usually form part of the army, and were only enrolled in it in seasons of emergency. Nevertheless the army was not only national, but became increasingly democratic, so that in the 10th century it included every class of inhabitants except churchmen and slaves. At that period we sometimes find the whole people designated as the exercitus, those actually under Scholae militum. arms being distinguished as the militia exercitus Romani. This again was divided into bands or “numbers,” i.e. regiments, and also, in a manner peculiar to Rome, into scholae militum. These scholae were associations derived from antiquity, gaining strength and becoming more general in the middle ages as the central power of the state declined. There were scholae of notaries, of church singers, and of nearly every leading employment; there were scholae of foreigners of diverse nationalities, of Franks, Lombards, Greeks, Saxons, &c. Even the trades and crafts began to form scholae. These were at first very feeble institutions, and only later gained importance and became gilds. As early as the 8th century there were scholae militum in the army, which was thus doubly divided. But we have no precise definition of their functions. They were de facto corporations with separate property, churches and magistrates of their own. The latter were always optimates, and guarded the interests of the army. But the real chiefs of the bands or numeri were the duces or tribunes, and under the Franks the latter became comites. These chiefs were styled magnifici consules, optimates de militia, often too judices de militia, since, as was the custom of the middle ages, they wielded political and judicial as well as military authority. The title of consul was now generally given to superior officers, whether civil or military. The importance of the scholae militum began to decline in the 10th century; towards the middle of the 12th they disappeared altogether, and, according to Felix Papencordt, were last mentioned in 1145. It is probable that the scholae militum signified local divisions of the army, corresponding with the city wards, which were twelve in number during the 10th and 11th centuries, then increased to thirteen and occasionally to fourteen. It is certain that from the beginning the army was distributed under twelve flags; after the scholae had disappeared, we find it classified in districts, which were subdivided into companies. The division of cities into quarters, sestieri or rioni, corresponding with that of the army, and also with that of the municipal government, was the common practice of Florence, Siena and almost all the Italian communes. But, while usually losing importance as the gilds acquired power, in Rome the insignificance of the gilds added to the strength of the regioni or rioni, which not only became part of the army but finally grasped the reins of government. This was a special characteristic of the political constitution of the Roman commune.
We now come to a question of weightier import for all desiring to form a clear idea of the Roman government at that period. The senate in the middle ages. What had become of the senate? It had undoubtedly lost its original character now that the empire was extinct. But, after much learned discussion, historical authorities are still divided upon the subject. Certain Italian writers of the 18th century—Vendettini, for example—asserted with scanty critical insight that the Roman senate did not disappear in the middle ages. The same opinion backed by much learned research was maintained by the great German historian Savigny. And Leo, while denying the persistence of the curia in Lombard Italy, adhered to Savigny's views as regarded Rome. Papencordt did the same, but held the Roman senate to be no more than a curia. This judgment was vigorously contested, first by Hegel and Giesebrecht, then by Gregorovius. These writers believe that after the middle of the 6th century the senate had a merely nominal existence. According to Gregorovius its last appearance was in the year 579. After that date it is mentioned in no documents, and the chroniclers are either equally silent or merely allude to its decay and extinction. In the 8th century, however, the terms senator, senatores, senatus again reappear. We find letters addressed to Pippin, beginning thus: Omnis senatus atque universi populi generalitas. When Leo III. returned from Germany he was met by tam proceres clericorum cum omnibus clericis, quamque optimates et senatus, cunctoque militia (see Anastasius, in Muratori, vol. iii. 198c). But it has been noted that the senate was never found to act as a political assembly; on occasions when it might have been mentioned in that capacity we hear nothing of it, and only meet with it in ceremonials and purely formal functions. Hence the conclusion that the term senator was used in the sense of noble, senatus of nobility, and no longer referred to an institution but only to a class of the citizens. Even when we find that the emperor Otto III. (who sought to revive all the ancient institutions of Rome) addressed an edict to the “consuls and senate of Rome,” and read that the laws of St Stephen were issued senatus decreto, the learned Giesebrecht merely remarks that no important changes in the Roman constitution are to be attributed to the consuls and senate introduced by Otto III. Thus for the next glimpse of the senate we must pass to the 12th century, when it was not only reformed, as some writers believe, but entirely reconstituted.
But in this case a serious difficulty remains to be disposed of. Gregorovius firmly asserts that the nobles acquired great power between the 7th and 10th centuries, not only filling the highest military, judicial and ecclesiastical offices, “but also directing the municipal government, presumably with the prefect at their head.” He further adds: “Notwithstanding the disappearance of the senate, it is difficult to suppose that the city was without governing magistrates, or without a council.” Thus, after the 7th century, the optimates at the head of the army were also at the head of the citizens, and “formed a communal council in the same manner in which it was afterwards formed by the banderesi.”[1] Now, if the nobles were called senatores and the nobility senatus, and if this body of nobles met in council to administer the affairs of the republic, there is no matter for dispute, inasmuch as all are agreed that the original senate must have had a different character from the senate of the middle ages. And, since the absence of all mention of a prefect after the 7th century is not accepted as a proof of his non-existence, and we find him reappear under another form in the 8th century, so the silence as to the senate after the year 579, the fresh mention of it in the 8th century, and its reappearance in the 12th as a firmly reconstituted body reasonably lead to the inference that, during that time, the ancient senate had been gradually transformed into the new council. Its meetings must have been held very irregularly, and probably only in emergencies when important affairs had to be discussed, previously to bringing them before the parliament The consuls. or general assembly of the people. Historians are better agreed as to the significance of the term consul. At first this was simply a title of honour bestowed on superior magistrates, and retained that meaning from the 7th to the 11th century, but then became—as in other Italian cities—a special title of the chief officers of the state.
During this period the Roman constitution was very simple. The duke, commanding the army, and the prefect, presiding over the criminal court, were the chiefs of the republic; the armed nobility constituted the forces, filled all of superior offices, and occasionally met in a council called the senate, although it had, as we have said, no resemblance to the senate of older times. In moments of emergency a general parliament of the people was convoked. This constitution differed little from that of the other Italian communes, where, in the same way, we find all the leading citizens under arms, a parliament, a council, and one or more chiefs at the head of the government.
But Rome had an element that was lacking elsewhere. We have already noted that, in the provinces, the administrators of church lands were important personages, and exercised during the middle ages, when there was no exact division of power, both judicial and political functions. It was very natural that the heads of this vast administration resident in Rome should have a still higher standing, and in fact, from the
- ↑ Gregorovius, Geschichte, vol. ii. pp. 427-28 and note (2nd ed.).
