HIST 125: The
Renaissance
The Italian
Recipe for Change, I: the Rise of the City-State
Lecture Notes
—
As
I have been arguing in class, the Renaissance can be defined both as a temporal
“period” and as a movement of intellectual change. This intellectual change can be summarized as
one which reaffirmed the centrality of man and the here-and-now, as espoused in
the history and literatures of the ancients.
We will discuss this later on intellectual shift “back” (in parenthesis
because the “embrace” of Antiquity was never absolute, and the Italians were
sure their time could – and did – surpass that of the ancients) …
—
For
now, the issue remains that this intellectual change of which I speak did not
occur in a vacuum. Rather, it
dialectically was shaped by the changed circumstances in the lifestyle of
—
In
this particular lecture, we will concentrate on the major political development
which set
—
But
before we get to that, we need to answer: what exactly was the city-state?
—
In
effect Italian city-states were descendants of the cities which were
renewed/revived in the 10th and 11th centuries. As the Encyclopaedia Britannica very rightly
explains, “although town revival was a general feature of 10th- and
11th- century Europe, in Italy the urban imprint of Roman times had
never been erased.”[1] Therefore, what we have here are cities that
date back to the Roman period, decayed after the fall of the Western Empire,
were revived in the Middle Ages, and thrived in the 13th-16th
centuries under a new guise.
—
These
were not simply urban centers; rather, they were autonomous (that is, each had
its own government/economy) and territorial (that is, they had come to
politically dominate the territories surrounding the actual city)
entities. Their territorial claims most
often came from the fact that Italian urban dwellers rarely gave up their ties
to the land from which their families had come.
It was rare for a successful merchant not to invest some of his profits
on the contado (rural area belonging
to a particular city-state); those city dwellers who could afford it also were
likely to have a “country house” where they spent part of the year (often the
summer months, when the heat in the city got intolerable, for example).
—
Rivalry
between towns also led to the expansion of “the” city-state, as the major
Italian ones often swallowed their smaller neighbors (think, for example, of
—
The
development of the city-state, as seen below, is a story of sporadic collective
action being replaced by permanent civic institutions as the activity of the
towns became more complex.[2]
—
The
“typical” city-state was a republic (note that this does not mean
democracy). What we have really is an
idea of popular sovereignty which only applied to times of emergency. That is, a parlamento or mass meeting was called only in times of extreme
danger. Other than that, people in
general were not allowed to participate in government regularly. That job was set aside first for the nobles
and later for assemblies made up of selected citizens. The only “universal” male participation was
in the citizen militias, were they existed.
—
Ok,
now let’s talk historical development.
In order to simplify matters, we can divide the rise of the city-state
into to “grand” stages of development: the setting of the groundwork (both
physical and political) in the 11th to 13th centuries and
the creation of new states within the urban center.
I.
Setting
the groundwork
A.
The
physical (re)building of the city
This was due, for the most part,
to new economic energies (both rural and in terms of trade). In both cases, renewed economic activity led
to migration. As agricultural production
exploded in this period, the birth rate was accelerated, elevating the demand
for food. Very pragmatically, this meant
two things: 1) people tried to enlarge their holdings while 2) being willing to
sacrifice the old manorial system in order to make more profit. These new arrangements led to new methods of
farming, as well as to greater physical mobility to “serfs”, who started to
migrate into the cities in search of new and greater opportunities. Their immigration required the physical
expansion of the city itself. This is
why, for instance, Italian cities like
B.
A
New Economy
Once a large percentage of the
population moved to the urban centers – and no longer produced their own
foodstuffs – a new SPECIALIZED economy developed. The most important aspect of this development
was the creation of the guilds of which we have spoken before. They are of particular importance to our
story because, with time, guilds will become the centers of urban political
power. That is, it will be the members
of the most powerful guilds who will co-opt the running of the state in order
to safeguard their own agendas.
This issue is further explored in
the lecture on the economy which I made available.
C.
A
New Society
The new social organization which
developed in the Italian city-states, and which will be discussed in full in
future lectures, was set in the early stages of the city-states
development. In a nutshell, though, what
we have is a society evolving from the new economic energies of the city to
rival the old feudal hierarchies. Do
note that the hierarchical nature of society remains. However, the social base is expanded and
greater social mobility is the norm.
The combination of economic
change and an expanded social base meant the development of an ENTREPRENURIAL
society. That is, we are talking about a
society in which individuals routinely invest for capital. There are four things to remember here:
1.
At
the most basic, the Italian socio-economic reality was that to be successful
and advance in society you needed money.
2.
In
order to remain wealthy you needed to invest.
This was a simple socio-mathematical issue…
3.
Investment
nature also changed: it was not enough simply to hoard or invest in long term
enterprises (like land, most obviously).
Rather, you needed to be involved in international trade and banking.
4.
Ultimately,
this meant that a different kind of education/preparation was necessary for
social survival. Do note what this
implies: in order to achieve a “respectable” social standing AND, through that,
political power you needed to be a business man and administrator. No longer would warriors or land owners be
the ones “on top.”
One last point here: this level of “commerce” and its
consequent social regeneration were achieved this early only in
II.
The
development of new states[3]
A.
New
states developed out of the feudal fragmentation of authority, as real power
ended up in the hands of local magnates and soon became claimed by the cities
themselves.
B.
These
new states concurrently shaped and were shaped by the altered composition of
the ruling class: in the early stages, an increasingly tangled hierarchy under
the control of the first two orders, but with no simple division between landed
and commercial wealth (as I mentioned in the Economy lecture, think both of a
landed, feudal aristocracy increasingly diversifying their portfolios and of a
rising entrepreneurial class).
C.
The
development of new states in the Renaissance can be divided into three stages:
Imperial vassalage, communes, and city-states
1.
Imperial
vassalage
As I have mentioned repeatedly, nearly all of north
In the 10th and 11th centuries,
power was “transferred” by the emperor to local bishops, to whom he gave almost
absolute power over the cities. This
step signaled the very real alliance between church and state in the attempt to
“recreate” the
The end of imperial vassalage came when, in the 3rd
quarter of the 11th century, the death of Emperor Henry III left the
empire in the hands of a minor. As is
usual in such cases, this led to internal chaos, in which the fate/control of
the Italian cities was not a priority.
Therefore, the cities were basically left to their own devices. At the same time, raging criticism of the
feudal Church system meant that many of the urban cleric were forced to flee
the city – abandoning as well their governmental posts. A vacuum of power was thus created, which
opened the door for a new elite to take the reins of the government. This new elite was the urban nobility. However, as we will see, their power did not
go uncontested; rather, they were challenged both by the urban plebes
(propertied, city-based tradespeople – what we would call a middle class) and
by the “popolino”, which is the name given to the class of servants and
domestics.
2.
Communes
Communes were the second “form” which the Italian cities
took. Simply defined, a commune is a
corporate entity; in its opening phase (there are four, as listed below) the
commune was a sworn association of free men collectively holding some sort of
public authority. The creation of the
commune symbolized an act of political and social assertion; it demonstrates
the Italian cities’ resolve to self-govern.
The commune itself had a complex development. In fact, there were four different types of
commune. Below I list them in temporal
order and give you a short list of attributes for each.
i.
Aristocratic
communes
a.
11th
century
b.
Ruled
by men of substance bound together to defend existing rights and/or seize new
ones
c.
Objectives
were solely those of privileged men
d.
At
this point, some urban plebes gained greater say, but they were generally
secondary in power
e.
Here
power is still shared between old and new institutions (i.e. some bishops still
hold de jure power, but it is
continually being infringed upon by nobles and a few of the plebes.
ii.
Consular
communes
a.
Early
12th century
b.
Here
a concrete seizure of power takes place; self-government – although still de facto
c.
Known
as consular because ruled by officials known as consuls
d.
Simultaneously
a phase of expansion (more individuals drawn into the city; economic interests
spilled into the countryside) and contraction (constant war on feudal lords who
refused to urbanize – constrain them into the city; also contraction in sense
of greater communal unity in face of external threat – from Imperial attempts
to regain authority, etc.)
e.
Still,
not until PEACE OF CONSTANCE (1183) are communes granted official – though
limited – autonomy: they could elect their own consuls, govern their own
counties, and make their own laws
f.
Consular
government: form
g.
Although
supposedly representative, consular government restricted power to the hands of
a few families/individuals and created factional strife
h.
Who
were these nobles I keep talking about?
They were wealthy, but their resources were limited and pushed to eh
limit by inflation; they held land and property both in the city and
countryside; their wealth also came from secondary feudal sources, like tolls
and customs; increasingly invested in trade or were in trade
i.
By
the late 12th century, the nobility were helplessly divided into consortorie (factions). Usually, though not always, they were divided
into two major factions: those for imperial order and those against it – who
usually turned to the Church instead).
j.
Their
inability to stand together opened them to “take-over” from the rising merchant
class.
iii.
Podestaral
Communes
a.
Early
13th century
b.
At
the same time that the nobles are being weakened by their factional
differences, the entrepreneurial classes are uniting and organizing in guilds –
the first form of popular political organization (notice, not just labor issues
– one aim of the guilds was to get political say for their members…). What we have, then, are both the noble and entrepreneurial
classes clearly demarcating and willing to defend their respective spheres of
influence. Of course, the interest of
these two classes were usually at odds…
c.
This
led, in the early 13th century – across
d.
This
signaled the need for “unbiased” outsiders to establish order: emergence of a
new executive – the Podestá
i. Ruled for 6mo to 2yrs
ii. Most often, a nobleman from
another province because, in theory, non-partisan
iii. Practiced at either arms or the
law
iv. Experienced in public life
v. Chosen by an ad hoc committee
vi. Represented the commune in
foreign affairs
vii. Presided over communal councils
and daily government affairs
viii.
Led
the army in times of war
ix. Responsible for civil order;
doles out justice
x. His power was never absolute;
rather, there was a system of checks-and-balances in place: first, he needed to
consult an indigenous advisory body without whose ok no decision could be
implemented; and second, he needed to swear allegiance to the commune (while
foreswearing his onw city for the duration of his term in office).
iv.
Popular
communes
a.
Though
very short lived, the popular commune is the version of the commune which most
significantly shaped the incipient city-states, as it affected every aspect of
urban life, most clearly the relation between social class and political power.
b.
What
was the shift? Greater, direct
representation for the popolo (people), who by this stage was fully organized.
c.
What
were the popolo’s demands?
i. Direct representation in the
commune’s political councils
ii. To have their fiscal grievances
readdressed: tax reform and the systematic review of the administration of
public monies (both aimed at the limiting of fiscal abuse by those in power)
iii. Readdressing of judicial matters,
particularly the fact that nobles were held to a different legal standard and
could, therefore, literally get away with murder. Also sought to do away with the inherent bias
and the maladministration of the communal courts.
d.
How
was the popular commune organized?
Actually, it ended being two governments in one: the Podestá now had a
foil in the figure of the Captain of the People; the Council of the People
counterbalanced the communal legislative bodies (i.e. the General Assembly);
the popolo got its own court, which was in charge of all the rights and laws
pertaining to the popolo. The result was
the virtual creation of two communities in one urban space.
e.
Changes
brought about by the popolo:
i. Its commitment to trade, which
brought tangible benefits to the economy;
ii. New social mores: more informal
and congenial (although never really break from the reverence for status,
bloodlines, and public honors);
iii. The first primers of conduct
(“how to behave” books), which aimed at training polished “new men”;
iv. The laicization of education,
which led to a higher rate of literacy;
v. Fiscal reform, without which
state-building would have been impossible;
vi. Rapid expansion of government – a
swelled administration;
vii. A rise in the number of
mercenaries – because 1) the popolo, urban and not shaped by feudal ideals, was
not given to actual participation in war, and 2) because many nobles were
forced out of the city, which means that they needed to find an alternate
economic source
viii.
Haterd
for despotic rule;
ix. An acute sense of civic community
and community consciousness;
x. A continued “aristocratic”
building craze (embraced very prominently by the “new men” who wished to claim
a central role in the city);
xi. Vernacular literature
f.
As
implied by the fact that the commune “disappears” into the city-state, the
popular commune ultimately failed. That
is, it served merely as the foundation of the city-state. The question remains, why was further
development “needed”?
i. the novel claims above were
ultimately “buried” by the reality of oligarchical power and one-man rule
ii. its political institutions were
turned into facades or overturned when the above happened
iii. internal rifts between magnates
(rich urban class) and the tradesmen
iv. many in the lower class and some
in the middle class were still disenfranchised
v. conditions to franchise: 1)
residence in city for 5 yrs or more, 2) membership in guild, 3) a minimum tax
input
vi. also, because rich merchants
“break” from the popolo and create their own associations (so a two-partite
government did not “serve” them)
The ultimate point here is that from the late 13th
to the mid-14th century communes faced such grace internal problems that they
had to change their constitutions. In
most cases, this led to either a republic (with a narrowed political base) or a
principality (one man rule) system of government – these were two main forms of
the city-state, as we shall see below.
—
Let’s
start with republics:
I. Republics were usually the center
of oligarchy: power was in the hands of the few, usually the wealthiest members
of the new Italian society (that is, not the feudal aristocracy)
II. There were two major kinds of
republics: maritime and in-land
A.
B.
The
most significant inland republics were:
III. Several facts are true for all
Renaissance republics:
A.
No
republic could prevail against a potent and aggressive nobility unless, as
proven by
B.
The
workings of oligarchy, although somewhat different from one republic to
another, for the most part conformed to the following model:
1.
They
were constitutional oligarchies. That is, Renaissance republics were
ruled by a restricted class of politically enfranchised citizens, who made up
only 1-3% of the population but were the basis of government (both
legislatively speaking and in terms of the bureaucracy). Only members of
this privileged class could hold office; the catch is that there was no true voice
outside of direct office holding and/or influence over officeholders.
2.
These
republics were based on the law, primary because political privilege was a
matter of law. That is, privilege was constitutionally decreed.
3.
The
actual decision-making process was usually in the hands of small, but extremely
powerful councils, who held day-to-day sovereignty and were the primary
institutions of the republican system of oligarchy. Councilors were
elected from within a select list voted upon by the very men who made up
the ranks of the list (called the Balia). Their term in office was
usually short, so all political citizens could participate. The trick was
creating a balance: keeping the power within the elite, without allowing any
one member to become too powerful. Yet, the better connected one was, the
most likely one was to repeatedly hold the most important posts within the top
ranks of government.
4.
Keep
in mind, though, that all republics had a persistent popular ideology,
buttressed by at least a façade of popular representation. That is, the
ruling class instituted procedures and loopholes which allowed it to hold power
while simultaneously seeming to offer equality to at least all political
citizens.
5.
These
small ruling councils had powers that we would consider dictatorial. For
example, councils had the power to arrest, try, and execute people at will;
they could also suspend constitutional guarantees. For example, they
could declare war and impose new taxes without “consent.”
6.
However,
under “regular” circumstances, these councils were responsible to advisory
bodies made up by eminent citizens. Notice, the top members of society
were always either in line for office, in office, or advising those in office.
IV. The leading exemplar of political
“freedom” preserved in a semi-republican form of government was
An Aside: Florentine Governmental
Structure
Signoria
Executive
Legislative
* Deliberation
in “Consulte e
Pratiche”
* Checks on the executive
* These were sessions of
discussions and speeches
* Not deliberating bodies
by prominent
citizens
* Thumbs up or down
12
Buonomini
16 Gonfalonieri
Council of
the
Council of the
(patrician) (popular)
Commune
Popolo
(patrician)
(popular)
Above
and beyond the above offices, Florentine government had complex judicial and
administrative systems. For example, there was the Ufficio
dell’Abbondanza (literally the “Office of Plenty”), which was in charge of
controlling the grain supply and the different monti (investment banks).
The Otto di Guardia (“Eight Guards”) were in charge of internal
security, roughly equivalent to a police commissioner’s council. The Dieci
(or the “Ten”) were in charge of foreign policy and war. In terms of
criminal justice, Florence counted with two independent court systems, headed respectively
by the Capitano del Popolo (or People’s Captain) and the Podestà
(a figure who by this point was no longer holder of executive power as he had
been in the podesteral commune); both the Capitano and the Podestà were
foreigners, in order to guarantee impartiality.
V. Notwithstanding the great
limitations to franchise (based not only on individual guild membership and tax
output, as we had mentioned previously in class, but also on the “loopholes”
mentioned above), Florence was the most democratic state of its time.
Particularly significant were 1) Florence’s limited but direct process of
interaction and deliberation (called the “Consulte e Pratiche,”
institutionalized meetings of prominent citizens for the purpose of giving
political speeches and holding policy discussions); 2) its system of checks and
balances against the rise to power of one individual; and 3) the elite’s
awareness that with their privilege came great responsibilities (most important
of which was the survival and flourishing of the state).
VI. What was the extent of
governmental responsibility? The most obvious answer is that the
government was in charge of justice, foreign affairs, the military, and
taxation. However, government’s less obvious responsibilities included
urban planning (including the building of churches), health and social welfare
(including the building and running of hospitals and centers of distribution of
food), and public morals (particularly in regulating sumptuous spending,
protecting nunneries and monasteries, and legalizing prostitution as a defense
against sodomy). The one thing we might expect the state to also oversee,
but which it did not, was education, which was within the purview of the Church
and/or private individuals).
The above is more than enough material (no kidding!), so
we will talk about principalities later on, when we discuss