of Milan, who died in 882, surrounded Milan with walls, and that the same was the case with respect to Modena, under its bishop Leudonio, who died in 898*. Although this was repeatedly done without any other warrant than the most lawful of all-self-defence, leave was often granted to bishops, monasteries and private individuals to fortify their places, and hence the abundance of castles and strongholds which covered the Alps, the Apennines and the rest of Italy.

To defend the places so fortified it was necessary to arm the common people, who, behind an entrenchment, were as good and better than the milites and valvassores, the nobility of the time, and who fought desperately against an enemy from whom they knew they could expect no quarter. The people having once learnt how to use arms, and to rely on their own means to defend themselves from foreign foes, were not likely to submit to the extortion and plundering pretensions of the grandees, mostly of a foreign race, to whom they owed nothing, but who on the contrary were indebted to the inhabitants of the cities at large for the common safety.

The sovereigns of Italy were obliged to proceed with great deference towards the bishops, who not only possessed a great influence on the people, but, having a voice in the Diets, shared in the election of the sovereign, and voted the laws. It was therefore difficult to deprive them of the power and dignity of Counts, which they had usurped in many places, when they were, de facto, the only recognised authority, in spiritual as well as temporal matters; and on many accounts it was good policy in the sovereigns occasionally to confer on them that dignity. It was moreover thought a meritorious and pious act to increase the temporal power of the episcopacyt.

After the death of Otho I. or the Great, Italy was for a long while without any general government, left under that species of municipal self-government that each city succeeded in securing to itself. This weak and fluctuating government relied on the division of interest of the factions, not on its own vigour. The common people in the meantime gained strength, and towards the end of the eleventh century, Landulph, archbishop of Milan, of the noble family of Carcano, having behaved haughtily and insolently, the citizens gave battle to him and to the whole of the aristocracy by whom he was supported, and drove them from the city. The Cremonese likewise waged a successful war against their bishop.

The dissensions between the emperor Henry IV. and pope Gregory VII. greatly tended to increase the independence of the cities of Upper Italy. The inhabitants, as well as their bishops, being generally in favour of the emperor, could dictate to him their conditions; and those who were for the Pope and the countess Matilda were not much inclined to respect the rights of the chief of the state. Whenever any follower of this party changed side in that great struggle, some new concessions were either forced from the Emperor, or graciously granted by him to gain supporters to his cause, and weaken his enemy's. The contest did not merely extend to the spiritual and temporal powers, but caused such schism, even in the former only, that Rome had two popes (one of which was afterwards declared an antipope by the winning party), and Milan three archbishops at the same time-Godfrey, elected by the Emperor ; Otto, by the Pope; and Theobald, by the people. The prerogatives of that sovereign, who was twice beaten by the troops of one of the great vassals of

Non raro Germanicis regibus opus erat episcoporum præsidium, sive ut reges eligerentur, sive ut electi regnum adquisitum eorum ope deinde tuerentur. Opportunitatem adeo secundam amplificandæ potentiæ suæ non sinebant sacri antistites sibi e manibus elabi.”—Antiq. Ital. Med. Ævi, Diss. viii. tom. i. col. 416. Muratori quotes many instances of bishops having obtained the county (that is the government of the town and its territory) from the sovereign; and publishes, among other documents, a charter from Rodolph, king of Burgundy, giving the county of the Tarantaise to the archbishop Amizo. The charter is dated 996, indict. x. in the third year of king Rodolph's reign ; on which Muratori observes the indietion should be vi.; but he is mistaken. The same charter, published in the Monumenta Hist. Patriæ, (Chart. tom. i. col. 304,) copied from Besson, is not so complete as in Muratori, and no observation is made either as to his having edited it, or as to the

of Milan, who died in 882, surrounded Milan with walls, and that the same was the case with respect to Modena, under its bishop Leudonio, who died in 898*. Although this was repeatedly done without any other warrant than the most lawful of all-self-defence, leave was often granted to bishops, monasteries and private individuals to fortify their places, and hence the abundance of castles and strongholds which covered the Alps, the Apennines and the rest of Italy.

To defend the places so fortified it was necessary to arm the common people, who, behind an entrenchment, were as good and better than the milites and valvassores, the nobility of the time, and who fought desperately against an enemy from whom they knew they could expect no quarter. The people having once learnt how to use arms, and to rely on their own means to defend themselves from foreign foes, were not likely to submit to the extortion and plundering pretensions of the grandees, mostly of a foreign race, to whom they owed nothing, but who on the contrary were indebted to the inhabitants of the cities at large for the common safety.

The sovereigns of Italy were obliged to proceed with great deference towards the bishops, who not only possessed a great influence on the people, but, having a voice in the Diets, shared in the election of the sovereign, and voted the laws. It was therefore difficult to deprive them of the power and dignity of Counts, which they had usurped in many places, when they were, de facto, the only recognised authority, in spiritual as well as temporal matters; and on many accounts it was good policy in the sovereigns occasionally to confer on them that dignity. It was moreover thought a meritorious and pious act to increase the temporal power of the episcopacyt.

After the death of Otho I. or the Great, Italy was for a long while without any general government, left under that species of municipal self-government that each city succeeded in securing to itself. This weak and fluctuating government relied on the division of interest of the factions, not on its own vigour. The common people in the meantime gained strength, and towards the end of the eleventh century, Landulph, archbishop of Milan, of the noble family of Carcano, having behaved haughtily and insolently, the citizens gave battle to him and to the whole of the aristocracy by whom he was supported, and drove them from the city. The Cremonese likewise waged a successful war against their bishop.

The dissensions between the emperor Henry IV. and pope Gregory VII. greatly tended to increase the independence of the cities of Upper Italy. The inhabitants, as well as their bishops, being generally in favour of the emperor, could dictate to him their conditions; and those who were for the Pope and the countess Matilda were not much inclined to respect the rights of the chief of the state. Whenever any follower of this party changed side in that great struggle, some new concessions were either forced from the Emperor, or graciously granted by him to gain supporters to his cause, and weaken his enemy's. The contest did not merely extend to the spiritual and temporal powers, but caused such schism, even in the former only, that Rome had two popes (one of which was afterwards declared an antipope by the winning party), and Milan three archbishops at the same time—Godfrey, elected by the Emperor; Otto, by the Pope; and Theobald, by the people. The prerogatives of that sovereign, who was twice beaten by the troops of one of the great vassals of

:

Non raro Germanicis regibus opus erat episcoporum præsidium, sive ut reges eligerentur, sive ut electi regnum adquisitum eorum ope deinde tuerentur. Opportunitatem adeo secundam amplificandæ potentiæ suæ non sinebant sacri antistites sibi e manibus elabi."-Antiq. Ital. Med. Ævi, Diss. viii. tom. i. col. 416. Muratori quotes many instances of bishops having obtained the county (that is the government of the town and its territory) from the sovereign; and publishes, among other documents, a charter from Rodolph, king of Burgundy, giving the county of the Tarantaise to the archbishop Amizo. The charter is dated 996, indict. x. in the third year of king Rodolph's reign ; on which Muratori observes the indiction should be vi.; but he is mistaken. The same charter, published in the Monumenta Hist. Patria, (Chart. tom. i. col. 304,) copied from Besson, is not so con as in Muratori, and no observation is made either as to his having edited it, or as to the

the crown, the countess Matilda, became res nullius, and either fell into desuetude or were usurped by the strongest among the nobility, the commons or the clergy.

Henry V. was refused admittance into Milan by the citizens; and he destroyed the little city of Novara opposed to him; which shows how far the spirit of resistance had spread.

} Several years before, Pavia had refused to receive within its walls the emperor Conrad, who did not find himself strong enough to besiege it; whilst, soon after, he was ignominiously driven from before Milan, which had rebelled under its archbishop's direction*. By this time several cities had obtained, either by custom, charter or main force, not only that the Emperor's troops should not be allowed to enter their gates, but that the imperial palaces, which were one of the 'regalia due from the cities to the Emperor, should be built out of the walls, so that the sovereign could not enter the stronghold of his faithful subjectst. During the reign of Henry V. however, two facts are recorded as having happened in the year 1112, which show not only that the Emperor's power at Milan was little thought of, but that some of the cities of Lombardy had in fact entirely thrown off their allegiance. The archbishop of Milan, Grossolano, who had gone to Palestine as a crusader, was deposed by the people, and Giordano chosen in his stead. Azzo, bishop of Acqui, knowing the importance of the former to the imperial party, and unable to assist him in a direct, open and lawful manner, not only refused to assist at the consecration of Giordano, but had recourse to the vile stratagem of getting up a party among the people for the old archbishop; thus supporting the prerogative of the crown by the folly and wickedness of factionf. Landulph, who lived at the time, says, that in the same year,

• So early as 1039, according to Sigebertus Gemblacensis, “omnes Longobardi conjuraverant ut non paterentur quemlibet dominum, qui aliud quam ipsi vellent contra se ageret."

+ It is well known that no English sovereign, or his troops, can enter the City without the lord mayor's knowledge and consent.

“ Licet ab ipsis (Mediolanensibus] multum rogatus hujusmodi consecrationi interesse, nec assensum præbere volui, immo dedi operam erigendi magnum parietem populi contra populum sub occasione alterius Archiepiscopi [i. e. Grossolani,] quem pars illorum intendit deponere, viri scilicet literatissimi et ingenio astutissimi et eloquentissimi, Curiæ vestræ [Imperatoris scilicet) valde necessarii, cuius partem propter honorem vestrum tantum auxi, quod medietas populi contra medietatem