 29, 151 Archivio Mansi, 493 Biblioteca (Manoscritti), 20–2, 26, 30, 38, 57, 65, 116, 124–8 Archivio de’ Notari, parte 1 Archivio de’ Notari: Originali Testamenti, 11, 15–16 Biblioteca Statale, Lucca MS 18, ‘Delle Cronache di Lucca di Sebastiano Puccini’. MS 98, ‘Croniche della città di Lucca composte per messer Bastiano Puccini e Sommario de’successi di Lucca di Gherardo Sergiusti’. MSS 112–13, ‘Lettere autografe dai vari a Paolo Guinigi Signore di Lucca’. MS 764, ‘Statuta et Ordines Oppidi Castilioni Garfagnana’ (1523) MS 927, ‘Rerum lucensium scriptores per me Bernardinum Baroni P.L. ex variis MSS.is codicibus eruti et collecti’, Tomus primus. MS 942, ‘Cronache di Lucca scritte in ottava rima da Allessandro di ser Giovanni di ser Masseo da Barga’. MSS 2598–9, Antonio Iova, ‘Annali Historici della città di Lucca’. Archivio Arcivescovile, Lucca Fondo Diplomatico Tribunale Ecclesiastico, 138 Libri Antichi, 87–8, 99A–B, 100, 116–20 Visite Pastorale, 7, 9–10 Archivio Capitolare, Lucca A + 30 Liber Reclamorum etc, 1410–1413 (ser Antonio qd. Morovelli qd. Landi) B + 2, B + 5, B + 15 y.1, Documenti di svariate materie y.3, Documenti vari Archivio Comunale, Camaiore Deliberazioni, 112–13 Archivio Storico di Gallicano MS 6, Primo Libbro delli Statuti del MCCCCLXI MS 13, no title (Council proceedings 14 July 1482–12 June 1496)

Bibliography

211

Archivio di Stato, Firenze Archivio Notarile AnteCosimiano, N 115–16 (ser Nicolao di Coluccio di Pellegrino da Pietrasanta) Cambridge University Library MS Add. 4700, Historie della Città di Lucca P R I N T E D S O U RC E S A, L. (ed.), Archivio arcivescovile di Lucca, iii, Carte dell’xi secolo dal 1031 al 1043 (Lucca, 1987). (ed.), Lo statuto di Barga del 1360 (Lucca, 1994). ‘Antica cronichetta volgare lucchese già della biblioteca di F.-M. Fiorentini’, ed. S. Bongi, Atti della R. Accademia lucchese, 26 (1893), pp. 215–54. A, M. (ed.), L’ultimo statuto della Repubblica di Siena (1545) (Siena, 1993). and C, D. (eds.), Siena e il suo territorio nel Rinascimento, 2 vols. (Siena, 1986–90). B, D. (ed.), Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria del Ducato di Lucca, v (3 pts., Lucca 1837–44). B, D. (ed.), Dissertazioni sopra la storia ecclesiastica lucchese, in Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria del Ducato di Lucca, iv (Lucca, 1818). B, F. (ed.), Acta Henrici VII Romanorum Imperatoris et Monumenta quaedam alia suorum temporum historiam illustrantia, 2 vols. (Florence, 1877). B, S. (ed.), Inventario del Regio Archivio di Stato in Lucca, 4 vols. (Lucca, 1872–88). (ed.), ‘Statuto inedito della Casa de’ Corbolani (xiv dicembre MCCLXXXVII–xxx gennaio MCCLXXXVIII)’, Atti della Reale Accademia Lucchese di scienze, lettere ed arti, 24 (1886), pp. 469–87. C, G. (ed.), Lo statuto del comune di Fucecchio (1307–1308) (Fucecchio, 1989). C : Epistulae ad Familiares, ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1977). C, G, Historie di Lucca, ed. M. F. Leonardi, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores Recentiores, nos. 1 and 4, 2 vols. (Rome 1983–8). C, D. (ed.), ‘Le ‘‘Constitutiones Maleficiorum’’ della Provincia di Garfagnana del 1287’, Archivio storico italiano, 115 (1957), pp. 347–70. (ed.), ‘Statuto del Comune di Montecarlo (1388)’, in Fonti sui comuni rurali toscani, iv (Florence, 1966), pp. 1–150. D A V, G. (ed.), Regesti del Regio Archivio di Stato in Lucca, i, Pergamene del Diplomatico, 2 pts. (Lucca, 1903–11). F, C., L’Archivio dei Notari di Lucca (Lucca, 1991). G, G. (ed.), Archivio arcivescovile di Lucca, iv. Carte dell’xi secolo dal 1044 al 1056 (Lucca, 1995). G, C. and G, A. (eds.), I capitoli del comune di Firenze: Inventario e regesto, 2 vols., vol. i, ed. C. Guasti; vol. ii, ed. A. Gherardi (Florence, 1866–93). G, F, Ricordi, ed. R. Spongano (Florence, 1951). G, P. (ed.), Rationes Decimarum Italiae nei secoli xiii e xiv, Tuscia, i, La Decima degli anni 1274–1280 (Città del Vaticano, 1932).

212

Bibliography

G, P. and P, O. (eds.), Regesto del capitolo di Lucca, 4 vols. (Rome, 1910–39). L, G., Sanctae Ecclesiae Florentinae Monumenta, 4 vols. (Florence, 1758). L, E. (ed.), Regesti del R. Archivio di Stato in Lucca, vol. iii, pt. ii, Carteggio di Guido Manfredi Cancelliere della Repubblica di Lucca Segretario della signoria di Paolo Guinigi MCCCC–MCCCCXXIX (Pescia, 1933). Le Croniche di Giovanni Sercambi Lucchese, ed. S. Bongi, 3 vols. (Rome, 1892). M, C. (ed.), I placiti del ‘Regnum Italiae’, 3 vols. (Rome, 1955–60). M, B, ‘Vetus Chronicon Pisanum’, ed. F. Bonaini, Archivio storico italiano, 1st ser., 6/2 (1845), pp. 1–71. M, A. (ed.), ‘Der Luccheser Notar Ser Ciabatto und sein Imbreviaturbuch von 1226/1227’, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 74 (1994), pp. 172–293. (ed.), Ser Ciabattus: Imbreviature Lucchesi del Duecento: Regesti, i, Anni 1222–1232 (Lucca, 2005). Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, ii, pt. i, Ottonis II Diplomata (Hanover, 1888). Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, vi, pt. i, Heinrici IV: Diplomata (Weimar, 1953). Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, x, pt. i, Friderici I Diplomata inde ab a. mclii usque ad a. mclviii (Hanover, 1975). Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, x, pt. ii, Friderici I Diplomata inde ab a. mclviii usque ad a. mclxvii (Hanover, 1979). Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, x, pt. iv, Friderici I Diplomata inde ab a. mclxxxi usque ad a. mcxc (Hanover, 1990). M, L. A., Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, i, Excerpta ex Agathiae historia a fine Procopii ad Gothos pertinentia Hugone Grotio interprete. Ex libro primo (Milan, 1723). Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. Imperatoris, ed. G. Waitz and B. De Simson, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum (Hanover, 1912). Riformagioni della Repubblica di Lucca (1369–1400), i, (Marzo 1369–Agosto 1370 e aggiunte), ed. A. Romiti (Rome, 1980). Riformagioni della Repubblica di Lucca (1369–1400), ii, (Agosto 1370–Luglio 1371 e Appendice), ed. G. Tori (Rome, 1985). Riformagioni della Repubblica di Lucca (1369–1400), iv, (Febbraio 1373–Dicembre 1374), ed. G. Tori (Rome, 1998). S, R, ‘Cronaca Pisana’, ed. F. Bonaini, Archivio storico italiano, 1st ser., 6/2 (1845), pp. 75–244. S, R. (ed.), Repertorio degli statuti della Liguria (secc. xii–xviii) (Genoa, 2003). S, L. (ed.), Codice Diplomatico Longobardo, in Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 2 vols. (Rome, 1929–33). S, G. (ed.), ‘Statuti inediti del contado lucchese dei secoli xiii e xiv tratti dall’Archivio degli atti notarili—Arliano, Borgo a Mozzano, Fagnano, Gioviano, Marlia, Massaciuccoli, Mutigliano, Nozzano, Pontetetto’, Atti della Reale Accademia Lucchese di scienze, lettere ed arti, 24 (1886), pp. 491–576. Statuto del 1308: Statutum Lucani Communis an. MCCCVIII, ed. S. Bongi and L. Del Prete, in Memorie e documenti per servire alla storia di Lucca, iii, pt. 3 (Lucca, 1867). Statuto del 1308: Statutum Lucani Communis an. MCCCVIII, repr. of 1867 edn. with foreword by V. Tirelli (Lucca, 1991).

Bibliography

213

Tholomei Lucensis Annales, ed. B. Schmeidler, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum,  viii (Berlin, 1955). T, Gesta Lucanorum, ed. B. Schmeidler, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum,  viii (Berlin, 1955). S E C O N D A RY WO R K S A, P., People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–554 (Cambridge, 1997). A, B., Uomini nel medioevo: Studi sulla società lucchese dei secoli viii–xi (Bologna, 1983). ‘Federico I Barbarossa e la Garfagnana’, in La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998), pp. 1–16. A, L., Una pieve toscana nel medioevo (Lucca, 1979). Problemi di storia longobarda in Garfagnana (Lucca, 1985). Un Francescano nella Garfagnana del Quattrocento (Il Beato Ercolano da Piegaro) (Lucca, 1990). ‘Elezioni nelle chiese della Garfagnana dugentesca’, in La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998), pp. 103–20. ‘La via di San Pellegrino nell’ultimo tratto toscano’, in Viabilità, traffici, commercio, mercati e fiere in Garfagnana dall’antichità all’unità d’Italia: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 10–11 settembre 2005 (Modena, 2006), pp. 151–68. A, R., Conviene chio tamassi con questa scure: Giustizia e realtà quotidiana nelle inquisizioni del Vicario di Camaiore (1335–1384) (Camaiore, 1990). ‘Le liti fra Camaiore e Pietrasanta secondo Pellegrino Bartolomei’, Rivista di archeologia storia costume, 19/1 (1991), pp. 15–32. Bianco Bianchi: Cronista del ’500 (Camaiore, 1995). A, A., ‘Vicariati e vicari nell’organizzazione territoriale dello Stato Fiorentino: Il Valdarno Superiore’, in L. Borgia (ed.), Gli stemmi del Palazzo d’Arnolfo di San Giovanni Valdarno (Florence, 1986), no pagination. A, P., Storia della val di Nievole dall’origine di Pescia fino all’anno 1818 (Pistoia, 1846). A, G., ‘Papato, arcivescovi e vescovi nell’età post-carolingia’, in Italia sacra: Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica: Vescovi e diocesi in Italia nel medioevo (sec. ix–xiii): Atti del ii 0 convegno di storia della chiesa in Italia: Roma 5–9 sett. 1961 (Padua, 1964), pp. 27–53. A, G., ‘I maestri spadai di Villa Basilica’, in Atti del convegno su artigianato e industrie in Valdinievole dal medioevo ad oggi: Buggiano Castello, giugno 1986 (Buggiano, 1987), pp. 61–9. A, M., ‘Stato, territorio e cultura nel trecento: Qualche spunto da Siena’, in S. Gensini (ed.), La Toscana nel secolo xiv caratteri di una civiltà regionale (Pisa, 1988), pp. 165–81. ‘Statuti, legislazione e sovranità: Il caso di Siena’, in G. Chittolini and D. Willoweit (eds.), Statuti città territori in Italia e Germania tra medioevo ed età moderna (Bologna, 1991), pp. 145–94.

214

Bibliography

A, M., ‘Città-Stato: Una specificità, un problema culturale’, Le Carte e la storia: Rivista di storia delle istituzioni, 12 (2006), pp. 7–23. A, A., ‘Dai castra tardoantichi ai castelli del secolo x: Il caso della Toscana’, in R. Francovich and M. Ginatempo (eds.), Castelli: Storia e archeologia del potere nella Toscana medievale, i (Florence, 2000), pp. 25–66. B, P. O., Istoria della città di Pescia e della Valdinievole, 2nd edn. (Pescia, 1784). B, L., Luni (Florence, 1937). B, O., Iacopo d’Appiano: Economia, società e politica del comune di Pisa al suo tramonto (1392–1399) (Pisa, 1971). B, A., ‘Il credito alle comunità del contado’, in A. Duccini and G. Francesconi (eds.), L’attività creditizia nella Toscana comunale, Atti del Convegno di Studi, PistoiaColle di Val d’Elsa, 26–27 settembre 1998 (Pistoia, 2000), pp. 105–17. B, F., ‘Rapporti e collegamenti viarii medievali attraverso il passo di Tea fra la Garfagnana, la Lunigiana e il mare’, in La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998), pp. 163–219. ‘Il triangolo commerciale Castelnuovo Garfagnana, Castelnuovo ne’ Monti, Fivizzano nella storia dell’Appennino’, in Viabilità, traffici, commercio, mercati e fiere in Garfagnana dall’antichità all’unità d’Italia: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 10–11 settembre 2005 (Modena, 2006), pp. 217–26. B, C. M., ‘Towns and Country in Central and Northern Italy, 1400–1800’, in S. R. Epstein (ed.), Town and Country in Europe, 1300–1800 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 292–315. B, J.-F., ‘Mutations techniques et filières marchandes dans la sidérurgie alpine entre le xiiie et le xvie siècle’, in P. Braunstein (ed.), La sidérurgie alpine en Italie (xii e –xvii e siècle) (Rome, 2001), pp. 515–92. B B, I., ‘La topografia di Lucca nei secoli viii–xi’, in Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo: Atti del 5 0 Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Lucca 3–7 ottobre 1971 (Spoleto, 1973), pp. 461–554. Lucca: Guida alla città (Lucca, 1988). B, H., The Path to Rome (London, 1902). B, P., ‘L’organizzazione territoriale dello stato fiorentino nel ’300’, in S. Gensini (ed.), La Toscana nel secolo xiv caratteri di una civiltà regionale (Pisa, 1988), pp. 151–63. B, M., Nobili e mercanti nella Lucca del Cinquecento (Turin, 1965). ‘Il contado lucchese agli inizi del xvi secolo’, in G. Chittolini (ed.), La crisi degli ordinamenti comunali e le origini dello stato del Rinascimento (Bologna, 1979), pp. 263–72. B, L., ‘Intorno alla probabile genesi delle contese confinarie tra i vescovi pisano e lucense’, Bollettino storico pisano, 40–1 (1971–2), pp. 7–15. ‘Peredeo Vescovo di Lucca’, in Studi storici in onore di Ottorino Bertolini, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1972), i, pp. 21–45. B, O., ‘I vescovi del ‘‘regnum Langobardorum’’ al tempo dei Carolingi’, in Italia sacra: Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica: Vescovi e diocesi in Italia nel medioevo (sec. ix–xiii): Atti del ii 0 convegno di storia della chiesa in Italia: Roma 5–9 sett. 1961 (Padua, 1964), pp. 1–26. B, E., Cutigliano dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1994). Piteglio dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1994).

Bibliography

215

B, J., ‘Constitutional Ambitions, Legal Realities and the Florentine State’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 48–64. B, R., ‘Arezzo, the Medici and the Florentine Regime’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 293–311. B, T. W. and O, D. J., ‘The First Consuls at Lucca: 10 July 1119’, Actum Luce: Rivista di studi lucchesi, 7 (1978), pp. 31–40. B, F., ‘La città e l’organizzazione del territorio in età medievale’, in R. Elze and G. Fasoli (eds.), La città in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo: Cultura, istituzioni, vita religiosa (Bologna, 1981), pp. 51–80. B, G., ‘Viabilità e insediamento nella Garfagnana medievale’, in P. Bonacini (ed.), La Garfagnana dai longobardi alla fine della marca canossana (secc. vi/xii): Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana il 9–10 settembre 1995 (Modena, 1996), pp. 63–90. B, M. E., Lucca 1430–1494: The Reconstruction of an Italian City-Republic (Oxford, 1995). ‘Lucca and its Subject Communities (1430–1494)’, in I. Zilli (ed.), Fra spazio e tempo: Studi in onore di Luigi de Rosa, 3 vols. (Naples, 1995), i, pp. 175–89. ‘Chronicles of Fifteenth-Century Lucca: Contributions to an Understanding of the Restored Republic’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 60 (1998), pp. 7–23. ‘Usury in the Fifteenth-Century Lucchesia: Images of the Petty Moneylender’, Journal of European Economic History, 32 (2003), pp. 249–76. B, P., ‘Gli alleati italiani di Federico Barbarossa (feudatari e città)’, in R. Manselli and J. Riedmann (eds.), Federico Barbarossa nel dibattito storiografico in Italia e in Germania (Bologna, 1982), pp. 157–97. B, A., ‘The Language of Empire’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 32–47. B, E. A. R., ‘The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe’, American Historical Review, 79 (1974), pp. 1063–88. B, J. C., In the Shadow of Florence: Provincial Society in Renaissance Pescia (Oxford, 1982). B, T. S., Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in Byzantine Italy  554–800 (Rome, 1984). C, G., I comuni di Valdinievole dalla pace con Firenze alla loro definitiva sottomissione 1329–1339 (Pistoia, 1927). ‘Leghe e arbitrati tra i comuni di Valdinievole nel secolo xiii’, Bollettino di ricerche e di studii per la storia di Pescia e di Valdinievole, 1 (1927), pp. 6–9; 2 (1928), pp. 20–9. C, P., ‘La Toscana nella politica imperiale di Federico II’, in A. Esch and N. Kamp (eds.), Friedrich II. Tagung des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom im Gedenkjahr 1994 (Tübingen, 1996), pp. 363–80. C, O., ‘Città e comuni’, in G. Galasso (ed.), UTET Storia d’Italia, iv (Turin, 1981), pp. 3–57. C, A., Notizie storiche sul contado lucchese e specialmente sulle valli del Lima e dell’alto Serchio (Lucca, 1871).

216

Bibliography

C, A., ‘L’amministrazione del contado lucchese nel ’400: Il Capitano del Contado’, Actum Luce: Rivista di studi lucchesi, 7 (1978), pp. 127–37. C, F., ‘La centuriazione di Lucca’, Studi Etruschi, 20 (1948–9), pp. 285–90. C, D., ‘La pace tra Firenze e Pisa nel 1364’, Archivio storico italiano, 5th ser., 2 (1888), pp. 145–65. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York, 1907–12). C L, M. L., ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi di Volterra dalle origini all’inizio del xiii secolo’, in Pisa e la Toscana occidentale nel Medioevo: A Cinzio Violante nei suoi 70 anni, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1991), i, pp. 23–57. and S, S., ‘Il sistema pievano nella diocesi di Pisa dall’età carolingia all’inizio del xiii secolo’, Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia, 58 (2004), pp. 391–432. C, A., ‘La Garfagnana Estense nei viaggi ottocenteschi di S.A.R. Francesco IV’, in Viabilità, traffici, commercio, mercati e fiere in Garfagnana dall’antichità all’unità d’Italia: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 10–11 settembre 2005 (Modena, 2006), pp. 169–77. C, G., ‘La ‘‘civiltà’’ del castagno in Italia alla fine del Medioevo’, Archeologia medievale, 8 (1981), pp. 247–80. C, G., ‘Ricerche sull’ordinamento territoriale del dominio fiorentino agli inizi del secolo xv’, in La formazione dello stato regionale e le istituzioni del contado, secoli xiv e xv (Turin, 1979), pp. 292–352. ‘Introduzione’, in G. Chittolini (ed.), La crisi degli ordinamenti comunali e le origini dello stato del Rinascimento (Bologna, 1979), pp. 7–50. Città, comunità e feudi negli stati dell’Italia centrosettentrionale (secoli XIV–XVI) (Milan, 1996). C, G., ‘Castra e castelli nella valle del Serchio (vi–xi secolo): Evidenze archeologiche’, in La nascita dei castelli nell’Italia medievale: Il caso di Poggibonsi e le altre esperienze dell’Italia centrosettentrionale (Convegno di Studi, Poggibonsi, 12–13 settembre 1997) (Poggibonsi, 1997). ‘Archeologia lucchese d’età comunale II: Gli ‘‘astrachi’’ di Lucca e le fosse di Paganico’, Archeologia medievale, 25 (1998), pp. 213–27. ‘La via dell’Abate e la Buca Tana di Maggiano: Sull’insediamento in grotta dei secoli centrali del Medioevo nel territorio lucchese’, Archeologia medievale, 27 (2000), pp. 357–64. (ed.), Gli Etruschi della Garfagnana: Ricerche sull’insediamento della Murella a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana (Florence, 2005). and N, P., ‘Lucca tardoantica e altomedievale: Nuovi contributi archeologici’, Archeologia medievale, 17 (1990), pp. 561–92. and R, G., ‘Castelli e domini in Garfagnana fra due e trecento: Aspetti e problemi dell’indagine archeologica’, in La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998), pp. 245–89. and S, C., ‘Vie e traffici nella Garfagnana d’età augustea: L’insediamento della Murella di Castelnuovo di Garfagnana’, in Viabilità, traffici, commercio, mercati e fiere in Garfagnana dall’antichità all’unità d’Italia: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 10–11 settembre 2005 (Modena, 2006), pp. 227–74. C, A. N., Dissertazioni sopra la storia lucchese, in Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria del principato lucchese, i (Lucca, 1813).

Bibliography

217

Dissertazioni sopra la storia lucchese, in Memorie e documenti per servire all’istoria della città e stato di Lucca, ii–iii, pt. i (Lucca, 1814–16). C, E., Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago, 1981). C, S. K., ‘Marriage in the Mountains: The Florentine Territorial State, 1348–1500’, in T. Dean and K. J. P. Lowe (eds.), Marriage in Italy 1300–1650 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 174–96. Creating the Florentine State: Peasants and Rebellion, 1348–1434 (Cambridge, 1999). The Black Death Transformed: Disease and Culture in Early Renaissance Europe (London, 2002). C, V. I., ‘Il controllo del contado a Perugia nella prima metà del Quattrocento: Capitani, vicari e contadini tra 1428 e 1450’, in S. Bertelli (ed.), Forme e tecniche del potere nella città (secoli xiv–xvii) (Perugia, n.d.), pp. 147–90. C, W. J., ‘The Humanist Citizen as Provincial Governor’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 144–64. C, P. M., ‘Il presunto ducato longobardo di Pisa’, Bollettino storico pisano, 31–2 (1962–3), pp. 145–74. ‘Ricerche sulle correnti missionarie nella Lunigiana e nella Tuscia nei secoli vii e viii’, Archivio storico per le provincie parmensi, iv ser., 18 (1966), pp. 37–120. Luni nell’Alto Medioevo (Padua, 1967). ‘La iudiciaria longobarda di Maritima’, Bollettino storico pisano, 40–1 (1971–2), pp. 1–5. ‘La Tuscia e i suoi ordinamenti territoriali nell’alto medioevo’, in Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo: Atti del 5 0 Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Lucca 3–7 ottobre 1971 (Spoleto, 1973), pp. 61–116. C, B. and F, P. R., ‘Etruria, Tuscia, Toscana—una regione naturale?’, in M. Luzzati (ed.), Etruria, Tuscia, Toscana: L’identità di una regione attraverso i secoli (Pisa, 1992), pp. 15–33. C, D., ‘Legislazione archivistica dello Stato di Lucca’, Archivio storico italiano, 114 (1956), pp. 189–224. ‘Lucca, Viareggio, Messina: Note d’archivio’, Archivio storico italiano, 138 (1980), pp. 441–71. C, M. E., ‘Castelli e città: L’incastellamento nelle aree periurbane della Toscana (secc. x–xii)’, in R. Francovich and M. Ginatempo (eds.), Castelli: Storia e archeologia del potere nella Toscana medievale, i (Florence, 2000), pp. 204–37. C, A., Ruralia: Economie e paesaggi del medioevo italiano (Rome, 1995). C, S., ‘Dinamiche sociali ed istituzionali nella valle del Serchio tra v e vii secolo’, in P. Bonacini (ed.), La Garfagnana dai longobardi alla fine della marca canossana (secc. vi/xii): Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana il 9–10 settembre 1995 (Modena, 1996), pp. 39–61. C, E., ‘Ospedali della Valdinievole al tempo di Sant’Allucio’, in A. Spicciani and C. Violante (eds.), Un santo laico dell’età postgregoriana: Allucio da Pescia (1070 c.a.–1134): Religione e società nei territori di Lucca e della Valdinievole (Rome, 1991), pp. 215–24. C, H. E. J., Pope Gregory VII 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998). C, N., La Tabula Alimentaria di Veleia (Parma, 1991).

218

Bibliography

C, N., ‘ ‘‘Carneade! Chi era costui?’’: Veleia e la Tabula alimentaria oggi’, Archivio storico per le province parmensi, 4th ser., 56 (2004), pp. 471–530. D’A, A., ‘Il mito dell’origine ‘‘aramea’’ di Firenze in un trattatello di Giambattista Gelli’, Archivio storico italiano, 138 (1980), pp. 339–89. D, G., ‘Patrimony and Clientage in the Florentine Countryside: The Formation of the Estate of the Cathedral Chapter, 950–1200’, in S. K. Cohn and S. A. Epstein (eds.), Portraits of Medieval and Renaissance Living: Essays in Memory of David Herlihy (Ann Arbor, 1996), pp. 259–81. D, T., Land and Power in Late Medieval Ferrara: The Rule of the Este 1350–1450 (Cambridge, 1988). D A, L., ‘Territorial Offices and Officeholders’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 165–82. D C, A., ‘L’insediamento longobardo a Lucca’, in Pisa e la Toscana occidentale nel Medioevo: A Cinzio Violante nei suoi 70 anni, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1991), i, pp. 59–127. D C, T., ‘Il conte Francesco Castracane e le vicende politiche di Lucca nel suo tempo’, in id., Studi storici lucchesi (Lucca and Livorno, 1886), pp. 67–96. D M, M., ‘Dividersi per governarsi: Fazioni, famiglie aristocratiche e comuni in Valtellina in età viscontea (1335–1447)’, Società e storia, 86 (1999), pp. 715–66. D, J. P., Arezzo espace et sociétés, 715–1230: Recherches sur Arezzo et son contado du viii e au début du xiii e siècle, 2 vols. (Rome, 1996). D S, C., ‘Ordini amministrativi di Garfagnana dal xii al xviii secolo’, Archivio storico italiano, 5th ser., 9 (1892), pp. 31–66. Storia dei comuni di Garfagnana (Modena, 1925; repr. Pisa, 1978). D V, G., Origini e sviluppo della comitatinanza (Siena, 1929). D, U., Un grande feudatario del Trecento: Spinetta Malaspina (Florence, 1940). D T, E., ‘Vescovi e città nell’Italia precomunale’, in Italia sacra: Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica: Vescovi e diocesi in Italia nel medioevo (sec. ix–xii): Atti del ii 0 convegno di storia della chiesa in Italia: Roma 5–9 sett. 1961 (Padua, 1964), pp. 55–109. E, S. R., ‘Cities, Regions and the Late Medieval Crisis: Sicily and Tuscany Compared’, Past and Present, 130 (1991), pp. 3–50. An Island for Itself: Economic Development and Social Change in Late Medieval Sicily (Cambridge, 1992). Freedom and Growth: The Rise of States and Markets in Europe, 1300–1750 (London, 2000). ‘Market Structures’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 90–121. F, E., ‘Il gruppo dirigente fiorentino dell’età consolare’, Archivio storico italiano, 162 (2004), pp. 199–231. F G, E., ‘Potere centrale e comunità soggette nel Granducato di Cosimo I’, Rivista storica italiana, 89 (1977), pp. 490–538. F, G., ‘Adalberti’, sub voce, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, i (Rome, 1960). ‘La realtà cittadina nei territori canossiani’, Studi Matildici (Modena, 1978), pp. 55–78.

Bibliography

219

‘Aspirazioni cittadine e volantà imperiale’, in R. Manselli and J. Riedmann (eds.), Federico Barbarossa nel dibattito storiografico in Italia e in Germania (Bologna, 1982), pp. 131–57. F, E., ‘Sui rapporti economici tra città e contado nell’età comunale’, Archivio storico italiano, 114 (1956), pp. 18–68. F, U., ‘Per la storia preromana del pago’, Studi Etruschi, 3 (1929), pp. 51–66. F, G., ‘Le comunità della Valdinievole nella prima metà del Trecento tra influenza lucchese e dominio fiorentino: Primi appunti’, in Atti del convegno: La Valdinievole nel secolo xiv; Buggiano Castello, 26 giugno 1999 (Buggiano, 2000), pp. 69–91. F, G., Ludovico Ariosto poeta e commissario in Garfagnana nel quarto centenario della morte (Arezzo, 1933). G R, C., Villa Basilica e il suo territorio nella storia, nell’industria, nell’arte (Lucca, 1991). G, L., ‘I Lucchesi a Bruges ai tempi della signoria di Paolo Guinigi (1400–1430), Quaderni Lucchesi di Studi sul Medioevo e sul Rinascimento, 4 (2003), pp. 57–96. ‘Alderigo Antelminelli: Un mercante guerriero tra Garfagnana, Lucca e Bruges’, in Viabilità, traffici, commercio, mercati e fiere in Garfagnana dall’antichità all’unità d’Italia: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 10–11 settembre 2005 (Modena, 2006), pp. 195–216. G, S., I duchi longobardi (Rome, 1978). G, E., Memorie storiche d’illustri scrittori e di uomini insigni dell’antica e moderna Lunigiana, 2 vols. (Massa, 1829). G, G., Diecimo: Una pieve un feudo un comune, i, Il medioevo (Lucca, 1990). ‘L’edizione dei documenti del sec. xi dell’Archivio Arcivescovile di Lucca’, in C. Violante (ed.), Sant’Anselmo vescovo di Lucca (1073–1086) nel quadro delle trasformazioni sociali e della riforma ecclesiastica (Rome, 1992), pp. 423–6. G, C., I Bagni di Corsena e la Val di Lima Lucchese dalle origini al xvi secolo (Lucca, 1996). G, M., ‘Uno ‘‘stato semplice’’: L’organizzazione del territorio nella Toscana senese del secondo quattrocento’, in La Toscana al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico: Politica economia cultura arte, 3 vols. (Pisa, 1996), iii, pp. 1073–1101. G, L., ‘Distribuzione geografica e configurazione dei siti fortificati dell’alta Garfagnana: I dati emersi dalla ricerca territoriale’, in La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998), pp. 291–320. G, O., ‘Mercati e mercanti ‘‘minori’’ sull’Appennino marchigiano: Secolo XV’, Archivio storico italiano, 159 (2001), pp. 337–57. G, P. (ed.), I poteri dei Canossa: Da Reggio Emilia all’Europa: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Reggio Emilia–Carpineti, 29–31 ottobre 1992) (Bologna, 1994). G, L., Castruccio Castracani: A Study on the Origins and Character of a FourteenthCentury Despotism (Oxford, 1986). Lucca under Many Masters: A Fourteenth-Century Italian Commune in Crisis (1328–1342) (Florence, 1995). H, W. V., Rome in Etruria and Umbria (Oxford, 1971). H, D., The Early State and the Towns: Forms of Integration in Lombard Italy  568–774 (Lund, 1993).

220

Bibliography

J, P. J., ‘Economia e società nell’Italia medievale: Il mito della borghesia’, in id., Economia e società nell’Italia medievale (Turin, 1980), pp. 3–189. The Italian City-State: From Commune to Signoria (Oxford, 1997). K-Z, C., ‘San Romolo: Un vescovo, un lupo, un nome alle origini dello Stato moderno’, Archivio storico italiano, 155 (1997), pp. 3–48. L, M., ‘Tracce della viabilità antica medievale in Garfagnana’, in Viabilità, traffici, commercio, mercati e fiere in Garfagnana dall’antichità all’unità d’Italia: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 10–11 settembre 2005 (Modena, 2006), pp. 13–49. L, I., ‘Il diritto urbano in una signoria cittadina: Gli statuti mantovani dai Bonacolsi ai Gonzaga (1313–1404)’, in G. Chittolini and D. Willoweit (eds.), Statuti, città, territori in Italia e Germania tra medioevo ed età moderna (Bologna, 1991), pp. 381–417. L, E., Lucca: Capitale del regno longobardo della Tuscia (Lucca, 1997). L, G., Lucca: Città da Scoprire (Lucca, 1980). L, F., ‘Gabelle e Atti Civili come fonte per la storia del paesaggio agrario medievale’, in R. Martinelli and L. Nuti (eds.), Fonti per lo studio del paesaggio agrario: Atti del 30 Convegno di storia urbanista, Lucca 3–5 ottobre 1979 (Lucca, 1981), pp. 215–17. ‘Gli estimi lucchesi del 1411–13: Una fonte per lo studio dell’amministrazione, del paesaggio agrario e della demografia’, in Scritti in ricordo di Giorgio Buratti (Pisa, 1981), pp. 199–222. ‘La crisi demografica nella Toscana del Trecento: L’esempio delle Sei Miglia Lucchesi’, in S. Gensini (ed.), La Toscana nel secolo xiv caratteri di una civiltà regionale (Pisa, 1988), pp. 67–150. ‘ ‘‘Crisi’’ del Trecento e strutture di inquadramento nelle Sei Miglia lucchesi’, in Pisa e la Toscana occidentale nel medioevo: A Cinzio Violante nei suoi 70 anni, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1991), ii, pp. 203–62. ‘Sulle circoscrizioni amministrative del contado pisano nel tardo medioevo: Spunti di ricerca’, Studi di storia pisana e toscana in onore del prof. Cinzio Violante: Bollettino storico pisano, 60 (1991), pp. 209–15. ‘L’organizzazione amministrativa del contado pisano dalla fine del ’200 alla dominazione fiorentina: Spunti di ricerca’, Bollettino storico pisano, 61 (1992), pp. 33–82. Popolazione, famiglie, insediamento: Le Sei Miglia Lucchese nel XIV e XV secolo (Pisa, 1992). L, A., ‘Strade incerte; viabilità, cartografia e marginalità nella Garfagnana in età moderna’, in Viabilità, traffici, commercio, mercati e fiere in Garfagnana dall’antichità all’unità d’Italia: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 10–11 settembre 2005 (Modena, 2006), pp. 123–49. L, G., ‘Regolamenti della lavorazione della seta nella vicaria di Gallicano—1593’, Rivista di archeologia storia costume, 12/4 (1984), pp. 17–22. L, V., ‘I confini storici del vescovado di Siena’, Bullettino senese di storia patria, 5 (1898), pp. 333–57; 7 (1900), pp. 59–82, 418–67; 8 (1901), pp. 195–273. M, M., Difesa del dominio de Conti della Gherardesca sopra la signoria di Donoratico, Bolgheri, Castagneto ecc. (Lucca, 1771). M, J., Il Rinascimento italiano, Italian edn. (Rome, 1974).

Bibliography

221

M, T., ‘Attila, Totila e Carlo Magno fra Dante, Villani, Boccaccio e Malispini: Per la genesi di due leggende erudite’, Archivio storico italiano, 152 (1994), pp. 561–639. M, A., ‘Fucecchio negli anni di Castruccio: Tra cronaca e storia’, Erba d’Arno, 8 (1982), pp. 65–81. ‘Fucecchio nella seconda metà del xiii secolo’, i, ‘La vita politica: Tra Lucca e i Valdarnesi’, Erba d’Arno, 13 (1983), pp. 50–63. ‘Fucecchio nella seconda metà del xiii secolo’, ii, ‘La crescita demografica e urbana’, Erba d’Arno, 15 (1984), pp. 44–57. ‘Fucecchio nella seconda metà del xiii secolo’, iii, ‘Un notaio, un paese: Cittadini e contadini nel protocollo di ser Rustichello’, Erba d’Arno, 18 (1984), pp. 47–65. Quelli della Volta: Famiglie e fazioni a Fucecchio nel medioevo (Fucecchio, 1998). ‘I proventi dell’incolto: Note sull’amministrazione delle risorse naturali del comune di Fucecchio nel tardo medioevo’, in A. Malvolti and G. Pinto (eds.), Incolti, fiume, paludi: Utilizzazione delle risorse naturali nella Toscana medievale e moderna (Florence, 2003), pp. 247–72. M, L., Il sovrano tutore: Pluralismo istituzionale e accentramento amministrativo nel principato dei Medici (secc. XVI–XVIII) (Milan, 1994). M, G., La pieve e la comunità di Vorno (Lucca, 1999). M, M., Daibert von Pisa: Zwischen Pisa, Papst und erstem Kreuzzug (Sigmaringen, 1998). M, A., Storia di Lucca dalla sua origine fino al 1814 (Lucca, 1833). M, C.E., Lucca 1369–1400: Politics and Society in an Early Renaissance City-State (Oxford, 1978). The Commune of Lucca under Pisan Rule, 1342–1369 (Cambridge, Mass., 1980). ‘Finanze comunali e finanze locali nel quattordicesimo secolo: L’esempio di Montecarlo’, in Castelli e borghi della Toscana tardo medioevale: Atti del Convegno di Studi, 28–29 maggio 1983 (Pescia, 1985), pp. 139–53. ‘Paolo Guinigi, parenti e amici’, Quaderni Lucchesi di Studi sul Medioevo e sul Rinascimento, 4 (2003), pp. 9–32. M, P. and Z, M., Lucca Romana (Lucca, 1982). M, G., ‘ ‘‘Agri placentinorum et lucensium in Veleiate sumpti’’ ’, in Il Capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in occidente ed in oriente: Actes de la x e rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain (Rome, 1999), pp. 85–94. M, A., Felix et inclitus notarius: Studien zum italienischen Notariat vom 7. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert (Tübingen, 2000). M, G., L’esclusione dal comune: Conflitti e bandi politici a Bologna e in altre città italiane tra xii e xiv secolo (Rome, 2003). I comuni italiani: Secoli xii–xiv (Rome and Bari, 2005). M, C. G., ‘I gastaldi con potere ducale nell’ordinamento pubblico longobardo’, in Atti del 10 Congresso Internazionale di Studi Longobardi: Spoleto, 27–30 settembre 1951 (Spoleto, 1952), pp. 409–15. ‘Bonifacii’, sub voce, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, xii (Rome, 1970). M, P., ‘La ‘‘signoria’’ del vescovo di Lucca sul castello di Santa Maria a Monte nel Valdarno pisano (secoli x–xii)’, in id. (ed.), Pozzo di Santa Maria a Monte: Un castello del Valdarno lucchese nei secoli centrali del medioevo: Atti del convegno, Villa di Pozzo, 21 settembre 1997 (Santa Maria a Monte, 1998), pp. 105–42. Internet text: www.idr.unipi.it/iura-communia/morelli-smam.html.

222

Bibliography

M, E., Civic Ritual in Renaissance Venice (Princeton, 1981). M, O., ‘The Social Classes of Colle Valdelsa and the Formation of the Dominion (fourteenth–sixteenth centuries)’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 264–92. N, L., La Parrocchia studiata nei documenti lucchesi dei secoli viii–xiii (Rome, 1948). N, R., Montecatini dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1998). N, G., ‘Rocche e fortilizi della Garfagnana dalla ‘‘libertà recuperata’’ al periodo guinigiano, alla luce di alcuni strumenti notarili’, in La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998), pp. 221–43. N, H., Italische Landeskunde, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1883–1902). N, M., ‘Il ‘‘liber de anulo et baculo’’ del vescovo di Lucca Rangerio, Matilde e la lotta per le investiture negli anni 1110–1111’, in C. Violante (ed.), Sant’Anselmo vescovo di Lucca (1073–1086) nel quadro delle trasformazioni sociali e della riforma ecclesiastica (Rome, 1992), pp. 157–206. ‘L’evoluzione delle dominazioni marchionali in relazione alla dissoluzione delle circoscrizioni marchionali e comitali e allo sviluppo della politica territoriale dei comuni cittadini nell’Italia centro-settentrionale (secoli xi e xii)’, in La cristianità dei secoli xi e xii in occidente: Coscienza e strutture di una società: Atti della ottava settimana internazionale di studio Mendola, 30 giugno–5 luglio 1980 (Milan, 1983), pp. 235–58. O, A. M., L’Abbazia di San Salvatore a Sesto e il lago di Bientina: Una signoria ecclesiastica 1250–1300 (Florence, 1984). ‘Comuni rurali e signorie nel basso Valdarno del Duecento: L’esempio di Montecalvoli’, in Castelli e borghi della Toscana tardo medioevale: Atti del Convegno di Studi 28–29 maggio 1983 (Pescia, 1985), pp. 107–29. Massa e Cozzile dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1989). Uzzano dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1990). Pescia dalle origini all’età comunale (Pistoia, 1998). O, D. J., ‘The Episcopal Archive of Lucca in the Middle Ages’, Manuscripta, 17 (1973), pp. 131–46. An Italian Lordship: The Bishopric of Lucca in the Late Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1977). A Tuscan Monastery and its Social World: San Michele of Guamo (1156–1348) (Rome, 1989). P, D., Ricerche istoriche sulla provincia della Garfagnana (Modena, 1785). P, E., Dalle guerre puniche a Cesare Augusto, 2 vols. (Rome, 1918). P, M., ‘L’Etruria in età romana’, in M. Luzzati (ed.), Etruria, Tuscia, Toscana: L’identità di una regione attraverso i secoli (Pisa, 1992), pp. 63–73. P, P., Cenni sull’industria e sul commercio del ferro in Versilia nei secoli xiv e xv (Lucca, 1975). ‘L’economia della Garfagnana e le sue relazioni col porto di Motrone (secc. xiv–xv)’, in La Garfagnana: Storia, cultura, arte: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana il 12–13 settembre 1992 (Modena, 1993), pp. 213–22. ‘Cenni sull’economia della Garfagnana medievale’, in La Garfagnana dai longobardi alla fine della Marca canossana (secc. vi/xii): Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana il 9–10 settembre 1995 (Modena, 1996), pp. 235–44. ‘Le risorse economiche e il loro rilievo in rapporto ai mercati urbani e allo sfruttamento delle direttrici di traffico viario, fluviale e marittimo in Garfagnana

Bibliography

223

(secc. xii–xv)’, in La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998), pp. 145–54. P, P., ‘La caduta di Paolo Guinigi e la parte senese nei fatti di Lucca’, in Quaderni Lucchesi di Studi sul Medioevo e sul Rinascimento, 4 (2003), pp. 207–37. P M, R., ‘Un inedito documento lucchese della marchesa Beatrice e alcune notizie sulla famiglia dei ‘‘domini di Colle’’ tra x e xi secolo’, in Pisa e la Toscana occidentale nel Medioevo: A Cinzio Violante nei 70 anni, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1991), i, pp. 129–72. ‘Nobilità e istituzioni ecclesiastiche in Valdinievole tra xi e xii secolo’, in A. Spicciani and C. Violante (eds.), Un santo laico dell’età postgregoriana: Allucio da Pescia (1070 c.a.–1134): Religione e società nei territori di Lucca e della Valdinievole (Rome, 1991), pp. 225–77. P, G. and P S, G., ‘La dichiarazione dei ‘‘Coloni Lucenses’’ nella tavola di Velleia’, Archivio storico per le province parmensi, 4th ser., 56 (2004), pp. 283–97. P, G., ‘Fiscality, Politics and Dominion in Florentine Tuscany at the end of the Middle Ages’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 65–89. P, G., ‘Controllo politico e ordine pubblico nei primi vicariati fiorentini: Gli ‘‘atti criminali degli ufficiali forensi’’ ’, Quaderni storici, 49 (1982), pp. 226–41. ‘Il vicariato della valdinievole e valleariana alla metà del trecento: Considerazioni sull’organizzazione interna e sull’amministrazione della giustizia’, in Atti del convegno su i comuni rurali nella loro evoluzione storica con particolare riguardo alla Valdinievole (Bologna, 1983), pp. 21–8. ‘Attraverso l’Appennino: Rapporti e scambi tra Romagna e Toscana nei secoli xiii–xv’, in Toscana medievale: Paesaggi e realtà sociali (Florence, 1993), pp. 25–36. P, P., Costruzione di un contado: I Fiorentini e il loro territorio nel Basso Medioevo (Florence, 2001). P, A., ‘Strutturazione del mondo corporativo e affermazione del Popolo a Lucca nel Duecento’, Archivio storico italiano, 165 (2007), pp. 449–86. P, A., ‘Proprietà cittadina e comitatina nelle Sei Miglia lucchesi attraverso gli estimi del 1411–1413: I pivieri di S. Gennaro e Segromigno’, Quaderni Lucchesi di Studi sul Medioevo e sul Rinascimento, 4 (2003), pp. 97–158. P, G., Traffico di legname e vie dei remi nella montagna e nelle marine lucchesi (Lucca, 1996). ‘La fluitazione lungo il Serchio: Una pratica di lunga durata’, Società e storia, 95 (2002), pp. 35–69. P, A., ‘L’amministrazione della giustizia e le istituzioni pubbliche in ‘‘Tuscia’’ da Ugo di Provenza a Ottone I (anni 926–967)’, Archivio storico italiano, 160 (2000), pp. 675–733. Q C, J. A., La Valdinievole nel medioevo: ‘Incastellamento’ e archeologia del potere nei secoli xi–xii (Pisa, 1999). El incastellamento en el territorio de la ciudad de Luca (Toscana) (Oxford, 1999). R, E., Dizionario geografico fisico storico della Toscana, 6 vols. (Florence, 1833–45). R, S., Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1994). R, R., ‘Documenti della Garfagnana medioevale (1230–1309) nell’Archivio Malaspiniano di Caniparola: Tra Garfagnana propriamente detta e Garfagnana ‘‘Lunese’’ ’,

224

Bibliography

in La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998), pp. 155–62. ‘La formazione del comune di Pontremoli: Organamento e tempistica’, Archivio storico per le province parmensi, 4th ser., 56 (2004), pp. 77–86. ‘Dal Forum Clodii al xii secolo: Potere e territorio lungo le vie di transito della Garfagnana Lunense’, in Viabilità, traffici, commercio, mercati e fiere in Garfagnana dall’antichità all’unità d’ltalia: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 10–11 settembre 2005 (Modena, 2006), pp. 51–8. R, G. B., Di Camajore come città della Versilia e sue adiacenze (Florence, 1858). R, O., ‘Impero e chiesa in Garfagnana (1115–1429)’, in La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998), pp. 17–44. R, A., ‘La comunità di Camaiore e la sua organizzazione negli ultimi anni del Trecento’, Campus Maior: Rivista di studi camaioresi, 1 (1988), pp. 37–86. R, A., ‘Le istituzioni camaioresi alla luce dello statuto comunale del 1402’, Campus Maior: Rivista di studi camaioresi, 1 (1988), pp. 87–125. R, G., Memorie storiche di San Miniato al Tedesco con documenti inediti e le notizie degl’illustri samminiatesi (San Miniato, 1876). R, B. H., ‘Friends and Family, Politics and Privilege in the Kingship of Berengar I’, in S. K. Cohn and S. A. Epstein (eds.), Portraits of Medieval and Renaissance Living: Essays in Memory of David Herlihy (Ann Arbor, 1996), pp. 91–106. R, G., ‘Società e istituzioni nei secoli ix e x: Pisa, Volterra, Populonia’, in Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo: Atti del 5 0 Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Lucca 3–7 ottobre 1971 (Spoleto, 1973), pp. 209–338. ‘Formazione e caratteri delle signorie di castello e dei poteri territoriali dei vescovi sulle città nella Langobardia del secolo x’, in G. Rossetti (ed.), Forme di potere e struttura sociale in Italia nel Medioevo (Bologna, 1977), pp. 113–48. ‘Pisa e l’impero tra xi e xii secolo: Per una nuova edizione del diploma di Enrico IV ai pisani’, in C. Violante (ed.), Nobilità e chiesa nel medioevo e altri saggi: Scritti in onore di Gerd G. Tellenbach (Rome, 1993), pp. 159–82. R, S., ‘Piacenza dal governo vescovile a quello consolare: L’episcopato di Arduino (1121–1147)’, Aevum: Rassegna di scienze storiche linguistiche e filologiche, 68 (1994), pp. 323–38. S, R., ‘La cartiera Buonvisi di Villa Basilica XVI–XIX secolo’, Archivio storico italiano, 140 (1982), pp. 263–307. S, E. T., The Making of Roman Italy (London, 1982). S, P., ‘Florentines and the Communities of the Territorial State’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 207–24. S, F., ‘San Miniato al Tedesco: The Evolution of the Political Class’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 242–63. ‘San Miniato al Tedesco in età comunale: Dalle origini all’avvento della dominazione fiorentina (1370)’, www.fondazionesanminiato.it/sanminiato/sanminiato.htm. S, G., ‘I comuni di pieve’ nel medioevo italiano: Contributo alla storia dei comuni rurali (Milan, 1964).

Bibliography

225

‘La formazione territoriale e la costituzione federale della Garfagnana nel medio evo’, Giornale Storico della Lunigiana e del territorio lucense,  15 (1964), pp. 39–54. ‘Circoscrizioni amministrative civili nei domini matildici’, Studi Matildici (Modena, 1978), pp. 79–121. S, R., Episcopato e società cittadina a Lucca da Anselmo II (+1086) a Roberto (+1225) (Lucca, 1996). ‘Istituzioni ecclesiastiche e dinamiche sociali lungo la via Francigena: Le pievi di Lammari e Lunata dal primo medioevo al xiii secolo’, in G. Concioni (ed.), S. Frediano di Lunata e S. Jacopo di Lammari: Due pievi capannoresi sulla via Francigena (Capannori, 1997), pp. 11–86. ‘Le relazioni politico-ecclesiastiche tra la città e l’episcopato lucchese e la Garfagnana nell’età comunale (xii–xiii secolo)’, in La Garfagnana dall’epoca comunale all’avvento degli Estensi: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 13–14 settembre 1997 (Modena, 1998), pp. 45–102. ‘Clero e ceti eminenti della Valdinievole nel secolo xiv: La documentazione lucchese’, in La Valdinievole nel secolo xiv: Atti del convegno, Buggiano Castello, 26 giugno 1999 (Buggiano, 2000), pp. 93–173. ‘Fenomeni migratori e vie dei commerci in Garfagnana nei secoli xii–xiv’, in Viabilità, traffici, commercio, mercati e fiere in Garfagnana dall’antichità all’unità d’Italia: Atti del convegno tenuto a Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Rocca Ariostesca, 10–11 settembre 2005 (Modena, 2006), pp. 59–103. S, G. P. G., ‘Fiscalità e finanza pubblica ad Arezzo nel periodo comunale (xii secolo–1324)’, Archivio storico italiano, 164 (2006), pp. 215–66. S, F., Die Reichsverwaltung in Toscana von der Gründung des Longobardenreiches bis zum Ausgang der Staufer (568–1268) (Rome, 1914). S, H., Lucca und das Reich bis zum Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts: Studien zur Socialstruktur einer Herzogstadt in der Toskana (Tübingen, 1972). ‘Società e istituzioni nel x secolo: Lucca’, in Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo: Atti del 5 0 Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Lucca 3–7 ottobre 1971 (Spoleto, 1973), pp. 143–61. S, M., ‘Piazza e Sala dominio del vescovo di Lucca: Origini e primi sviluppi della contea’, Carfaniana antiqua: Miscellanea di studi, i (Lucca, 1980), pp. 13–34. ‘Una compagnia di mercanti operante in Camaiore agli inizi del xiv secolo’, Rivista di archeologia, storia e costume, 8/4 (1980), pp. 39–44. ‘Metallurgia e siderurgia nei territori delle Vicarie di Barga e di Coreglia agli inizi del xiv secolo’, Notiziario Storico Filatelico Numismatico con rubriche di scienze, lettere, arti, 200 (1980), pp. 85–92. ‘La nascita e l’evoluzione del comune di Vivinaria in Valdinievole’, in Atti del convegno su i comuni rurali nella loro evoluzione storica con particolare riguardo alla Valdinievole (Bologna, 1983), pp. 57–72. ‘Il Cerruglio tra Vivinaia e Montecarlo’, in Castelli e borghi della Toscana tardo medioevale: Atti del Convegno di Studi, 28–29 maggio 1983 (Pescia, 1985), pp. 69–105. S, E., ‘La città comunale italiana dei secoli xi–xiii nelle sue note caratteristiche rispetto al movimento comunale europeo’, in G. Rossetti (ed.), Forme di potere e struttura sociale in Italia nel Medioevo (Bologna, 1977), pp. 174–96.

226

Bibliography

S, G., Memorie storiche di Montignoso (Lucca, 1867). Memorie e documenti per servire alla storia di Pontremoli, 3 vols. (Florence, 1904). S, K., L’amministrazione del contado pisano nel Trecento attraverso un manuale notarile (Pisa, 1975). S, A., ‘Le istituzioni pievane e parrocchiali della Valdinievole fino al xii secolo’, in A. Spicciani and C. Violante (eds.), Un santo laico dell’età postgregoriana: Allucio da Pescia (1070 c.a.–1134): Religione e società nei territori di Lucca e della Valdinievole (Rome, 1991), pp. 159–99. ‘Concessioni livellarie e infeudazioni di pievi a laici (secoli ix–xi)’, in C. Violante (ed.), Nobilità e chiesa nel medioevo e altri saggi: Scritti in onore di Gerd G. Tellenbach (Rome, 1993), pp. 183–97. Benefici livelli feudi: Intreccio di rapporti tra chierici e laici nella Tuscia medioevale: La creazione di una società politica (Pisa, 1996). ‘Forme giuridiche e condizioni reali nei rapporti tra il vescovo di Lucca e signori laici (secolo xi): Ipotesi di istituzioni parafeudali’, in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: Marchesi, conti e visconti nel regno italico (secc. ix–xii): Atti del convegno (Pisa, 3–4 dicembre 1993) (Rome, 1996), pp. 315–75. ‘Il padule di Fucecchio nell’alto medioevo’, in A. Malvolti and G. Pinto (eds.), Incolti, fiume, paludi: Utilizzazione delle risorse naturali nella Toscana medievale e moderna (Florence, 2003), pp. 57–72. T, G., The Struggle for Power in Medieval Italy: Structures of Political Rule (Cambridge, 1989). T, L., ‘Un aspetto della costruzione dello Stato territoriale fiorentino: Il registro di approvazioni degli statuti del dominio (1393–1403)’, Società e storia, 28 (2005), pp. 1–36. T, L. R., The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic: The Thirty-Five Urban and Rural Tribes (Rome, 1960). T, R., The Italic Regions: From Augustus to the Lombard Invasion (Copenhagen, 1947). T, S., ‘Origini e radicamento territoriale di un lignaggio umbro-toscano nei secoli x–xi: I ‘‘Marchesi di Colle’’ (poi ‘‘Del Monte S. Maria’’)’, Archivio storico italiano, 152 (1994), pp. 481–559. ‘I ‘‘marchesi di Colle’’ dall’inizio del secolo xii alla metà del xiii: La costruzione del dominato territoriale’, Archivio storico italiano, 155 (1997), pp. 199–264. T, V., ‘Sulla crisi istituzionale del comune di Lucca (1308–1312)’, in Studi per Enrico Fiumi (Pisa, 1979), pp. 317–60. ‘Lucca nella seconda metà del secolo xii società ed istituzioni’, in I ceti dirigente dell’età comunale nei secoli xii e xiii (Pisa, 1982), pp. 157–231. ‘Il vescovato di Lucca tra la fine del secolo xi e i primi tre decenni del xii’, in A. Spicciani and C. Violante (eds.), Un santo laico dell’età postgregoriana: Allucio da Pescia (1070 c.a.–1134): Religione e società nei territori di Lucca e della Valdinievole (Rome, 1991), pp. 55–146. T, G., ‘Sommario della storia di Lucca dall’anno MIV all’anno MDCC’, Archivio storico italiano, 1st ser., 10 (1847). T, G., Nicolao degli Onesti vicario di Montecarlo: Carteggio con Paolo Guinigi 1401 e 1408 (Pescia, 1977).

Bibliography

227

‘Il Cerruglio sotto la dominazione pisana (1342–1369)’, in Castelli e borghi della Toscana tardo medioevale: Atti del Convegno di Studi, 28–29 maggio 1983 (Pescia, 1985), pp. 161–215. V, C., ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche nell’Italia centro-settentrionale durante il Medioevo: Province, diocesi, sedi vescovili’, in G. Rossetti (ed.), Forme di potere e struttura sociale in Italia nel Medioevo (Bologna, 1977), pp. 83–111. ‘Le strutture organizzative della cura d’anime nelle campagne dell’Italia centrosettentrionale (secoli v–x)’, in Cristianizzazione ed organizzazione ecclesiastica delle campagne nell’alto medioevo: Espansione e resistenze: Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, xxviii, 2 vols. (Spoleto, 1982), ii, pp. 963–1162. W, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1957–79). W-P, B., From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Urban Public Building in Northern and Central Italy  300–850 (Oxford, 1984). W, C., ‘Pastoralism and Underdevelopment in the Early Middle Ages’, Spoleto: Settimane di studio, 31 (1983), pp. 401–55; repr. in id., Land and Power: Studies in Italian and European Social History, 400–1200 (London, 1994), pp. 121–54. ‘The Uniqueness of the East’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 12 (1985), pp. 166–96. ‘L’Italia e l’alto medioevo’, Archeologia medievale, 15 (1988), pp. 105–24. ‘La città altomedievale: Una nota sul dibattito in corso’, Archeologia medievale, 15 (1988), pp. 649–51. The Mountains and the City: The Tuscan Appennines in the Early Middle Ages (Oxford, 1988). ‘Rural Communes and the City of Lucca at the beginning of the Thirteenth Century’, in T. Dean and C. Wickham (eds.), City and Countryside in Late Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Essays Presented to Philip Jones (London, 1990), pp. 1–12. ‘Aspetti socio-economici della Valdinievole nei secoli xi e xii’, in A. Spicciani and C. Violante (eds.), Un santo laico dell’età postgregoriana: Allucio da Pescia (1070 c.a.–1134): Religione e società nei territori di Lucca e della Valdinievole (Rome, 1991), pp. 279–96. ‘Economia e società rurale nel territorio lucchese durante la seconda metà del secolo xi: Inquadramenti aristocratici e strutture signorili’, in A. Spicciani and C. Violante (eds.), Sant’Anselmo vescovo di Lucca (1073–1086) nel quadro delle trasformazioni sociali e della riforma ecclesiastica (Rome, 1992), pp. 391–422. ‘Considerazioni conclusive’, in R. Francovich and G. Noyé (eds.), La storia dell’alto medioevo italiano (vi–x secolo) alla luce dell’archeologia (Florence, 1994), pp. 741–59. Land and Power: Studies in Italian and European Social History, 400–1200 (London, 1994). ‘Ecclesiastical Dispute and Lay Community: Figline Valdarno in the Twelfth Century’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome: Moyen âge, 108 (1996), pp. 7–93. ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’, in G. Dilcher and C. Violante (eds.), Strutture e trasformazioni della signoria rurale nei secc. x–xiii (Bologna, 1996), pp. 343–409. Community and Clientele in Twelfth-Century Tuscany: The Origins of the Rural Commune in the Plain of Lucca (Oxford, 1998). Courts and Conflict in Twelfth-Century Tuscany (Oxford, 2003).

228

Bibliography

W, C., Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800 (Oxford, 2005). Z, M., Lucca Etrusca: Abitati, necropoli, luoghi di culto (Lucca, 1999). Z, A., ‘The ‘‘Material Constitution’’ of the Florentine Dominion’, in W. J. Connell and A. Zorzi (eds.), Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 6–31.

Index Abruzzi, the 183 n. 92 Adalberto I, duke of Tuscany 8, 30 Adalberto II, duke of Tuscany 8 Aeneas 2 Afferre, Bendino, podestà of Sorico 73 n. 131 Agathias, Roman writer 5 Agazano 185 Agliano 196 Attolino di Guglielmo of 126 n. 35 Agnano 17 Agnino, Giovanni di Matteo of 123 agriculture combined with artisanal and retail activity 174, 187–8 in the mountains communal pastures 182, 186 disputes over 185, 199 mixed cultivation 181, 187 peasant owner-cultivators 39, 181–2, 194 promiscuous agriculture of the mountains 187 silvo-pastoral economy 181–2, 195 control of animals 182, 186 shepherds and herders 186–7 transhumance 183–4, 185 on the plain absence of share-cropping 201 common lands and pasturage rights 190, 201 consolidated tributory farms 201 control of animals 182–3 peasant owner-cultivators 200–1 wage-labourers 201 Aiola 186 Giorgio di Francesco of 186 Albertini, Piero, Pisan living in Pietrasanta 109 Albiano 52 n. 12, 187, 196 Caterina, widow of Giovanni Guazelli of 187 nobles of Albiano and Pugliano 112 n. 171, 196 Bartolomeo and Nicolao di Lorenzo 187 Bartolomeo, ser Gabrielle, ser Giovanni, and Nicolao di Lorenzo 196 n. 164 Lorenzo 196 n. 164 Aldipesci 52 n. 6 Alica 70 n. 106

Allovisino (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 Alperto (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 Altopascio 36 Anchiano 71 n. 114, 95 n. 79, 114, 135–6, 184, 185 n. 101 citizen landholding in 113 n. 181, 178 lords of 43 podesterìa of 54 Antonio di Iacopo of 185 n. 101 Biagio di Nicolao of 179 Giovanni di Bartolomeo of 185 n. 101 Guaspare di Stefano of 185 n. 101 Michele, German weaver living in 179 Piero di Lorenzo of 185 n. 101 Annio of Viterbo 2 Ansano 95 n. 79, 198 Anselmo II, Bishop 21, 34, 36 Antelminelli (degli) 49, 92, 93, 94, 95, 102, 112–13, 122, 142, 173 n. 22 Alderigo di Franceschino 90 n. 41, 93 n. 63, 96 n. 80, 110, 122 Chello, podestà of Diecimo 96 Chello di Alessio 102 Uberto, podestà of Segromigno 66, 67 Valloro 103 see also Bovi, Castracani, Mugia, Saggina, Savarigi degli Antelminelli Antonia 154 n. 60, 159 Antonio (Mark Antony) 5 n. 20 Antonio di Giovanni da Gallicano, canon of cathedral 99 n. 107 see also Bertini Appennino Modenese 183 Apulia 183 n. 92 Aquilata 85 Aquilea (Aquila) 53 n. 13, 78 Aquilea (Moriano) 34, 61, 67 n. 91, 68 n. 97, 81, 151 Belenato del fu Broccardo of 65 n. 78 Aramo 190 Ardengheschi 37 n. 61 conte Ardengo degli 23 conte Gualfredo degli 23 Arezzo 14 n. 72, 28 n. 8, 31, 58, 97, 167 Argentiera di Versilia 112 Argigliano 155, 187 Ariana (today Riana) 71 n. 114, 127 n. 42, 154 n. 60 Arians 14

230

Index

Ariosto, Ludovico 146, 199 Ariulfo (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 Arliano 162 n. 106 piviere of 52 n. 5, 68 n. 94, 104–6, 108 n. 150, 129–30, 131, 132, 133, 195 n. 157 Santa Maria of Canabbia, hospital of 105 Arlotti, ser Giovanni di Nicolao, notary 89, 91, 159 n. 87 Arnoldo, domino, Pisan capitano of Pietrasanta 108 Arnolfo (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 artisans and retailers in the countryside 100, 116, 155, 158, 171–6, 179–80, 194 lack of specialization 178, 187–8 Libri memorie 155, 171–2, 175, 177 bakers 173, 178 barbers 180 n. 66 blacksmiths 173, 187, 188 brick-making 179 butchers 173, 178, 185, 188 carpenters 172 cerdoni 173 fullers 172, 190 garment-makers and menders 187 hosiers 187 innkeepers 172, 173, 180, 187 leather-workers 178, 190 metalworkers 172, 173 millers 171, 172 of chestnut flour 187 roofers 172 shoemakers 172, 178, 187 smiths 173–4, 175 n. 32, 178, 179, 180 tailors 172, 173, 178, 180 tanners 187, 190 vintners 178, 185 woodworkers 173 see also silk spinning and manufacture; sword-making; weavers; woollen manufacture Artomone, Trojan 2, 9 Ascheri, Mario 59 Asciano 17, 53 Augenti, Andrea 30 Aulla 30 Avane 17 Avenza 128, 133, 136 Avvocati family 93 imperial privileges of 34 n. 47, 67 n. 90, 93, 103 Nicolao di Dino 103 Bacciano 71 n. 114 lords of 29 n. 13

Baebius, consul 4 Balbani family 102 n. 123 Balbano 52 Barbagialle, Aldebrandinus, podestà of Sesto a Moriano and Aquilea 67 n. 91, 68 n. 97 Barga 29 n. 13, 54, 56, 71, 73, 74, 77, 86, 88, 127, 134, 144, 166, 184, 191, 193 capitano of 75 n. 140 emigration to Gallicano from 91, 196 episcopal visitations of 200 pastures of 185 statute of 1360 166 vicariate of 52, 53, 54, 76, 87 n. 28, 88, 89, 110 n. 159 Berrettini of 49 ser Berrectino 91 n. 49 Cristoforo di Giovanni of 127 Molino di Bonaventura of 91 ser Salvo, notary of 91 n. 49 Bargecchia 127 n. 42 Bargiglio 94 n. 70, 96 n. 80 Bartholomei, Cialupo 102 Bene, domino, canon of Lucca 63 n. 72 Benedetto, Bishop 22 Benenati, Ghirardinus qd. Oddi, podestà of Sesto a Moriano 67 n. 91 Berengar I 24 n. 143, 28 Berengo, Marino 120, 149, 180 Bergamo, 165 n. 128 Bergiola, commune of 137 n. 99, 161 n. 102, 187 Pietro Calandri of 137 n. 99 Bernardino de Magredo 153 n. 57 Berprando (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 Bertini, Domenico, of Gallicano 168 n. 148 Bettone di Balordo of Villora/Colle di Compito 60 n. 49 Bianchi, Nicolao del fu Turino 137 Bientina 9, 19, 52, 54, 80, 88, 188, 189 marshes of 16 n. 83, 33 podesterìa of 54 n. 20 bishop of Lucca and the commune of Lucca 19 n. 110, 32, 34, 35, 36–7, 41, 55, 61, 69–70, 79, 96–7, 152 court of 151–2 and diocesan aristocracy 24, 31, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43, 69 n. 105 ecclesiastical vicariates 76 episcopal visitations 200 family origins of 32 landed possessions of 22–4, 31, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 77 provenance of Lombard 13 Milanese 23

Index temporal jurisdiction of 19–22, 24, 30, 34–6, 61, 67, 70, 71–2, 77, 79, 80–1, 96–7, 142, 151 see also Diecimo, Moriano, Sala Bismantova 183 Bizzari, Gucciarello, podestà of Coreglia 113 Boccella, Alessandro 1 n. 4 Bocchi, Francesca 15 Boellio, Ciomeo di Puccino de 114 Bolcioni, domino Giovanni, Pisan capitano of Pietrasanta 108 Bologna 167 n. 138 Bartolomeo de Connis of 153 n. 57 Bolognana 127 n. 42 Bonaccorso da Padule 75 n. 141 Bonagiunta, judge 76 n. 145 Bongi, Salvatore 136 Bonifacio I, duke of Lucca 8 Bonifacio II, duke of Lucca 8 Borgo a Buggiano 48 silk imports to 176 Borgo a Mozzano 95 n. 79, 113, 115, 116, 138, 195 artisanal activities in 172 customs records of 175, 176, 183 n. 93, 191–2 fairs of 194 podesterìa of 54 Antonio di Cristoforo of 134–5 Borgonuovo 141 n. 124 Bori 95 n. 79 Boveglio 72 n. 121, 190 woollen manufacture in 177 Bovi degli Antelminelli 102 Guglielmo del fu Galvano, rector of S. Stefano, Tassignano 103 Lemmo del fu d. Ruberto 102 Lodovico del fu Galvano 103 Bozzano 20 prete Angelo di Berto of nobles of 114 n. 183 Soffreduccio da 78 n. 164 Braccio da Montone 127 n. 41, 141 n. 127 Braccio di Giovanni of Pistoia 98 Brancoli 71 n. 114, 175, 184 piviere of 52 n. 5, 67 n. 91, 96 n. 84, 110, 128 n. 46 Brescia 164 Brucciano 110 n. 159, 116, 127 n. 42 Brugnadi, Arduino dei, capitano di guerra 88 Buggiano 19, 42, 76 n. 142, 90 n. 45 da Buggiano 40, 41 podestà of 73 Buliano (Bugnano) 71 n. 114, 95 n. 79 Buonvisi family 122 Busdagno 62 n. 62

231

Buti 53, 54, 188 Byzantines 10, 11, 13, 15, 74 Cadolingi 15, 34, 37, 38, 41, 73 Caesar, Julius 5 Calandrini, Filippo 177 n. 48 Calavorno 95 n. 79, 146 Calci 188 Calomini 116, 127 n. 42, 173 Camaiore 29 n. 13, 74, 78, 90 n. 43, 91 n. 51, 122 n. 10, 123, 159, 186, 200 abbey of 79 artisanal and commercial activity in 116, 172, 178, 192 Camaioresi holding Lucchese citizenship 178 citizen landholding in 178 commune of 117, 140, 148 n. 29, 156, 160, 172, 194, 198 n. 177 statutes of 117, 118, 165, 196–7 marina of 193 n. 141 and the Guinigi 121, 125, 140, 148 n. 29 and the restored republic 125, 148 n. 29 conflict with Pietrasanta 125 vicariate of 52, 53, 54, 55 n. 25, 59, 74, 80, 88, 96, 110, 117, 133, 138, 146 n. 18, 147 n. 27, 153, 156, 171, 192 and cathedral chapter 152 fines Campomaiore 74 movement of animals through 184 Francesco Perucci, linen weaver of 178 n. 58 Gangalandi company of 174 n. 27 Iacopo Pierucci of 185–6 Lotto di Antonio of 123 n. 13 Marco di Giovanni Nelli (Malugelli) of 125 Nicolao del fu Cardino of 152 n. 49 Camaldoli 24 Camigliano 101 n. 118, 106 n. 140, 106 n. 141 Campo 189 Camporgiano (Camporeggiana) 19, 52 n. 8, 91, 127, 155, 184, 187 n. 112 Guelf identity of 121 vicariate of 53, 54, 76, 87 n. 25, 88, 92–3, 95, 96, 113, 121, 126 n. 35, 127, 133, 136, 145, 146 n. 18, 153, 154 n. 61, 156 and the Antelminelli 94 n. 70, 122 under Florentine rule 134 Guinigi supporters in 121 supply of grain to Lucca from 146 n. 16, 180 Campori 76 n. 147 Camugliano, Bonfiglio de 23 Cannavecchie, domino Bacciomo 111 n. 166 Capannoli 35, 38 n. 63

232

Index

Capannori 32, 52, 99 n. 104, 99 n. 107, 131–2, 161 n. 102, 182–3, 189 Angiolo Piovani of, fabbro 100 n. 108 ser Iacopo di Lotto da 99 Cardoso 127 n. 42, 135, 147 n. 24 Lorenzo di Giano of 123 Careggine, lords of 29 n. 13 Carignano 62 n. 62 Carraia (Sei Miglia) 99 n. 104, 99 n. 107, 201 n. 189 Carraia (Val di Serchio) 71 n. 114 Carrara 53, 77 n. 152, 85 n. 13, 126, 133, 141 vicariate of 126–7, 133 Castruccio of 126 Carsciana 135 Casabasciana 71 n. 114, 158 n. 81, 200 ser Michele Cechi of 160 Casalmaggiore (Cremona) 165 Casarola 183 Bertolo Armannini of 183 Casatico 71 n. 114, 195 n. 157 Cascio 90 n. 41, 110 n. 159, 127 n. 42, 173 podesterìa of 53, 54 caseari 179 Casoli oltre Giogo (Casola in Lunigiana) 155, 187, 196 podestà and podesterìa of 126, 128 n. 44, 133, 136–7, 145, 154 Antonio di Giovanni, tanner of 187 Gianello Guassi of 137 n. 96 Ginolo Guassi, consul of 137 n. 96 Iacopo di Landino, alias Bucha, of 126 Casoli e Novelli (Casola and Novelli in Lunigiana) 52 n. 12 Casoli (Casuli) in Valdilima 71 ser Donato of 160 Michele di Giovanni of 185 n. 100 Castagnacci, Gualtierotto 75 Castagnola 140 n. 124 Castagnori 17, 32, 33 Castel Passerino 78, 85 Castelfranco 37, 85 n. 15, 184 castelli and incastellamento 23, 24, 27, 28, 30–7, 39–40, 46, 47, 48 n. 116, 50, 52, 69, 107 n. 148 and bishop of Lucca 32, 34, 36 Castello, pieve of (Piazza al Serchio) 15 n. 78 Castello, nobles of 94 n. 69 Castello Aghinolfi 18, 29 n. 13, 78, 93 n. 63 Castelnuovo di Garfagnana 11, 47, 94 n. 70, 175 n. 34 under the Este 127 n. 42, 152 n. 45, 161 n. 102 fines Castronovo 74 podestà of 136, 138 trade through 176, 191, 193 fairs of 194

Baldassare di Antonio Attolini of 173 Castelnuovo and Castiglione, vicariate of 52 Castelnuovo in Lunigiana (Castelnuovo di Magra) 128 Castelnuovo di Sesto 33 Castelvecchio di Compito (di Sesto) 33, 64 n. 75, 64 n. 77, 66, 189 Castelvecchio (Garfagnana) 71 n. 117 podestà of 136 Castiglioncello (Castiglione sul Serchio) 53, 78 Giovanni di Coluccino of 131 n. 60 Castiglione 29 n. 13, 39, 71, 72, 121, 123–4, 127, 138 n. 108, 139–40, 157, 160, 172, 194, 196, 200 and the Antelminelli 90 n. 41, 94 n. 70, 122 artisanal activity in 116, 172 capitano of 74, 75 n. 140 Ghibelline identity of 121, 123 statutes of 117, 118, 139–40, 154 n. 59, 162 n. 105, 165 vicariate of 53, 54, 55–6, 76, 87 n. 25, 88, 92, 94 n. 70, 95, 124, 126 n. 35, 127, 133, 134, 138 n. 107, 139, 144, 145, 146, 153, 156, 191 communes of 159 n. 91 pasturing in 182 n. 85, 184, 185, 199 n. 179 silk from 176 ser Dino di Dino di Giovanni of 160 ser Guglielmo called Lemmo of 159 n. 91 ser Iacopo di Bertolino da 121 Pace del fu ser Gualtrone of 156 n. 65 Castiglione, ser Giovanni da, podestà of Casoli oltre Giogo 136–7 Castracani degli Antelminelli 102, 173 n. 22 Castruccio 48, 82, 88, 89, 93, 95, 96–7, 113 n. 180, 118, n. 205 lord of Lucca 83, 85 duke of Lucca, Pistoia, Volterra, and Luni 83 conquests of 85–6, 116 death of 42, 83, 84, 86 sons and grandsons of 83, 92, 93 n. 63, 94, 96, 112 Arrigo di Castruccio 93 n. 63 Giovanni di Vallerano 112 Orlando di Arrigo 112 Vallerano di Castruccio 93 n. 63, 112 Dialta, daughter of 112 Pina, widow of 112 Ciuccio di Puccino 92, 114 Francesco 86 imperial vicar 83 lord of Coreglia 87, 95–6, 113–14, 115 sons of 94 n. 70, 114–15 Andrea 96, 115 Giovanni 115

Index Iacopo 96, 114, 115 Nicolao 115 Tobia, widow of 114–15 cathedral chapter of Lucca 24, 55, 99 n. 107 podestà of 150–1, 152 signorie of 54, 61, 63, 79, 80–1, 96–7, 142, 150–2 Cattani, ser Banduccio de’ 157 n. 73 Catulo, descendant of Artomone 2 Catulo 2 n. 7 Cecina 22 Cella-Baroti, lords of 29 n. 13 Cenami, Giusfredo 160 n. 99 Cerageto 90 n. 41, 127 Cerbaia 37, 93 Cerbaria 54 n. 20 Ceretulo 95 n. 79 Cerlotti 50 n. 123 Cerretello d’Oltr’Arno 52 n. 10, 54, 70 n. 106 podesterìa of 54 n. 20 Cerreto 95 n. 79, 115 n. 190 Cerruglio 87 n. 27, 87 n. 29, 89 n. 34 Cesare (names) 199 Ceserana (Ciserana) 29 n. 13, 71, 74, 124 n. 21, 127, 161 n. 102, 186 capitano of 75 n. 140 Bartolomeo di Martino of 125 Giovanni alias Bucharino Buche of 124 Matteo di Martino of 125 Cevoli 70 n. 106 Charlemagne 13, 28 Charles the Bald 13 Charles IV, Emperor (son of King John of Bohemia) 83, 84, 88, 93–4, 96, 97 n. 93, 103, 110, 111, 113, 114 n. 187, 115, 127 Cherubini, Giovanni 195 chestnut woods 182 n. 85, 194 n. 148 and iron-manufacture 176 Chifenti 95 n. 79 Chittolini, Giorgio 35 chronicle traditions 1–3, 4, 44, 168 Ciabatto, ser 63 n. 71 Cianelli, Antonio 27, 28, 92, 96 Cicero (names) 199 Ciciana 54, 67 n. 90 Cigoli 85 n. 15 Cintoia 52 n. 11 citizens in the contado investment in local manufacture of 174, 176–7, 178, 179–80 landholding of 39–40, 59–60, 63, 69, 100, 102–3, 112, 113 n. 181, 122, 129, 130, 178–9, 182 livestock of 185 n. 101 privileges of 79, 162, 164, 171, 172, 173, 176–7, 180

233

and the retarding of economic growth 170–1, 181 n. 76 Città di Tre Castelli (Lucca) 2 Civitale, Giuseppe, chronicler 1, 2, 9, 128, 140, 200 Cluny 24 Cohn, Samuel 91, 94, 193, 195, 198, 199 Colcarelli 35, 69 Coldipozzo 34, 67 n. 90, 93, 103 n. 130 Colle Bertingo 95 n. 79 Colle di Compito 189 Colle Valdelsa 168 n. 148 Colleoli (Collegoli) 52 n. 10, 70 Collesalvetti 19 Collodi 41 n. 76, 79 n. 172, 87 n. 27, 87 n. 29, 97, 147, 178 n. 57, 190, 191 podestà of 132, 136, 138 n. 106 Colognora di Compito 102, 141 n. 124 Colognora (di Coreglia) 95 n. 79, 115 n. 190 Colognora (di Valdilima) 190 charcoal from 176 n. 42 woollen manufacture in 177 Comano (Lunigiana) 183 comital families 27–31, 46 commerce, regional and inter-regional 188–93 communication networks 15, 25–6, 33, 35, 37, 40, 43, 80, 193 maintenance of road system 181 mule tracks 191–2 valley of the Serchio 17, 34 water-borne with Pisa 188–9, 191, 193 compagnie di ventura 84, 85, 126, 127 Compiano 183 Compignano 105 n. 135 Compito 33, 62 n. 64, 98–9 economic links with Pisan territory 188–9 gabella of 100 n. 108, 188–9 pievano of 66 piviere of 52, 54, 66, 67 n. 91, 131, 132 podestà of Valle di Compito 189 consorterie 65, 72, 73 contado, ‘reconquest’ of 27–30, 38–9, 44, 45 Controne 43, 71 n. 114, 157, 159, 160 n. 99, 161 n. 101, 172 n. 19, 200 fines Contronenses 43, 74 podestà of 136 cappella S. Cassiano 157 n. 70 cappella S. Gimignano 157 n. 70 ser Simone Nuti of 159 Convalle 71 n. 114, 95 n. 79, 113 Coraggine 71 n. 114 Corbolani, the 50 Coreglia 71, 74, 86, 90, 91, 95, 115 n. 190, 127, 175 n. 34, 184 capitano of 75 n. 140 and Francesco Castracani 87, 95–6, 113–15

234

Index

Coreglia (cont.) podestà of 113, 136, 138 vicariate of 52, 54, 76, 87 n. 28, 88, 95, 114–15, 116, 118, 133, 135, 138, 149, 155 n. 64, 156, 171, 175, 179, 191, 194, 198 communes of 114–15, 198 Guinigi supporters in 121 pasturage in 183, 185 n. 101 silk from 176 supply of grain to the city 180 transhumance through 183, 184, 192 as zone of passage 191–2 Simone di Piero Stefanelli of 185 Corfigliano, see Gorfigliano Corfino 71 n. 114, 127 n. 42 Cornelius, consul 4 Corneto 11 n. 53 Corradi, ser Antonio di Bartolomeo 128 n. 46 Corsagna 95 n. 79, 116 n. 193, 135–6, 161 n. 103, 162 n. 107, 182 n. 84, 190 n. 127, 191 Panello Bertacche of 175 n. 34 Corsanico 193 n. 141 Bartolomea, linen weaver from 178 n. 58 Corsena (Bagni di Lucca) 43, 157 n. 73, 159, 191, 197 tavern-keepers of 172 podestà of baths of 157 Corsica 8 Cortese, Maria Elena 32 Cortona, Pietro Cacciaguerra de 153 n. 57 Corvaia 18, 72, 78 lords of 18, 29 n. 13, 69, 72 Cotone 78 Rocca of 53 n. 13 Cotrosso (Cotrozzo) 96 n. 84, 110 Council of Chalcedon 12 Cozzile 41 n. 77, 42 n. 83 Crasciana 156 n. 67, 197–8 parlamento of 197 podesterìa of 54 n. 20 Antonio Marcucci of 197 Bartolomeo Nantini of 197 Gratiano Curradini of 197 Crassus 5 Cremona 165 Iacobus quondam Andreoli de Cella of 188 n. 116 Cristiano, iudex, consul of S. Maria a Monte 36 Cristofani, Pagano 83 Cristoforo da Lavello 127 n. 41 Cune (Cuna) 71 n. 114, 95 n. 79, 161 n. 103, 161 n. 104, 182 n. 83, 198 Antonio Mei of 198

Domenico Balbani of 187 Cutigliano 190, 191 D’Appiano, Gherardo 58 n. 39 Iacopo 127 n. 36 d’Avellano, ser Martino, podestà of lands of chapter 96 Dalli (Dallo) Martino di Duccio of 195 n. 157 nobles of 47, 71, 94, 112 n. 171, 122 danno dato 118 n. 204, 130, 131, 137, 138, 150, 155 n. 63, 158, 161 n. 102, 162 Dardagna 34 Dati, Piero di Bettino 157 n. 73 De Stefani, Carlo 71, 202 De Vergottini, Giovanni 15 Deccio 140, 141 n. 124 dei Reali, Simone di Filippo, of Pistoia 83 n. 6 Del Gelso, Gherardo del fu Bettinello 102 n. 124 Del Veglio 50 n. 123 della Faggiuola, Uguccione 42, 82, 84, 85, 86, 90, 93 Francesco, son of 82 Ranieri, son of 82 n. 3 della Scala, Alberto, of Verona 87 n. 27 Mastino 83, 86, 87 n. 27, 95 Desiderio (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 Dezza 95 n. 79 di Poggio 95, 102 n. 123 lords of Sorico 73 n. 131, 112–13 Giovanni 96 n. 85 Nicolao di Vanni Porco 96, 110 Diecimo 52, 66, 70, 71 n. 114, 81, 96, 116, 117, 151, 152, 184, 191 n. 133 gabelle and pedaggi 80 n. 184 Diocletian, Emperor 10 Disfaciato, podestà of Fucecchio 73 Domaschi, ser Iacopo di Nicolao 108 Domazzano 71 n. 114 Dombellinghi, Neri de’ 146 n. 18 Eglio 127 n. 42 Elba, iron from 25, 173, 175 Empoli, Antonio di Nicolao, alias Astor, of 127 n. 41 Enea (early founder of Lucca) 2 Enrico di Sigefredo 17 see also Leoni Enzo, illegitimate son of Frederick II 75 Epstein, Stephan 170 Este 145, 146 and fairs of Castelnuovo 194 territories of 191 Niccolò d’, Marchese of Ferrara 127, 144, 194 n. 146

Index estimi 98, 106, 107 n. 144, 133, 140, 146 n. 16, 147, 156, 159, 201 Etruscans 4 Everardo di Eichstädt, castellano 75–6 exiles 18, 48, 78, 85, 90, 91–2, 94, 124 n. 17, 125, 127, 179 Fabbrica (le Fabbriche) 127 n. 42 pieve of 68 n. 95 Fabia tribe 5 Fagnano 106, 108, 161 n. 103 Falabrina, Santo Castracani dei 95 Falconi, Giovanni di Ventura, podestà of Compito 67 n. 91 famine 84, 85, 91, 97, 140 Farneta 54 n. 20, 105 n. 135 Farnocchia 78 Ferrara 127, 146, 152 n. 45, 163 Duchy of Ferrara and Modena 192 ‘feudalism’ 23–4, 28–9, 59, 69 n. 104 Fiattone 110 n. 159, 127 n. 42, 173, 194 n. 152 female weavers in 173 Fibbialla (de’ canonici) 63, 79 n. 172, 96, 150, 190 Lexio di Giovanni alias Riccio of 150 Sanctuccia, wife of Lexio 151 n. 40 Fibbialla (Valdriana) 136, 190 Fibbiana di Monsagrati 161 n. 102 Fieschi, the 122 Fiesole 3, 8 diocese of 57 n. 34 Fiesso, piviere of 52, 84 Figline (Florence) 61 n. 60 Filettone 53 Filippo da Puteo, domino (Sicilian) 126 Fiorentini, Francesco Maria 1 fiscal exactions 46, 90, 91, 101, 106–7, 125–6, 140, 145, 146–50, 152, 160, 193 and migration 91, 196 Fiumalbo 183, 185 Fivizzano 153 n. 53 podesterìa of 53 Niccolò, Marchese of 128 Florence 3, 8, 19, 31, 36, 57–8, 93, 123, 124, 142, 145, 184 attacks on Lucchese territory by 84, 86–8 after 1429 144, 147 chroniclers of 36 n. 56 influences on Lucca by 120, 138 and market integration 170 and rural manufacture 171, 181 negotiations in 1329 for purchase of Lucca by 83 purchase of Camporgiano in 1341 by 95 trade with 175, 191

235

exiles from, and Lucchese woollen manufacture 179 Florentine state 36, 38, 41, 42–3, 48–9, 90 n. 45, 91, 94, 97, 115–16, 145, 146, 163, 167, 195 citizen investment in 103 comparisons with Lucca 31, 56–8, 93, 163, 165–7, 168, 201, 203 and the Malaspina 122, 152 governance of Nove Conservatori della Giurisdizione e del Dominio fiorentino 166 Otto di guardia 166 Foce di Petrosciana 192 n. 134 Foce delle Porchette 192 n. 134 Fontanaluccia 185 Forchini, Nicolao 124 n. 19 Forcoli 35, 70 n. 106 Formentale 105 n. 135 Fornoli 95 n. 79, 116 n. 193 Fornovolasco 127 n. 42, 192 n. 134 iron-workers of 195 Fortebraccio, Niccolò 127, 144 Forteguerra family 95, 112, 121 Bartolomeo di Vanni 113 n. 181, 119 n. 211 Vanni di Iacopo 96, 110, 113 n. 181 Fosciana (Pieve Fosciana) 29 n. 13, 71, 127 n. 42, 200 n. 185 Fosdinovo 53 podesterìa of 53, 54 Marchese Antonio Alberico Malaspina of 128 n. 44 foundation myths Fiesole 3 Florence 3 Venice 3–4 see also chronicle traditions Fragniano (Frignano?) 155 Francesco IV, Duke 187 n. 112 Francigena, via 6, 37 Franciscans, Observant 200 Frederick I, Emperor 18, 21, 29, 34 n. 47, 42, 45, 47–8, 61 n. 55, 70 n. 108, 75, 77 Frederick II, Emperor 18, 19, 23 n. 141, 29, 35, 37, 42, 48, 75, 76 n. 143, 76 n. 145, 77, 91 Frederick III, Emperor 83 Frescobaldi family (Florentine) 103 n. 128 Frignano, podestà of 136 Fucecchio 19, 34, 37, 38, 55 n. 24, 73, 78, 85 n. 15, 86, 184 n. 95 imperial vicar of 37 Lucchese vicar of 76 n. 145 podestà of 73 Funso, Gothic comes civitatis 5 n. 22

236

Index

gabelle 125–6, 145, 147–9, 152, 174–5, 176, 177, 178, 180, 183, 184, 185, 188–93, 194 see also salt tax Galleno di Valdarno 54 n. 20 Galleno di Pietrasanta 78, 135, 162 n. 107 Galli, Gerardo, vicar general of Garfagnana 89 n. 34 Gallia Cisalpina 10, 25 Gallicano 53 n. 17, 74, 87, 89, 90–1, 92, 116, 127 n. 42, 144, 145, 147 n. 23, 160, 165, 172, 173, 185, 192 n. 134, 194 artisanal activity in 116, 172, 173, 179, 187–8 iron-working in 173–4, 181, 188, 192 n. 135 manufacture of nails 174, 188, 192 lack of urban investment in 179, 182 vicariate of 76, 88, 89, 90–1, 116, 127, 133, 135, 139, 144, 147 n. 24, 154, 155, 156, 171 n. 11, 179, 191, 192, 195 communes of 127 n. 42, 180 under Pisan rule 110, 114 n. 187 Guinigi supporters in 121 recovered by Lucca (1450) 144, 173, 192 iron deposits within 173, 175 iron-working in 173, 179, 195 pasturage in 183 and trade in grain 180, 192 Amadeo di Giovanni of 174 Antonio Bertoni of 194 n. 149 Antonio di Giovanni da Barigasso, maestro, of 174 Barghetta di Andrea of Barga, resident in 194 n. 149 Battista Fiore of 188 n. 113 Bertachino di Leonardo of 174 Chele Bartolomei of 192, 197 Cola di Pellegrino of 174, 188, 192 Filippo di Piero Colucci of 174 Frediano di Nicolao Masini of 174 Giovanni di Antonio of 174 Giovanni Bertolini of 192 Giovanni Turignoli (called Zappetta) da Barga, resident in 192 n. 135 Iacopo Dini of 174, 188 Iacopo di Martino of 174 Nicolao di Michele di Nicolao Masini of 174 Paolo di Iacopo Dini of 174 Simone di Bartolomeo of 174, 188 Simone Dini of 174, 192 Tommaso Bartolomei of 188 Toto Moni of 174

Gallo, del 33 Gangalandi company (Camaiore) 174 n. 27 Garfagnana 9, 15, 38–40, 70 n. 111, 86, 87, 89, 123, 127, 144, 145–6, 147 n. 23, 157, 181, 185, 193 constitutions of 55–6, 77, 118–19 fines Carfanienses 74 fortresses in 80, 94 imperial vicar of 48, 75 iron from 173 n. 27, 175 market integration of 39, 181, 188, 193 and fairs of Castelnuovo 194 nobility of 18–19, 27, 29 n. 13, 38–40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 69 n. 103, 72, 94, 121 Observant Franciscans in 200 pastures of 184, 186 disputes over 185 peasantry of 39, 181 population movement within 195 private feuds in 126 province of 72, 75, 76, 77, 89, 114 n. 187 rebellions in 47, 125 rural communes in 71, 77 silvo-pastoral economy of 181 support for Guinigi in 123–5 and urban culture 181–2, 199–200 vicariate of 76 a Perpore infra 76 a Perpore supra 76 wool from 193 n. 142 wolves in 105 n. 139, 182 Garfagnana Estense 195–6, 199 Garsipione, rebellion of, against Rome 2 Garzoni of Pescia 93 Gazzano, Lando di Francesco of 134 Gello 78, 95 n. 79, 115 n. 190, 175 n. 34, 198 and iron production 175, 179 fabbrica of Ayardus, Rynaldus (Ranaldo Benvenuti), and Pilatus 175 n. 34 Genoa 18 and Paolo Guinigi 128 n. 44 and Pietrasanta 125, 144, 145, 192, 193 shipyards of 193 Genoese Riviera 86 Geremia, Bishop 22 n. 137 Gerardo di ser Ugo, ser 153 n. 57 Gherardeschi family 35, 37 n. 61, 38 n. 63, 70 n. 111 Gherardesca, conte Ugolino della 17 n. 94 Guido I 35 n. 53 Gherardinghi family 46–7, 71 n. 117 Ghiandulfini, Francesca, daughter of ser Alderino 100 Ghibellines 38, 42, 48, 85, 90, 91–4, 121, 122–4, 127, 143, 198

Index Ghivizzano 29 n. 13, 71, 74, 78 n. 164, 90 n. 41, 95 n. 77, 95 n. 79, 113, 114, 115 n. 190, 139 n. 111, 198 capitano of 75 n. 140 da Ghivizzano, Tommaso 134 n. 78, 153 Gigli family 99 n. 107 ser Marchese 108 Nicolao 153 n. 57 Gignano di Brancoli 161 n. 101, 161 n. 103 Giogo, oltre 52 Giovanni II, Bishop 35 n. 53 Giovanni di Paolo, nuncio of Lucca 151 n. 42 Gioviano 95 n. 79,115 n. 190 Gneo Domitio Calvino 3 n. 14 Gorfigliano 71 n. 114, 140 n. 124 Gragliana 127 n. 42 Gragnanella 127 n. 42 Gragnano in Garfagnana (Gragnana) 71 n. 114, 187 n. 112 lords of 29 n. 13 Gragnano (piviere of Segromigno) 84 n. 8, 102, 106 n. 140, 161 n. 102, 161 n. 103, 161 n. 104, 162 n. 108 Gragno 71 n. 114 Gragnola, Malaspina vicariate of 199 n. 180 Gramolazzo 90 n. 41, 144 n. 3, 161 n. 101 Iacopuccio of Ramulato (Gramolazzo?), and his daughter Fiore 126 n. 35 Granaiola (Granaiolo) 95 n. 79 grandi livellari 23, 39, 40, 43 Gregory I, Pope (the Great) 6 Gregory VII, Pope 37 Gregory IX, Pope 18 Gromignana 95 n. 79 Gualandi Andrea, Pisan vicar of Coreglia 114 Nicolao Buglia de’, Pisan vicar general 89 n. 34 Gualdo 54, 96, 150 Guelfs 38, 48, 51 n. 3, 59, 85, 91–4, 121, 122–4, 143, 198 Gugliano, Bartolomeo di Perotto of 130 n. 55 Guglielmo I, Bishop 23 Guglielmo, vicar of Garfagnana 76 Guido filio b.m. Bonaldi 32 Guinigi family 121, 185 n. 101 and the contado 121, 123–4, 139 Ghibelline identity of 121, 123 and Pisan exiles 124 n. 17 Bartolomeo di Francesco 121 Ladislao di Paolo 123, 125, 139 n. 111, 144, 148 n. 29 Lazzaro di Francesco 121 Nicolao di Lazzaro, vicar of Pietrasanta 108, 109 Nicolao di Lazzaro di Francesco 124

237

Paolo di Francesco 120, 152 n. 48, 159, 160, 178, 197 appeals to 134, 139 catasto of 140 criminal bands in contado under 127–8 crisis of contado under 140–1, 143, 147 n. 24 fall of 144 and the governance of the Sei Miglia 128–30, 131–3, 143, 202 and the governance of the vicariates 133–41, 143, 148 n. 29, 153, 154, 155, 156, 202 landed inheritance of 142 as lord of Lucca 121, 127, 139, 141 and nature of princely rule 138–9, 141–2, 143 paternalism of 139 the period of 160, 178, 189, 191, 192 and Pietrasanta 162 and relations with bishop 142 and relations with nobility 141–2, 153 resistance to central authority under 125–6, 135–6 and security of the state 128, 140 stability of state under 126–7, 143 support in contado for 121, 123–5, 143 Salvatore 3 n. 11 Guiscardo da Pietrasanta 72, 78 n. 164 Gummarith (Gummarito) (Lombard duke) 7, 8 Guy of Boulogne, Cardinal-Bishop of Porto 84 Hannibalic War 4 Henry IV, Emperor 17, 21, 30, 31 Henry V, Emperor 28 n. 8 Henry VI, Emperor 21 n. 123, 32 n. 35, 37, 60 n. 50, 61 n. 55 Henry VII, Emperor 82, 85, 93, 95 Hohenstaufen 28–9, 94 Honesti, Giovanni di Dino 113 Honorius III, Pope 80 n. 183 Ildebrandino, consul of S. Maria a Monte 36 imperial interventions 18–19, 20, 21, 28–9, 35, 36–8, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47–8, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 82–4, 85, 91, 93–4, 95, 96, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 126, 127 Ingheramus de Montemagno 34 n. 47 Iova, Antonio 27 iron mining and manufacture 173, 179, 195 control by local men 173, 179 source of raw materials 173–5 Iusti, Guido, consul of Tassignano 64

238

Index

John, King, of Bohemia 83, 86, 88, 93–4, 95, 96, 110, 111, 113 Jones, Philip 168 Justinian, Emperor 5 La Spezia, Domenico Melchioni of, master of grammar in Camaiore 194 Ladislao, King of Naples 144 Lammari 98, 100, 101 n. 114, 106, 129, 161 n. 101, 161 n. 103, 162 n. 109 piviere of 52 n. 5, 66, 69 n. 103, 84, 98, 105 Lanfranchi (Lanfranchis) Bettino di d. Guiccho de’ 110 n. 160 domino Gano Chicoli de, vicar of Castiglione and Camporgiano 76 n. 148 Johannis qd. dni. Becti Chiccholo de 89 Lazzarini, Isabella 141 Leo Emilio 2 n. 7 Leoni, dei 32, 33, 34 Enrico II 33 Leone, Giudice 17 Leone II 33 Leone III 33 Rustico 33 Tinnioso 33 Leoni, Michele 122 Lepido (Lepidus) 5 n. 20 Levanto 86 Leverotti, Franca 68, 70, 128, 140 Ligonchio 183 Ligurians 4 Limano 19 livelli 22–4, 32, 37 Lizzano, capitanìa of 53, 54, 55 n. 25, 56 n. 29 Lombard laws and settlement 6 ‘Lombards’ 126 collecting chestnuts 194 n. 148 immigration into Lucchese state 91, 195 and iron production 174 n. 29 Lombardy 91, 191 iron from 174 n. 27 and movement of pigs 184 silk cocoons from 176 and princely rule 170 Lombrici, nobles of 112 Lorenzo da Aquilea, nuncio 151 n. 42 Louis II, Emperor 22 n. 137 Louis IV, the Bavarian, Emperor 83, 86, 93, 95, 112 Lucca archives of 5–6, 82 n. 3, 90, 108, 130 aristocracy/elite of 29, 31, 41, 43–4, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 61, 69, 73, 93–6, 111, 121–2

anti-magnate legislation 82, 93 aristocratic pretensions 168, 199 churches of 99 S. Maria Forisportam 99 n. 107 S. Martino (cathedral) 32–3, 99 n. 107 S. Reparata 66 n. 86 S. Salvatore 50 SS. Simone e Giuda 41, 46 courts of 101, 106, 107, 151 city courts and the Church 79–81, 142 court of the Podestà 101, 102, 128, 130, 131, 132, 142, 152 curia causarum (curia foretanorum, curia dei foretani) 45, 60, 101 curia dei danni dati 130, 161 n. 102 curia del fondaco 101, 180 curia della gabella 101 curia nuova di giustizia 101 curia dei ribelli 101 curia dei treguani 61 n. 57, 73, 81 n. 188 history of origins 1–4 Roman Lucca 4–5, 7 Ostrogothic Lucca 5 Lombard Lucca 5–6 Frankish Lucca 6 the early commune 22, 25, 30, 44–6 Lucca in 1308 51, 53 Lucca under many masters 82–3, 88, 89 Lucca under Pisan rule 83–4, 109–10, 113, 114 n. 187 Lucca and Charles IV 84, 88 the restored republic of 1369/70 84, 89, 121 Lucca after Paolo Guinigi 145 notaries in 99, 104 officials and governing councils of Anziani 80, 105, 109, 124, 130, 141, 146, 162 and export of victuals 180 n. 72 as imperial vicars 84 instructions to vicariates from 157 Avvocato della camera 134 Camarlingo Generale 148 camera (treasury) 63, 108 revenues from transhumance 183 revenues from customs 193 Capitano del contado 89, 125, 130, 131 n. 60, 132, 133, 145, 147 n. 28, 148, 149 Capitano del popolo 65, 80 Consiglio Generale (General Council) 141 petitions to 151 n. 41, 157, 168 n. 148 Consiglio Generale di S. Michele 53, 65 consuls (of early commune) 30, 45, 64 n. 75

Index Council of Thirty-Six 141 Esattore Maggiore 134 Gabella Maggiore 151, 157 Gonfaloniere di Giustizia 109, 130 Maggior Sindaco e Giudice degli Appelli 132 Podestà 34 n. 47, 45, 56, 65, 72, 76–7, 79, 80–1, 103 n. 130, 119 n. 212, 133–4, 136, 162 Sei Cittadini sopra le Entrate 146, 181 n. 78 popolo of 45–6, 49 società delle armi 45, 49 porte of S. Donato 8 S. Frediano 6 S. Pietro 6 S. Croce, feast of 51, 52, 53, 54, 72, 77, 148 n. 28, 153 silk merchants of 177, 179 statutes of 109, 110, 118–19, 134–5, 140, 150 n. 39, 151 n. 43, 162, 166 statute of 1308 9, 51–6, 57, 59, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 72, 73, 74, 76–81, 82, 87, 88, 131, 133, 141 statute of 1372 107, 119 n. 212, 135 suburbs of 171, 180 walls of 4, 5, 6, 7 Lucchese state (the vicariates) see also Sei Miglia building of 77–8 capitani and capitanìe 53–6, 59, 73, 74, 79, 108, 109 capitoli and compositions 56, 58, 90, 141, 145, 149, 150 n. 37 accomandigie 122, 152–3 comparisons with other Italian states 162–9 see also Florentine state criminal bands in 127–8, 199 ecclesiastical immunities within 79–81, 96–7, 150–2 history of Roman city-territory 8, 9–11, 14, 16, 25 Lombard duchy 7–8, 10–11, 13, 25, 74 Frankish county 8, 11–12, 13–14, 25 and Castruccio Castracani 85–6 after Castruccio 86–7 under Pisan rule 87–90, 92, 103 n. 130, 112, 113–15, 119 n. 212, 122, 133, 196, 202 and the republic restored in 1369/70 88, 90, 109–10, 133 and the republic restored in 1430 125, 145–6, 150, 190, 202 internal conflicts within 48, 90–4, 108, 123–4, 126, 135, 145, 165, 169 iudicarie of 74

239 nobles in incursions of 94, 122 landholdings of 39–40, 43, 46, 69, 112, 122 seigneurial justice 69, 71–2, 81, 93–4, 112–13, 122, 164 seigneurial power 28, 30, 31, 33–4, 36, 46, 69, 71, 73, 74, 78, 93, 94, 112–13, 121–2, 141–2, 196 notaries in 98, 156–60, 194, 200 podestà and podesterìe of 53–5, 65–6, 73, 74–5, 79, 88–9, 112–13, 136–8 population movement 195–6 quasi-città in 164, 194 rural communes in 43, 70–3, 80, 81, 92, 111, 116, 162 administrative unions of 140–1, 160 n. 99 complex social structures of 195 and court of vicariate 118, 159–60, 162 election of syndics and procurators by 159, 160 plots and rebellions against Lucchese rule in 44, 47, 122, 123–4, 125–6 self-sufficiency of 159–60, 194–5, 202 size of 171, 172 statutes of 116–18, 135, 139–40, 154 n. 59, 158, 160–1, 162, 165–6, 182, 186, 196, 197 territory of 8–20, 35, 37–8, 41–3, 51–5, 70, 75, 85–8, 97, 115–16, 126–7, 133, 143, 144–5, 185, 190 and the ecclesiastical diocese 10, 12–16, 19–20, 23–5, 34–5, 37 n. 62, 38, 42, 47, 55, 70, 113 as an economically functional region 188, 189 urban power over 34–5, 38–44, 46–7, 49, 50, 55–6, 58, 72, 74–5, 76–81, 97, 117, 119, 122, 124, 138–40, 143, 145–6, 155, 166, 181 centralization of 150, 160, 162, 181, 194, 202 economic controls and 188, 194, 202 resistance to 38, 41–2, 44, 46–7, 72, 124–6, 145–6, 197 and urban images of the countryside 199 vicariates of 53–6, 57, 59, 65, 69, 73–6, 77, 79–80, 81, 88–9, 92–3, 94–5, 97, 108–11, 116, 117, 118, 120, 128, 133–6, 138, 139–40, 142, 168 administration of 153–9, 162 conflicts within 156, 165 imperial grants of 110, 113 judges of 134 notaries of 156–9

240

Index

Lucchese state (the vicariates) (cont.) parlamenti of 154–6, 157–8, 160, 181 n. 75 privatization of 86, 95–6, 97, 113–15 supply of grain from 180, 192 grain shipments to 192 statutes and constitutions of 109, 110, 117, 118–19, 134–5, 140, 154, 162 taxes imposed on 146–7, 148–9, 150 n. 37, 155, 156 under Pisan rule 108–10, 113–15 views from the city 199 see also Guinigi; Sei Miglia Lucchese plain; see Sei Miglia Lucchio 90, 141, 157, 159, 190 n. 127 Lucignano 95 n. 79 Lucio Bibolo (noble Roman) 2 Lucio Celio (noble Roman) 2 Lucio Cornelio Scipione II 3 n. 14 Lucio Lucumone (priest-ruler) 2 n. 9 Lugliano (di Valdilima) 159, 161 n. 102 Lugnano (Lugliano) (di Coreglia) 95 n. 79, 116 n. 193, 171 Lunata 17, 189 pievano of 66 n. 86 piviere of 52, 66, 84, 99 Luni (Roman Luna) 5, 8, 10, 11 bishop of 77 diocese of 15, 20, 47, 70, 86 Lunigiana 46, 47 n. 108, 53, 69 n. 103, 71, 76, 85, 86, 87, 93, 94, 95, 121, 127 and Castruccio Castracani 86 iron from 173 united with Garfagnana and Versilia 75 vicariate of 53, 54 Lupardi, Iacopo, consul of Tassignano 64 Lupinaia 116, 127 n. 42, 154 n. 60, 173 Maggiano 105 n. 135, 195 n. 157 Magliano 156 Magnano 127 n. 42, 161 n. 102 Magra 10, 17, 51, 186 Malaspina 46, 85, 87, 122, 126, 133, 136, 152–3, 199 n. 180 Lucchese territory lost to 144 relations with Lucca 128 n. 44, 141–2 Azzo, marchese 94, n. 69 Azzolino 94 n. 70 Galeotto, marchese 126 n. 32 Leonardo, marchese 126 n. 32, 155 Nicolao 94 n. 70 Spinetta 86, 95, 113, 122 Malaspina of Fosdinovo Antonio Alberico 128 n. 44 Malaspina of Olivola Lucchino 152 Marco 152

Malaspina of Verrucola and Fivizzano Bartolomeo, marchese 153 Malaspina of Villafranca Fioramonte 153 Spineta del fu d. Federigo 112 n. 171 Tommaso 153 Malizardi, Brunetto 153 n. 57, 177 Mammoli 34 manentes 60 Manfredi, Guido 133 Manni, Nicolao di Martino 135 Mantua 141 manufacture in the countryside and urban capital 174, 176–7, 178, 179–80 organization of manufacturing processes 179 restrictions on 171, 180 see also artisans and retailers Maona, dei 41 March of Tuscany 8, 11, 30, 46 see also margraves of Tuscany Marche, the 167 Marco Quinto 2 n. 7 Maremma 7, 58 n. 39, 183, 184 margraves of Tuscany 20, 30, 31, 38 margraval land 39, 70 Marittima (Pisan), vicariate of 58 n. 39 Marlia 32, 41 n. 76, 62 n. 65 piviere of 52 n. 5, 67 n. 90, 84, 122 marriage pacts 126, 199 Marti 19 Masnerii, Lamberto 78 n. 164 Massa (Camporgiano) 127 n. 42 Massa (Lunigiana) 53, 85 n. 13, 86, 88, 92 n. 53, 111 n. 166, 154 n. 60, 159 vicariate of Massa del Marchese 53, 54, 55 n. 25 vicariate of Massa Lunense (or Lunese) 87, 88, 126, 133, 139, 146 n. 16, 154 n. 60, 155 n. 62 Guinigi supporters in 121 ser Arismino del fu dno. Cresciano of 159 Massa e Cozzile 41 n. 77, 42 n. 83 Massa Macinaia 61 n. 55 Massa Pisana 34, 141 n. 124 piviere of 52 n. 5 Massa Piscatoria, pieve of 15 n. 77 Massaciùccoli 16 n. 83, 53 n. 13, 107 n. 149 piviere of 52, 132 Massarosa 96, 150, 151, 152 n. 49 Nicolao di Guido, called Chierico, of 152 n. 49 Piero Poveri of 151 n. 43 Pietro di Bonello of 151 n. 41 Sancto di Giovanni of 151 n. 41 Matafelloni, Francesco de’ 118

Index Matilda of Canossa 8, 11 n. 53, 21, 30, 73 Matildine lands 48, 71 Matraia 54, 64 n. 77, 67 n. 90, 102 n. 119, 103, 107 Maulini, Nicolao 139 n. 109 Mauro, descendant of Artomone 2 Medici (Florentine) 57, 163 Medici, Giovanni de’ 146 Medicina 172, 190 artisans of 172 Medicina and Fibbialla, podestà of 136 Meek, Christine 185 Menabbio (Benabbio) 161 n. 101, 161 n. 104, 162 n. 107, 190 n. 127, 197 pastures of 185 n. 100 Lunardo di Andrea da 179 Mercati, Appollenario de’, judge of vicariate of Camaiore 110 mercers 179, 187 Mescosa 185 Messina 177 n. 48 Meyer, Andreas 98 Mezalombardi, Truffa 27, 29 n. 13 Migliano 159 ser Michele di ser Bonaiunta of 159 Milan 83, 91, 123 Duke of 144 Milanese state 163–5, 170 Milanese support for Antelminelli 122 mineral deposits 173, 179, 181 lease of 173 Minucciano 122, 126 n. 32, 133, 137 n. 99, 144, 145, 194, 196, 199 n. 180 vicariate of 196 Modena 38, 144, 194 n. 148, 196 borders with Lucca 185 Giovanni di Matteo ‘de Platea’ of 132 see also Este Molazzana 116, 127 n. 42, 147 n. 24 Moneta 133 moneylending 100, 137, 172 n. 20, 187, 197 Monsagrati, piviere of 52 n. 5, 101 Monsummano 42 n. 83, 78 n. 164, 85 n. 15, 92 Montaltissimo 127 n. 42 Montalto 35 n. 53, 37 n. 61 Monte di Castello 52 n. 10 Monte Cotrozzi 33 Monte di Gragno 185 Monte Pisano (Monti Pisani) 16 n. 83, 17, 33, 53, 54 torrents of 179 Montecalvoli 52 n. 11, 73 n. 129, 78, 85 n. 15, 88, 200 Montecarlo 117, 138, 144, 172, 177, 185 n. 100, 190

241

podesterìa of 138 vicar of 139 artisanal activity in 172 Piero of Cascina, smith, living in 175 n. 32 Montecassino 24 Montecastello 19, 70 n. 106 Montecatini 42, 48, 56 n. 28, 82 n. 3, 85 n. 15, 92 da Montecatini, the 41 n. 76 Montechiari (Montechiaro) 41, 87 n. 27, 190 n. 124 Montefalcone 52 n. 11 Montefegatesi 120 n. 213, 178 n. 57, 195 podestà of 136 Monteggiori 78 n. 164, 112–13, 142 podestà of 136, 142, 156 Bartolomeo di Nino of 112 Micuccio di Martino of 112 n. 172 Montemagno, lords of (Montemagnenses) 29 n. 13, 30, 34, 40, 45, 60 n. 54, 69, 112 Montevettolini 42 n. 83 Montignoso 93 n. 63, 144, 184 Montopoli 23, 52 n. 10, 85 n. 15 consuls of 23 Marco Vici of 109 n. 155 Montramito (Montegravanto or Montravanto) 18, 27 via di 146, 181 n. 78 Montuolo 52, 87 n. 29, 130 n. 55 Antonio di Giovanni, Pisan, resident in 130 n. 55 Nicolao Bianchini of 130 n. 55 Monzone (Lunigiana) podesterìa of 136 iron from 173 Mordecastelli (family) 49 Moroellus de Mordecastellis 153 n. 56 Moriano 34, 36, 61, 62, 65 n. 78, 67 n. 91, 81, 97 n. 90, 99, 129 Morovelli, ser Antonio 153 n. 56 Motrone (Garfagnana) 95 n. 79, 179 Motrone (Versilia) 18, 53, 85 n. 15, 109, 173 the Motrone 17 Mugello (Florentine) 57 n. 35 Mugia degli Antelminelli 102 Mugnano 101, 106, 201 n. 189 Piero Guidi of 106 Mursigliano, ser Iacobo del fu Francesco of 159 n. 91 Mutigliano 106 statute of 1345 104, 107 n. 144, 107 n. 149 Naples, Nicola Ianni of 186–7 Narses 5 Nicola 128 Novello, Guido 92 n. 53

242

Index

Nozzano 53, 67 n. 89, 78, 85, 104–5, 144 podestà of 131, 132 ser Michele di ser Nicolao da 105 n. 137 Nuccorini, ser Antonio 156–7, 159, 160 Ombreglio di Brancoli 126 n. 33 Landuccio di Landuccio of 126 n. 33 Onesti, Nicolao degli 139 Oneta 95 n. 79 Orbicciano 101 Orentano 54 n. 20 Orlandi, Betto de’, Pisan vicar of Gallicano 110 n. 160 Ortonuovo 127 Osheim, Duane 35 Ottaviano (Octavian/Augustus) 5 n. 20, 10 Otto I, Emperor 35 Otto II, Emperor 21, 61 n. 55, 70 n. 109 Otto IV, Emperor 18 Otto of Freising 27 Pacchi, Domenico 38 Padoli, Guglielmo da, marchese of Massa 48, 75 Padua 164 Paganello II, Bishop 41 n. 78 Paganico 62 n. 64, 63 n. 73, 64 n. 77, 98, 99 n. 104, 99 n. 107, 101, 102, 103, 106 n. 143, 107 n. 146, 108 n. 150, 129 n. 48, 201 n. 189 Balduccio Riccii, chamberlain of 108 n. 150 Ghino Bonfilii, consul of 64 n. 77 Guicciardo and Lamduino, consuls of 129 n. 48 Puccino Benassai, consul of 64 n. 77 pagi 14 Palaia (Compito) 188 Palaia (d’Oltr’Arno) 19, 32, 35, 52 n. 10, 70, 77 Pallavicini, marchese Oberto 75 Palleroso 90 n. 41, 126 n. 36, 127 Panfolia, giurisperto 75 Panicale 153 Paolino, S. 16 papal interventions 18–19, 43, 44, 47, 48, 70 n. 111, 71, 75 Parezzana 98, 99 n. 107, 100, 102 n. 124, 201 n. 189 Pariana 126 n. 32, 161 n. 102, 161 n. 103, 187, 190 woollen manufacture in 177 Parma 83, 191, 195 Partigliano 162 n. 109 Partilliano d’Oltr’Arno 52 n. 10 partnerships in soccidia 186 Pasciuti, Guido 96

Pedona 160 n. 99, 161 n. 103, 161 n. 104, 162 n. 109 Peleus 2 Peredeo, Bishop 19 Perignano 37 n. 61 Perpoli 110 n. 159, 118, 127 n. 42, 184 Perugia 167 Pescaglia 71 n. 114, 79 n. 175, 95 n. 79, 113, 114, 115 n. 190, 184, 192 Pescia 38, 42, 43, 48, 73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 86, 90 n. 45, 92, 105, 138, 164, 175, 184, 190, 191, 192 silk cocoons sent to Villa Basilica from 176 Ugolino Spalle of, scribe of Sorico 73 n. 131 Pescia maggiore 10 Petrognano 71 n. 114 Piazza al Serchio 11, 20 see also Sala Piegaio 95 n. 79, 113 Blessed Ercolano da 200 n. 185 Pieri, ser Francesco 138 n. 106 Pietrabuona 40, 90, 175 Pietrasanta 72, 78, 79 n. 175, 80, 96, 111, 116, 125, 138, 139, 141, 160, 162, 172 n. 19, 172 n. 20, 175, 192 fulling mills of 193 n. 142 iron smelting in 175 n. 38 seized by Pisans 85 smiths of 173 speziali of 173 transhumance through territory of 183, 184 revenues from 183 vicariate of 54–5, 87, 88, 96, 109–10, 111, 113, 117, 119 n. 209, 119 n. 211, 123, 133, 138, 142, 149, 153, 156, 179 under Pisan rule 88, 108–9 Guinigi supporters in 121 lost to Genoa 125, 144, 145, 147, 149, 173 under Florentine rule 166–7 ser Francesco del fu ser Lotti of 109 n. 154 Guidone di Guido of 123 Michele di Giovanni alias Pizanello of 123 Paolino di Tomuccio of 138 n. 108 Pero di Bartolomeo alias Marzuolo 123 Pietro II, Bishop 24 n. 143, 34, 36 pievani, public writings of 160 Pieve S. Lorenzo 52 n. 12 Pieve S. Paolo 52 n. 5, 98, 99–101, 102, 106, 160 n. 100, 189, 200, 201 pievano of 99 n. 107 Bartolomeo di Antonio Franchutii, alias Passarino, of 127 n. 40 Iacobo Francesci of 201 n. 191 Nanni Barsotti of 201 n. 191 Pieve S. Stefano 52 n. 5, 66, 68 n. 92, 107, 122, 195 n. 157

Index Pieve S. Vincenzo 183 pievi (as ecclesiastical units) 14, 22, 24–5, 51, 66, 74 Pigiani, ser Antonio, of San Miniato, notary in court of Pietrasanta 108 Piolo 183 Piombino 86 Pisa 5, 6, 8, 27, 30, 31, 33, 36, 43, 49–50, 82–3, 91, 99, 155 n. 62, 195 and bishop of Lucca 13, 37, 70, 77, 97 and borders with Lucca 9–10, 14, 16–19, 53, 85 and the Castracani 86, 95, 112, 113–15 conflicts between Lucca and 2, 16–19, 36, 38, 43, 44, 60, 71, 80 n. 181, 81, 85, 126, 131 n. 62 diocese of 52 n. 5 and Elba 173 Florentine rule of 124 n. 17, 167 and Gallicano 110 rule of Lucca by 83–4, 87–90, 92, 96 n. 85, 97, 101 n. 119, 103 n. 130, 113, 114 n. 187, 119 n. 212 and Pietrasanta 88, 108–9 Pisan exiles and Lucchese woollen manufacture 179 Pisan and Lucchese countryside compared 201 and Pistoia 183 n. 91, 184 and Spinetta Malaspina 95 territory of 4, 11, 58, 70, 167 banniti sheltering in 127 and commercial links with Lucchesia 188–9, 193 see also della Faggiuola Pistoia 8, 16, 19, 43, 51, 76, 81, 127, 145, territory of 10, 53, 58, 97, 167 bishopric of 12 n. 62, 14, 15 and Castruccio Castracani 48, 83, 86 migrants from 195, 196 and the passage of goods and animals 174, 176, 183 n. 91, 184, 185, 191 Angelo di Lorenzo of 127 n. 41 Braccio di Giovanni of, resident in Lammari 98 Lapo de’ Bonfilioli of, notary in court of Pietrasanta 111 n. 168 Pistoiese Montagna 185, 190–1, 196 banniti operating from 48, 196, 199 pastures of 160 n. 99 and supply of silk cocoons 176 and supply of wool 178 plague 84, 85, 91, 97, 100, 121, 140, 155, 161 n. 101, 196, 200 n. 185 in Pisa 155 n. 62 Polidamus (early founder of Lucca) 2 Pomezzano 78

243

Pompeo (names) 199 Pompey 5 Ponte a Moriano 184 Ponte S. Pietro 52 n. 6 Ponte a Serchio 17, 53 n. 13, 188 Pontecosi (Ponticosi) 90 n. 41, 127 n. 42 Pontetetto 52 n. 6, 87 n. 29, 179 Pontito 190 podestà of 136 Pontremoli 53, 56 n. 28, 85, 86, 92 n. 54, 93 n. 63, 121, 195 population 85, 140–1, 150 mobility 84, 91, 98, 141, 195, 201 immigration to the city 195 immigration to Sei Miglia 195 movement within the mountains 195–6 Populonia 7, 11, 12, 13, 25 Porcari 25, 32, 52, 69 n. 103, 87 n. 27, 87 n. 29, 101 n. 115, 142, 183, 189 Porcaresi (de’ Porcari) 29 n. 13, 30, 33, 34, 45, 47 n. 111, 49 n. 120, 60, 65, 69 n. 103, 72, 74 n. 135, 102, 142 Ingherame del fu Ildebrandino da 65 Ranieri da 78 n. 164 Porta Beltrame 93, 111 Potenti, Alessandra 200 Pozzore 78 Pratiglione 70 n. 106 Prato 19, 86 Lorenzo di Piero da 179 Pruno 78 Puccini, Sebastiano 1, 5 n. 22 Pugliano 52 n. 12, 94 n. 70, 112 n. 171, 126 n. 36 Polo Paganini of 195 n. 157 Puosi 159, 171 Puticiano 95 n. 79 Quartigiani, Arrigo 139 n. 109 Quiesa 53 n. 13 Quosa 17 Rainaldo di Dassel, imperial chancellor 75 Rainaldo, duke of Spoleto 76 n. 143 Ramingo (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 Rapondi family 123 Rasignano, ser Giovanni da (Pisan) 115 Ratignano 78 Bellometto del fu Dinelli of 109 n. 154 Reggiano 47, 71 n. 118 Reggio 194 n. 148, 196 Ciasdino da, vice-vicar of Coreglia 113 regional economy 43, 188, 190–1, 194 the Lucchesia as 193 and market integration 170, 181–2, 188

244

Index

Regnano, Giovanni di Andrea of 128 Riana; see Ariana Ricoverus, podestà of Moriano 67 n. 91 Ripafratta 17, 53 the Ripafratta (family) 33 peace of 33 Ricetro (Riscetro) 54, 96, 150 Roberto, Bishop 65 n. 80, 73 n. 128 Roberto del fu Tignoso, podestà of nobles of Uzzano and Vivinaia 65 Rocca, lords della 43 Aliotto della 78 n. 163 Rocca di Mozzano 95 n. 79 Rocca Pitorita 95 n. 79 Rodolfo, count of Eu 96, 110 Roggio 71 n. 114, 90 n. 41, 95 n. 79, 127 Val di Roggio 79 n. 175 Villa a Roggio (Villa Roggia) 95 n. 79, 114, 198 Rolandinghi family 29 n. 13 Rolando di Guamignano, Lucchese advocate 71 Romagna 183 n. 92 Rome (ancient) and Fiesole 3 refounding of Lucca by 2 Ronghi, messer Carlo de 139 n. 109 Rosaia 15 Roselle 22 Rossi, of Parma, imperial vicars Marsiglio 83 Orlando 83 Pietro 83 Rudolf of Hapsburg, Emperor 48 Ruota di Compito 52, 54, 67 n. 89, 78, 100 n. 108, 131, 132 rural counts 27–9, 31 Rustica 35 Rustichello del fu Giglio 129 n. 48 Sabolini, Tegrimo, podestà of Nozzano 131 n. 60 Saggina degli Antelminelli 102 Sala (episcopi) 70, 72, 96 Piazza e Sala 20, 152 n. 45 ser Dino Franceschini of 159 n. 91 Salacagnana 56 n. 28 Salamarzana (Fucecchio) 37 Salissimo 52 n. 6 salt tax 115, 125–6, 128, 133, 139 n. 111, 145, 147, 148 n. 29, 149, 155 Saltocchio 71 n. 114 Salvo, podestà of Trassilico 74 Sambuca 90 n. 41 S. Alessio 52 n. 6, 195 n. 157 S. Allucio, hospital of 76 n. 145

S. Angelo in Campo 52 n. 6 S. Benedetto di Polirone 24 S. Casciano a Guamo 52 n. 6, 141 n. 124 S. Casciano a Vico 52 n. 6 S. Cassiano di Moriano 151 S. Concordio di Moriano 63 n. 69 S. Croce 37, 85 n. 15 S. Donnino 127, 145 n. 8 S. Gemignano di Ponte a Moriano 161 n. 101 S. Gennaro 87 n. 27, 87 n. 29, 99, 100 n. 109, 141 n. 124 piviere of 52 n. 5, 52 n. 7, 66, 67 n. 91, 84, 106 n. 141, 131, 200 podestà of 131–2 signoria of 34, 62 n. 64, 102 Boncristanus, notary and silk-worker of 100 n. 109 S. Gervasio in Valdera 19, 35, 52 n. 10, 70 S. Giusto di Chiatri 52 n. 5 S. Giusto di Compito 141 n. 124 S. Iacopo of Altopascio 79 S. Lorenzo, cappella 122 S. Lorenzo di Massa Macinaia 141 n. 124 S. Lorenzo di Moriano 151 S. Lorenzo in Picciorana 66 n. 86 S. Macario, piviere of 52 n. 5, 66, 68 n. 92 S. Marcello (formerly Macello) Pistoiese 178 n. 57, 190, 191 S. Margherita 62 n. 62, 99 n. 107, 200, 201 n. 189 S. Maria a Colle 105 n. 135 S. Maria a Monte 23, 34, 35, 36–7, 38, 52 n. 11, 70 n. 108, 73, 78, 85 n. 15, 86, 98 podestà of 23 n. 141, 66 n. 83 consuls of 36 Ardoyno Neri of, resident in Lammari 98 Nero Cheli of, resident in Lammari 98 S. Maria del Giudice 141 n. 124 S. Martino in Colle 52, 54 S. Martino in Freddana 161 n. 102 S. Martino in Vignale 107 S. Michele di Moriano 151 S. Miniato 19, 20, 35–6, 57 n. 34, 75, 164, 191 ser Michele di Chele da 111 n. 168 ser Tommaso da 111 S. Pancrazio 195 n. 157 piviere of 52 n. 5, 54, 66, 67 n. 90, 122 S. Pietro a Guamo 52 n. 6, 141 n. 124 S. Pietro a Marcigliani 161 n. 104 S. Pietro (Valdera) 70 n. 106 S. Pietro a Vico 41 n. 76, 52 n. 6, 54, 65 n. 79, 179 S. Quirico di Moriano 151 Cursino di Matteo of 125 n. 30 S. Quirico (Villa Basilica) 190

Index S. Romano 185 Giovanni di Baldo of 134 n. 77 S. Salvatore in Bresciano 32 S. Stefano a Verciano 52 n. 6 S. Stefano di Moriano 151 S. Terenzo de Rogiana, pieve of 15 n. 78 S. Vincenzo a Verciano 52 n. 6 S. Vitale (Massa) 126, 154 n. 60, 159 Francesco di Giannino of 126 Giovanni Orlandi of 126 S. Vito a Picciorana 52 n. 6 Santini, Giovanni 74 Saracens 8, 24 n. 143 Sardini, Nicolao 122 Sardinia 25 cheeses from 193 Sarzana 72, 77 n. 152, 85, 86, 93 n. 63, 109 Sasallo (Sassalbo?) 127 Sassorosso 90 n. 41, 127 Savarigi degli Antelminelli 102 Ganuccio di Petruccio 102–3 Savarigo del fu dno. Guglielmo 112 n. 175 Sbarra, Giovanni 157 Scala, Bartolomeo, Florentine chancellor 168 n. 148 Scariccio (Saccucius da Boveglio) 72 Schiappa 171, 190 Schwarzmaier, Hansmartin 28 Scipio 2 Segromigno 99, 200 podestà of 66 piviere of 52, 66, 67–8, 84, 101 n. 118, 105–6, 130, 133, 161 n. 102, 200 the da Segromigno 68 n. 95 Iacopo Bonamici of 130 Jontella Lucchesini of 130 Sei Miglia 52, 53, 78, 97–108, 178 castelli and signorie within 31–4, 60–1, 68, 107 n. 148 citizen landholding in 31, 59–60, 63, 69, 100, 102, 103, 200–1 and urban investment 129, 130, 200–1 and villaggiare 200 communes of 51, 61–6, 116, 120, 132–3 and alienation of communal lands 129, 161, 201 and community identity 63, 103–4, 128–9, 132–3, 201–2 doctors in 99 and function of communal officials 62–4, 69, 80, 106–7, 128–31, 133 notaries in 98–9, 105 n. 137, 160 and Paolo Guinigi 128–30, 131, 132–3 parliaments of 99, 100, 106 n. 143, 108 n. 150

245

statutes of 64, 65, 103–6, 107–8, 128, 129–30, 132–3, 160–1, 162, 182–3, 201–2 syndics and procurators of 101, 201 and village priests 99 crisis of Trecento in 84, 98, 100, 103, 107–8, 129 and of Guinigi period 127, 129 ecclesiastical immunities in 60–1 see also bishop of Lucca; cathedral chapter fiscal exactions on 101, 106–7, 133, 147, 148, 149 as granary of Lucca and Lucchesia 188, 192 Guinigi supporters in 121 moneylending in 100–1 pasturage in 182–3 peasant proprietors in 100, 103, 200–1 pivieri of 65, 66–9, 128–30, 131–3 and iudicaria de plebe 66–8, 74 podestà of 53–4, 64–8, 88, 104 and Paolo Guinigi 128–9, 131–3, 136 population movement in 98, 107–8, 129, 130–1, 195 private power and patronage in 87, 102–3, 107 n. 146, 122 religious life of 132–3, 201–2 suburban communes of 52, 54, 65, 179 urban control of 21, 25, 31–4, 38, 39, 46, 50, 59–60, 62–3, 65–6, 68–9, 81, 101–2, 103, 106–7, 120, 144, 162, 180, 188, 200 and urban justice 60, 68–9, 101–2, 130–1 resistance to 125 n. 30 ser Cambi, Bartolomeo 151 n. 42 Seravezza 192 n. 134 Sercambi, Giovanni, chronicler 92, 121 Serchio valley; see Garfagnana Sergiusti, Gherardo 1, 2, 5 n. 22 Sermezzana 137 n. 97, 161 n. 102, 161 n. 103, 186, 187 Pietro di Martino of 186 Serpenti, Filippa 142 Serra 95 n. 79 Serraglio di Versilia 80 n. 176 Serravalle, capitanìa of 53, 54, 55 n. 25, 56 n. 29 Serravallina 87 n. 27 Sesmundini, Giovanni di Iacopo, syndic of Segromigno 66 n. 84 Sestan, Ernesto 24 Sesto abbey of San Salvatore of 33, 37, 61, 64 n. 75, 65 n. 78, 66 tolls collected by 80

246

Index

Sesto (cont.) lago di 188 padule di 32 Sesto a Moriano 34, 79 n. 172, 81, 151, 175 piviere of 52 n. 5, 67 n. 91, 68 n. 97, 128 n. 46 Sforza of Milan 164, 165 Francesco 164 share-cropping (mezzadria poderale) 170 n. 3 Sicily 170, 177 n. 48 Siena 8, 14 n. 72, 23, 167, 191, 201 territory of 58–9, 167, 170 Silicagnana 185 Silicano 71 n. 114 Silico 127 n. 42 silk spinning and manufacture in Sei Miglia 100, 179, 180 in Villa Basilica 175 n. 40, 176–7 mulberry trees in 176 Sillano (Silano) 184 society of the mountains kinship ties 197–8 local elites 196–7 local factions 197, 198 local status and military service 197 marriage politics 198–9 mountain civilization 181–2, 195, 199–200 endemic violence of 199 literacy of 200 numeracy of 200 piety of 199–200 reception of migrants 198 of the plain household structures 201 lawlessness 199 social gradations within communities 100, 201 Soffredinghi 27, 29 n. 13, 69, 71 n. 117 Solaria 70 n. 106 Sommocolonia 49, 88, 193 Sonni, Federigo, podestà of Montecalvoli 73 n. 129 Soraggio 183, 184 n. 93 lords of 29 n. 13 Sorbano 41 n. 76 Sorbano Episcopi 52 n. 6 Sorbano Iudicis 52 n. 6 Sorico 73 n. 131, 112–13 Sornachi, Francesca, widow of Terello 100 Spaniard, nuncio of Valdilima 158 speziali 172, 173, 179 Spinola, Gherardo, Genoese, lord of Lucca 83, 86, 101 Spulizano (S. Romano di Coreglia) 95 n. 79, 116, 118

Stabbiano 105 n. 135 Staffoli 54 n. 20 state-formations city-states 163, 165, 166–9, 170, 202–3 characteristics of 119, 163, 167–9, 181, 202 regional or territorial states 162–4, 166–8, 169, 202–3 Renaissance state 163, 188, 203 Stazzema 78, 179, 192 n. 134 Stefano, pievano of Campoli 80 Stefano di Iacopo 124 n. 19 Streghi (dello Strego) 95, 173 n. 22 Alessandro 1–3, 9 Ghirardo 111 Giusfredo 111 Perotto 93, 96, 111 Vallerano di Perotto 109 Strozzi (Florentine) 57 Succiso 183 sword-making in late antiquity 5, 25 in Villa Basilica 174–6, 181 Tachiperto (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 Talgardi, Gadduccio 106 Tasone (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 Tassignano 64–5, 98, 99 n. 106, 99 n. 107, 100, 101 n. 114, 102, 103, 160 n. 99, 160 n. 100, 161 n. 102, 201 n. 189 consuls of 62–3, 103 n. 131, 129 n. 49 Ciucho (Ciuccio) Arrighetti 103 n. 131 Meluccio Datoni 103 n. 131 Bonaiuto di Bianchuccio of 100 Dino Bonnani, consul of 64 pbr. Dino di Giovanni Tinucci, prior of S. Stefano of 99 n. 106 Giovanni di Andruccio de’Berrettani, prior of S. Stefano of 99 n. 107 Guidotto Bandino of 102 n. 123 Iacobo Fornari of 107 n. 146 Tea, monte 186 Tediccione, Guidone 36 Tedici, Carlino de’, of Pistoia, vicar of Barga 89 n. 34 Tedicio di Ranieri, vicar of Fucecchio and Valdarno 76 n. 145 Tempagnano (di Lunata) 63 n. 74, 64 n. 75, 64 n. 77, 71 n. 114 Tempiano 70 Tereglio 95 n. 79, 96 n. 80 Terzone 95 n. 79, 171, 198 Theodoric (‘Ostrogothic’ king) 5 n. 22 Ti. Sempronius Longus 4 tithes 22, 31, 39, 40, 62 n. 62, 69 n. 103, 150 Tofari 67 n. 91, 106 n. 141 Toiano (Torano) 52 n. 10, 70

Index Torcigliano 161 n. 101 Toringo 99 n. 107, 101 n. 114, 102 n. 124, 106, 201 n. 189 Iacopo Antonelli of 99 n. 107 Torpino, consul of S. Maria a Monte 36 Torre 130 n. 55, 199 n. 181 Bartolomeo di Piero, official of 130 n. 55 Bonacorso Lanfredi podestà? of 132 Giovanni Vianucii of 133 Matteo di Antonio, consul of 133 Nuccono of 130 n. 55 piviere of 52 n. 5, 66, 122, 130 n. 55 Totti, Michele 157 Tramonte 140, 141 n. 124 Trassilico 90 n. 41, 118, 127 n. 42, 173, 179 podestà of 74 Bonassai, notary of 74 n. 135 di Porcari, lords of 74 n. 135 Treggiaia 52 n. 10 Treppignana 90 n. 41, 116, 127 n. 42, 154 n. 60, 161 n. 101, 161 n. 102, 173 ser Bartolomeo di Martino da 194 n. 152 Trojan myths 1–3 tumulto degli Straccioni 122 Turini, Giovanna, wife of Antonio, of Valdilima 158 n. 80 Turini, Iacopo di Bartolomeo, scriptor of Controne 159 n. 88 Turrite Cava, Torrente 192 n. 134 Ubaldo, filii q. 29 n. 13, 69 Berlingario del fu 69 Ugliano 126 n. 32 Ugo, castaldo at Pescia 76 Ugo of S. Maria di Serena, Abbot 22 Uguiccione, domino, canon of S. Martino 63 urbanism 7 Urilia (Lucca) 1–2 Usigliano del Vescovo 70 Uzzano 42 n. 83, 46 lords of Uzzano, Vivinaia, and Montechiari 41, 46, 65 Vaccoli 16, 32, 33 Lambardi de 33 Vagli 184 di sopra 90 n. 41, 127 ser Niese di Stefano of 159 n. 91 di sotto ser Giovanni Baroni of 159 n. 91 Val di Chiecina 41 n. 76 Valdarno inferiore 16, 19, 25, 34, 35, 37, 38, 46, 75, 78, 84, 86, 87 fines Vallis Arni 74 vicariate of 54 n. 20, 55 n. 25, 57, 76 n. 145

247

Valdelsa (Florentine) 57 n. 35 Valdera 16, 24, 34, 37, 38, 46, 54, 69 Pisan vicariate of 58 n. 39 Valdilima 9, 38, 43, 69 n. 103, 76 n. 145, 196 fortresses in 80 and the river Lima 135 and the Terrarum civium 55 n. 25, 89 vicariate of 54 n. 20, 55 n. 25, 74, 88–9, 90 n. 42, 118 n. 205, 119 n. 211, 133, 134, 135, 144, 146, 147, 156–9, 190 movement of animals through 184, 185 pasturage in 183 and fairs of Castelnuovo 194 Valdinievole 13, 19, 35, 38–9, 40–3, 46, 47 n. 108, 48–9, 75, 76, 78, 86–7, 90, 92, 93, 133, 138, 190–1 fines Pisciae 74 iron from Villa Basilica to 174 movement of animals through 184 silk from 177 n. 49 vicariate of 55 n. 25, 57, 76, 138, 144 Valdipesa (Florence) 103 n. 128 Valdiserchio 16, 50 capitanìa of 53, 54 lodo del Valdiserchio 49–50 podesterìa of 54 n. 20 Nicolao di Currado of 99 n. 107 Valdottavo 162 n. 104 piviere of 52 n. 5, 128 n. 46 Valdriana 75, 76 n. 145, 87, 93, 172 vicariate of 53, 55 n. 25, 88–9, 138, 144, 147, 149, 153, 156, 190 artisans in 175 Guinigi supporters in 121 movement of animals through 185 Valfredi (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 Vallecchia 18 nobles of 29 n. 13, 69, 72, 78 Vallico (Valico) 72 n. 120 di sopra 127 n. 42, 147 n. 24, 173 n. 25 di sotto 127 n. 42, 147 n. 24, 173, 179 Vallombrosa 24 Vanefredi (Lombard duke) 7 n. 34 Vegghiatoia 142 podestà of 142 Veleia 10 Vellano 42, 48, 93 n. 66 Veneri 79 n. 172 Venice 3–4 Venetian state 163, 164, 165 Verciano 52 n. 6 Vergemoli 116, 127 n. 42, 173 Valente di Giovanni of 188 Vergiglio 95 n. 79 Verglano (Valgiano?) 130

248

Index

Verni 127 n. 42, 147 n. 24, 161 n. 101, 173, 195 n. 158 Luchesio Gucciarelli of 192 Margarita, widow of Fornaino of 192 Verona 82, 164 Verruca 14 n. 72 Verrucola dei Gherardinghi (Verrucole) 47, 90 n. 41, 156 n. 67 lords of 29 n. 13 Verrucola in Alpibus 72 n. 120 Verrucola-Bosi (Verrucola de’ Bosi) 94 n. 69, 153 n. 53 podesterìa of 54 Versilia 9, 11, 18, 29 n. 13, 38, 40, 44, 60 n. 52, 77, 78, 93, 173, 175, 185 fines Versiliae 11, 74 fortresses in 80 imperial rector of 48, 75 Versilian coast 18, 192 n. 134 Vessilano, descendant of Artomone 2 Vetriano 95 n. 79 Giovanni di Pietro, and his daughter Lorenza, of 198 Vezzano, Nicolino di Domenico da 152 n. 49 Viareggio 18, 53, 146, 148 n. 29 Vibbiana 156 n. 67 Vicchio di Mugello (Florence) 72 vicenda 182, 186 Vico Pancellorum 158, 159, 161 n. 102, 182 n. 85 podestà of 145 Vicopelago, piviere of 52 n. 5 Villa Basilica 70, 72 n. 121, 73, 97, 99, 172, 187 imperial vicar of 76 n. 145 pieve of 53, 89 podesterìa and podestà of 136, 138 artisanal activity in 172 fulling mills 190 linen production 178 paper manufacture 178 silk spinning and manufacture 175 n. 40, 176–7, 178 mulberry trees 176 sword-making 174–6 disputes over 175–6 protection of 181 tanning 190 woollen cloth manufacture 177–8, 190 citizen investment in 177, 178 commercial activity in 189–91 iron exports from 174, 191 iron imports to 174 n. 27, 175 merchandise in transit 191 movement of animals through 184

paper 191 silk and silk cocoons 176–7 swords 191, 192 ser Antonio di Mannato di Bartolomeo of 175 Biscotti family of 176 n. 43 Biscottino 176 n. 43 Nicolao di Antonio Fornacchini called Biscotto 176 n. 43 Antonio Antonii of 178 Buono Faloppe of 177, 178 Caterina Bonami of 177 n. 50 Caterina Giovanni Nieri of 177 n. 52 Domenico and Bernardo Salvini of 177 n. 48 Dominico Pardellini of 175 Giovanni Corsini called Cataldo of 138 n. 106 Giovanni Neri of 175 Iacopo Buonaccorsi of 177, 178 Iuntore, maestro, of 177 n. 50 Leonardo da Pistoia, lanaiolo, resident in 178 Margarita Parigii of 177 n. 52 Menabove Landucci of 185, 190 his son Giovanni 190 Nerotto di Dino of 175 Paganuccio Dinghi of 177 Paolo del Cazzata of 192 Pardello di Giovanni of 175 n. 40 Ricchuccia Tinguccii of 177 Vannello Iunctini of 177, 178 Villa (Collemandina) 90 n. 41, 127 n. 42 lords of 29 n. 13 Villa Terenzana 95 n. 79 Villafranca 112 n. 171, 127, 128 Francischino of 127 Pietro di Bernardo of 127 Princivale da Milano, resident in 127 Villora 102, 141 n. 124 Violante, Cinzio 14 Virgoletta 153 Visconti of Milan 122, 163, 165 Bernabò 88 Luchino 84 n. 8 Vitale di Moncingnano, vicar of Castelvecchio di Compito 64 n. 77 Vitiana 95 n. 79, 198 Vivinaia 41, 49 n. 120, 65, 78 podestà of 138 Volegno 78 Volmiano 95 n. 79 Volterra 8 Vorno 19, 32 fullers of 179–80 lords of 34, 60

Index Walfridi di Ardingo, conte 35 n. 53 Walperto 7 n. 34, 8, 13 Walprando, Bishop 7 n. 34, 13 warfare 84, 85, 91, 97, 100, 140, 196 weavers 171–2, 178 female 171–2, 173, 178 of linen cloths 171, 178, 179, 180 of woollen cloths 171, 177, 178, 180 weights and measures 181 Wickham, Chris 38–9, 41, 44, 62, 65, 181, 195

249

woollen manufacture in the countryside (Florence) 171 in Villa Basilica 177–8, 190 fullers 177, 179–80, 190 lanaioli (pannaioli) 177, 178 source of supplies 178, 190 wool-beaters 177 see also weavers Zannobio Tuccii, magistro, of Florence 126 n. 34

Medieval Lucca: And the Evolution of the Renaissance State

Evolution of Medieval Thought

Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State

Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State

Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State

Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State

Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State

Economics, Evolution And the State: The Governance of Complexity

Man and the Beasts (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies)

The American Political Economy: Institutional Evolution of Market and State

The American Political Economy: Institutional Evolution of Market and State

On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State

The Making of the Modern State: A Theoretical Evolution

Monteverdi and the End of the Renaissance

Encyclopedia of the Renaissance and the Reformation

Sociology of the Renaissance

Artists of the Renaissance

The Renaissance

The Renaissance

The Renaissance

The renaissance

The Renaissance

Samurai, warfare and the state in early medieval japan

Jury, State, and Society in Medieval England

Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan

War and State Building in Medieval Japan

The Creation of Brittany: A Late Medieval State

Jury, State, and Society in Medieval England

The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs

Policing Soviet Society: The Evolution of State Control

A world lit only by fire: the medieval mind and the Renaissance : portrait of an age

Medieval Lucca: And the Evolution of the Renaissance State

Evolution of Medieval Thought

Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State

Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State

Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State

Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State

Medieval Law and the Foundations of the State

Economics, Evolution And the State: The Governance of Complexity

Man and the Beasts (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies)

The American Political Economy: Institutional Evolution of Market and State

The American Political Economy: Institutional Evolution of Market and State

On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State

The Making of the Modern State: A Theoretical Evolution

Monteverdi and the End of the Renaissance

Encyclopedia of the Renaissance and the Reformation

Sociology of the Renaissance

Artists of the Renaissance

The Renaissance

The Renaissance

The Renaissance

The renaissance

The Renaissance

Samurai, warfare and the state in early medieval japan

Jury, State, and Society in Medieval England

Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan

War and State Building in Medieval Japan

The Creation of Brittany: A Late Medieval State

Jury, State, and Society in Medieval England

The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs

Policing Soviet Society: The Evolution of State Control

A world lit only by fire: the medieval mind and the Renaissance : portrait of an age

Recommend Documents