280 ITALY. least in 1354, when a Florentine, Fra Bernardo de' Guastoni, was appointed Inquisitor of Tuscany * This was not likely to be effective, and the Signoria made a more promising effort at self -protection by passing various laws imitated from those adopted not long before at Perugia. To limit the abuse of seUing hcenses to bear arms, the inquisitor, as we have seen, was restricted to employing six armed f amihars. More- over, it was decreed that no citizen could be arrested without the participation of the podesta, who was required to seize all per- sons designated to him by the bishop— the inquisitor not bemg alluded to— which would seem to leave small opportunity for m- <lependent action by the latter, especiaUy as he was deprived of his private jail and was ordered to send all prisoners to the public prison. He was further prohibited from inflicting pecuniary pun- ishments, and all whom he condemned as heretics were to be burned. This was revolutionary in a high degree, and did not tend to harmonize the relations between the republic and the pa- pacy. The desperate quarrel between them which arose in 1375 was caused by pohtical questions, but it was embittered by troubles arising from the Inquisition, especiaUy as a demand made by In- nocent YI., in 1355, for a revision of their statutes remained un- heeded. In 1372 efforts were made to obtain the removal of Fra Tolomeo da Siena, the Inquisitor of Tuscany, who was exceedingly unpopular, but Gregory XL expressed the fuUest confidence in him and ordered him to be protected by the Yicar-general, Filippo, Bishop of Sabina. Yet the pope probably yielded, for I find m 1373 that Fra Piero di Ser Lippo, who had already served as Tus- can inquisitor in 1371, was again appointed to replace a certain Fra Andrea di Ricco. With some intervals Fra Piero served until at least 1384, and he proved no more disposed than his predeces- sors to yield to the resistance which the methods of the Inquisition inevitably provoked in the free Italian cities. Pistoia had fol- lowed the example of Florence in endeavoring to protect its cit- izens bv municipal statutes, and in 1375 it was duly placed under interdict and its citizens were excommunicated. At the same time
- Aichiv. cklle Riformag. Classe ix., Distinzioiie i. No. 39; Classe v. No.
129, fol. 62 sqq.; Prov. del Convento di S. Croce, 23 Ott. 1354.-Villani, xii. 58. — Ughelli VTT. 1015.
