NOTES

1. COMMUNES

1. Landulphi Iunioris Historia Mediolanensis [henceforth HM], c. 44. Theatra elsewhere means ‘thrones’ in Landolfo’s Latin, but since Milan still had a Roman theatre to act as a point of reference (it was a popular assembly place), and since the occasion was a major one, we can assume quite large wooden stages or banks of seats.

2. Gli atti del Comune, n. 1. See Giulini, Memorie, vol. 5, 75–91; Manaresi’s institutional analysis in the introduction to Gli atti del Comune, xxviii–xxxii; Bosisio, Origini del comune, 173–83; Barni, ‘Milano verso l’egemonia’, 319–21. Landolfo makes clear, HM, c. 44, that the meeting on the Broletto and the arengo or concio of the people, in which pleas were heard (he mentions at least two sessions), were, if not identical, closely following on from each other. In 1117 the archbishop of Cologne wrote to the consules, capitanei, omnis militia, and universus populus of Milan too: Monumenta Bambergensia, 513–14.

3. Cattaneo, ‘La città: considerata come principio ideale delle istorie italiane’. Cf. e.g. Bordone, La società cittadina, 7, one of many histories which simply start by citing Cattaneo; compare also Tabacco, The Struggle for Power, 19–36 (who emphasises German historiography); Wickham, Community and Clientele, 1–4, 185–89 (for the parallel rural communal debate). Note that this book does not discuss southern Italy; here, the essential starting-point is now Oldfield, City and Community.

4. Lane, ‘At the Roots of Republicanism’, 403. See Muir, ‘The Italian Renaissance’ (who quotes Lane at 1106); Molho, ‘The Italian Renaissance, Made in the USA’.

5. Putnam et al., Making Democracy Work, 180 (and more generally 121–37); Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 3–22.

6. Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici, 2.13; see for recent comment Zabbia, ‘Tra modelli letterari e autopsia’. Cf. Romualdi Salernitani Chronicon, 276–77, on the rhetoric of one of the major Milanese consuls, Girardo Cagapisto (see pp. 45–52 in this volume), when negotiating the Peace of Venice in 1177: this is an external view of the radicalism of the communes, not a local statement (see also Zabbia, ibid., 129–34, who is more accepting of the authenticity of Girardo’s words than I would be). It is worth adding that the principle of election of rulers did not, of course, in itself mark out Italian communes; of sovereign rulers, both the emperor and the pope were elected in our period, and so were bishops. But their electorates were very specialised and high-status, with only occasional hints of participation by a wider populus; the choice of consuls, which, however orchestrated, was always presented as being by that populus directly, was rather different.

7. Both of them also worked on later periods in their extensive writings, but wrote little on the early commune (though for Tabacco see his appendix to The Struggle for Power, 321–44, and ‘Le istituzioni’, which go up to 1100).

8. There is a list of monographic works for individual cities in the historiographical survey in Coleman, ‘The Italian Communes’ (a sequel will appear in History Compass shortly); see further, more recently, Rippe, Padoue, 323–79; De Angelis, Poteri cittadini (Bergamo); Vercelli nel secolo XII; Faini, Firenze. Among general works, Tabacco, The Struggle for Power, is fundamental; see further Bordone, La società cittadina; Jones, The Italian City-State, esp. 130–51; Pini, Città, comuni; and see the bibliography for Keller’s many articles. Recent manuals in Italy—very numerous, which is a sign of movement in itself—are Milani, I comuni italiani; Maire Vigueur and Faini, Il sistema politico dei comuni (these two books stress most the informality of the early commune, a major argument of this book); Franceschi and Taddei, Le città italiane; Occhipinti, L’Italia dei comuni. Of non-Italian manuals, Menant, L’Italie des communes, is by far the best; the classic in English, Waley and Dean, The Italian City-Republics, still repays reading. Grillo, ‘La frattura’, provides a further important historiographical survey, and also new interpretations; it is developed in idem, ‘Cavalieri, cittadini’.

9. The contrast with northern Europe is not always helpful; see for example Scott, ‘A Historian of Germany Looks at the Italian City-State’. For Italy, among recent works Menant, L’Italie des communes, and Franceschi and Taddei, Le città italiane, discuss economics in most detail.

10. Among many, Franceschi and Taddei, Le città italiane, 120; Occhipinti, L’Italia dei comuni, 32; Jones, The Italian City-State, 141; Pini, Città, comuni, 70–71 (who calls it an ‘operazione gattopardesca’, referring to Tommaso di Lampedusa’s The Leopard). Cf. Banti, ‘“Civitas” e “Commune”’, 222, who calls the commune an agreed ‘soluzione di emergenza’.

11. Banti, ‘“Civitas” e “Commune”’, 223–32. Commune first appears as a substantive in Milan as late as 1158 (Gli atti del Comune, n. 45), although in a context which shows that it was a normal word by now; in Pisa it already appears in 1110: see p. 88 in this volume. For other early examples, see chapter 5, n. 42, in this volume.

12. Cassandro in a very brief article of 1958, republished as ‘Un bilancio storiografico’, set out the later-accepted model of the public role of consuls, against Volpe’s famous image from 1904 of the commune as a ‘private association’: Volpe, Medio evo italiano, 100–104. We will see later (e.g. n. 29) that Volpe’s views still have a good deal of relevance; but the public role of consuls is already clear in, for example, Adalberto Samaritano’s treatise on letter-writing, from Bologna in the late 1110s, Praecepta dictaminum, 60–61: there he shows drafts of possible flattering letters to consuls which invoke their role in conserving the ‘vigour and status of your city’, and supposes that consuls will, at least in some circumstances, ‘examine disputes over the public and private affairs of citizens’.

13. For judicial continuities, see e.g. Fissore, ‘Origini e formazione’, 586–88. Note that I will not always translate iudex here; ‘judge’ does not always work well, as iudex was often, especially in the eleventh century, simply a title; ‘legal expert’ would work better, but the content of such expertise varied greatly across our period. Tabacco, The Struggle for Power, 321–44, is the best and most subtle starting-point for the role of bishops and their relationships with cities (he also problematised the concept of ‘public’ back in 1962: ‘Interpretazioni e ricerche’, 715).

14. Bougard, La justice; Wickham, ‘Justice in the Kingdom of Italy’, developed in idem, ‘Consensus and Assemblies’; idem, ‘The “Feudal Revolution”’. One exception is a Pisa consular example: see p. 89 in this volume. Note that the end of the placitum assembly does not mean that the term placitum dropped out; it continued to be used to mean ‘dispute’ or ‘judgement’ in the twelfth century, as with the Genoese or Lucchese consules de placitis/placito (Annali genovesi, 27 and passim; Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 32), or the Last Judgement referred to as the universale placitum in Adalberto Samaritano, Praecepta dictaminum, 61; the word did become less common, however.

15. Keller, Signori e vassalli (xi–xlviii for his reply to critics; this book did not, however, focus on city communes themselves, for which see his articles as listed in the bibliography—the most wide-ranging is ‘Die Entstehung’–many of which are now collected in idem, Il laboratorio politico); Jones, ‘Economia e società’, 210–79, and idem, The Italian City-State (143 for the quote; but it is worth stressing that this vast tapestry of a book contains nuances to every argument); Racine, Plaisance, 372 (see p. 114 in this volume for Pisa). The word cives is ambiguous, for it could include the aristocratic ordines too: Rossetti, ‘Il comune cittadino’, 36; Keller, Signori e vassalli, 15–17, made a similar point.

16. E.g. Bordone, ‘Tema cittadino’; Rossetti, ‘Il comune cittadino’. (Keller did not in fact claim otherwise; he limited himself to saying that cities could not be understood without studying feudal relations in the countryside too: e.g. Signori e vassalli, 339–41, cf. xxix.)

17. For local variation, Bordone, La società cittadina, 160–182; Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens, 220–46; La vassalità maggiore, passim; and three important articles, Grillo, ‘Aristocrazia urbana, aristocrazia rurale’; Castagnetti, ‘Feudalità e società comunale’; and Cortese, ‘Aristocrazia signorile e città’. For the city-country difference, see all three of these articles; Grillo, ibid., 87–96, is the key starting-point. (Keller did not deny it—see Signori e vassalli, 339; but it is true that he did not stress it.) See also pp. 182–83 in this volume, for Florence.

18. Bordone, La società cittadina, 34–100, 130–33: here civic culture is eloquence, legal knowledge, war, clothes, processions, and the idea of a civic libertas. Not all of these distinguish urban from rural. See pp. 56–57 in this volume.

19. Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens, esp. 217–19, 337–62; quotes from 341.

20. Or valvassores; but they are often difficult to distinguish, and the terms overlap (e.g. I placiti, n. 467, a. 1088, in which several leading Milanese figures whose families are called capitanei in plenty of other texts are referred to as vavasores—cf. Keller, Signori e vassalli, 27, who associates this with the different usage of the royal court). Valvassor is rather rarer as a term in texts than capitaneus, too. I shall not lay stress on valvassores as a separate category in this book; as remarked here in the text, more useful seems to me a set of distinctions inside the aristocracy (and the wider élite) related to wealth. Keller, Signori e vassalli, 10–12 and passim, sees the difference between capitaneus and valvassor as quite rigid, and also tied to wealth, but he shows, equally (e.g. 192–207), that the economic difference between valvassores and rich cives was not always that great, which for my purposes is the more important point. In our city case studies, an identifiable aristocracy is clearly visible inside the wider élite in Milan and defensible in Rome; less so in Pisa. Indeed, élite social structures were very different from city to city more widely across Italy. On élites, see also Wickham, Roma medievale, 222–26. Note that Maire Vigueur himself calls his whole militia an aristocracy or a noblesse: Cavaliers et citoyens, 281–83 and passim. This is more of a thirteenth-century phraseology, however; it is a valid choice, but I will not use it.

21. Keller, ‘Gli inizi’, 56. Two surveys which include initial references to consuls in a wide range of cities, Waley and Dean, The Italian City-Republics, 220–32, and Opll, Stadt und Reich, 178–480 (a particularly detailed city-by-city study), are unfortunately not up to date.

22. Ronzani, Chiesa e “Civitas”, 194, 226, 253; Delumeau, Arezzo, 850–57; Savigni, Episcopato, 42–43. See chapter 3 in this volume.

23. At the back of this characterisation is Volpe, Medio evo italiano, 100–104. There is a useful discussion of these structures in Rossetti, ‘I caratteri del politico’. The oath is stressed in particular by Dilcher, Die Entstehung, 142–58.

24. Caffaro’s Annali genovesi; Otto Morena, Historia Frederici I.; Maragone’s Gli Annales Pisani (who stresses, 16–20, the expensive extension of the city walls from 1156, the first act which he records the Pisan consuls as doing); Otto of Freising, Chronica and Gesta Friderici I. Soon after come, for Milan, the anonymous Annales Mediolanenses, which also take consular rule for granted from the start. For the Pisan laws: see chapter 3, n. 14, in this volume. For fiscal exactions, the basic studies are now by Patrizia Mainoni, ‘A proposito della “rivoluzione fiscale”’ and ‘Sperimentazioni fiscali’: the 1150s show the first signs of systematic communal direct taxation (the 1140s in Genoa and Piacenza: ibid., 711, 716, 729)—commercial tolls, however, had been normal for centuries. Grillo, ‘La frattura’, 685–90, generalises out from Mainoni’s work, arguing for rapid institutional consolidation in the decades around 1150, in some cities at least.

25. Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 31–38. See further below, chapter 2, n. 21, and chapter 3, n. 51, in this volume. ‘Regular’ also means recorded in regular formats: see chapter 2, nn. 20, 25, in this volume, for Milan, and chapter 5, n. 5, for Genoa. The formal banishments from cities, first seen in Genoa in 1139 and (more clearly) Bologna in 1149, studied in Milani, L’esclusione dal comune (27–56 for our period), also assume a public body capable of ensuring them; the relationship between early communal courts and territorial jurisdiction is further explored in idem, ‘Lo sviluppo della giurisdizione’.

26. For Pisa see chapter 3 in this volume; for other cities, see chapter 5 in this volume (pp. 168 and 185 for Asti and Arezzo).

27. Keller, ‘Die Entstehung’, 206–9; idem, ‘Einwohnergemeinde und Kommune’, 575–76; idem, ‘Die Stadtkommunen’, 685–91 (this whole article is a significant contribution to the concept of institutionalisation); idem, ‘La decisione a maggioranza’, 47–49—although I would argue for the 1130s in the case of Milan, rather than the 1120s (see pp. 33–34 in this volume).

28. Arnolfo of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium, 3.11, 18, 23 (an important example, from 1071); cf. Landolfo Seniore, Mediolanensis historiae, 2.26, 3.5, 8. The quote is from Keller, ‘Gli inizi’, 54; other arguments along the same lines are idem, ‘Die soziale und politische Verfassung Mailands’, e.g. 49–51, 54, 61; idem, ‘Die Entstehung’; idem, ‘Einwohnergemeinde und Kommune’; idem, ‘Pataria’ 333–49; idem, ‘Mailand im 11. Jahrhundert’, 93–98 (in many ways the most developed version). Tabacco, The Struggle for Power, 185, is a bit teleological too: 1044 is ‘the premise for the future commune’. A good argument against the 1040s as a communal period is Dilcher, Die Entstehung, 128–34 and passim, taken up again in idem, ‘I comuni italiani’, 79–83, even if I do not follow his juridical approach as a whole. I also take my distance from another aspect of Keller’s model, in ‘Einwohnergemeinde und Kommune’, 570 (and elsewhere), on the commune as a religious phenomenon (‘Grundlage der Kommune ist letzlich eine religiöse Idee’), perhaps linked to the Peace of God (ibid., 572–74; idem, ‘Die Entstehung’, 194–97; cf. also Jones, The Italian City-State, 148, and see chapter 3, n. 32, in this volume, for Pisa); the development of communes in the twelfth century seems to me to have taken place in a much less fervent context than that of some cities in the mid-eleventh.

29. Milani, I comuni italiani, 24–25, for ‘latent’ (developing ideas of Mary Douglas)—strictly, he uses the term for all early communes, precisely because of their informality and uncertainty, but the image also helps to delineate the communes which can be shown to have been initially intermittent, at least in their consular leadership, and I will use the term in this way here. Vercelli, Ravenna, Florence: see pp. 170, 178, 182–84, in this volume. The opposition between formal and informal is further developed in Wickham, ‘The ‘“Feudal Revolution”’; cf. idem, Courts and Conflict, 18–19; and Keller, ‘Die Stadtkommunen’. This brings us back, too, to Volpe’s image of the ‘private association’ in Medio evo italiano, 100–104, which remains more interesting than much later work, notwithstanding the caveats expressed above, n. 12.

30. See Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 24–28.

2. MILAN

1. Arnolfo of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium; Landolfo Seniore, Mediolanensis historiae; Landulphi Iunioris Historia Mediolanensis [henceforth HM]. For discussions of them as historians, Capitani, ‘Storiografia e riforma’, and idem, ‘Da Landolfo Seniore a Landolfo Iuniore’, remain basic points of reference; Busch, Die Mailänder Geschichtsschreibung, 38–50, is also fundamental if brief.

2. Grillo, Milano, 209–34, is the best guide to industry, as also to all socio-economic and socio-political developments after 1183. For a quick and acute economic survey, Castagnetti, ‘Feudalità e società comunale’, 213–20. Note also the impressive canal and irrigation system which was developed in Lombardy from the mid-twelfth century onwards: Menant, Campagnes lombardes, 174–76, 182–200. For the urban hub in Piazza del Duomo, see Spinelli, ‘Uso dello spazio’, and Salvatori, ‘Spazi mercantili’. Archaeology does not help us much for Milan; Scavi MM3, which publishes the major set of urban excavations, is conceptually weak, although the finds for our period, especially in Piazza del Duomo (Andrews, ‘Lo scavo di Piazza Duomo’, 167–79, 188–98), do fit our documentary evidence, as set out in Spinelli and Salvatori.

3. The count in 1045: I placiti, n. 364; see Violante, La società milanese, 187–88; Tabacco, ‘Le istituzioni’, 346–48. The supremacy of the archbishop over the city is not formally assigned to him by any surviving imperial document.

4. Violante, La società milanese, 209–12 (also for an analytical narrative up to 1045); Tabacco, ‘Le istituzioni’, 357–64; Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens, 227; cf. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 19, cols. 946–48, at 948 (a. 1067), for the ordo negotiatorum as a third ordo; this unique reference certainly stresses the commercial stratum. As noted above (chapter 1, n. 14, in this volume), members of the two ordines could be described as cives too, but the counterposition of nobiles and cives and similar phrases was very common in Milan, as in other cities. Very sensible on eleventh-century Milan in general are Tabacco, ‘Le istituzioni’, and Keller, ‘Mailand im 11. Jahrhundert’.

5. Arnolfo of Milan, Liber gestorum recentium, 2.1 (1018); Landolfo Seniore, Mediolanensis historiae, 3.3 (1045), 32 (1075); HM, cc. 2 (1097), 7 (1102). Cf. Violante, La Pataria milanese, 16–29 (for 1045); and the articles by Keller cited in chapter 1, n. 28, in this volume. See also, in general, Barni, ‘Dal governo del vescovo a quello dei cittadini’, with idem, ‘Milano verso l’egemonia’, which, despite its positivism and an outdated communal narrative, is still the most detailed account to take Milan through from 1050 to 1150, although Keller’s articles are the structural starting-point for current work. I was unable to take account of the important discussion in Dartmann, Politische Interaktion, 33–120, which I only encountered when this book was in production. For earlier bibliography, see above, chapter 1, n. 2, in this volume.

6. Violante, La Pataria milanese, 175–213; idem, ‘I laici’ (still the basic structural analysis); Miccoli, Chiesa gregoriana, 127–212 (for Patarene theory); Cowdrey, ‘The Papacy, the Patarenes’; Moore, ‘Family, Community and Cult’, 65–69; Keller, ‘Pataria’; Schultz, “Poiché tanto amano la libertà… “, 32–56. Landolfo Seniore on Erlembaldo: Mediolanensis historiae, 3.14. The involvement of Arnaldo da Rhò in Erlembaldo’s death is stressed in the 1130s by Landolfo of S. Paolo, HM, c. 66: the account is very circumstantial, but more contemporary accounts do not mention it.

7. For oaths, see chapter 1, n. 27, in this volume. Landolfo of S. Paolo was from a Patarene family, but, as we shall see, he does not stress the commune much, and does not link it at all to the political activities of the last major Patarene leader, his uncle Liprando (d. 1113).

8. See Lucioni, Anselmo IV da Bovisio, for the 1090s as a whole; 108–17 for Arialdo, 118–19 for Ambrogio Pagano, 117–39 for lay society. Last placitum: I placiti, n. 473; Giulini, Memorie, vol. 4, 546–48, for the archbishop’s court in 1099. Mediolano Ottone was publicly active as a judge between 1053 and 1097, APM, nn. 366, 854; like Ambrogio Pagano (see below, n. 40), he is never recorded as a property-holder. [For all abbreviations of document editions in this chapter, see the note on documents in the bibliography of this volume.]

9. APM, n. 854. The Gambari were active consuls from 1151 (Gli atti del Comune, n. 24; cf. n. 2 for 1119); as landholders, they are only attested in Gudo south-west of the city before 1150 (APM, n. 743; Morimondo, n. 87), although their prominence and wealth increased substantially later. For the thirteenth century, see Grillo, Milano, 346–50. The Stampa: see p. 40 in this volume. On 1097, see Barni, ‘Milano verso l’egemonia’, 241–44; talked down by Bosisio, Origini del comune, 194n; talked up by Fissore (see below, n. 13).

10. I Biscioni, vol. 1, part 2, nn. 279–80 (cf. 287), for Biandrate (here consules are set up by the counts and milites of Biandrate to police the agreement between them and minor disputes); APM, n. 852, for Chiavenna (here three consules de comunis rebus are in charge of the common lands of Chiavenna, acting pro comunis iusionibus vicinorum: such lands were important in the Alpine valleys where Chiavenna is situated). In neither case can we call the consuls local leaders in any developed sense, but each centre is clearly using a by-now-existing vocabulary in different ways. See for the latter Keller, ‘La decisione a maggioranza’, 28–30; Becker, Il comune di Chiavenna, 51–54. Manaresi (Gli atti del Comune, xxvii–xxviii) thought that Milan had got its consular vocabulary from Ravenna, where consul was also an old élite title (see Franchini, ‘Il titolo di consul in Ravenna’, and Mayer, Italienische Verfassungsgeschichte, vol. 2, 532–37—who sees them, unconvincingly, as office-holders; and, with a more up-to-date historiographical framing, Bocchi, “Sul titolo” and Vespignani, La Romània italiana, 64–76, 174–78); this seems to me far less likely, given Pisa’s 1080s usage.

11. Barni, ‘Milano verso l’egemonia’, 247 (cf. 245–46), provides a photo of the inscription of 1098 in which the archbishop establishes a market with the conscilio quote cited above in the text; for 1100, Italia sacra, vol. 4, cols. 124–25, is the most convenient edition.

12. A useful but very traditional conspectus is Fasoli, Dalla ‘civitas’ al comune, 70–76, 85–89.

13. Fissore, ‘Origini e formazione’, 554–55, argues on diplomatic grounds that the 1097 document is already in effect a communal text, with close analogues to the consular cases of the 1140s. This seems to me mistaken; the document is a standard refutation of rights, and the only link with the consular texts, as with the placita before it, is the signatures of powerful people and the three most active iudices in Milan at the end, which is what anyone resolving a dispute would want in this (or any) period. For the crusade, HM, c. 4; see Lucioni, Anselmo IV da Bovisio.

14. HM, cc. 9–21.

15. HM, cc. 15, 44, 47, 58; see Coleman, ‘Representative Assemblies’ (with earlier bibliography), and Grillo, ‘Una frattura’, 692–96, for the concio. Grillo, ‘A Milano nel 1130’, 227, sees Giordano as calling the concio in 1118, but Landolfo does not say so. Anselmo V also faced a publicum interdictum cleri et populi in 1128 (HM, c. 52); Landolfo does not tell us in what context the clergy and people met together. On Anselmo V, Zerbi, ‘La Chiesa ambrosiana’, 162–84, is basic, although inevitably dependent on the same Landolfo narrative.

16. HM, cc. 30–31, 38–41; for Grosolano, Arcioni, ‘Grosolano’, and Rossini, ‘Note alla “Historia Mediolanensis” di Landolfo iuniore’, both with some outdated assumptions. It is worth noting that the fall of both Erlembaldo in 1075 and Grosolano in 1111 were precipitated by natural disasters; it may well be that the elaboration of Giordano’s public arengo after the earthquake of 1117 was to avoid a similar fate.

17. HM, cc. 23 (letter-drafter), 44 (1117), 58 (fall of Anselmo), 59, 65–66 (the last two are the da Rhò consuls); ‘suis’/‘eius’ consules: 44, 48 bis, both referring to 1117. See Keller, ‘Gli inizi’, 51–52; and Tabacco, The Struggle for Power, 337–38.

18. HM, cc. 4, 24, 47.

19. For narratives, contrast the Annales Mediolanenses of 1154–77, finished soon after, which are about wars almost exclusively. The 1132 letter is edited in Die Lombardische Briefsammlung, n. 80, a currently web-only edition destined in the end for MGH.

20. The 1117, 1130, and 1138 cases are in Gli atti del Comune, nn. 1, 3, 4; see the whole edition for those following, up to 1216. See in general Padoa Schioppa, ‘Aspetti della giustizia milanese’, 503–49, the basic study. The best institutional analyses of the commune in this period are Manaresi’s introduction to Gli atti del Comune, and Rossetti, ‘Le istituzioni comunali a Milano nel XII secolo’. In 1130, however, the standardisation of later cases had not yet developed fully: see below, n. 25.

21. Milanese political power was indeed unusually uncontested inside its diocese: as Bordone notes (‘Le origini del comune in Lombardia’, 321), the Milanesi fought other cities in the early twelfth century, not rural lords. Some of the consular judicial texts stress the agreement of the parties, and thus open the possibility that these judgements are really private arbitrations—a view popular among traditional legal historians, e.g. Sinatti, La gerarchia delle fonti, 18–28, and cf. (more nuanced) Manaresi in Gli atti del Comune, xxxiv, who could not accept that consuls claimed full judicial rights, as opposed to de facto powers, before these were granted to the city by the emperor, which was only after Barbarossa’s defeat. But the first judgement in contumacy, in the absence of one of the parties, which shows full claims to jurisdiction over the unwilling (here a major rural signorial family, the da Carcano), is as early as 1147, Gli atti del Comune, n. 14. Sinatti, ibid., 23, following Manaresi, gets around this by arguing that the fact that consular judges were imperial missi gave them delegated imperial power, but there are no signs that this was more than a judicial title, and one particular to Milan, too—other cities acted in the same way without such missi; cf. e.g. chapter 3, n. 51, in this volume, for Pisa. Note also S. Ulderico, n. 1 (a. 1142), which is a real private arbitration given by Stefanardo, who was a consular judge for preceding and succeeding years: it hardly differs from consular cases, and is written by a consular scribe. I have argued elsewhere that consular judgements were at least modelled on arbitrations, although not the same as them: Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 35–38. Behrmann, ‘L’atto giuridico’, discusses the witnesses.

22. Gli atti del Comune, xxi–cxxi. The only other focussed consular/communal publications for our period are Codice diplomatico del Senato romano for Rome, and Codice diplomatico della Repubblica di Genova for Genoa, re-edited in a different form in I libri iurium. The Genoa editions do not, however, for the most part include the city’s court cases (for which see chapter 5, n. 5, in this volume); this contrasts strongly with Manaresi’s Atti. This is doubtless because, in the absence of a surviving Liber iurium for Milan, or indeed any of the rest of the communal archive, court cases are all we have for this period.

23. Wickham, ‘Justice in the Kingdom of Italy’, 220–21, 239. Cf. also chapter 5, n. 21, in this volume, for Pavia in 1112, a late but anomalous placitum.

24. Gli atti del Comune, n. 1. Cf. also—although it is not strong support for archiepiscopal dominance—De bello Mediolanensium adversus Comenses. Liber Cumanus, 407, a text which apparently preceded the Liber Cumanus poem in the now-lost manuscript, which states that Archbishop Giordano in 1118 tunc regebat Mediolanum. See Grillo, ‘A Milano nel 1130’, 227.

25. Gli atti del Comune, n. 3; Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici, 2.13; see Keller, Signori e vassalli, 1–10. The three groups also appear in Mensa di Lodi, n. 38, a Milanese document of 1125. Critical are Occhipinti, ‘I capitanei a Milano’, 28; Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens, 350; and Grillo, ‘A Milano nel 1130’. (Grillo however overstates, it seems to me, the diplomatic differences between this text and later consular judgements; it is doubtless transitional, as he says, but I would see it as divergent from them above all because consular formulae had not yet become fixed.) For Landolfo, see HM, cc. 38, 53: one is a list of three dead people in a battle in 1113, where the three-fold categorisation seems to act as a metonym for the city community; the other is a formal choice of representatives to meet the archbishop in 1128. Both show that Landolfo in the 1130s, at least, is still thinking in terms of the three ordines of the eleventh century, as Keller also pointed out.

26. Archiepiscopal cases: Giulini, Memorie, vol. 5, 547–48, 548–54; Zerbi, ‘La Chiesa ambrosiana’, 207–11 (a. 1123); Mensa di Lodi, n. 38. Of the ‘quasi-consular’ texts, the first is Gli atti del Comune, n. 2, of 1119, which has a long set of thirty-five participants; but the source for this is two summaries of the 16th and 17th centuries, and the status of the grouping is unclear—the summaries imply that the original text simply listed the members of the concio. The 1129 text is edited in Besozzi, ‘Hobedientia de Abiasca e de Clari’, 130–32; for analysis see Grillo, ‘A Milano nel 1130’, 229–30. (Note that the archbishop’s own archive does not survive in Milan; the documents which front him all come from other fondi, which makes his prominence all the more notable.)

27. E.g. S. Simpliciano, n. 5; S. Dionigi, nn. 2, 3, 7, 8; Mensa di Lodi, n. 42; S. Maria delle Veteri, n. 3.

28. Gli atti del Comune, n. 1.

29. Cf. Keller, Signori e vassalli, 347–54. See above, n. 26, for the texts.

30. See the lists in Gli atti del Comune, 537–62, with the addition of Vincent of Prague, Annales, 675 for 1158 (Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 50–51—see also 49 for a table of judicial consuls). In the next pages, references to consuls are all to these lists, and to the documents they refer to. It must be remembered that the figures are very unlikely to be complete; as already noted, Milan’s communal archive and any formal registers of communal acts are lost, so we are reliant on the court cases for our prosopography. Castagnetti, ‘Feudalità e società comunale II’, 20–23, notes the same development.

31. Da Carcano: see Grillo, Milano, 288–91, and Keller, Signori e vassalli, 186–87 (they provided one consul, in 1196: Gli atti del Comune, n. 194). Da Besate: Violante, ‘I “da Besate”’. For the urban–rural difference, see Grillo, ‘Aristocrazia urbana, aristocrazia rurale’, 87–96. Da Rhò and Burri: see below. Da Porta Romana: see Salvatori, ‘I presunti “capitanei delle porte”’, 46–68. Da Settala: they are not well-documented, but the family held fiefs at Coronate south-west of the city, and were close to the nearby monastery of Morimondo: Morimondo, nn. 58, 66 (fiefs), 92, 170. Da Soresina: Violante, ‘Una famiglia feudale’ (which concentrates, however, on pre-1050). For the Crivelli, a relatively rich family in the thirteenth century at least, see the detailed study by Caso, I Crivelli. They did not actually provide consuls, after 1117–30, until 1167, but they constantly appear as witnesses to consular acts in between: Gli atti del Comune, nn. 5, 8, 13, 25, 29, 46. The same is true of the Visconti, who are not consuls between 1130 and 1159, but witness in between in Gli atti del Comune, nn. 5, 7, 8, 13, 17, 25, 30—see for the family Occhipinti, ‘I Visconti di Milano’, and, earlier, Biscaro, ‘I maggiori dei Visconti’. The da Baggio family are on the edge of this group: they were an urban capitaneal family, closely associated with the archbishop (and providing many senior clerics); their first consul after 1117 was already in 1151, but they did not witness for the commune in the 1140s (the first is Gli atti del Comune, n. 22, for 1150); see in general Corsi, ‘Note sulla famiglia da Baggio’; Keller, Signori e vassalli, 182–85. The Grassi are similar: not consuls again until 1160 (Gli atti del Comune, n. 48), and close to the monastery of S. Ambrogio, for which they were apparently hereditary advocates (see S. Ambrogio 3/1, passim), but witnessing in Gli atti del Comune, n. 11 and possibly 23, and linked to consuls in the private arbitration S. Ulderico, n. 1 (a. 1142).

32. Da Pusterla: first consul is Gli atti del Comune, n. 121, although they witness consular documents in nn. 27, 30, 42; in the archbishop’s entourage in the 1120s in Zerbi, ‘La chiesa ambrosiana’, 210, and Mensa di Lodi, n. 38 (of course, a member of the family was archbishop in these years); seniores in Morimondo, n. 35; Anselmo da Pusterla is advocate of S. Maria di Aurona in Chiaravalle 1, n. 66, and S. Maria di Aurona, n. 7; they were also prominent in Lodi. Da Melegnano: after Arialdo (see above, n. 8), they are with the archbishop in Giulini, Memorie, vol. 5, 547–48, and Mensa di Lodi, n. 38; their first consul is in Gli atti del Comune, n. 123. Pozzobonelli: first consul in Gli atti del Comune, n. 206, although they sometimes appear as witnesses to consular documents earlier, in nn. 8, 12, 38, and then several times in the 1180s; one of them formally meets Anselmo V in HM, c. 53; they hold land and fiefs in Villamaggiore in Gli atti del Comune, n. 76, and Chiaravalle 2, nn. 13, 102, and are in general better-documented in landholding terms after 1150 than before. Da Tenebiago: very little-documented after 1130, they hold land from the da Landriano and tithes/signorial rights in Villamaggiore (cf. below, n. 35) in Gli atti del Comune, n. 169; Chiaravalle 1, n. 96; cf. Chiaravalle 2, n. 6. Fanti: see Chiappa Mauri, ‘A Milano nel 1164’, 23–29, and Andenna, ‘Le strutture sociali’, 266–69.

33. Biscaro, ‘Gli avvocati’. Cf. Keller, Signori e vassalli, 180–82. A family member witnessed for the consuls only once, in 1154 (Gli atti del Comune, n. 28).

34. For the late eleventh century, e.g. I placiti, n. 467; for the early twelfth, see e.g. HM, cc. 19 bis, 53, 60, 63; Gli atti del Comune, n. 2 (not a consular text); Giulini, Memorie, vol. 5, 552, and Mensa di Lodi, n. 25 (for the archbishop). First consul: Gli atti del Comune, n. 33; rector of the Lega: ibid., nn. 94, 100, etc. Family members witnessed for the commune in 1140 and 1153: Gli atti del Comune, nn. 5, 27. For Villamaggiore, see e.g. Chiaravalle 1, nn. 50, 112.

35. Vassals of S. Ambrogio: APM, n. 40, cf. 515, 588; later, S. Ambrogio 3/1, n. 45. For the family’s public roles, APM, n. 854 (witness to the consulatus document); Zerbi, ‘La chiesa ambrosiana’, 210 (a. 1123, with the archbishop); Gli atti del Comune, n. 181 (first consul, in 1193). Quinto de’ Stampi: Gli atti del Comune, nn. 44, 68; S. Giorgio al Palazzo, nn. 44, 53, 78; cf. S. Lorenzo, n. 31. They also held in Villamaggiore: Chiaravalle 1, nn. 7, 41; cf. Chiaravalle 2, n. 5.

36. Violante, ‘I “da Besate”’. Another example is the da Intimiano, whose lands were spread across Lombardy, but who were not involved in Milanese city politics apart from the famous example of Archbishop Ariberto: see esp. Basile Weatherill, ‘Una famiglia “longobarda”’.

37. With the archbishop: Mensa di Lodi, nn. 38, 42; Velate, n. 123; Capitolo Maggiore, nn. 19, 21, 22. Tithes: Velate, n. 61; S. Maria in Valle, n. 8. Castle at Rhò: Velate, n. 61. Other lands: e.g. S. Giorgio al Palazzo, n. 32.

38. Archiepiscopal entourage and vassals: Zerbi, ‘La chiesa ambrosiana’, 210; Velate, n. 123 (here Malastreva is explicitly a Burri, which he is not in most consular texts, though see Gli atti del Comune, n. 2). Land: S. Giorgio al Palazzo, nn. 12–14, 16; S. Stefano di Vimercate, n. 51; Chiaravalle 1, nn. 34, 80, cf. 112; Morimondo 1, nn. 104, 141, 152. Tithes: S. Stefano di Vimercate, n. 25; cf. Chiaravalle 1, n. 69. Dowry: Morimondo 1, n. 43. Malastreva also intervened in the bitter dispute between the Capitolo and the monks of S. Ambrogio, in a letter to a cardinal whom he describes as his kinsman: Pflugk-Harttung, Iter italicum, 464–65, a reference I owe to the kindness of Katrin Getschmann. For the family in the thirteenth century, see Grillo, Milano, 263–66.

39. Fasola, ‘Una famiglia di sostenitori milanesi’. For 1143, Capitolo Maggiore, n. 12. For proditor, Annales Mediolanenses, 373, 376.

40. Gualterio in 1109: Chiaravalle 1, n. 7 (cf. n. 8). Ariprando di Pagano: from APM, n. 823 to Capitolo Minore/Decumani, n. 2; Chiaravalle 1, n. 5, for his father. Ambrogio Pagano: from APM, n. 509 (notary) and 585, a. 1078 (iudex) to S. Vittore di Varese, n. 34; see also above, n. 8, and the next note. For the later Ariprando and Barbarossa, Annales Mediolanenses, 376. I am not convinced that the Ariprando Corbo of the period 1155–74, a very frequent scribe and iudex, is necessarily the same person as the Ariprando iudex who was a consul; but if he is (as Chiappa Mauri, ‘A Milano nel 1164’, 29–34, argues), then these iudices were part of the Corbo family who after the 1140s owned some land south of the city and were witnesses for S. Giorgio al Palazzo: medium landowners, probably, like other families of iudices, as we shall see.

41. Keller, Signori e vassalli, 188–89, briefly sets out the chronological difference. In Lucca, too, iudices were very often major landowners in the eleventh-century city: Schwarzmaier, Lucca, 309–28; but not in the twelfth-century city: Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 56–60. Even in the eleventh, however, iudex in Lucca could also be a qualification one worked up to from the notarial profession, as Ambrogio Pagano did. An Ambrogio Pagano infantulus appears as a landowner with a medium-size estate in 1062 (APM, nn. 434–35), but this must be a different man; the judicial figure is already a trained notary by 1069.

42. For Stefanardo’s land and Vimercate connections, see Chiaravalle 2, n. 30; S. Stefano di Vimercate, nn. 20, 78, 85, 114, 119 (land); ibid., nn. 52, 61, 64, 72, 73, 94 (judicial roles)—plus Gli atti del Comune, n. 349 (a. 1211), and Grillo, Milano, 343, for a 1220s reference. The later thirteenth-century Milan-based historian Stefanardo da Vimercate (see Cremaschi, Stefanardo, 1–9, for his life) must have been a descendant. For Vimercate as a rising small town, see Rossetti, Percorsi di Chiesa, 186–209. Another immigrant iudex is Ottobello of Lodi, consul between 1140 and 1144; we may perhaps also add Arderico Cagainosa, consul in the same two years, for that surname is earlier attested on the Isola Comacina: APM, nn. 642, 883; S. Faustino, nn. 2, 3.

43. Andenna, ‘Dall’Orto (de Orto), Oberto’; Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 50–51; and di Renzo Villata, ‘La formazione dei “Libri Feudorum”’, 666–81, collect most of the references. For 1139, see Chiaravalle 1, n. 65. Classen says (50) that ‘die Familie scheint aber zu den valvassorischen gehört zu haben’—I can see no evidence for saying so.

44. For the texts and their study, see below, nn. 57, 59. For Oberto’s possible training in Milan, Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 36–39; for the 1140s for the date of Oberto’s letters (other authors assume the 1150s), ibid., 60, 67. For Pavia, see Radding, The Origins (the city offered a dense legal training but not a formal school, 97); he cautiously suggests a link with the Milanese jurists, 172–73. Vincent of Prague: Annales, 675; Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 51, cites the necrology.

45. For 1151 and 1147, see, respectively, Italia sacra, vol. 5, cols. 793–94 and 788; the best commentary on the latter is Padoa Schioppa, ‘Il ruolo della cultura giuridica’, 278–84; see also di Renzo Villata, ‘La formazione dei “Libri Feudorum”’, 676–77.

46. See Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 49–54, for Girardo’s legal and consular career (plus Soldi Rondanini, ‘Cagapesto [Cacapisti, Pesto], Gerardo’). Andenna, ‘Una famiglia milanese di “cives”’, is basic for the family. 1154: Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici, 2.16–18. 1177: see chapter 1, n. 6, in this volume. 1170: Canonica di S. Ambrogio, nn. 63, 70, 76, 79. 1188: Gli atti del Comune, n. 159. Bruzzano: S. Eusebio, nn. 1, 2; cf. their witnessing for the same church of S. Eusebio in nn. 3–5.

47. Menant, ‘Une forme de distinction inattendue’. ‘Pesto’, strictly, refers to anything crushed, or pressed solid, both food and non-food; the details of the modern Genoese pesto recipe do not have to be kept in the mind. As a result Cagapisto is translated by Menant, ibid., 452, as ‘crush-a-shit’—as also Cagainosa as ‘shit-on-the-bones’—these are valid alternatives to my own etymologies.

48. Wickham, Roma medievale, 438. For Mala- names, see Collavini, ‘Sviluppo signorile’.

49. Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici I., 2.16–18 (Girardus Niger), 2.13 (miliciae cingulum—it is a standard phrase for office-holding in the late Roman empire, as Otto, a highly classicising author, knew, and does not have to mean entry into the military ordines. Even if Otto elsewhere in this text, ibid., 1.26 and 2.23, uses it to mean ‘knighthood’, in his Chronica, 4.9, 5.7, 6.2, it clearly means ‘office’). Note that Girardo often dropped the ‘Caga-’ from his surname at the end of his life (Menant, ibid., 445, 452–53); but his relatives did not.

50. See Mohr, Holy Sh*t, for an excellent historical survey of taboo and rude words, focussed on English but with wide applicability. For Hildebrand, see e.g. Benzone of Alba, Ad Heinricum IV. Imperatorem, 6.6 (562).

51. Shit-names were not restricted to the urban (usually élite, including aristocratic) milieu, but also included some peasants: Menant, ‘Une forme de distinction inattendue’, 443–44. But they did not extend to the rural aristocracy.

52. ‘Il “Liber Pergaminus”’, lines 271–92. For Milan, Barni, ‘Milano verso l’egemonia’, is as good a guide as any to wars. For Como, see below, n. 56.

53. Vincent of Prague, Annales, 675; for 1154, above, n. 46.

54. But not all of them: the Zavatari, who had a consul of the cives in 1130 (Gli atti del Comune, n. 3), had signorial rights in Moirano in 1160: Canonica di S. Ambrogio, n. 47.

55. Annales Mediolanenses, passim.

56. De bello Mediolanensium adversus Comenses. Liber Cumanus. The eyewitness nature of the poem is explicit in lines 6, 1670–74. For consuls, lines 703–4; for proceres, lines 752, 1051, 1125, 1602, 1645, and cf. 1995 for maiores. Consuls also appear in the ‘introduction’ to the poem, 407 (cf. above, n. 24). Iudices fought in the war, too: e.g. lines 253–56. The only recent discussion of the poem I have seen is Grillo, ‘Una fonte’, 68–76, focussed on its evidence for early rural communes; Settia, Comuni in guerra, 91–114, on Milan, and idem, Rapine, assedi, a general survey of medieval warfare in Italy, also cite it with regularity.

57. Anselmo dall’Orto, Iuris civilis instrumentum; idem, De summa Anselmini de Orto super contractibus. Comment: Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 55–57 (Verona), 64–66 (Anselmo); Padoa Schioppa, ‘Il ruolo della cultura giuridica’, 278–89 (Verona); Cortese, Il diritto, vol. 2, 122–23, 161–62 (Anselmo; he is very negative about the sophistication of the text on leases). Gli atti del Comune, nn. 73–74, a. 1170, is the only Milanese consular case with Roman actions in the century; cf. Behrmann, ‘Von der Sentenz zur Akte’, 76–78.

58. Edited as La Summa Trium Librorum by Conte and Menzinger; for his culture, ibid., li–lxiv; for his career, xxvii–xlii; cf. Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 51–53; Savigni, Episcopato, 580–81. He is not, however, documented as a consul maior, Lucca’s term for an annual city leader.

59. Lehmann, Das langobardische Lehnrecht, Antiqua 8 and 10 [henceforth Antiqua]; quote from 142. Commentary: Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 59–68; Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, 215–30, 483–86; and the fullest recent study, di Renzo Villata, ‘La formazione dei “Libri Feudorum”’; see n. 63 for earlier literature. The only other named author in the text (Antiqua 9) is Ugo of Gambolado, Gambolò in the Pavese, who was a consul in Pavia in 1112 (di Renzo Villata, ‘La formazione dei “Libri Feudorum”’, 657, sums up here; see chapter 5, n. 21, in this volume)—what is said here about Oberto largely applies to him too.

60. Antiqua 8.1 (Lehmann, Das langobardische Lehnrecht, 115); for Milanese law being posed here as superior to Roman law, see among very many Andenna, ‘Dall’Orto (de Orto), Oberto’; Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 63; Padoa Schioppa, ‘Aspetti della giustizia milanese’, 549.

61. Lehmann, Das langobardische Lehnrecht, 114–48, gives the references to the Milanese statutes in the footnotes; for later feudal law, Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, e.g. 249–57, 286–87, 460.

62. Gli atti del Comune, nn. 5, 18, 24 (aa. 1140–51), etc.; the Verona consilium concerns feudal law too, above, n. 45.

63. Historians (two out of very many are Castagnetti, ‘Introduzione’, 20; Keller, Signori e vassalli, 3–5, 23–24) tend to assume that Oberto wrote Antiqua 8.16, the section about capitanei being defined as the holders of [tithe rights in] pievi in fief, and valvassores as those who hold fiefs/benefices ‘anciently’ from capitanei—and those who acquire them noviter, ‘recently’, being [only] plebeii (note that one of these ‘recent’ families was the Cagapisto, as Oberto presumably knew). Transalpine legal historians, however, Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 68, and Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, 217 and 485, regard this as an interpolation. This goes back to Laspeyres, Über die Entstehung, 192–93, who remains the only person, back in 1830, who has seriously investigated the issue; he did so entirely on the basis of the interruption in Oberto’s argument caused by this paragraph, and certainly not on any MS evidence (the main MSS, which begin around 1200, all contain the passage)—and Laspeyres, indeed, restricts himself to saying that it is ‘sehr bedenklich’ that the passage is inserted. In the absence of more detailed study (which might indeed not take us further) I think we simply have to register uncertainty here. For pievi, the basic study is Violante, ‘Pievi e parrocchie’; 718–21 for the link with the Libri feudorum.

64. Kershaw, ‘Working towards the Führer’.

65. [Otto of Freising and] Rahewin, Gesta Friderici, 4.1–10—note that Frederick also legislated about feudal law in the same gathering.

66. For assemblies, see above, n. 15; see also Celli, ‘Il ruolo del parlamento’, which gives assemblies their proper weight in the early history of communes, even if his general argument is otherwise alien to me. I discuss the issue further in Wickham, ‘The “Feudal Revolution”’.

67. See for Milan Gli atti del Comune, xxxviii, lxxiii–lxxvi.

68. Mainoni, ‘A proposito della “rivoluzione fiscale”’. 35.

69. See La Summa Trium Librorum, 383–84 (cf. Conte, Servi medievali, 111–14), for rural oppression; for bad behaviour among aristocrats, Lansing, The Florentine Magnates, 165–91, is a good guide.

3. PISA

1. The figure of three hundred is in Gesta triumphalia per Pisanos facta, 6, a text of around 1120. The poem was edited in 1904 as Liber Maiolichinus [henceforth LM]. Booty: e.g. LM, lines 2925 (the king of Mallorca here says the Pisans simply volunt omnes thesauros tollere nobis, ‘want to take all our treasures from us’, and he was not wrong—this was not an expedition of conquest), 3515–19. Enrico pievano of Calci is widely accepted as the author, on flimsy grounds (e.g. Fisher, ‘The Pisan Clergy’, 193–95; Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘Enrico da Pisa’), but von der Höh, Erinnerungskultur, 156–60, 164–78, who also cautiously accepts the standard authorship, has good reasons to say that the author is a cleric (ibid., 155–98, is the fullest recent study of a text which would repay further work). Still, the poem is quite as secular as it is religious in tone.

2. For the wealth of recent work on Pisa in this period see, among many, the works of Gabriella Rossetti, Mauro Ronzani, and Maria Luisa Ceccarelli Lemut cited in the bibliography; the classic survey is Volpe, Studi. For the families, see the articles (partly collected in Rossetti et al., Pisa nei secoli XI e XII) and the tesi di laurea cited below, nn. 65–77.

3. Concerning direct evidence for commerce, Documenti sulle relazioni delle città toscane contains a good set of private documents for Pisans in late twelfth-century Constantinople; see also, for example, Baldelli, ‘La carta pisana di Filadelfia’, for an early twelfth-century Pisan naval account in Italian; letters concerning the commercial expeditions of the Ebriaci family in Byzantium, Egypt, and the rest of Italy in the 1130s in Die Lombardische Briefsammlung, nn. 56–57; and a reference to a commercial socius in a document of 1151 (Puglia, ‘Fuori della città’, 194); see further pp. 105, 107, in this volume. Pisa as a funnel for goods: Cantini, ‘Ritmi e forme’; Baldassarri and Giorgio, ‘La ceramica’. Imports are further shown by the Islamic polychrome bowls (bacini) which decorate Pisan church façades and campanili: Berti and Tongiorgi, I bacini. Pisa produced goods, too, in our period: see in particular Bruni, Abela, and Berti, Ricerche, for the Piazza dei Cavalieri excavations, which showed metalworking from the seventh century to c. 1100. For metalwork, see also the variety of sources cited in Renzi Rizzo, ‘Pisarum et Pisanorum descriptiones’, 1–2, 27–29.

4. Goldberg, Trade and Institutions, sums up for now; Constable, Trade and Traders, covers Spain.

5. A good recent survey is Salvatori, ‘Lo spazio economico di Pisa’; a neat synthesis is Petralia, ‘Le “navi” e i “cavalli”’. For earlier periods: Tangheroni, ‘La prima espansione di Pisa’; Bruce, ‘The Politics of Violence and Trade’; Catia Renzi Rizzo is preparing a new analysis.

6. Malaterra, De rebus gestis, 45. Treaties: Banti, Scritti di storia, 287–350, and Salvatori, ‘Lo spazio economico di Pisa’ sum up; texts are in Documenti sulle relazioni delle città toscane and I diplomi arabi. For how commerce worked in the twelfth century, Abulafia, The Two Italies, is basic. Pisans also attacked Nice before 1119 (Salvatori, Boni amici e vicini, 185–87); but in the twelfth century, naval wars were above all with southern Italy and Genoa. For later ‘piracy’—i.e. when Pisa was an accepted player, with treaties, and piracy began to be an embarrassment—see Puglia, ‘Fuori della città’, 183–88, and esp. Salvatori, ‘Il corsaro pisano Trapelicino’.

7. For a context, see Ronzani, Chiesa e “Civitas”, 11–32, 240–69. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Corsica remained fought over between Pisa and Genoa until Innocent II established a division of rights in 1133.

8. Although Genoa did have the best chronicle of the early commune, beginning in 1099, Caffaro’s Annali genovesi; see pp. 162–63 in this volume. The fullest overall surveys of Pisan self-memorialisation are Fisher, ‘The Pisan Clergy’, and von der Höh, Erinnerungskultur.

9. The basic epigraphical edition is now Ottavio Banti’s Monumenta epigrafica pisana: nn. 48–50 for Buscheto, 46–47, 51 (the Palermo poem) for the expeditions. The dates of these texts are disputed, often fiercely, between an early dating—eleventh century for the poems—and a later dating, in some cases closer to the date of the current cathedral façade, around 1150; Banti, among others, prefers later dates (see also Banti, Scritti di storia, 67–90), whereas Giuseppe Scalia, the other editor of the texts, prefers early ones (see for example, among many articles, ‘Tre iscrizioni e una facciata’). Von der Höh, Erinnerungskultur, 315–63, in the most recent detailed study, accepts 1135 for the most likely date of the Palermo inscription, following Ronzani, ‘La nuova Roma’. I shall not make arguments that assume that they are either contemporary or later.

10. Roma altera: LM, 133; Monumenta epigrafica pisana, n. 9, for the Porta Aurea. See Scalia, ‘“Romanitas” pisana’, 805–6 on Roma altera; the whole article is the basic analysis of classical imagery in Pisa in this period, which extended to the wholescale incorporation of classical inscriptions into the cathedral masonry (ibid., 795–802); see further Petralia, ‘La percezione’; von der Höh, Erinnerungskultur, 399–412.

11. LM, e.g. lines 445–48, 717–18, 780, 1184–86; cf. von der Höh, Erinnerungskultur, 403–5.

12. Edited in Scalia, ‘Il carme pisano’; see below, n. 29, for bibliography. Again its date is contested, although it has to predate 1119, the date of the manuscript.

13. Liber Guidonis, ed. Campopiano (see also Fisher, ‘The Pisan Clergy’, 177–83; von der Höh, Erinnerungskultur, 91–103). For Pisa as belligeras see LM, line 778.

14. I Costituti, edited by Vignoli, includes the earliest surviving version of the two Constituta, dating to 1186–90 (ibid., lxxvi–lxxvii); 129 for quote. For recent analyses, see Vignoli’s introduction; Storti Storchi, Intorno ai Costituti pisani (45–48, 69–72 for earlier non-Roman law); Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 114–67 (118 for earlier non-Roman law). The best earlier analysis is Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 68–88.

15. Ronzani, Chiesa e “Civitas”, 223–28, sets it out clearly for 1087 (although external patronage for 1064, ibid., 117, is guesswork); 1098 is unproblematic (Matzke, Daibert, discusses it in most detail). For 1113, LM refs to three flags, of Pisa, of the cathedral, and of the papacy, at lines 1684–88; see p. 88, in this volume, for the archbishop nominally leading the expedition. This sponsorship did not, however, amount to the Pisans raiding only because they had been asked to; 1087 and, later, 1113 were the Pisans’ own initiatives.

16. For arguments for crusading-style imagery which seem to me over-interpretative, see e.g. Scalia in Gesta triumphalia per Pisanos facta, xl–xlii; Banti, ‘La giustizia’; von der Höh, Erinnerungskultur, is more balanced.

17. See in general Ronzani, ‘Dall’edificatio ecclesiae’. Buscheto was an early operarius; Ildebrando was the most prominent—see p. 91 in this volume.

18. Volpe, Studi, 1: ‘Il comune pisano, nato dalla organizzazione privata degli armatori e dei mercanti di mare…’.

19. Maragone is edited in Gli Annales Pisani. See Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘Bernardo Maragone’, for his career.

20. I placiti, nn. 414, 421, 428, 433, 436, 445; for a context, Goez, Beatrix von Canossa, 89–99, 106–7; Ronzani, Chiesa e “Civitas”, 109–90—the whole book is basic for the period 1060–92.

21. The first hard-to-control communal trouble related by Maragone is in 1182: Gli Annales Pisani, 73–74. But we must add the 1153 Visconti crisis too, although we do not know how serious it was: see below, n. 50.

22. I placiti, n. 445; cf. inquisitio, n. 14 (I placiti, 451–52), in which Ugo acts in a case at Beatrice’s command, but again in 1077, after her death.

23. Die Urkunden und Briefe der Markgräfin Mathilde von Tuszien [henceforth DM], n. 23.

24. Ronzani, ‘L’affermazione dei Comuni cittadini’, 5–10; Cowdrey, ‘The Mahdiya Campaign’, 16–18. For the 1081 Pisa privilege, see below, n. 27; for other diplomas of Henry and Matilda, see below, nn. 26, 43.

25. Ronzani, ‘Le tre famiglie dei “Visconti”’, separates out not only two but three vicecomital families. This separation is not quite conclusive genealogically, but the political differences between the separate vicecomital branches are pretty clear, and I am happy to accept the argument. For pro-imperial families, see also Struve, ‘Heinrich IV’, 516–23. For Matilda, see the list of acts and locations in Overmann, La contessa Matilde di Canossa, 127–43.

26. Heinrici IV. diplomata, nn. 359, 362, 404, are the emperor’s gifts, to the cathedral and the Orlandi family (for whom see also 346, a placitum); the last is from 1089, by when Henry’s support in Tuscany had waned (cf. also Matzke, Daibert, 59–60). Matilda re-gave the land in 404 in DM, n. 74, and also confirmed Orlandi lands in n. 125.

27. Heinrici IV. diplomata, n. 336, re-edited in Rossetti, ‘Pisa e l’impero’; 163, 168–70 for the interpolation. (This argument is convincing, but there are problems about interpolation-hunting, in that once started it is difficult to stop: see Puglia, ‘Reazioni alla dominazione canossiana’, 41–46, who adds more interpolations, and contrast Struve, ‘Heinrich IV’, 514–16, who defends the text as a whole.) Henry did not create this civic collectivity, for Matilda in 1077 (DM, n. 23) had referred to the Pisan cives as in effect the guarantors of the communal life of the cathedral canons; but this is to me less significant a citation.

28. The most recent edition of the text is in I brevi dei consoli, 107–8. For the text as a forgery: Wolf, ‘Il cosiddetto “Privilegio logudorese”’. Blasco, ‘Consuntivo delle riflessioni’, and Ronzani, Chiesa e “Civitas”, 190–99 (which also argues for the tighter dating of 1080–81), successfully defend its authenticity. Blasco’s detailed argument that the text should be redated to 1121 has not yet been comprehensively countered (even if he is not in the end convincing to me: he finds it hard to argue away the citation of Bishop Gerardo, and the list of ammicos fits the 1080s better than the 1120s), and it would be wrong to put too much weight on the date; my interpretation here does not do so, however.

29. Scalia, ‘Il carme pisano’, 43, for the quote. See above, n. 12, for the uncertainty of dating here too. Commentary, apart from Scalia: Fisher, ‘The Pisan Clergy’, 183–93; Cowdrey, ‘The Mahdiya Campaign’; the best analysis is in von der Höh, Erinnerungskultur, 120–54. Scalia argues that all four are consuls; it may be so (the phrases would then be separated for reasons of scansion), but it does not alter the argument.

30. See in general Ronzani, Chiesa e “Civitas”, 229–33, 245–46; and Matzke, Daibert.

31. Rossetti, ‘Il lodo del vescovo Daiberto’, gives the text and the basic analysis; see also Ronzani, Chiesa e “Civitas”, 233–40, 247–55. See Redi, Pisa com’era, 200–11, and plates at the back for surviving towers; Garzella, Pisa com’era, 62–63 and passim, for a documentary context.

32. Rossetti, ‘I caratteri del politico’, goes further than I would here. Matzke, Daibert, 64–65, following Hagen Keller (see chapter 1, n. 27, in this volume), says that the oath is like those of the Peace of God; this does not seem to me helpful. For the consular oaths, see I brevi dei consoli, 60, 88.

33. I brevi dei consoli, 105–7, 108–10, is the most recent edition of both; for commentary, see among others Rossetti, ‘Società e istituzioni’, 320–37; Ronzani, Chiesa e “Civitas”, 252–55, with different views. Wickham, ‘Property-ownership’, 227–29, translates the texts; the focus there is on rural signorial rights, however, not the city.

34. William, etc.: see in general Niermeyer, Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus, 260–61, s.v. consul 5. Note that early ruling consuls in Italy were not by any means always annual. Caffaro’s Annali genovesi, 5–17, shows that consuls changed every three or four years in Genoa between 1099 and 1121; in Pisa, the consuls of the Mallorca war served for three years, and several consuls into the 1120s held office for several years at a stretch, which does not have to have involved annual reelections: see the data in Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘I consoli’.

35. Wickham, Roma medievale, 236–37; cf. LM, line 51, referring to the Pisan consuls of 1113 as consules atque duces.

36. Hiestand, ‘Iudex’, for the iudices; Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 118–21, for borrowing from Rome.

37. Codice diplomatico del monastero di Santo Stefano, n. 96. See pp. 162–70 in this volume, including for Asti’s consuls in 1095–98, which create more problems than do those of Genoa.

38. See again Keller, ‘Gli inizi’, 56.

39. See LM, line 343, for 1113; and I brevi dei consoli, 117–19, for the publica contio in 1153—see below, n. 50.

40. LM, lines 449–50; cf. pp. 13–14 in this volume.

41. For Pietro, Ceccarelli Lemut and Garzella, ‘Optimus antistes’.

42. See pp. 27–29, 195–96, in this volume, for more on this; and also Wickham, ‘The “Feudal Revolution”’. Note that in Tuscany such assemblies are, outside Pisa, much less well-documented in our period: see pp. 000, 000, in this volume.

43. DM, nn. 61–63, 74, 124, 125 (the last being to the Orlandi family, who had been the beneficiaries of diplomas of Henry IV in 1082–84: see above, n. 27). Matilda is documented outside Lucca in 1099 (I placiti, n. 479). Note that King Conrad, the pro-Matilda rebel son of Henry IV, was also in Pisa in 1097 (Die Urkunden König Konrads, n. 4, edited in Heinrici IV. diplomata), we do not know with what effect on the city’s régime.

44. Savigni, Episcopato, 42–50, tracks the period.

45. Carte dell’Archivio arcivescovile di Pisa [henceforth AAP], vol. 2, nn. 10–17 (14 for the commune). See Ronzani, ‘Le prime testimonianze’, for the fullest analysis; idem, ‘L’affermazione dei Comuni cittadini’, 20–27. For the comunum in Cremona in 1097, the first reference, see p. 174 in this volume.

46. See below, n. 48.

47. LM, 137–40 (a. 1114); AAP, vol. 2, nn. 49, 55. For 1111, Documenti sulle relazioni delle città toscane, n. 34 (pages 43–45 for the Greek, 52–54 for the Latin)—the archbishop and cathedral get gifts from Alexios, though; cf. the Nice treaty, probably 1118–19, which has Archbishop Pietro together with consuls and viscounts acting for the city (Salvatori, Boni amici et vicini, 185–87). For the scribe (scriniarius) in 1126, see Banti, Studi di storia, 58.

48. AAP, vol. 2, nn. 20, 19. I myself earlier wondered (Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 111n) if the former text, with its unique placitum format, might indicate that the archbishop really presided over the case, as he did in the parallel 1117 episcopal placitum from Milan, discussed earlier (pp. 1–2, 34, in this volume); but it has to be said that there is not a trace of any such episcopal protagonism in the document, and we cannot assume it.

49. Regesto della chiesa di Pisa [henceforth RCP], n. 300. The first phrase could be ‘of the commune of the Pisan populus’. Ronzani, ‘L’affer-mazione dei Comuni cittadini’, 36, argues that this was to raise money to pay for a favourable papal decision over the powers of the Pisan church in Corsica, recently successfully contested by Genoa. In RCP, n. 311 (a. 1129), Ruggero complains about consular neglect of an earlier archiepiscopal cession.

50. For 1138, AAP, vol. 2, n. 124. For 1153, I brevi dei consoli, 117–19, is the most recent edition. The other families of viscounts were soon back in power, although not with formal vicecomital rights, so it is by now easiest to call them Visconti as a family name (one of the other families, that of the Pietro who was consul in 1153 itself, was explicitly excluded from the 1153 decree anyway, and Guittone Visconti, not from Pietro’s family, was a consul in 1158); Alberto’s family, however, were not again consuls until 1183. See in general Pratesi, ‘I Visconti’; Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘I consoli’.

51. AAP, vol. 2, n. 20; Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘Terre pubbliche’, for the archbishop’s signorial rights. For Volpe, Studi, 9–18, cf. 178–82 (critiqued in Ronzani, ‘L’affermazione dei Comuni cittadini’, 35–36). Rossetti, ‘Costituzione cittadina’, the fullest analysis of the cessions of castles to the archbishop, gives an updated Volpean reading at 108–11, 158–60. For the general issue of the juridical legitimacy of early communes, see chapter 2, n. 22, in this volume. Judgements in contumacy (which begin in 1142: D’Amia, Diritto e sentenze, n. 2), the expulsion of the viscounts in 1153 (see the previous note), and the decision to construct the city’s two Constituta in 1155 are even clearer examples of the assumption by the commune of a public role; all these predate the formal granting of rights to the commune by Frederick Barbarossa in 1162 (Friderici I. Diplomata, n. 356).

52. Ex-consular arbitration: AAP, vol. 2, nn. 61–62 (Azzo di Marignano, who was consul in 1120: ibid., n. 55; two consuls witness n. 62 too). A lay case before the archbishop, AAP, vol. 2, n. 89, has him as a party as well, and he may here be acting as a signorial lord (cf. below, n. 54)—as he certainly is in nn. 141–42, which however also involve the consuls. The archbishop did judge canon-law cases, however: up to 1150, AAP, vol. 2, n. 67; D’Amia, Diritto e sentenze, n. 1; RCP, n. 367. Archbishop Ruggero, note, was also bishop of Volterra, and in that diocese (one with a very weak and small city) he is found in 1128 running a very late placitum, AAP, vol. 2, n. 72: it is significant that there are no equivalents to this for Pisa.

53. AAP, vol. 2, nn. 105, 124; Ronzani, ‘Dall’edificatio ecclesiae’, 29–42, for Ildebrando.

54. See for example the data in Rossetti et al., Pisa nei secoli XI e XII. Note that fiefs were much rarer in Tuscany than in Lombardy (cf. chapter 2 in this volume), although the Pisan archbishop did certainly concede some (and some of the consular families held episcopal fiefs), and he also had a court, a curia, for his feudal dependants—see e.g. RCP, n. 654 (a. 1137). That text, however, also clearly shows how the archbishop in that period had little control over many of his tenants (cf. Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 292–96).

55. See e.g. Rossetti, ‘Ceti dirigenti’, xxxi, for the traditional weakness of episcopal power in Tuscany. For Lucca, see the discussion in Osheim, An Italian Lordship, 10–25. For the lasting force of marchesal power, the absence of early signorie is one sign (Wickham, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’, 361–70), plus the late survival of placita in the March (I placiti, vol. 3, passim). Arezzo is the exception; there, the bishop was a real public and tenurial focus: Delumeau, Arezzo, esp. 525–28; see p. 184 in this volume.

56. In 1050–1150, at least Gerardo, Pietro, Uberto, and perhaps Baldovino were Pisans, but not visibly from major urban families.

57. LM, lines 72–81 (the pope), 86, 1209, 1391–92, 1575–89 (Pietro preaching, etc.), 1404 (Dodone quote), 760–61 (the first reference to Ugo), 971–72 (Pietro di Albizo quote: see p. 104 in this volume). The role of Archbishop Pietro is in fact much clearer in the Pisa-Barcelona treaty of 1114 (LM, 137–40) than in the poem. Ugo is said in his first citation to ‘preside over the city of Pisa’, but he does not do much ‘presiding’ in any document, although in 1111 he ratifies a transaction by a woman in his curtis, a judicial role which doubtless still belonged to him as viscount (Guastini, ‘Le pergamene’, n. 42; cf. Nardi, ‘Le pergamene’, n. 10, a. 1116, the last reference to this role, for a viscount from another family): see Pratesi, ‘I Visconti’, 57–8.

58. See pp. 162–66 in this volume; cf. also Wickham, ‘The “Feudal Revolution”’.

59. For common land and officials, see Giardina, Storia del diritto, vol. 1, 135–85; see, in general, the evidence about the delta area presented in La pianura pisana, ed. Mazzanti. The issue is well set out in Rao, Comunia. Cf. also, for rural communes, the survey in Wickham, Community and Clientele; for Italy, the keenest proponent of the relationship between rural communes and common land was Bognetti, Studi sulle origini del comune rurale, 1–262.

60. Ronzani, ‘L’affermazione dei Comuni cittadini’, 18–22.

61. Around Florence, Matilda besieged Prato in 1107: see DM, nn. 102–3; her last known placitum is in the county of Volterra in 1107, n. 104. Her last Pisa act is from 1112, n. 125, issued from Massa, on the coast some thirty miles north of Pisa and well out of the diocese.

62. It might be also thought that we need to explain why Pisa did not simply become a city run by its viscounts, traditional holders of local power as they were too, which it by no means did—the vicecomital families were indeed among Pisa’s consuls from the first, in 1109 and onwards. But we will see later, p. 109 in this volume, that this was never a likely possibility.

63. I base myself here on Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘I consoli’, an invaluable article. See n. 20 for the placita. I count each annual office separately; many consuls, as in Milan, served several times. The families are the Baldovinaschi, Gualandi, Casapieri, Sismondi, da San Casciano, viscounts/Visconti (for ease of counting I have regarded the three branches of the Visconti as one family here), Dodi/Gaetani, Orlandi, Casalei, Casalberti, Azzi/Marignani, Erizi, Federici/da Parlascio, de Curte, Ricucci, Anfossi. Only the last four are not attested before 1080, and indeed before 1100; these four are also relatively minor families. The family names used here are in most cases attested as the names of what in Pisa were called ‘houses’, domūs, by c. 1200—rarely in our period, however, even if there are some exceptions; but the names are anyway by now established in the historiography.

64. Luglié, ‘I da Caprona’; Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘Pisan Consular Families’, 128–39, for the Ebriaci; members of each family were occasionally consuls after 1150, and once (the Ebriaci in 1135) before.

65. Delfino, ‘Per la storia’, 84–98 (da Ripafratta); Pescaglini Monti, Toscana medievale, 547–51 (da Ripafratta); Ceccarelli Lemut, Medioevo pisano, 163–258 (Gherardeschi). The Pisan branch of the Gherardeschi were city ambassadors by 1158 (ibid., 202–5), and podestà from 1190 (for all the ambiguity of that office as a sign of urban identity); see Cristiani, Nobiltà e popolo, for the thirteenth century. The descendants of the counts of Pisa of the tenth century were also rural/signorial-focussed powers by now, although they lived in the city at least in part, submitted to the city consuls already in 1109, and provided one consul in 1167: Ciccone, ‘Famiglie di titolo comitale’; Ronzani, ‘Le prime testimonianze’. The only family with no links at all to the commune in this period was the (rural-based) Upezzinghi, based in lands the Pisans moved into, east of the Pisan diocese: Pescaglini Monti, Toscana medievale, 449–91.

66. References to families not discussed later can be found in Tiné, ‘I discendenti’ (Baldovinaschi); Martini, ‘Per la storia’ (Gualandi); Ticciati, ‘S. Casciano’ (da San Casciano); for the Dante citation, Inferno 33, lines 29–30.

67. See Ronzani, ‘Nobiltà, chiesa, memoria’, for the ‘seven houses’ from now to the fifteenth century (the seven families of the later middle ages were however slightly different ones).

68. For the Federici, not discussed later, see Iapoce, ‘La famiglia Federici’; for the Erizi see below, n. 73.

69. Pratesi, ‘I Visconti’; 39–56 for the lands. See further Ronzani, ‘Le tre famiglie dei “Visconti”’, who not only disaggregates the families (cf. above, n. 25) but also, convincingly, changes some of the genealogies around. See above, n. 50, for 1153. For the thirteenth century, see in general Cristiani, Nobiltà e popolo; Poloni, Trasformazioni della società.

70. For the family, see Farina, ‘Per la storia’ (whose genealogical reconstructions are replaced by later work, but whose work on the family’s rural landowning, 39–51, is unsuperseded); Puglia, ‘L’origine’, 85–93; Ronzani, ‘La “casa di Gontulino”’. Pandolfo Contulino as castaldio: I placiti, n. 414. Enrico’s epithets: LM, lines 1405, 1879. Nugola: AAP, vol. 1, n. 132; Livorno: AAP, vol. 2, n. 154.

71. Sturmann, ‘La “domus” dei Dodi’. They got their first land in lease from the da Caprona (ibid., 300–301), who may have got it from the marquis. Tangheroni, ‘La prima espansione di Pisa’, 10, already saw the wood connection. LM and wood: lines 98–104. Tomboli: Sgherri, ‘Le pergamene’, nn. 1–6; cf. Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 144–50.

72. See for the family Ticciati, ‘Strategie familiari’. For 1016/1114, LM, lines 962–74, 2812–14, 2912–36.

73. See Garzella, ‘Marignani’ (72–73, 112–13, for Azzo di Marignano); LM, 137–40, for the Barcelona treaty. 1121: see above, n. 52. Fasciano as origin: I placiti, nn. 421, 433. For the Sismondi as not kin, Ronzani, Chiesa e “Civitas”, 84n. The Erizi were similar to the Marignani, as eleventh-century iudices and early consuls, but with fewer consuls later, and relatively little land: see Guzzardi, ‘Erizi’.

74. Rege Cambrin, ‘La famiglia dei Casalei’ (179–99 for properties). See e.g. I diplomi arabi, n. 2, for Babillonia.

75. Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘Pisan Consular Families’, 124–28.

76. Rovai, ‘La famiglia de Curte’ (3–9 for the silvani, 76–90 for properties).

77. Ticciati, ‘S. Casciano’, 125–26; Garzella, ‘Cascina’, 73–77. Note also Vecchiano, a castle which certainly was partly controlled by the da San Casciano, and conceivably shared with the other longubardi families, but it did not last either: Ticciati, ‘S. Casciano’, 126–27 (with reference to another partial castle); Ronzani, ‘Nobiltà, chiesa’, 760–61.

78. There is almost no trace of these figures in document collections except in judicial roles. See for some of them Classen, Burgundio; Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘I consoli’, for Ildebrando Familiati as consul in 1166; Angiolini, ‘Familiati, Bandino’ (which is only, however, informative on his Bolognese career).

79. 1182: Gli Annales Pisani, 73–74. Lucca is a close parallel: see p. 180–82 in this volume. Early Pisan popolo: Poloni, Trasformazioni della società, 38–42. Contrast Milan, where a popolo was active at the latest in 1198: Grillo, Milano, 644–57.

80. Matzke, Daibert, 61–74, sets these activities out; there is not a lot.

81. DM, nn. 63 (a. 1100), 74 (a. 1103). Strictly, Matilda gave two tracts of land beside the palatium (as the 1100 text says), and not the palace itself; but by 1111 the consuls and populus had adopted the location as the forum Pisane civitatis, and the marquise had no further role there (see p. 89 in this volume); one could suppose either that the second donation in fact included the palace as well, or else that the marquise’s land was appropriated de facto by the city, but the transfer of rights happened either way. See Garzella, Pisa com’era, 85–88, 109–11.

82. Ronzani, ‘L’affermazione dei Comuni cittadini’, 20–30, describes this situation best. Alberti alliance: Chronicon pisanum, 102n, early Lucchese additions to a text of this short Pisan chronicle.

83. See in general Wickham, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’. Ceccarelli Lemut, ‘Terre pubbliche’, discusses the counts of Pisa (103–5) and is basic for the rural signorie around Pisa; for the counts, see also above, n. 65.

84. Racine, Plaisance, 372.

85. Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 111.

86. Constitutum usus, c. 44, in I Costituti, ed. Vignoli, 288–301; it makes some use of the Milanese Libri feudorum, in fact (Classen, Studium und Gesellschaft, 86), in a rapid transferral of knowledge.

87. As indeed happened also to leaders of rural communes, who were in many places the leading local stratum which did not have access to militarised lordship: Wickham, Community and Clientele, e.g. 231–34.

88. Gli Annales Pisani, 16. Cf. Wickham, Land and Power, 301–2.

4. ROME

1. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Přerovský, 727–41.

2. I will use the phrases ‘reform’ and ‘reform papacy’, in inverted commas, for ease of reference to the period after 1046. They are problematic phrases, in that they take the standpoint of Leo IX, Gregory VII, and their successors for granted, but they are convenient labels.

3. This will not resemble very greatly the traditional papal grand narrative, for which see my Roma medievale (which covers the period from 900 to 1150), 36–37; that narrative, quite apart from its intrinsic flaws, gives almost no consideration to the history of Rome as a city. More detailed analyses of many of my characterisations in this chapter will be found in that book. The basic account of the period after 1143 is now Maire Vigueur, L’autre Rome.

4. Toubert, Les structures, esp. 1191–1257, 1314–48; idem, ‘Scrinium et palatium’, 440–55.

5. Le Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne [henceforth LP], vol. 2, 331, for Rome; cf. p. 23 in this volume, for Milan.

6. For discussion of the ‘new aristocracy’, see Wickham, Roma medievale, 266–300. For documentary citations of nobiles, see for general uses of the term Codice diplomatico della Repubblica di Genova, n. 32; Patrologiae… cursus latina [henceforth PL], vol. 129, cols. 699–700, n. 9, cols. 706–7, n. 18; S. Gregorio, n. 7. [For all abbreviations of non-papal document editions in this chapter, see the note on documents in the bibliography of this volume.] For the Frangipane family, S. Prassede, n. 26; Acta pontificum romanorum inedita [henceforth Pflugk], vol. 3, n. 245; PL, vol. 200, col. 178, n. 103; Le Liber Censuum [henceforth LC], vol. 1, n. 64. For the Pierleoni family, Papsturkunden in Italien [henceforth Kehr], vol. 4, 157. See further Kehr, vol. 2, 348–50 (Corsi family); Epistolae, ed. Loewenfeld, n. 282 (Sant’ Eustachio family).

7. For Hildebrand/Gregory, see Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 37–58, 71–74, 314–29, 213–29. For Cencio di Stefano and his family, see Borino, ‘Cencio del prefetto Stefano’, and esp. Whitton, ‘Papal Policy’, 223–26, 233–36, 244–52. Basic texts: LP, vol. 2, 336–37; Beno, Gesta, 1.8 (372); Bonizone of Sutri, Liber ad amicum, cc. 6–8 (595, 603–6, 610–11).

8. For placita, RF, nn. 906, 1006, 1013. See in general Toubert, Les structures, 1316–19.

9. See for the Norman attack Hamilton, ‘Memory, Symbol, and Arson’.

10. For the Frangipane, see Thumser, ‘Die Frangipane’, 113–16; the Pierleoni are less prominent in this period because there was a generation change, but see LP, vol. 2, 334, 336, for the period around 1060, and p. 125 in this volume. The Corsi were certainly initial supporters of Gregory but may have changed sides by 1088: see RF, n. 1115, a Clementine text presided over by Pietro the urban prefect, plausibly already a Corsi family member.

11. Ziese, Wibert, 275–79, and now esp. Framing Clement III, ed. Longo and Yawn.

12. See for these ad hoc cases SMVL, nn. 120–21, 139; RF, n. 1115; Chronicon farfense, vol. 2, 232–33; ASR, SCD, cassetta 16, n. 109; RS, n. 212; S. Gregorio, n. 34; Andenna, ‘Documenti di S. Paolo’, 35–38.

13. See for the prefecture Halphen, Études, 16–27, 147–56; Toubert, Les structures, 1208–9. For Paschal and the Corsi, see Liber Pontificalis, ed. Přerovský, 711–14, 717–21.

14. See in general Liber Pontificalis, ed. Přerovský, 705–44.

15. See Laudage, ‘Rom und das Papsttum’; Stroll, Calixtus II.

16. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Přerovský, 750–54, a very one-sided account however.

17. For 1130, the best accounts are Palumbo, Lo schisma, and Stroll, The Jewish Pope; the latter discusses alternative bibliography.

18. See p. 148 in this volume for examples.

19. For gifts and money/treasure, see Wickham, ‘The Financing of Roman City Politics’.

20. RF, n. 1115.

21. Chronica Casinensis, 3.39, 66, 68; SMN, n. 42 (a. 1126); Codex diplomaticus Cajetanus, n. 312; Kehr, ‘Il diploma purpureo’; SMN, n. 49; S. Gregorio, n. 7; SMVL, nn. 165, 178. See Moscati, Alle origini, 138–41; Vendittelli, ‘Romanorum consules’, the best guide to the continuing changes of meaning of the title.

22. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Přerovský, 717–20, 734; Codex diplomaticus Cajetanus, n. 312 (a. 1127) with Moscati, ‘“Una cum sexaginta senatoribus”’; Petersohn, ‘Der Brief’, 505–7. For previous papal grants, see PL, vol. 143, cols. 831–34, 1305–9.

23. Doran, ‘The Legacy of Schism’, 75–78 for cardinals; for voiding acts, Kehr, vol. 5, 14–15, vol. 2, 348–50, SMCM, n. 42; for the church, Kinney, ‘S. Maria in Trastevere’; for the sarcophagus, Herklotz, Gli eredi di Costantino, 19–28; for the Papareschi, see p. 150 in this volume.

24. Salaries: LP, vol. 2, 383–84. Court proceedings: an emblematic professional case survives in an eighteenth-century manuscript edition in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Codices Vaticani Latini 8044, ff. 4–16, a case begun in 1143 and ended in 1145.

25. See, for the Pierleoni, S. Gregorio, nn. 7, 89; Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae, n. 317; Chronica Casinensis, 4.130. For 1141, see Müller, ‘Der Bericht’, 102.

26. Traditional surveys are Fedele, ‘L’êra del senato’; Rota, ‘La costituzione originaria’, 41–53.

27. For the Pisan senatores, see Documenti sulle relazioni delle città toscane, n. 7 (a. 1160); I brevi dei consoli, 48 (a. 1162); for the earlier uses of the term ‘senate’ in Rome, the best guide is Arnaldi, ‘Rinascita’.

28. For sources, see LP, vol. 2, 385–86; Otto of Freising, Chronica, 7.27, 31; Romualdo of Salerno, Chronicon, 228; Godfrey of Viterbo, Pantheon, 261; Carmen de gestis, 1.808; John of Salisbury, Historia pontificalis, c. 27; Annales Casinenses, 310. For secondary literature, see Fedele, ‘L’êra del senato’; Bartoloni, ‘Per la storia’; Brezzi, Roma, 317–39; Frugoni, ‘Sulla ‘“Renovatio Senatus”’; Rota, ‘La costituzione originaria’; Moscati, Alle origini (a key text); Schultz, ‘Poiché tanto amano la libertà…’, 136–62; Doran, ‘The Legacy of Schism’, 85–178; Petersohn, Kaisertum und Rom, 80–109.

29. Bartoloni, ‘Per la storia’, 24–27. For a Provençal parallel, however, see chapter 5, n. 35, in this volume.

30. For this period, see Otto of Freising, Chronica, 7.31, 34; LP, vol. 2, 386–87; John of Salisbury, Historia pontificalis, c. 27; Wibald, Epistolae, nn. 347, 214, 215. For the palace, see Codice diplomatico del Senato romano, n. 11; cf. Maire Vigueur, L’autre Rome, 311. Two named senators in the first decade of the senate may perhaps also have been aristocratic, Grisotto di Cencio in 1148, who might well be linked to the filii Baruncii, and Stefano di Cencio di Stefano di Tedaldo in 1150, who was probably linked to the family of Cencio di Stefano: see Codice diplomatico del Senato romano, n. 12, and Wickham, Roma medievale, 280–81.

31. Otto of Freising, Chronica, 7.34 (agreement); Codice diplomatico del Senato romano, nn. 12, 13, are the first cases. Gregorio arcarius: Codice diplomatico del Senato romano, n. 13, set against Halphen, Études, 120–22.

32. Wibald of Stablo, Epistolae, nn. 214–16, 347; for Renaissance imagery see e.g. Benson, ‘Political renovatio’; Strothmann, Kaiser und Senat, 78–216; and the rather more nuanced Petersohn, Kaisertum und Rom, 80–109. For the long tradition of renovatio, the classic is Schramm, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio.

33. Codice diplomatico del Senato romano, nn. 41–44; see for the succeeding period Thumser, Rom.

34. I derive this population assessment from Meneghini and Santangeli Valenzani, Roma nell’alto medioevo, 21–24; Hubert, ‘Rome au XIVe siècle’; Maire Vigueur, L’autre Rome, 36–38: these focus on both before and after 1050.

35. Krautheimer, Rome, esp. 271–326, modified by Hubert, Espace urbain (these two are the basic texts for Rome’s urbanistica) and Wickham, Roma medievale, 147–55.

36. Hubert, Espace urbain, 70–74, 83–84, 86–96, 365–68.

37. Augenti, Il Palatino, 188 for 1177; for the commune, Hubert, Espace urbain, 92–93. For Milan, Gli atti del Comune, nn. 22, 97 (Porta Vercellina common land); Barni, ‘Dal governo del vescovo a quello dei cittadini’, 221–22 (Porta Comacina; he further postulates, cf. 100, 375, that the Milanese gate communities might also have been the bases for military organisation and have elected consuls; this is a common view in Milanese historiography, as for example in Gli atti del Comune, xxxviii, xlii, but the evidence for it is weak).

38. Toubert, Les structures, 938–1081.

39. Wickham, ‘La struttura della proprietà fondiaria’.

40. For the basic analysis of leases in this period, see Lenzi, La terra e il potere.

41. See for a survey Wickham, Roma medievale, 173–90.

42. Compare the S. Ciriaco documents preserved in SMVL to those in SMN, SMCM, and SCD, for churches and monasteries with a more evident regional remit.

43. See pp. 142–47 in this volume, for most of these.

44. For Frangipane dominance in S. Maria Nova/Colosseo, see esp. Augenti, Il Palatino, 188 (a. 1177); for links to S. Maria, see SMN, passim; for S. Gregorio, S. Gregorio, nn. 7, 16, 21–22, 82, 135, 152.

45. For the Frangipane, Thumser, ‘Die Frangipane’, is basic. For 963, Liutprando of Cremona, Historia Ottonis, c. 9; for 1094, Bernold, Chronicon, 509, with Geoffroy de Vendôme, OEuvres, 288–90.

46. The best account of the early Pierleoni is Whitton, ‘Papal Policy’, 185–202; Fedele, ‘Le famiglie’, is the only fully published study but is often problematic. Leone: SCD, nn. 56 (a. 1051), 73 (a. 1072); for Roger II’s 1134 diploma, Kehr, ‘Diploma purpureo’, 258–59; for Isola, ASR, SCD, cassetta 16, nn. 109, 118, 137.

47. For references, LP, vol. 2, 336, 345; RF, n. 1097 (a.1084); SMVL, nn. 121, 122, 123, 200; ASR, SCD, cassetta 16, n. 109; S. Gregorio, nn. 34, 137 (a. 1131, for which see Carocci and Vendittelli, L’origine della Campagna Romana, 95); RF, n. 1115; LC, vol. 1, n. 123.

48. For descriptions and analyses, the best studies are Barbanera and Pergola, ‘Elementi architettonici’; Pensabene, ‘La Casa dei Crescenzi’; Montelli, ‘Impiego dei mattoni’; eadem, Tecniche costruttive. For the inscriptions, Iscrizioni delle chiese, vol. 13, nn. 1339–41; for the other families, Liber Pontificalis, ed. Přerovský, 738–39. See Wickham, Roma medievale, 280–84, for the link to the family, which is indicative only; but the boastful defiance of the Normanni and the Corsi is there no matter who put it up.

49. Normanni: LP, vol. 2, 345–46; Chronica casinensis, 4.38; Liber Pontificalis, ed. Přerovský, 734–41; Codice diplomatico della Repubblica di Genova, n. 31; [Otto of Freising and] Rahewin, Gesta Frederici I., 4.77, 80; S. Gregorio, n. 24; for the thirteenth-century family, see Carocci, Baroni di Roma, 381–86. Sant’ Eustachio: RF, n. 1115; Codex diplomaticus Cajetanus, n. 312; SMVL, n. 165; LL, nn. 1187, 1221; RF, nn. 1278, 1085, 1095; Epistolae, ed. Loewenfeld, n. 282. For the castles of Cencio’s descendants, S. Paolo, nn. 4, 5, 7–11.

50. For the family as prefects: see Halphen, Études, 149–51; D’Acunto, ‘Il prefetto Cencio’; with, as texts, LP, vol. 2, 335; Bonizone of Sutri, Liber ad amicum, cc. 7–8 (603, 611); Pier Damiani, Epistolae, nn. 145, 155, and cf. n. 135. For lands: SCD, nn. 24, 25, 35, 41; SMT, n. 7; S. Gregorio, n. 14; SMVL, n. 63; ASR, SCD, cassetta 16, n. 120 (a. 1132).

51. Thumser, Rom, 182; for the baronial families in general, see Carocci, Baroni di Roma.

52. Galgano’s sons: SMVL, n. 205; Galgano’s sister Bonella also owned, not on an enormous scale, in Arcioni east of the Trevi regio: nn. 217, 221. For his career as primicerius, see Halphen, Études, 100–101. Benedetto: for his career, Chiodi, ‘Roma e il diritto romano’, 1228–39; for his family, see SMN, nn. 15, 33, 38.

53. Mancini: SMN, nn. 30, 33, 35 verso, 41, 43, 44, 46, 51, 53, 54, 56, 79, 91, 109, 118, 119, 125, 133; as actors, nn. 47, 82, 99; plus Augenti, Il Palatino, 188 (a. 1177); ‘Documenti per la storia’, n. 19; LC, vol. 1, 300. See for a brief discussion Moscati, Alle origini, 118.

54. SMVL, nn. 160–62, 172, 175, 176, 178, 194, 216, 225 with 228 (= Codice diplomatico del Senato romano, nn. 34–40, which refers to Pietro as a senator), 258, 266; Baumgärtner, ‘Regesten’, n. 66; elsewhere, ASR, SCD, cassetta 16, n. 143. See for commentary Carocci and Vendittelli, L’origine della Campagna Romana, 127–30; Wickham, ‘Getting Justice’, 108–11 (110n for other possible references to the family).

55. For lists, see Bartoloni, ‘Per la storia’.

56. For the letters, see Wibald, Epistolae, nn. 216, 404, 403. See for Arnaldo Frugoni, Arnaldo da Brescia, still the best study; Thumser, ‘Die frühe römische Kommune’, 128–46; Schmitz-Esser, ‘In urbe, quae caput mundi est’, 33–42.

57. For 1170, Thumser, ‘Die Frangipane’, 136; Petersohn, Kaisertum und Rom, 272–73; with the main source, Annales Ceccanenses, s.a. 1170 (286); for the leopard, Fedele, ‘Il leopardo e l’agnello’, 215.

58. Maire Vigueur, L’autre Rome, 306–10.

59. John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, c. 31; Wickham, ‘Getting Justice’.

60. See Thumser, Rom, 239–56; Moscati, ‘Benedetto “Carushomo”’.

61. Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens, 220–46, 341–46.

5. ITALY

1. Vercelli, Bergamo, Cremona, Padua, Florence, and Arezzo are most of the best: see below, nn. 18, 20, 23, 26, 30, 32. Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens, 339–41, has made similar critical points.

2. Bordone, La società cittadina, 160–82; Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens, 220–46, cf. 339–49. These two, however, used different criteria to create typologies of cities, focussed on the presence of episcopal vassals and signorial interest among consuls (Bordone) or among the urban cavalry militia more widely (Maire Vigueur); I shall focus more on the wealth of consuls, insofar as it can be determined, and on the pacing of communal institutionalisation. For incisive article-length comparisons, see further chapter 1, n. 17, in this volume. Opll, Stadt und Reich, 178–480, also collects a large body of information about most of the cities of Italy in the twelfth century (in particular to illustrate their relationship with emperors), city by city; his data are useful but not always reliable for our period.

3. See for Caffaro’s career, Petti Balbi, Caffaro e la cronachistica genovese; eadem, ‘Caffaro’; Schweppenstette, Die Politik der Erinnerung, 51–96. The latter work, esp. 83–153, together with Placanica, ‘L’opera storiografica di Caffaro’, are currently the basic guides to the structure and strategies of the Annals; see also the English translation in Hall and Phillips, Caffaro, Genoa. For Caffaro’s initial phrases, his 1150s embassies, and the De liberatione, see Annali genovesi, 5, 39, 51, 99; for 1111, Le carte del monastero di San Siro di Genova, n. 73; cf. also Wickham, Land and Power, 295–98. For consular lists, see Olivieri, ‘Serie dei consoli’; but his data are largely taken from Caffaro.

4. Annali genovesi, 111 (consulatus), 25 (1130), 11 (Guglielmo), 155–56 (Oberto); Codice diplomatico del monastero di Santo Stefano, n. 96 for 1098 (the date is not certain but very probable). For the origins of the commune into the 1120s–30s, by far the best analysis is Bordone, ‘Le origini del comune di Genova’; see now also Filangieri, ‘Famiglie e gruppi dirigenti a Genova’, 63–85. Bordone follows Pavoni, ‘Dal Comitato di Genova al Comune’, 162–63, in dating the first compagna to 1100 not 1099; Pavoni engages in a contorted argument to allow Caffaro to be right about the eighteen months without consuls even though we have the 1098 document. A straight reading of Caffaro’s Annals still gives 1099 as far as I can see; we need to recognise that he may have confused the chronology, intentionally or not. The 1098 document is important for the dating of Pisa’s consuls: see p. 84 in this volume.

5. For the international agreements of 1104–9, see Codice diplomatico della Repubblica di Genova, nn. 16, 20, 22, 24. Consular court cases to 1140, by archive, with dates before 1130: ibid., nn. 45 (a. 1127), 49, 50, 77, 93; Codice diplomatico del monastero di Santo Stefano, nn. 104 (a. 1109), 110, 115; Le carte di Santa Maria delle Vigne, nn. 3 (a. 1109–10), 6; Le carte del monastero di San Siro di Genova, n. 73 (a. 1111); Belgrano, ‘Il registro della curia arcivescovile di Genova’, 27–28, 56–60 (aa. 1117, 1123; this edition includes many more cases for the 1140s, esp. at 60–73); I libri iurium, vol. 1.3, n. 524 (a. 1127); Le carte del monastero di Sant’Andrea della Porta, n. 2. The earliest of all, from 1104–5, is unpublished: mentioned by Petti Balbi, Governare la città, 71n, it is contained in the late thirteenth-century Liber instrumentorum Monasterii Sancti Fructuosi de Capite Montis, Codice ‘A’, in the Archivio Doria Pamphilj in Rome, bancone 79, busta 12, fol. 8rv (cf. fols. 7v, a. 1116, 7v–8r, a. 1131, 8v–9r, a. 1161) concerning rights to the falcons of Capodimonte, on the sea near Portofino. (The text says 1104, but the indiction is for 1105; the consuls who judged are said by Caffaro to have held office for the whole period 1102–5, so would fit either date.) That the history of communal justice in Italy begins with a judgement about falcons is fascinating in itself. See Vallerani, ‘La riscrittura dei diritti’, 153–60, for a discussion of some of these amazingly neglected texts.

6. For the parlamentum, the 1117 text is in Belgrano, ‘Il registro della curia arcivescovile di Genova’, 56–57. Caffaro, too, refers to parlamenta in 1101 and 1123 (and later), Annali genovesi, 10, 19; but he of course, even though an eyewitness here, is writing at a later date; all the same, these early citations converge to mean that, in all probability, the word is initially a Genoese one. E-mgh turns up no earlier reference; the Patrologia latina database records one possible earlier citation, a letter of Pope Urban II to the inhabitants of Velletri in 1089, Patrologiae… cursus latina, vol. 151, col. 304, n. 22, but the context seems different. For 1120–43, see Codice diplomatico della Repubblica di Genova, nn. 31, 53, 67, 68, 96, 102, 128. Peri, ‘Ordinamento del comune consolare’, is still the fullest survey of the institutions of the commune, although it is abstract and legalistic, and uses few documents.

7. The two most substantial recent studies on family groups in Genoa, both doctoral theses, are Filangieri, ‘Famiglie e gruppi dirigenti a Genova’, 1–189 (6–19 for a good guide to earlier bibliography; 49–52 for the Spinola); Inguscio, ‘Reassessing Civil Conflicts in Genoa’ (142–45 for the Doria, 198–201 for Caffaro’s family). That Caschifellone was actually a castle is not, it should be noted, explicit in any source I have seen.

8. See Inguscio, ‘Reassessing Civil Conflicts in Genoa’, 78–103, 112–34, 154–59, 187–235. Genoese documentation does not however allow us a full sense of the landowning activity of these families, for it hardly appears in the notarial registers; this limits our certainties here.

9. Codice diplomatico della Repubblica di Genova, nn. 97, 205, envision the impermanency of the consuls or the compagna. Cf. for parallels in other cities Faini, Firenze, 271–72 (who downplays the phrase); Grillo, ‘Il comune di Vercelli’, 166 (that being a city where consuls actually did stop for a time). Another unusual feature of Genoa is that the compagna explicitly did not include all Genoese: Codice diplomatico della Repubblica di Genova, n. 128, at 155–57. The separate consules de placitis after 1130 do not seem to constitute an office open to a significantly wider social stratum. The episcopal role in early communal documents is not huge, even given the fact that many early consular judgements survive in a register of archiepiscopal documents, but most of those judgements were made in the cathedral or the bishop’s palace, indicating some at least ceremonial importance for the bishop (from 1133, archbishop).

10. See chapter 3, n. 14, in this volume, for Pisa; cf. Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 122–67, for the Romanisation of practice in Pisa.

11. See above all Inguscio, ‘Reassessing Civil Conflicts in Genoa’.

12. Codex Astensis, vol. 3, nn. 635, 707. See Fissore, Autonomia notarile, 11–34; idem, ‘Problemi’; Bordone, Città e territorio, 352–77, for discussion; and ibid., 311–51, for the previous political context. I am very grateful for a critique of this Asti section from Luigi Provero.

13. See Codex Astensis, vol. 3, nn. 890–91 (a. 1108); for 1103, Adriani, Degli antichi signori di Sarmatorio, 314–15 (for the problems of this text, see Bordone, Città e territorio, 304n, and below, n. 16); Le carte dell’Archivio capitolare, nn. 3, 6–7 (aa. 1111, 1123). For the social composition of the consuls, see Bordone, Città e territorio, 365–66, 373–76: authoritative, but not a detailed account.

14. Cognasso, ‘Pergamene’, 13–17, 18–19, overlapping with the edition in Fissore, ‘Problemi’, 500–507.

15. Le carte dell’Archivio capitolare, nn. 95, 97; Codex Astensis, vol. 2, n. 117, may also refer to a consular judgement of 1171.

16. See Fissore, Autonomia notarile, 13–25, followed by Bordone, Città e territorio, 355; the 1098 text is also accepted by Sergi, Potere e territorio, 154, and by Provero, Dai marchesi del Vasto, 66–67. There are too many circumstantial details in the 1098 text (such as the citation of Marquis Bonifacio of Vasto) for it to be a complete forgery. For 1103, see above, n. 13; to be added to the problematic details in the text is the repeated use of the word commune as a noun, which has no early parallels at all.

17. Bordone, ‘“Civitas nobilis et antiqua”’, gives a survey of the Piemontese cities, not all of which have detailed studies; 29–32 for the 1112–18 text, 38 for Novara. For Tortona, the cited document is Il Chartarium Dertonense, n. 2.

18. For Vercelli, the basic works, excellent analyses, are Panero, ‘Istituzioni e società’; Degrandi, ‘Vassalli cittadini’; Barbero, ‘Vassalli vescovili’; and Grillo, ‘Il comune di Vercelli’. For Milani, and my minor modification of his terminology, see chapter 1, n. 29, in this volume. Judicial figures from the third-level élite are by contrast little-attested among the consuls of the commune of Vercelli: Barbero, ‘Vassalli vescovili’, 299.

19. Keller, Signori e vassalli, esp. 6–30.

20. Menant, ‘Bergamo comunale’, 17–27; idem, Campagnes lombardes, 633–55, for the capitanei and the many urban families around the bishop (606 for the da Gorlago, 639–42 for the Mozzi, 651 for assemblies). For earlier work on assemblies, Mazzi, Studi bergomensi, 8–25, 264–65; the whole book (which is difficult to find) is a good analysis of the early commune by the standards of the period. See now the important recent study of De Angelis, Poteri cittadini, 262–324 (269–70 for assemblies), with 341–67 for the texts of early consular documents, 236–43 for Arnaldo of Azzano—parallel is his contemporary Lanfranco (ibid., 236, 243–44), another publicly active jurist with no documented land, who died too early to get into the surviving consular cases, but might well have been a consul too. Late placita are in I placiti, nn. 459, 467, 470–71.

21. De Angelis, Poteri cittadini, 341–46 for the 1117 documents; 282, 293–94, 295–99 for the uncertain nature of the early commune; 288–92 for ‘almost’. Pavia can be added here; it seems to have had consuls acting as early as 1112 in a court case, although the dispute text also indicates that the holder of basic judicial powers here was still the count of the palace, who apparently held an old-style placitum after the consular judgement; the count thus seems to have had the sort of role here that bishops had in other cities (for the text, a late copy, see Solmi, ‘L’Amministrazione finanziaria’, 254–58). Only two other references to consuls survive here before 1150, and consules iusticie are first seen only in 1157. Judicial figures are nonetheless prominent among the earliest consuls here, as befits the old political/legal centre of the Kingdom; the senior figure in 1112 was in fact Ugo of Gambolò himself, author of part of the Libri feudorum (see chapter 2, n. 59, in this volume). See Lane, ‘The Territorial Expansion’, 71–123; he is more suspicious of the 1112 text than I am. This is the first consular case known for Lombardy; the second is from Como—see below, n. 25.

22. Racine, Plaisance, 204–36, 358–75; Bulla, ‘Famiglie dirigenti’; Fugazza, Diritto, istituzioni, 6 (for the 1093 text), 20 (for the 1133 text), 19–29; eadem, ‘“In palatio episcopi”’, 21–34, an important analysis, which stresses how the assembly predates the consuls. For 1090, Johannis Codagnelli Annales, 1–3. For 1126 and 1135, Il Registrum Magnum, vol. 1, n. 53; vol. 3, n. 804. Parma can be added here (see Schumann, Authority and the Commune, 211–40, for an inadequate survey): it had consuls soon after 1115 (Adalberto Samaritano, Praecepta dictaminum, 60–61), but its assembly is rather more visible in the early twelfth century, with the cives acting as a body already in the 1100s (Schumann, Authority and the Commune, 226–32).

23. See Le carte cremonesi, vol. 2, nn. 242, 273, 279, 296–98, 316; for 1132, see Die Lombardische Briefsammlung, nn. 34–35; for a full analysis, Menant, ‘La prima età comunale’ (248–60 for the prosopography); see further Coleman, “Bishop and Commune”. Banti, ‘“Civitas” e “Commune”’, 225–27, is more critical of the 1097 citation than I would be.

24. Brescia can be added here (see Bosisio, ‘Il comune’, 569–99, for an inadequate survey): it had both a concio and a commune in c. 1120 (Liber Potheris, n. 2—the dating is not fully certain), and consuls with rotating offices in 1127 (ibid., n. 3). (Its urban collectivity was well-defined already in 1038 if ibid., n. 1, is genuine, but see Menant, Campagnes lombardes, 586, for doubts.) The concio here, or at any rate the urban community, was apparently strong enough to expel the city consuls themselves in 1135 or 1139: Annales Brixienses, 812; few consuls are known by name thereafter until the 1150s.

25. Como had consuls in 1114, running another early dispute (Liber statutorum consulum Cumanorum, 379–80; see Faini, ‘Le tradizioni normative delle città toscane’, 474n; the text shows a consular sentence based on oath-helping in front of an assembly); Lodi an aringo in 1117 (Gli atti del Comune, n. 1).

26. Castagnetti, Società e politica a Ferrara, 57–78, 127–69; Rippe, Padoue, 323–79 (the fullest study in this region); Castagnetti, ‘L’età precomunale’, 57–63, with idem, ‘Da Verona a Ravenna’, 370–74, for Verona. For Ravenna, see Pini, ‘Il comune di Ravenna’, 209–19; Vasina, Romagna medievale, 171–83, 229–44, with 201–9, 246–47, for key documents (and cf. idem, ‘Consoli e mondo comunale’); Castagnetti, ‘Da Verona a Ravenna’, 459–86, also available at slightly greater length in ‘Feudalità e società comunale II’, 24–54 (the most rigorous, but focussed on a different problematic). A well-known text of 1138, edited by Vasina and discussed by all the above, features the three ordines of capitanei et valvasores et populus, acting for the city without mediation, and envisages future joint consuls of Ravenna and Forlì who are to be elected by a complex procedure, but this agreement had no visible permanent result: see also Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens, 352–53. In Ravenna, the consuls in their few documented actions are not associated with the archbishop. Note also that consul is, as in Rome, an old word for ‘aristocrat’ in Ravenna (see chapter 2, n. 10, in this volume), and the 1109–15 references thus may not show much change from the past at all.

27. Bologna: Wandruszka, Die Oberschichten Bolognas, 28 (quote), 57–70 (his consular lists are corrected by Paola Foschi at http://badigit.comune.bologna.it/governo_bologna/consoli.htm); Milani, L’esclusione dal comune, 27–28, for 1149; Fried, Die Entstehung, 73–87 (84–87 for iudices); cf. Ferrara, ‘La scuola’, 605–7. Modena: see Rölker, Nobiltà e comune, 121–52; here, the consuls are episcopal vassals (including castle-holders and similar) in 1142; again mostly episcopal vassals (including two iudices) at the next citation of them in 1167. For rectores, not discussed here, see e.g. Banti, Studi di storia, 20–47; they are most usefully seen as proto-podestà, although their precise political context is ill-understood. In this period they were mostly aristocrats (cf. e.g. Rölker, ibid., 146–47; Castagnetti, ‘Feudalità e società comunale’, 230–32; Delumeau, Arezzo, 1144–45).

28. See Castagnetti, ‘Il primo comune’.

29. See Savigni, Episcopato e società, 47–97; Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 22–40, 51–61, 85–88 (40 and 240 for the 1203 war); for Rolando, see chapter 2, n. 58, in this volume. Cf. p. 20 in this volume for the Avvocati. I have here separated out the Antelminelli from the first level of the élite, contrary to the implications of Courts and Conflict, 60. Even non-communally-orientated lords were not very powerful in the Lucchesia, however, and few resisted the commune in any way. For the 1119 text, see Blomquist and Osheim, ‘The First Consuls’; for the 1080s, Rangerio, Vita metrica, lines 5249–5646, a text of the 1090s.

30. Faini, Firenze, 137–40, 150–54, 243–79 (275 for ‘evanescent’ and ‘occasional’), 297–320, 332–63; plus 18–19, 21–22, 27–28, 37–45 of the appendix (for the Cavalcanti, Fifanti, Importuni, Squarciasacchi, Tornaquinci, Uberti, and Visdomini families: the Fifanti had relatively little linkage to castles and signorie, the Uberti rather more and for rather longer); Cortese, Signori, castelli, città, esp. 209–58.

31. Faini, Firenze, 362.

32. Delumeau, Arezzo, 847–61, 1109–24, 1142–58; idem, ‘Des Lombards de Carpineto aux Bostoli’, 82–99; cf. Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 175. Siena had a fairly similar trajectory, although without hostility to a bishop: Cammarosano, Tradizione documentaria, 35–47; Delumeau, Arezzo, 1113–15. So did Pistoia, where consuls are documented at the very early date of 1105 (Libro Croce, 350), but whose judicial records and well-known statutes do not appear before the 1170s: Lütke Westhues, ‘Beobachtungen’; cf. Wickham, Courts and Conflict, 173n, including for other bibliography with alternative dates. So did Perugia, doubtless the most powerful commune in Umbria, but hardly documented as such at all (after its first consuls in 1139) until the 1180s; here we can at least say that it had few links either to the bishop or the signorial world—see Grundman, The Popolo at Perugia, 12–18; Cammarosano, Studi di storia medievale, 151–57; cf. Fiore, Signori e sudditi, 170–72, for Umbria in general. The evidence for all three is too poor for this period to justify fuller analysis here.

33. Wickham, ‘La signoria rurale’.

34. But not Viterbo: contra Opll, Stadt und Reich, 474–75, the inscription which records the building of part of the city walls of Viterbo ex precepto consulum et totius populi does not date to 1099 (or even to the actual date cited in the inscription, 1095), but to the reign of Pope Eugenius III, around 1150: see Bottazzi, ‘Tra papato e impero’, 326–40.

35. See for Umbria, Lazio, and Marche Maire Vigueur, ‘Comuni e signorie’, 383–96; for Benevento, see Falcone, Chronicon, cols. 1202–6 for the key moment and Oldfield, City and Community, 51–54, 59–60, 65–66, 77–80. For Provence, Poly, La société, 310–17, is the best quick survey; most communes (called consulats in French) are first attested in the 1140s, but Arles had them from 1131, in a document (unpublished, but cited in ibid., 310n) which dates by anno primo consulatus Arelatensis, demonstrating a striking self-consciousness which is otherwise only matched in Rome, although there is no evidence of social contestation in this aristocrat-dominated commune.

36. This fits the conclusions, arrived at from a different direction, in Cortese, ‘Aristocrazia signorile e città’.

37. Schwarzmaier, Lucca, 326–27.

38. We might perhaps also include Asti, given its careful separation from the power-networks of the bishop and its fast-developing commercial sector which will have brought along many new families; Bologna, where jurists were so influential, although we do not know much about their personal wealth; and also, after c. 1180, Pavia (Lane, ‘The Territorial Expansion’, 111–15).

39. Rippe, Padoue, e.g. 368 (Jonas), 373–74 (Nicolò), 375–76 (Raimondo)—cf. also Vallerani, ‘Tra astrazione e prassi’, 138–40, for their expertise; Faini, Firenze, appendix, 18–19, 27–28, 37–39; and see above, n. 23 for Cremona.

40. These points about assemblies are further generalised in Wickham, ‘The “Feudal Revolution”’. The basic analyses for Italy remain Coleman and Grillo, as in chapter 2, n. 15, in this volume.

41. In Verona, the collectivity which made a treaty with Venice in 1107, thirty years before the first documented consuls (Castagnetti, ‘Feudalità e società comunale’, 226–30, 232), may have been a formalised assembly, but the text does not say so, and Castagnetti (ibid., 227) sees it as ‘occasionale’.

42. Banti, ‘“Civitas” e “Commune”’, 229–32; see above, nn. 13, 21, 23, 24, 26; see also n. 16 for a more problematic example; and chapter 3, n. 45, in this volume.

43. See most recently Faini, ‘Le tradizioni normative delle città toscane’, 463–65, 471–79; cf. Bellomo, Ricerche, 8–25.

44. Hay, The Military Leadership, 76–167.

45. Siena: Cammarosano, Studi di storia medievale, 232–33; for Como, see p. 65 in this volume.

46. Die lombardische Briefsammlung, n. 43; cf. Otto of Freising’s less neutral complaints along the same lines, Chronica, 7.17, 19, 27, and esp. 29. The inescapable parallel is Thomas Bisson’s work on the greater local violence of the period after the fall of the post-Carolingian state in West Francia and elsewhere, summed up most recently in The Crisis, 41–68. See also Fiore, ‘Dal diploma al patto’, on ever more formal rural pacts to establish local peace in this period.

47. ‘Il “Liber Pergaminus”’, lines 87–126 (bishop), 205–62 (fountains), 271–92 (consuls); for the annals, Wickham, Land and Power, 298, 307–8.

48. Post-Roman Britain, that is to say: Wickham, Framing, 330–31.