The thirteenth century, therefore, is a strategic century for Lucca. Its thriving industry required very strict control over the territory and especially over those areas that served as roads. We see this in the Garfagnana, which became peaceful and was conquered, and for half a century lived in peace, favoring the development of business. In this context, Lucca created the Vicariate of Camporgiano. Something similar may have happened also for Pariana, a stronghold on the Strada di Pizzorna. An operation that was completed in the 1240s, when Lucchese trade had become tumultuous and Lucca was, in fact, the economic capital of Tuscany.

 

The Diploma of Otto IV is a sign of a transition in which Lucca seeks to gain control of the territories, removing it from various lords – such as the Gherardinghi in Garfagnana and the Porcaresi, Corvaia, and Vallecchia in Versilia. In this phase, we see an action of reorganization of the territories dependent on Lucca, such as Garfagnana and the Lucchese mountain region.

 

But in this operation, it is the Comune of Lucca that must take on the role of territorial government, taking it from those who had held it by imperial concession for several centuries, namely the Bishop. The process, however, appears to be painless. In 1239 it appears that Villa Basilica and its Plebanate were no longer part of the Diocese but fell under the jurisdiction of the Comune of Lucca, and since there were no protests from the Bishop against possible usurpations by the Comune, it would appear that the transition occurred peacefully – probably through money, the principal instrument of Lucchese conquest.

 

This is explained by G. Tommasi, in his Sommario della Storia di Lucca:

If in every age the Comune (of Lucca, my note) strongly endeavored to draw to itself, by force or by the effective lure of money, the jurisdictions of the rural petty lords, it did so even more after the death of the second Frederick. But with ecclesiastics, it proceeded in quite a different manner: their properties, lordships, and privileges were considered untouchable: the government had to swear periodically, according to the cited Gregorian bull of absolution of 1137, not only to respect them but to make others respect them as well. If this oath indeed fell into disuse, as it seems, the present year provides us with sure proof of the government’s good disposition in maintaining clerical prerogatives. For, at the request of a papal legate, the bishop, and all the clergy, the General Council renewed the promises already made to Gregory IX. But since we are certain that in this very year the Plebanate of Villa Basilica was subject to the jurisdiction of the Comune; and since, from a certain point in the 13th century onward, acts of episcopal sovereignty over those lands are missing, as are complaints against the Republic for having appropriated them; and since, on the other hand, it appears that as early as 1239, the bishop obtained the faculty to alienate possessions and the homage of men who were more a burden than a benefit: thus, to reconcile all these facts, we must conclude that there was a voluntary cession on one side, and a purchase of dominion over Villa on the other. Which, detached from the other feudal possessions of the bishop’s jurisdiction, could bring little or no benefit to the prelate, who still had to maintain officials and troops there from his own resources; thus it entered precisely into the number of those burdensome homages to the episcopal table, and therefore alienable.

 

The operation by the Comune of Lucca to obtain from the Bishop, through money (a purchase, a common model in the 13th century), episcopal lands seems to have been successful especially with Villa Basilica and its district (i.e., Pariana and other lands), because, due to the opposition of the Canons of Lucca, as Tommasi further explains, the Comune of Lucca was prevented from using it as a model for other lands and castles.