Middle Ages Part II – Communes, Lordships, Dante Alighieri and his political vision
by Riccardo Piroddi
L’articolo, nell’ambito del pensiero politico medievale, propone un focus su comuni, signorie e sulla visione politica di Dante Alighieri. Viene descritta l’evoluzione delle città italiane in comuni autonomi tra l’XI e il XII secolo, che, pur influenzati da conflitti interni e divisioni tra Guelfi e Ghibellini, rappresentarono un’esperienza politica innovativa. L’analisi si sofferma anche sulla transizione verso le signorie e sull’emergere di nuove teorie politiche a sostegno dell’autonomia municipale. Particolare attenzione è data alla figura di Dante Alighieri, il quale, nel suo trattato De Monarchia e nella Divina Commedia, propone una visione di rinnovamento spirituale e materiale, basata sulla collaborazione armoniosa tra Chiesa e Impero. Dante immagina un impero universale, capace di garantire giustizia, pace e libertà, condizioni essenziali per il progresso umano e spirituale. La sua riflessione intreccia politica, filosofia e fede, delineando un modello dualistico di governo in cui l’imperatore e il papa svolgono ruoli complementari per guidare l’umanità verso la salvezza terrena e divina.
Communes and Lordships
The communal movement that took root between the 11th and 12th centuries, particularly in northern Italy—and to a lesser degree in southern Germany and the Netherlands—emerged during a period of intense conflict between the Empire and the Papacy. Both popes and emperors, seeking to win the favour of these prosperous city communities, extended privileges and concessions that facilitated their autonomous development. Some historians have compared these medieval communes to the ancient Greek city-states, largely because they introduced democratic governance forms previously unknown in medieval political culture, especially during their early “consular phase.”
At the heart of communal governance were two key institutions found across all municipalities. The first was the Arengo, or the general assembly of citizens, responsible for deliberating on major issues of collective interest. The second was the College of Consuls, which held executive authority. To prevent the rise of autocratic rule, consuls, much like their counterparts in Roman Republican law, were limited to short terms of six months to a year. This rotation in office ensured that representatives from the major families of the commune had the opportunity to govern, promoting a shared distribution of power.
Socially, the new municipal ruling class was composed of two primary groups: the traditional feudal aristocracy and the emerging merchant and professional classes. Initially, these communes were united by a sense of patriotic zeal, particularly in their collective resistance to Emperor Frederick I “Barbarossa” and their defence of local territories and privileges. However, this unity did not last. Over time, the communes became embroiled in bitter internal struggles as factions vied for control.
One of the most famous divisions arose between the Guelphs, who favoured an alliance with the papacy, and the Ghibellines, who supported imperial authority. These factional conflicts marked the later phase of communal history, weakening the political cohesion of many of these cities.
Despite efforts to establish forms of government capable of mediating internal conflicts within democratic—though often oligarchic—institutions, the communal experiment, which remains an extraordinary political laboratory, was ultimately destined to evolve into larger territorial entities, known as Lordships. These entities foreshadowed the governmental structures later adopted by the national monarchies of the 16th century.
From the standpoint of political thought, the communal experience was significant as it marked a pivotal transition towards governance based on principles of autonomy, liberty, and the self-determination of peoples. Supporters of municipal independence were compelled to provide a theoretical defence of their form of government, especially as they sought to protect their territories from the claims of the Empire and the papacy—two dominant political powers of the time.
In response, a range of political theories emerged. Thinkers like Brunetto Latini, Tolomeo da Lucca, and Remigio de’ Girolami advocated for the superiority of popular government, emphasizing the benefits of self-governance. On the other hand, prominent pro-imperial jurists from Bologna, particularly those of the Glossators school like Bartolus de Saxoferrato, were often reluctant to fully recognize the legitimacy of these smaller political entities, which, despite their size, maintained a strong sense of autonomy and independence. These legal and political debates not only shaped the communal experience but also influenced the development of later political systems in Europe.
5. Egidius Romanus and John of Paris: Curialism and Regalism in the late Middle Ages
Beginning in the 14th century, Europe underwent profound transformations in its political and institutional landscape. New political and social structures emerged but struggled to establish themselves amidst the ongoing tension between spiritual and temporal powers. This period saw a waning of political Augustinism, the doctrine which linked the earthly City of God to human communities, leading to a more secular view of governance. The rediscovery of Roman law during this time reinforced the supremacy of positive law over traditional feudal customs, marking a significant shift in legal thought.
However, this was only the initial phase of a broader trend that would fully materialize centuries later, especially after the upheaval caused by the French Revolution in 1789. The revolution dismantled the traditional order and deepened the ideological divide between two opposing schools of thought: regalism, which advocated for the independence of secular power from religious influence, and curialism, which argued for the opposite.
The roots of this ideological split can be traced back to the work of Egidius Romanus (1242-1316), a curialist thinker who, drawing on Aristotelian philosophy, viewed politics not only as the science of ensuring peace within the state but also as a means of managing warfare. This early articulation of political autonomy would later shape the development of modern governance and the evolving relationship between church and state.
During the conflict between Pope Boniface VIII and King Philip the Fair of France (1277–79), Egidius Romanus, whom Boniface had appointed as Bishop of Bruges, reflected deeply on the concept of hierocracy, or government by the clergy. In his influential work De ecclesiastica potestate, Egidius championed the political supremacy of the Church, arguing for the Pope’s temporal authority over the empire. His ideas asserted that the Pope not only held spiritual primacy but also wielded political power, placing the Church above all secular rulers.
Opposing this hierocratic stance, the regalist perspective was advanced by John of Paris (Jean Quidort, 1250–1306). John advocated for a political framework that allowed for the coexistence of multiple political entities, each independent yet subordinate to both Church and Empire in their own spheres. Crucially, he argued for a clear separation of powers: the Church’s domain was to be confined to spiritual authority (preaching and moral guidance), while the State was responsible for managing worldly affairs and securing material well-being.
This distinction was key to preventing the dangers of ecclesiastical tyranny and opened the door to theorizing a plurality of political systems. John’s ideas laid the groundwork for the formation of various forms of states and kingdoms, with governance structured on an elective basis, thus providing a more balanced and flexible relationship between the Church and secular authority.
7. Dante Alighieri and his political vision
Against the background of the contrasts between Empire and Papacy, and even more so of the struggles between factions within the Italian Communes, lies the human and political story of Dante Alighieri (1265-1321). In De Monarchia, written between 1312 and 1313, he hoped for the foundation of a universal monarchy (one principality, one prince) which guarantees, together with peace, the achievement of the happiness entrusted to the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire who is “arbiter” between the various summits of the underlying political communities and primary interlocutor of the Pope.
Dante remains one of the most prestigious personalities expressed by Italian culture, as well as one of the greatest authors of world literature. According to Dante, the relationship with politics is not resolved in a simple theoretical elaboration, but constitutes a concrete commitment that characterized the first part of his life. In fact, he held important government offices in the Municipality of Florence between 1295 and 1301, fighting with determination to keep the city out of the sphere of influence of Pope Boniface VIII. Precisely due to this commitment, he would have been sentenced to death by his opponents in 1302, and forced to choose the exile that will deeply mark his human life, his poetic production and his political thought.
In the Divine Comedy, Dante’s exalted view of the two great universal authorities—the Empire and the Papacy—serves as one of the poem’s foundational pillars. It is no coincidence that humanity’s original fall into the “dark forest” is a direct consequence of the decline of these institutions. Their failure unleashed a destructive factionalism, with various groups battling for control. Dante identifies two key causes of this crisis: the Church’s excessive entanglement in temporal affairs, which diverts it from its spiritual mission, and the Empire’s weakness in relation to the feudal lords, which undermines its authority.
Despite this bleak situation, Dante envisioned a way out of the conflict between spiritual and temporal powers through the path of faith. His vision for a material and spiritual renewal of society is encapsulated in the famous “prophecy of the veltro” in the first Canto of Inferno. This mysterious prophecy speaks of a figure—whether spiritual or temporal is unclear—who would cleanse the world of greed and restore the rightful authority of both the Church and the Empire.
For Dante, the ultimate goal of humanity is knowledge, which he views as the pathway to individual spiritual perfection. Each person’s journey toward this inner growth prepares them for an eventual encounter with the angelic intelligences in the afterlife, symbolizing the culmination of human existence in divine understanding. Through this framework, Dante weaves his personal political and spiritual ideals into the larger philosophical and theological structure of his epic.
The pursuit of true knowledge, according to Dante, is a monumental task that exceeds the capability of any single individual. For this reason, two essential conditions are required: collective cooperation and universal peace, the latter being indispensable for individuals to benefit from the collective achievements of others. Dante believed these conditions could only be realized within the framework of a universal empire, where harmony and collaboration are made possible.
Since cooperation is essential for attaining true knowledge, Dante argues that human beings are naturally inclined to form ever-expanding social structures—from the family to the village, city, and kingdom—each governed by a leader. The ultimate and most crucial form of this societal hierarchy is the Empire, which serves as the unifying force that enables integration and peaceful coexistence.
Drawing from medieval political theory, Dante sees the emperor’s primary role as ensuring justice, which in turn secures the freedom of all subjects. The emperor is not merely a legislator but the supreme judge, the arbiter of conflicts between various entities—whether cities, kingdoms, or other political entities within the empire. His decisions restore justice, establishing an earthly order that mirrors the divine order of creation.
This universal order, protected by the emperor’s authority, guarantees individual freedom. For Dante, this freedom is not simply political but also spiritual, as it allows citizens to live independently, without being subjected to the arbitrary will of others, thereby enabling them to focus on their ultimate goal: divine salvation. Through this vision, Dante emphasizes that only within a just and peaceful empire can humanity achieve its highest potential, both intellectually and spiritually.
When Dante extols the virtues of imperial rule, he—like many medieval thinkers—looks to a specific historical model: the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus, which he regarded as an ideal embodiment of governance. In the third book of De Monarchia, Dante addresses the relationship between the Empire and the Church, focusing on the autonomy and independence of temporal power from spiritual authority.
In both his philosophical and poetic works, including The Divine Comedy, Dante emphasizes that in order for man to attain eternal life, he must first undergo a process of self-improvement, guided by human knowledge—essentially, philosophy. This journey of human development is symbolized by the Garden of Eden, which serves as a precursor to the celestial paradise. Dante views the imperial authority as a divinely ordained force tasked with ensuring that humanity has the conditions—such as knowledge, freedom, and peace—necessary for achieving this perfection.
Conversely, the Church has the responsibility of guiding souls toward heavenly salvation. In Dante’s vision, the Empire and the Papacy represent the two supreme powers, each operating within its own domain. They are meant to function as equals, collaborating to lead humanity toward the fulfilment of both earthly and eternal life. The Empire provides the framework for achieving human excellence, while the Church oversees the spiritual journey to salvation. Together, they form a dual leadership, with neither subordinating the other, guiding man toward the complete realization of his potential in both worldly and divine realms.