5. Another compilation, to which previous allusion has been made (p. [89], note [92]), is also deserving of notice. It is among the MSS. of the Florence Archives (ch. ii., dist. i., No. 1), and is still inedited. Padre Ildefonso published certain fragments of it, however, in vol. ix. of the "Delizie degli Eruditi Toscani," and Bonaini published an index of its rubrics, 134 in number.
6. In conclusion, we may mention the Miscellany or "Zibaldone," likewise referred to before, which in addition to many decrees issued between 1274 and 1465, some of which augment the force of the enactments, also includes a petition presented by the people of Florence in June, 1378—namely, the year in which the Revolt of the Ciompi occurred, imploring that the Enactments of Justice should be again enforced, the which request was granted. This codex is also a useful contribution to the history of the enactments.
Recently both Prof. Del Lungo (vide "Bullettino della Società Dantesca," Nos. 10, 11, of July, 1892) and Sig. G. Salvemini, undergraduate of the Instituto Superior, Florence (vide "Arch. Stor. It.," Series v., vol. x. 1892), have published the provision of July 6, 1295, introducing several modifications and mitigations in the enactments. Although this provision was already known to the world, by Prof. Del Lungo's previous careful examination of it in his work on "Dino Compagni" (vol i., 1078–80), Salvemini's clever commentary has gleaned fresh information from it. This provision includes all the modifications made in the enactments in 1295, and often gives fragments of the law as it previously stood, together with the changes then introduced. Hegel, having examined all the documents edited in his day, was the first to prove, on assured evidence, that the rough draft edited by Bonaini, although, as he thinks, omitting certain rubrics and comprising some disparities, mostly of form, contained the real gist of the original enactments. This in itself was an important result. Regarding the disparities noted by Hegel, and the missing rubrics, Salvemini was enabled, by studying the document of July 6, 1295, to make some novel remarks, to which we shall refer later on.
[445] Rubric iii. of the draft states that "De prudentioribus, melioribus et legalioribus artificibus civitatis Florentiæ, continue artem exercentibus, dummodo non sint milites." Also farther on: "Aliquis qui continue artem non exerceat, vel aliquis miles non possit nec debeat modo aliqui eligi, vel esse in dicto officio Prioratus." "Arch. Stor. It.," New Series, vol. i. pp. 44, 45. Rubric xviii., p. 66, enumerates the persons bound to give guaranty as nobles, although exercising a trade, "non obstante quod ipsi vel aliquis eorum de dictis domibus et casatis ... sint artifices vel artem seu mercantiam exerceant."
[446] Vide on this point a document of 1287 appended to this chapter. It proves that the practical exercise of a trade or craft was held indispensable before 1293, and shows what precautions were required to prevent the law from being easily evaded.
[447] Rubric iii., G. We generally quote from Giudici's Italian compilation as being more widely known than the others. But we are careful to collate it with the versions of Fineschi and Bonaini, taking note of significant divergences. The letters B. G. F. are used to indicate the respective editions of Bonaini, Giudici, and Fineschi.
[448] Mons. Perrens (vol. ii. p. 385, note 2) doubts this fact, and states that it only occurred in 1305. It is certain that the Gonfalonier's function was to enforce the enactments, and that when released from this duty by the creation of an "Executor" in 1306, he then began to be more specially considered as the chief of the Signory; but it is none the less certain, that among seven magistrates, all of the same legal standing, the one possessed from the first of loftier attributes and more direct command of the army, was virtually, if not nominally, their president and chief.
[449] Rubric iv., G. and F. We should note that the Latin draft reduces the Gonfalonier's interval of ineligibility to one year only, while the other compilations extend it to two years, as in the case of the Priors and as subsequently enforced. We have followed the Latin draft, for the additional reason that, in the law of 1293, edited by Bonaini (Doc. A. at p. 74), we find it ordained that Priors and Gonfalonier should share the same benefits and privileges, "salvo et excepto quod quæ in Ordinamento iustitie, loquente de electione Vexilliferi, continentur circa devetum et tempus deveti ipsius Vexilliferi, et circa alia omnia in ipso ordinamento descripta, in sua permaneant firmitate." This is repeated even under rubric xxxi., G. and F., whence we are forced to conclude that the prescribed interval before re-election to the Gonfaloniership was originally different from that established with regard to the Priorate, and only equalised with the latter at a subsequent time. Besides, in Compilations F. and G. no thought was given to correcting the rule laid down in rubric xxxi., where it is taken for granted that the original diversity was still in force. Florentine laws were always made and amended bit by bit. All doubts, however, are solved by the document from which we have quoted, dated July 6, 1295, extending the term of prohibition, as regarded the Gonfalonier, from one to two years. Salvemini has found proofs in the "Provvisioni" and "Consulte" that this rule had been already applied in December, 1294.
[450] As we shall see farther on, Dr. Lastig was the first writer to point this out.
[451] Rubrics i. and ii. in Compilations B., F., and G.