Decidere e agire in comunità
(un aspetto del dibattito politico nel dominio sforzesco)
English summary
The Lombard communities – through the regulations laid down in the statutes, formal written records and notarial instruments pertaining to their decision–making and letters sent to the Duke of Milan – adopted and applied a series of procedures endowing their decisions with the status of resolutions collectively adhered to by all community members. A crucial role was played by the pronouncements of assemblies of heads of family or of smaller councils, conducted following formal rules and in the course of which a unanimous or majority view emerged. A number of key values were associated with the functioning of these organs: unanimity of views, reflecting the unity of the population; dominance of the collective view over individual opinions, and therefore of the interest of the entire group over private concerns. Many statutory chapters constituted actual codes of behaviour, prescribing the modes of speech and action considered appropriate for public life (Chapter 1).
The Duke of Milan and his officials did not reject such ideals nor prevent the related procedures from being implemented; on the contrary, they provided key endorsement for them by arbitrating cases in which internal conflict within the community made it difficult to establish a shared position or to legitimate either a self–proclaimed majority or a spokesperson for the collective interest (Chapter 2). Nonetheless, the principality was founded on a concept of society and power not altogether compatible with the republican values so strongly espoused by the subjects, and enshrined in the political and legal norms. The Sforzas and their magistrates attributed differing social status (qualità) to different individuals and, considering the majority of the subjects to be politically passive, were more inclined to recognise the influence of a small number: high–ranking community members in a position to guide their neighbours or, on the contrary, rebel leaders who would incite them to rise up against the ruling power.
Furthermore, the socio–political model based on the central role of the community assembly could be countered by that of polite “company” amongst individuals of high social status, whereby government of the peripheral areas was envisioned in terms of personal cooperation between the duke’s officials and local gentlemen on the basis of an understanding between their respective codes of honour (Chapter 3). Above all, the mechanisms and values of these community assemblies denoted a type of decision – the outcome of heated, lengthy and independent debate at council level, often after a prior public debate open to the wider community – which, despite the compromises reached in practice, ran counter in principle to the other type of decision introduced with seigneurial rule: the commands issued by the prince – which only he himself could overturn – and mediated by his officials in the peripheral areas, demanding unquestioning obedience and immediate execution. For these reasons, the Duke and his men developed multiple criticisms of the political life of the communities, which they judged inconclusive, violent, rebellious and distorted by emotional excess, to the extent of putting it on a par with seditious association (Chapter 4).
At this point, the necessary conditions had been created to justify forms of governing the territory which bypassed, at least in part, the local institutions. Thus, Milan sought contact with the local elite, or in any case with individuals that did not represent a community but a «terra» (locality), a term used more frequently in the documents issued by the central authorities than «commune» or «universitas» so as to emphasize the material nature of a settlement, rather than its juridical and political identity. In particular, the practice of taking subjects’ views into account directly, by means of individual positions recorded by officials without the mediation of procedures blending them into the joint position of an institution, seems to have constituted the most radical element of this strategy: by undermining the credibility of the assembly, the bases were laid for the political and cultural deconstruction of the community and legitimization of the dialogue between the state authorities and individuals (singulare persone) unfiltered by the territorial organs. This attack was parried by letters from the communities and the actions of community members, no less strenuously – and indeed at times more resolutely – in the rural areas than in the cities. The purpose of the protest was not to entirely reject the values of class distinction nor to dispute the obedience owed to the duke, but to make a strong claim for the right of local institutions across the prince’s domain to interpret the aspirations and needs of the subjects, expressed independently and in an ordered manner, in line with egalitarian principles which generally accorded one vote to each adult male.
These responses shaped the identity of the community as a collective political entity, with a will of its own beyond that of its individual members, and with the capacity to pursue the common good over and above minority interests (Chapter 5).
Translation: Clare O’Sullivan
