actual connection with
the constitution of the state was concerned, but it was the _scabinus_
who was to represent it to the consciousness of the people, and to
assist them in rediscovering the lost conception of a municipal unity.

It would be incomplete to conclude this account of the various
officers of government, without some mention of the position held by
the bishops at this period. As it has been our duty throughout this
paper to study the municipalities of Italy as only preparing to assume
a position of individuality eventually leading to independence, so it
is with regard to the bishops. While their social influence, as
pointed out in the first part of this paper, was always notable, their
political power, which formed one of the important steps in the
progress of the communes towards a separate existence, has its birth
at a time which is beyond the limits of this investigation. Not until
the overthrow of the Carlovingian dynasty left Italy the prey of
contending factions, and the crown passing quickly from hand to hand
made each applicant anxious to gain the support of the more prominent
electors, did the bishops obtain that legally constituted political
power which, by breaking up and in many cases destroying the rule of
the counts and great nobles in the cities, was the means of bridging
over the wide gulf which lay between the idea of a district under the
almost absolute rule of a great lord, and a civic autonomy governed by
its own independent citizens. Even, however, if we are not yet to
portray the bishop in a position of high political importance, we may
briefly consider his social power and influence, and, as we have done
with the cities themselves, indicate the steps by which he was enabled
ultimately to gain such an exalted position.

The relations of the bishop to the inhabitants of the cities during
the period we are considering were pretty nearly such as described in
the first part of this paper. He stood forth as protector of the weak
and the oppressed; as mediator between an unfortunate prisoner and an
unjust judge who was seeking his private interest rather than
following the spirit of impartial justice; or between a downtrodden
vassal and the almost unlimited power of his feudal superior. He
lessened the severity of harsh judgments, he protested the imposition
of unjust fines and penalties. In very many cases he was even
appointed by the king or his representatives as co-judge to assist the