Commune

COMMUNE. - In the history of Italy, as also in that of the whole West, the c. [commune] is of great importance, that is, the autonomous government that is constituted not only in cities but also in smaller settlements, with more or less extensive attributions according to the development that particular local circumstances allow.

In southern Italy the constitution of communes, which had already taken shape at the decline of Byzantine domination and at the beginnings of the Norman one, suffered an arrest in its development because of the policy of reconstituting state powers that various sovereigns of the Kingdom of Sicily conducted with great energy. Therefore communal autonomies, apart from a few particular cases, did not have ample development there. In northern and central Italy, on the other hand, the progressive slowing and then the dissolution of the bond of the Empire and the state of weakness into which the temporal power of the pontiffs fell for very long periods meant that many communes attained, if not de jure at least de facto, complete independence and became true States. Where the commune reaches such full development it has in fact all the attributions of an independent State, but even where its powers are restricted by the overlordship of a prince, in much of Italy it nevertheless has legislative faculties, military and financial jurisdictions that constitute a characteristic order of its own. From this aspect the commune, which from the point of view of the classes that dominate in it during the period of its complete development constitutes the antithesis of the feudal system, is instead a continuation of the particularism introduced by that system into the fabric of the Carolingian Empire.

The problem of the origins of communal autonomy is much disputed because of the deficiency of historical sources in the formative period of that autonomy, which lies, approximately, between the 11th and 12th centuries.

Naturally this development is intimately linked to the revival of commerce that occurred in Western Europe when the raids of the Hungarians and Saracens ceased and maritime exchanges in the Mediterranean were resumed. This, however, is not enough to explain how the city separated itself from the countryside and constituted its own autonomous government. In Italy the problem is different from that posed in France and Germany where, in general, the Roman cities were destroyed and new ones were constituted through the development of borghi inhabited by merchants, at the foot of a comital or episcopal castle in a place or at the crossing of important roads. This happened in Italy only by exception: here, moreover, the development of city administration in the lands subject to Lombard-Frankish domination, which broke the continuity of Roman institutions, is different from that which developed in the lands that remained entirely immune to it or at least were free from it for a long time. Even in the latter, however, as in the others, the municipal institutions of the late empire came to an end, and the Byzantines placed military commanders at the head of city administration: dukes in the larger ones, counts or tribunes in the smaller ones.

These were chosen from the local aristocracy and governed with the cooperation of a restricted group of citizens. Violent clashes often occurred and, for example, in Venice those doges or dukes who had sought to make the supreme dignity hereditary in their families ended in bloodshed, until toward the middle of the 11th century the power of the doges was greatly restricted and they governed with the control of Councils that were the expression of the property owners, the navigators, the merchants in whom the economic life of the great commercial emporium of the lagoon was concentrated. Thus in Naples, at a not very different historical moment, a duke Sergius bound himself by a pact not to make either peace or war and not to impose new tributes without the consent of an elevated class of citizens who, to better safeguard themselves, had constituted a societas that the duke promised to respect, just as he also promised to protect commerce by land and sea and the markets.

In the Lombard-Frankish territories the power in the city belonged to the military officials who, whether dukes, marquises or counts, very frequently entered the feudal system. However, beginning from the end of the Carolingian period, the emperors and kings of Italy, irritated by the rebellions and infidelities of the great feudal lords, gave the cities into the hands of the bishops, whether these actually replaced the counts, or whether they had broad powers over the city itself and over a small territory around the walls.

In this period the city population, or to put it better the minor feudal lords assigned to the defense of the city, the owners of houses and lands and the richest merchants, always had particular functions both military, through the obligation of defending the walls, and judicial because they participated in the judgment or "placitum" of the count or the bishop or of the particular officials whom these kept in the city.

This class, either through a slow abandonment by the superior authority, especially if it was a question of the bishop, or, more rarely, by means of revolts, succeeded in concentrating the powers over the city in the hands of its leaders, who therefore had command of the city troops, safeguarded order, that is the "peace" or the "treuga" in the city which, being always fortified, was defended by the penalty of the royal "bannum" against anyone who disturbed it. Thus such leaders presided over the city judgment, in the early times often sharing it with the officials of the count or the bishop, but later alone.

It cannot be said that contemporaries in general gave excessive importance to this transfer of powers, nor that communal autonomy was always regarded with hostility by the royal power; indeed there are diplomas of emperors or kings, such as of Henry IV for Pisa and for Lucca, of Henry V for Bologna, of Conrad III for Genoa, that demonstrate the contrary, and there are communes that are seen recognized, at their birth, by princes, as, for example, Udine, in 1248, by the patriarch of Aquileia: however in Italy the privileges of bourgeoisie are not numerous as beyond the Alps. There are then cases of violent clashes, as happened at Benevento, where the Lombard prince Pandulf III was driven out in 1042 by a coniuratio formed among the citizens and the communitas was created; or, as happened a century later at Rome, where a bloody rebellion of the citizens led to the formation of a Council, the fulcrum of the commune, which, by classical reminiscence, was called "senate". Of these unions among citizens a typical example is that of the "compagna" of Genoa which appears constituted by men fit for arms to defend the fabric of the commune and to protect commerce, maintaining peace among the citizens and punishing those who harmed them. Despite these examples it appears difficult to demonstrate either that similar associations were generally constituted and that they were the foundation of the communal bond, or that the origin of the commune was ordinarily linked to violent rebellions.

The first communal arrangement is very simple. At the head of the city were consuls who often corresponded, in their number, to the internal divisions of the city, quarters or sestieri. They were its military and administrative heads and exercised that part of jurisdiction that, gradually, came into the possession of the commune. They were assisted by a very restricted council called "di credenza" which was formed of persons drawn from certain more prominent citizen families. Only for reasons of great importance was the general assembly of citizens endowed with full political capacity convened; at first these were few, because a good part of the people lacked it, being of servile or semi-servile origin or made up of rustics who had moved into the city. On the other hand, the high-ranking feudal lords residing in the city were excluded from the citizen body because they were not subject to civic burdens and did not swear the oath that bound citizens to obedience to their leaders and to the customs and statutes. Often ecclesiastics too were excluded, because they were protected by their immunity from civic burdens.

The market formed a separate sphere, with its own court and particular privileges, and in some places it long remained under the authority of the bishop. In this period occurred the struggle between the Lombard communes and Frederick Barbarossa, because the emperor wanted to recover the "regalian" rights (such as the appointment of municipal magistrates, the mint, rights over waters, over markets, etc.) that the principal communes had appropriated. This is not the place to speak of this famous conflict, but it is interesting to note that in the Peace of Constance (1183) Frederick recognized the cities' right to appoint consuls, who nevertheless had to receive investiture from the emperor or the bishop, and indirectly he also recognized the validity of the customs of the statutes. Therefore medieval jurists regarded this document as the fundamental basis of civic autonomy and entered it in the Corpus iuris civilis with the commentary of famous authors such as Odofredo and Baldo.

After this first phase of the commune, struggles soon began for its conquest by those citizen classes that were kept far from government, in which the lesser feudal lords and the wealthiest landowners and merchants prevailed for a long time. Retail traders and owners of artisan workshops took advantage of political events to obtain a large share in power.

The emperor Otto IV promoted, at Milan, an agreement later imitated in many other cities, by which the city Councils were divided in half between the milites, that is, the wealthiest who served on horseback, and the pedites, that is, the rest of the people. Elsewhere, however, these disputes led to the replacement of the consuls by a podestà summoned from outside, extraneous to the city factions, who arrived accompanied by judges to guarantee impartial justice and to act as arbiter between the parties, and to the formation of a numerous Council, called greater or large (at Florence "of the Five Hundred"), in which the various citizen classes had broad representation. This council truly became the arbiter of communal life, and within it was elaborated the statutory legislation, of such great importance for the formation of Italian law.

The glossators regarded this document as the fundamental basis of civic autonomy and entered it into the Corpus iuris civilis with the commentary of famous authors such as Odofredo and Baldo.

After this first phase of the commune, struggles soon began for the conquest of it by those classes of citizens who were kept far from the government, in which the lesser feudal lords and the wealthiest landowners and merchants had long prevailed. Retail traders and the owners of artisan workshops took advantage of political vicissitudes to obtain a large share in power.

The emperor Otto IV promoted, at Milan, an agreement later imitated in many other cities, by which the city Councils were divided in half between the milites, that is, the wealthiest who served on horseback, and the pedites, that is, the rest of the people. Elsewhere, however, these dissensions led to the replacement of the consuls by a podestà summoned from outside, unconnected with the city factions, who arrived accompanied by judges in order to guarantee impartial justice and to act as arbiter between the parties, and to the formation of a numerous Council, called greater or large (at Florence "of the Five Hundred") in which the various classes of citizens had a large representation. This council truly became the arbiter of communal life, and within it was elaborated the statutory legislation, of such great importance for the formation of Italian law.

This is the age in which the major comuni expanded the boundaries of their dominion, subjecting the feudatories of the contado and not only the rural communities, but also large comuni. Thus Florence subjected Prato, Pistoia, Arezzo and later also Pisa. Magnificent communal palaces adorned even the lesser cities, and the comuni largely subsidized, animated by an intense religious spirit, the construction of churches bejeweled with works of art. Unfortunately, however, so much fervor of life was disturbed by very serious struggles between opposing parties and between the wealthier citizens, on the one hand, and, on the other, between the lesser merchants and the artisans organized in their corporations or "arts."

From this there derived in some cities, principally among them Bologna and Florence, the ordinances against the "magnates" and the constitution of the "comune of the people" in which the elders or priors nominated by the arts governed the city. The majority of the comuni of Emilia, Romagna and central Italy had similar ordinances. Elsewhere, however, the principal families of the city: rich merchants, navigators, owners of houses and lands constituted themselves into closed circles and the comune assumed an oligarchic character: particular importance in this type of evolution have Venice and Genoa. The Venetian constitution, hinged on the Greater Council, formed by all the adult members of the families inscribed in the patriciate and considered as sovereign of the State, on the Council of the "pregadi" (or senate) and on a restricted college of sages who formed a sort of ministry, was considered in the 16th-17th centuries by political writers as an unsurpassed model of wisdom.

In the course of the 13th and 14th centuries many comuni were transformed into signorie. This is a profound change in substance but not in form, since the ordinances of the comune remained almost unaltered: everything, however, depended in the city on the will of the lord, that is, of a party leader who had succeeded in becoming the dominator with the support of his faction. Many lords had themselves acclaimed podestà or captains of the people for life by the city parliament and with this legitimized their power. They then sought, however, a title deriving from a higher authority, having themselves created imperial vicars, like the Scaligeri at Verona, the Carraresi at Padua; or even dukes, like Gian Galeazzo Visconti, who, in 1395, received from the emperor Wenceslaus the title of duke of Milan.

The existence of the comuni continued also in the 16th-18th centuries since absolute governments respected local autonomies, permitting the cities to preserve their statutes, their jurisdictions and gabelles; however the comuni lost their political and military attributions since these belonged exclusively to the sovereign, whether he was a prince or a "dominant" city. With such a subjection, however, the principal characteristics of the "city-state" were lost.

The rural comuni had another aspect: these were subject to feudal lords or to ecclesiastical bodies that had allowed them to constitute a communal organism with limited autonomy. In the majority of cases the rural comuni had statutes granted to them by the lord and such statutes contain norms relative to rural policing, to commerce in primary necessities and to the use of woods and meadows pertaining to the inhabitants. In the Alpine regions such statutes were often called "regole" or "favore."

Pier Silverio Leicht