[111] Dr. Hartwig quotes particulars received from Dr. Wüstenfeld of a patent dated 1114, which would seem to show that the Florentines also took part in the expedition, in which case, he observes, the columns might have been the gift of the Pisans, and nevertheless part of the spoil taken in common. I caused a search to be made for the diploma in the Pisan Archives, and obtained it through the courtesy of Prof. Lupi. It is inserted in another patent, dated vi. idus Augusti, 1233, whereby King James of Aragon confirms the Pisans in the privileges conferred on them by the preceding diploma that "Berengarius Barchinione gloriosissimus Comes Pisanis fecit." This older patent is reproduced in the document, and bears this date: "M.C. quarto decimo ... septimo idus septembris, indictione sexta." Although several other words stand between those of decimo and septimo, this mode of writing the date may have been another cause of the blunder committed by the chroniclers who dated the event in 1117.
Whatever may be thought of these very disputable theories, it is certain, on the other hand, that the privileges were conferred on the populo pisano, and that three of their Consuls were invested with them, and received "vice aliorum Consulum tociusque pisani populi," and that this concession was made "coram marchionibus, comitibus, principibus romanis, lucensibus, florentinis, senensibus, volterranis, pistoriensibus, longobardis, sardis et corsis, aliisque innumerabilis gentibus, que in predicto exercitu aderant." Therefore it was no mere alliance between one or two cities: it was the Pisan people in conjunction with many potentates from different parts of Italy. The chancellor of the Pisan Consuls drew up the diploma, in the presence of the Archbishop of Pisa, "qui Dompni apostolici in predicto exercitu vicem gerebat," of two vice comites and nine Consuls, the names of the latter being given. This diploma had never been published in Italy; therefore Amari, who was much interested in the subject, wished to print, just before his decease, the copy I had sent him, although he had ascertained that it was already published in Spain by Moragues y Bover in the notes to a "Historia de Mallorca," by Don Vincente Mut, printed at Palma in 1841.
[112] Vide "Documenti che illustrano la memoria di una monaca del secolo xiii." ("Arch. Stor. It.," Series iii. vol. xxiii.). These documents are among the earliest of the thirteenth century, and contain the depositions of witnesses, alluding almost always to events of the twelfth century, and continually mentioning the monastery of Rosano, and of one who "defendit ipsum monasterium a Teutonicis" (vide pages 206, 391–2, and other parts also).
[113] The "Annales," i., record two fires (1115 and 1117), which destroyed the whole place; the Neap. Codex only mentions the second. Thomas Tuscus, writing in Florence about 1279, speaks of both the fires in his "Gesta Imperatorum et Pontificum," attributing to that cause the destruction of many chronicles which he supposes to have existed, but which probably never existed at all. Villani adopted the same theory, being equally unable to understand that the Commune might have had no historians of earlier date.
[114] Petrus f. Mingardole, who, "ad defendendum se de crucifixo," passed through the fire unhurt. Certain historians, unwilling to credit the existence of heresy in Florence at that time, have disputed as to the words de crucifixo, and proposed this reading instead: cum crucifixo or de crimine infixo. But the facsimile of the Codex, published by Prof. Paoli, leaves no doubt on the point.
[115] In fact, Simone della Tosa, a later chronicler, who may have copied from Villani at this point, after relating the second burning of the city in 1117, goes on to say that "the heresy of the Paterini was then abroad in Florence." Pope Innocent III. (1198–1216), in discoursing on heretics, wrote: "Impii Manichaei qui se Catharos vel Paterenos appellant" (Ep. lib. x. ep. 54, in Migne's ed. vol. ii. p. 1147). Also, in the "Annales Camaldulenses" (vol. iii. app. p. 396) there is a sentence pronounced at Sutri, in 1141, running as follows: "Igitur universi qui vulgo Paterenses vocantur, eo quia, sub iugo peccati, retinebant omnia que de predicta ecclesia sancte Fortunate accipiebant." Therefore it is plain that the name of Paterini (although strictly speaking that of a special sect, quite separate from others) was here applied to all those occupying Church lands, or opposed in any way to the Church. Hartwig, vol. ii. pp. 17 and 21.
[116] Vide the Chronicle, ad annum. As we have already observed, all information regarding this period is derived from the Gaddi Codex, discovered in the Laurentian Library a few years ago. The part beginning from 1181 is also contained in the autograph Chronicle that has been longer known to us; but being very difficult to decipher has not been much studied.
[117] "Would to God that Ghibellines were declared to be Paterini!" So says the pseudo Brunetto Latini in the year 1215.
[118] The MS. of the "Annales," i., writes, Rempoctus, not Remperoctus, as it was printed elsewhere.
[119] Ficker, vol. ii. pp. 223, 224, par. 310; Murat., "Antiq.," iii. 1125.