PEGOLOTTI'S ‘Book of Descriptions of Countries and of
Measures of Merchandise‘ was first published as testimony to the former
prosperity of its author's native city. In the middle of the eighteenth
century a Florentine Chancellor of the Tithe, Gian-Francesco Pagnini della
Ventura of Volterra, puzzled by sundry anomalies that survived, an
inheritance from the past, in the fiscal administration over which he
presided, undertook to write a book summarizing the historical development
of Florentine finance; he proposed to
explain first ‘the ways in which the citizens subvened to the needs of the
city,' second ‘the value of the coinage with which they paid,' and third
‘the sources from which they obtained the funds.'He
did not investigate far into the last topic before he was led to appreciate
how much more splendid than in his own time had been the part formerly
played by Florence in the economic life of Europe, how much broader had been
the foundation upon which the government could construct its financial
edifice; it was evident that between the twelfth and the fifteenth centuries
the citizens of Florence had carried their trade into every accessible
province and had drawn profits from the four quarters of the known world. To
prove this fact, no better witness could be found than Pegolotti's book,
then lying in manuscript on the shelves of the Riccardian Library. Pagnini
DIV rebaptized the book and printed it entire as the third volume of his series
under the now familiar title, which it has seemed wise to retain, La
Pratica della Mercatura. He added as a fourth and final volume the
similar but less ample manual written by Giovanni von Uzzano in the
fifteenth century.
Although the book was thus made available to a comparatively wide public in
1766, the first notices of it in other works do not occur until a couple of
decades later. Towards the end of the century, the historians of
geographical discovery seized upon Pegolotti's first two chapters for
x
their description of the route to
China, and ever since that time the manual
has been used as much for the purposes of geographic as of economic
history. From 1766 to the present, however, in spite of the increasing
interest that the work has attracted, the only available text, with the
exception of a few published
excerpts, has been the now rare edition by
Pagnini. Pegolotti's work has been known only through the medium of this
eighteenth-century
transcript.
Pagnini was not without qualifications for his work of erudition. He was
the author of letters on agriculture, of an Essay on the True Price of
Things, Money, and the Commerce of the Romans, and of a translation of
Locke's Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and
Raising the Value of Money, to say
nothing of the two scholarly tomes which form the first volumes of the
series Della Decima. The editing of Pegolotti's manual bears evidence
of his care and ingenuity. Out of the tangled spelling and sentence
structure of the manuscript the editor produced order by separating words,
by eliminating superfluous letters, and by introducing punctuation and
accents. He made ingenious emendations, many of which have been incorporated
in the text below, for instance the readings per una for prima,
tantaulaggio for tutta ulaggio, Feodossija for chasta, peso
for preso, Ephesus for alchu luogo.
On the other hand, there are a number of egregious and surprising
inaccuracies in Pagnini's text. Besides the omission of entire lines or
phrases, and some confusions among the
figures, such as 26 for 16, 4 for 1/4, 285
for 825, there are distortions of
words, Pro for Orchies, Melona for Châlons sur Marne, weiß for
xi
biacca, 4 per 100 for 4 centinaia, pere
for Pech, and, most distressing of all, false
readings of abbreviation symbols, errors which attention to the sense of
the passage might have prevented: b.15 for bis
(Bezant), Pfund for bbra
(braccia), once for soldi, perperi
for Kleingeld, and denari for
prepositional di. Punctuation led occasionally to
trouble, as in the separation of words: Storax and Amber,
cani. Some of these errors are clearly to be ascribed to insufficient
proof reading, some to lack of technical information, some, it must be
assumed, to carelessness. There is an incongruity between the unnecessary
faults described and the careful treatment of other passages, which can
best be explained by the supposition that in preparing this text for the
press Pagnini employed a secretary who was allowed rather more discretion
than he merited. In any case, although the balance of praise and blame
undoubtedly inclines in Pagnini's favour, the number of inaccuracies noted
in his text, together with its present rarity, seem to justify the attempt
to offer a new edition based upon the original manuscript itself.
Fortunately this manuscript is still to be found in the Riccardian
Library at Florence, under the number 2441, a large quarto volume bound in
tooled leather, written on good cotton paper. The sole surviving copy, it
was finished in Florence on the nineteenth of March, 1472, by Filippo di
Niccolaio Frescobaldi; he in turn was transcribing from a copy
already at one remove from the original, for, as the title page informs us,
‘this copy was taken from the copy of Agnolo di Lotto dall'Antella, and that
book was taken from the copy of the book of the said Francesco Balducci.'
The script is uniform throughout, with the exception of a few explanatory
words added to the list of spices by a later hand, probably of the late
sixteenth century; it is clear, and offers difficulties of
interpretation in but rare instances. A small number of blanks appear in the
text, which are evidently traceable to the original copy, and must represent
gaps in the author's records; it is hard otherwise to explain why these
blanks should commonly occur in groups, for figures grown undecipherable in
the course of copying would be as likely to appear
alone. Similarly, the three titles of exchange
tables left unaccompanied by any text at the end of the chapter on
Armenia may represent an unfulfilled intention
on the part of the author.
There is reason to believe that several chapters are at present wrongly
xii
placed, as if at some time one of the copies had fallen apart and a few
pages were shuffled in the reassembling of the book. It is clear that the
passage which in the manuscript is headed ‘Außerdem Gebühr, die
man bezahlt beim hinausgehen d'Asilah' should follow as a
continuation of the later section which treats of Asilah
in some detail, and the last few lines of which are precisely the beginning
of a customs tariff. On folio 98r, the new section which opens
with a discussion of qualities of copper certainly continues the matter of
the closing paragraphs of the book; on the very last page of the manuscript,
Pegolotti tells of two qualities of copper to which he refers in the earlier
passage as points of contrast. It is reasonable to assume that the adjacent
section on chartering ships would also move back to the technical division
of the work, and in this way the geographical survey can proceed without
interruption. The sole remaining oddity, the section on qualities of
gold, should probably be attached to the division
which deals with qualities of wares; in the course of the discussion
Pegolotti speaks of having already given certain formulae for
refining gold and silver, and he must be referring to the later section
which treats of those subjects and which immediately precedes the chapters
on qualities of merchandise. In the present edition the wandering chapters
have been removed to their original positions as postulated here, in order
to restore the continuity of the text.
If these changes are made, it will be noticed that the book ends in the
middle of a paragraph with a disquieting ‘ecc.' What happened it is
impossible to say; whether Pegolotti was at this point distracted from his
work, whether a later copyist grew weary, and if so how much is lost, there
is no way to discover. In certain other respects, however, Pegolotti's work
was subjected to alterations which can be identified. The index at the front
of the manuscript was compiled after the shuffling of the chapters discussed
above, for the titles to those chapters are listed in the order of the
manuscript; it was made, however, before the time of Frescobaldi, for he
would not have written correctly into the index a title which in the text he
had curtailed, nor have entered corrupt
forms in the index to correspond with better versions in his text, for
instance Reame for Kupfer. The
dislocation of items in the listing of exchange tables, on the other hand,
and the failure to list many tables which appear
xiii
in the text, may represent either changes made in the order of subjects or
additional information added in the course of
copying, but there is no evidence to warrant a
definite conclusion on either hypothesis. In the second place, it can be
said that earlier manuscripts contained far more abbreviations than
Frescobaldi's copy; the misreading 3 once
for 63 proves that the copyist tended to
expand abbreviations; the occasional spellings karati for the
usual Karat, kantar for cantare are probably incomplete
adaptations of the symbols kar and kant; and many of the
mistakes, grossi for grani, Pfund
for braccia, cantare for hundert, carica
for cantara are best explained by the supposition
that these words in the original were abbreviated. Finally, there are some
few instances of the scribal repetitions and omissions inevitable in so
long a manuscript.
The subject matter of the book scarcely lends itself to illustration,
but scattered through the descriptions of wares are a few pen sketches of
fibers and roots, and the title page is brilliantly illuminated. Within a
border of purple, green, and blue foliage and flowers, decorated
with putti, birds, and a multitude of bright golden discs, the title
is written in red ink, and two initials contain miniatures, one a tiny but
complete map of the known world, the other a portrait presumably of the
author as his successors chose to imagine him. A laurel wreath at the foot
of the page encircles a coat of arms, over which a seal has subsequently
been imprinted; the arms are apparently on a field of azure, a lion rampant
sable. The title page and sketches are all reproduced in this edition from
the manuscript; it is to be assumed that the illustrations may be copies of
designs in the original text, but that the illuminated title page is sheer
decoration invented for Frescobaldi's copy.
In place of any date that Pegolotti may have inscribed when he completed
his book, we have now only the day of his second copyist's Laus Deo,
March 19, 1472, but the author has fortunately left in his text sufficient
indications of the time when he was writing. It has been pointed
out that Pegolotti mentions the date 1335,
when he procured the charter of privileges for his company in
Armenia; on the other hand, ‘the
present King Robert' was evidently still alive when the chapter on Naples
was written, and that King died in 1343. The
gap between these dates can be reduced when it is observed that in one of
his calculations
xiv
concerning the calendar Pegolotti refers to the day on which fell the
calends of December, 1337. Certain details in the chapter on Genoa
can be dated after the Catalan war (1332) and before the raising of the
tariff in 1340; the Venetian duties were certainly
recorded after 1338, perhaps even after
1339. Furthermore, as will be
seen there is reason to believe that the
chapter on marking cloths was written between 1338 and 1342. Now the Easter
table opens with the year 1340, at the
mid-point between these limits, and that date, long considered the term of
Pegolotti's work of authorship, may for general purposes be accepted as
such.
Any date must, however, be used with caution, for it is obvious that
Pegolotti, whenever he may have compiled the book, and the writing itself
was no doubt a lengthy operation, certainly embodied in it material
collected over a large part of his working career, material, in other words,
which would refer back to various dates in the period between 1310 and
1340. An excellent warning is given by the chapter on Brügge, which includes
a list of duties to be paid in Sluys or Damme;
the list, it will be seen, is repeated, each item appearing twice, but in
the first version the duty is reckoned at 10½ deniers parisis per
groat tournois, in the second at 12 deniers per groat. In other words,
Pegolotti had before him two tariffs of different periods, the second later
than the first, for the course of the denier in relation to the groat was
steadily down, and both tariffs are presumably of dates earlier than 1338,
when Florence officially recognized the relation of 13⅓ deniers
parisis to the groat. Indeed, in some places
Pegolotti gives equivalences of 20 and 21 deniers per
groat, and official valuations were likely
to lag behind the current quotations. The attempt to ascertain a definite
date for these values would be hazardous, but it is clear from this example
that the facts set forth by Pegolotti derive from various periods of his
lifetime.
Examination of the text, therefore, reveals that the evidence of this
document cannot be used without some reservations. Pagnini's edition has, of
course, long ago incurred suspicion; it is hoped that the present edition,
which furnishes the text of the Riccardian manuscript, will remove this
impediment to our thorough acquaintance with Pegolotti's
xv
work. On the other hand, the manuscript itself is not wholly reliable. It is
a copy at two removes from the original, a copy made over a century after
Pegolotti's compilation was presumably finished, and corruptions have
inevitably crept in. There is good reason to believe that the matter has
been slightly rearranged within the volume, and even that some material has
been lost. The suspicion arises that later additions may have been made to
the text, though it must at once be added that no direct evidence of
interpolation has yet come to light. Finally, in point of dating the
material, aside from the question of interpolation, clearly no more definite
limits can be set for the larger part of the book than that it probably
derives from the decades 1310 to 1340, the period of Pegolotti's active
career in business. It remains now to be seen what discoverable factors in
the experience and methods of the author may for better or for worse further
affect the estimation in which his work is to be held.
(Unverändert aus Evans (1936))
Of the author himself, it is known that he was a Florentine, that he
wrote in the first half of the fourteenth century, and that he was active in
the great banking house of the Bardi; no more is needed to explain the
unusual scope of his work and to justify confidence in his extensive
knowledge. Florence at precisely that period was in the heyday of her
prosperity, building up great industries which stimulated a constant search
for better sources of raw materials, for more profitable, more extensive
markets to which the products might be distributed. At the same time, the
abounding capital resources of the city, the confident skill of the
citizens, enabled Florentine merchants to assume leadership in the world of
international finance; along the ramifying channels opened to them by the
peculiarly favorable patronage of the Papal Curia they spread in all
directions until their operations included intimate financial dealings with
the Kings of France and England, the restless Angevin House of Naples, and a
host of lesser powers and potentates, dealings which brought as a natural
consequence unusual favours and privileges in aid of Florentine commercial
activity.
The Company of the Bardi was one of the most conspicuous firms among those
groups of capitalists who were the leaders of Florentine enterprise. This
firm is known to have had, on July 1, 1318, assets in inventory and accounts
receivable, of at least 1,266,775 lire, 11 soldi a
fiorino, equivalent, at $2.35 per
gold florin, to $2,053,050 gold. In the surviving fragments of the
company's account books are recorded the
xvi
names of 336 men employed by the firm
during the period 1310 to 1340. The bank had
branches or connections in Antwerp, Brügge, Paris, London, Avignon, many
Italian cities, Majorca, Rhodes, Cyprus, and
Constantinople; it enjoyed special
privileges in the ports of Antalya in Asia Minor (Anatolien), Ayas in
Armenia, Famagusta in Cyprus, and Seville in
Spain, to say nothing of the favours showered
upon it in Naples and England; a papal collector even suggested that the
Bardi open an office in Cracow to handle the funds collected for the Curia
in Poland. With these resources, the company
advanced loans to kings, barons, prelates, and private individuals;
accepted deposits either at fixed interest or for part share in
profits; transferred funds between any of its
offices; performed services for its patrons, giving courier facilities, or
playing commissariat to royal armies; and finally it bought, sold, and
shipped merchandise, wool, cloth, plate, grain, and spices. As a result of
its operations depositors were paid an attractive interest, and the
proprietors received, during the prosperous decades 1310 to 1330, both 8%
per annum upon extra funds invested in the bank and a considerable annual
return upon their shares of the basic capital which formed the core of the
enterprise.
Such was the world in which Pegolotti lived and worked. Fortunately there
remain among the records of the period traces of his career which make it
possible to gauge even more closely his experience and the use he made of
it in composing his manual. Of his immediate background, to be sure,
little can as yet be said, but at least this much is known, that
Pegolotti's father was a man of some consequence in the community and that
his brother was an employee with a good position in Francesco's own
firm. The father, Balduccio Pegolotti, was sent by the Commune as
ambassador to Siena to negotiate a treaty securing to Florentine merchants
free use of the port of Talamone at the time when the expedition of Henry
VII seemed likely to disturb intercourse with
Pisa. This treaty was ratified in Siena on
August 17, 1311.
Francesco's brother, Rinieri di Balduccio, is known to us under rather
unfortunate circumstances. By 1332, Rinieri had achieved a position of
xvii
no slight responsibility as representative of the Bardi to the city of
Perugia, where he had under his eye important financial transactions with
the Papacy. In that year one of his shipments of gold fell victim to the
rapacity of certain brigands, nephews of the Bishop of Nocera; these
principals loosed upon the convoy a band of highwaymen who killed one
messenger, caused the other to disappear, and effectively made off with the
treasure. A few of the bandits were subsequently captured and made to
confess. The company held Rinieri responsible for the sum lost, and even
attached some responsibility upon Francesco his brother, but, after much
negotiation, of its own good grace the company in part relaxed its claims
upon the pair.
The name of Francesco Balducci Pegolotti himself is found on the payroll
of the Bardi at least as early as
1310, and
from the records at hand of his activity not long after that date it is
apparent that he must have begun his apprenticeship some years before. For
on May 27, 1311 he is attested to have made payment in Florence on a bill
drawn on the Bardi by their Naples branch; two days later, May 29, he
appears as witness to a notarial entry; and on June 1 he is appointed one of
the five proctors assigned by the Bardi to the business of the Order of St
John ‘in partibus Tuscie, Ytalie, ac Lombardei et Alamannie et
alibi,'
business concerned with a debt which ten years later amounted to 133,000
florins.
The bestowal of such powers gives assurance that Pegolotti had already
gained considerable experience, and it seems safe to place the date of his
birth before 1290.
When next heard of, Pegolotti had embarked upon his travels, and had been
conducting negotiations in Antwerp. In 1315, as he himself tells us, he
procured a charter sealed with the Duke's great seal, granting to all
Florentines the same customs rates as were assessed of German, English, and
Genoese merchants. This charter he left behind him in the hands of the
company's representatives when he departed in April, 1317, for
England.
In London, Pegolotti was at once associated with the small group of
factors who, under the leadership of Doffo de' Bardi, one of the Masters of
the Company, officially represented the firm in all its local dealings. His
name first appears on the rolls under the date of August 4,
1317;
xviii
when Doffo prepared to depart ‘beyond the seas' towards the end of the year,
‘Francis Balduchii' and Roger Ardingel were by letters patent nominated his
attorneys for three years; on the books of the Bardi in Florence it
is recorded that from 1318 to 1321 Pegolotti held the ‘ragione d’Inghilterra,' in other words, that he was a director
of the firm's English office.
During the four years of his directorate, Pegolotti was concerned in all
the manifold operations of that busy office,
which may be illustrated by a few examples. On June 15, 1318, grant was made
to Roger Ardingelli, Dinus Forcetti, and Francis Balduch' ‘and their
fellows, merchants of the society of the Bardi of Florence' of
£6483/2/0½ in satisfaction of various arrears on advances by
them to the King; on November 12th of the
same year, the same grantees were to receive 3000 marks for delays in
repayment and for their own good services.
The first entry is a mere statement of account, the second is payment of
interest on the company's investment. A more detailed operation can be
observed in a document by which, in February 1320, the company bound itself
to lend to the King 5000 marks ‘pour son aler de la la meer.' A statement
attached to the guarantee shows that this sum was paid out in 34 items to
different persons, as they set forth to cross the Channel, over the months
of February to May of that year; that
‘ffraunceys Baldouche' was associated with the disbursement of the moneys is
seen from two receipts held by the company acknowledging payment of one of
the items of the statement. He was also
involved in the private loans made by his office, for instance, 100 marks
acknowledged on July 22, 1318, by Thomas, Abbot of Pippewell, 1350 marks
acknowledged on August 13, 1320, by Henry, Bishop of Lincoln, and 36 marks
acknowledged on October 29, 1320, by Ralph de Grendon,
Knight. Finally, the advantages derived from
service to the Court may be illustrated by the grant, on November 28, 1319,
of letters of ‘simple protection' to Roger Ardyngelli, Dinus Forcetti,
Francis Balduch' and their fellows ‘who are attending to the King's
business.'
xix
It is observable, however, that Pegolotti was not consistently associated
in the purely financial transactions between the Bardi and the Crown. Dinus
Forcetti, Roger Ardingelli, and the latter's successor, Bonus Philippi, are
regularly named as principals acting for the company; if Pegolotti had been
a party to the negotiations, surely he was too important a figure to
disappear into the anonymity of ‘their fellows, merchants of the Society.'
On the other hand, his name is rarely absent from the records of more
material traffic. In 1317, on October 3, he and his colleagues are granted
£105, viz. £75 for 150 quarters of wheat, and £30 which
together with the wheat they caused to be ‘delivered to Simon de Dryby for
sustenance of the King's lieges going on his service towards Berwick,' this
sum to be repaid from the customs at Kingston, in security for which they
were given one part of the cocket seal. On
October 7, 1318, they are granted £31/4 for cloth of gold and sendal
bought from them by the clerk of the Great Wardrobe.
Balduch' is among the members of the firm to whom it is granted that they
may ‘hold a tenement in the street called Lumbardestret in the city of
London, sometime of Robert Turk, lately deceased, and Elena his wife,
abutting on Lumbardestret on the south and Cornhulle on the
north.' Finally, to Francis Balduch acting
alone the King sold, for £46, 10 pieces of cloth and half a piece which
he had ordered seized in reprisal from some Flemings. Within two months,
however, the goods were restored to the Flemings, and the ‘letters
obligatory' of the company cancelled. The
evidence is slender, but one may, perhaps, suspect that Pegolotti's interest
and skill lay rather in the commercial than in the financial dealings of his
company; that coming, as he did, from the Low Countries, he was occupied
with the trade in wares, particularly wool; and that it is to this
preoccupation that we owe the great price list of English and Scottish wools
which overshadows his short chapter on London.
But there was also the Pope's business to attend to. Within two months
after Pegolotti arrived in England, on June 9, 1317, the papal treasurers in
Avignon agreed with local representatives of the Bardi that the members of
the company assigned to the Curia would pay to the treasurers all monies
deposited with the English branch by the nuntio sent to collect the first
fruits and other papal revenues, an agreement renewed in
1319.
In consequence, we find 41,800 florins transferred from
xx
London to Avignon between September 6, 1318 and January 5, 1321, by the
members of the company residing in London, among them ‘franciscus
balduchi'.
At last, on December 27, 1321, Pegolotti applied to the King for safe
conduct for one year, ‘going beyond the seas,'
and so far as is known, he left the north of Europe
forever. As to his route of travel, it is
perhaps permissible to think of his having followed the wool route from
London which he himself describes, running by sea to Libourne, from there
overland to Montpellier and Aigues-Mortes, and so by sea again to
Toskana.
Three years later, Pegolotti appears at another of the focal points of
his company's business, where he has already become a man of influence at
Court. In 1324, on May 21, he procured from the King of Cyprus a privilege
exempting Florentine citizens from paying more customs dues than had long
been the rule for Pisans. On October 23, 1325, and September 21, 1326, he
secured renewals, and on August 3, 1327, a perpetual grant of this charter,
which nominated the procurator of the Bardi resident in Famagusta, at the
moment presumably himself, as the sole court of appeal in case a trader's
Florentine citizenship was disputed.
After these triumphs of diplomacy, Pegolotti spent at least two more
years in Cyprus. The Curia at Avignon received on January 3, 1329, from the
local representatives of the Bardi, 4000 gold florins ‘de pecunia recepta
. . . et per . . . nuntios deposita penes Franciscum Balduchii et Zenobium
Chinucii de societate Bardorum de Florentia in dictis Cypri partibus
commorantes.' This transaction probably
accounts for Pegolotti in the previous September, for the next entry shows
that the interval between deposit and payment might be about four months; on
June 26, 1329, the Bardi office in Avignon paid 5000 gold florins ‘de
pecunia . . . ex causa cambii deposita penes Franciscum Banduchii . . . die
6 mensis martii de anno predicto, videlicet 30,625 Bisanc. albis de
Cypro. . . .'
The period of Pegolotti's service in Cyprus, it may be noted, was of great
moment in the formulation of this book, for a remarkably large
xxi
part of the descriptive material rests
upon his experience on the island. Not only is the chapter on Famagusta one
of the most detailed in the whole work, but the long list of tare weights to
be calculated in the cost of numerous commodities is significantly reckoned
in Cyprus
ruotoli, as are the
tare weights of selected eastern crude silks.
It is likewise notable that he analyses with unusual thoroughness the
conditions of sale and purchase of Cyprus syrups, of the bottles in which
they are contained, and of the cases in which these bottles are to be
packed. Among the most detailed of the
descriptive passages at the end of the book is the discussion of Cyprus
powdered sugar, its value, appearance, and packing.
Indeed, one is led to wonder whether it was not in Cyprus that the idea of
compiling this book was born, for his interest in accurate statistics had
developed to such an extent that he was led to perform certain experiments,
of which he is our proud informant. In the first place, for fear he should
be caught without his standards, he drew up a list for converting weights of
spices into dry measure. Then, dissatisfied with the conventional procedure
for reckoning tare on the boxes of gingerbread from Alexandria, he weighed
separately all the parts of the package—to complete the test he even
took a box home to Florence and compared the results there with the Cypriote
computation—and found that the methods employed in Cyprus concealed
25% of the true tare weight of the wrappings. Finally, he found that a
normal pine cone would furnish one-sixth of its own weight in shelled pine
nuts. Once on the track of such information,
he could have found himself in no better locality for the collection of
facts about conditions throughout the Levant and on into the East, and it
was most likely in Famagusta that he hobnobbed about the route to China with
the ‘merchants who had used it,' and that he gathered much of his
knowledge of Kleinasien, perhaps also of the Black Sea, Alexandria, and even Constantinople.
After March, 1329, close upon his fifth year in Cyprus, no further record
of Pegolotti's activity is available until two years later, when suddenly he
turns up in Florence under the novel guise of politician. In the official
register of elections it is recorded that on November 21, 1331
‘Franciscus Balducci Pegolotti' was made ‘vexillifer vexilli
vermili cum dragone viridi, pro sextu Oltrarni,'
his tenure of office to last from December 1 to March 31,
1332. The position of Vexillifer Societatis,
or,
xxii
as it was known in the vernacular, Gonfaloniere di Compagnia, can
perhaps best be explained in modern terms by saying that it involved the
combined duties of city councillor and ward boss. In his particular
district, the ‘Banner bearer' was captain of the popolo and its
adherents, his chief responsibilities being to preside over assemblies of
his group, to guard the central bottega and arsenal of the district,
and above all to take the lead in resisting any aggression on the part of
dissidents, particularly of the grandi. At the same time, the
nineteen gonfalonieri formed a council which deliberated with the Signory,
and the consent of which was in certain matters required to validate acts of
the higher authority. Pegolotti thus found himself invested with a typical
fusion of political authority and party control, for he was at once a
deliberative member in a state council and an important link in the
organization which was designed to preserve his party's monopoly of
power. Beyond such generality it is unfortunately impossible to go, and one
can only speculate both as to whether previous experience in this kind of
activity qualified him for the position and as to what events distinguished
his term of office.
Political activity did not permanently distract Pegolotti from his
business career. Over three years later he was once more at work in the
East, where, ‘while he was in Cyprus for the Company' of the Bardi, he
obtained from the King of Armenia a charter under date of January 10, 1336,
with ‘pendent seal of gold,' freeing his company from customs dues and from
fear of reprisals. It is generally assumed
that in the course of negotiations he visited Armenia,
but no proof of the fact exists, and Pegolotti's phrase makes it seem
possible that he remained in Cyprus as head of that branch office directing
negotiations from a distance. Certainly there is none of that intimate
detail in his chapter on Armenia which might be expected had he personally
dwelt in Ayas. In any case, this is the last voyage of which we have certain
record.
In 1340 Pegolotti was again in Florence, again occupied with politics. On
August 22 in that year ‘Franciscus Balducci Pegolotti, pro sextu
Oltrarni,' was made Bonus Vir, to serve from September 1 to December
1.
The College of Buonomini was specially designed to serve as chief
xxiii
advisory council to the Signory and seems to have been free of duties in
relation to local organization. These duties, however, Pegolotti was not
permanently to escape, for within a year, on November 20, 1341, he found
himself once more Gonfaloniere di Compagnia, ‘vexillifer vexilli
draconis, pro sextu Oltrarni,' his term to extend from December 1, 1341 to
March 31, 1342. During this tenure of office Pegolotti's
career crossed one of the critical events in the history of his native city,
for it was on Hallowe'en of 1340 that the Commune in the very nick of time
nipped a formidable conspiracy engineered by the Bardi to overturn the
government of the popolo grasso. Amid the ringing of bells, the
authorities summoned their armed forces and aroused the populace, which
swarmed across the Arno and dispersed the as yet scanty forces of the
conspirators. The insurrection was to have burst on the very next day;
instead, the leaders found themselves in exile, subject to proscription and
confiscation. The remaining Bardi members of the Bank were in a difficult
position, but they fortunately managed to show, by proofs which were
accepted at their face value, that none of their guilty relations were
active partners in the Bank. Of Pegolotti's own attitude and activity we
know no more than that, since he was only a year later allowed as
Gonfalonier to occupy one of the key positions in the defensive organization
of his party, he must have displayed sufficient loyalty to the oligarchy in
power.
There follows now a gap of five years, but that Pegolotti was not without
occupation in the government is suggested by the following document, which,
it seems fair to assume, refers to this period: in 1346 certain officials of
the Commune were given ‘baliam, autoritatem, potestatem, et offitium quam et
quod praedicto communi habuerunt seu concesse fuit providis viris Luce Fei
et suis collegiis . . . Francischo Balduccii et suis collegiis . . . civibus
florentinis olim officialibus dicti communis super vendendis et alienandis
bonis et aliis quae in ordinis dicti communis florentini de eorum officio
loquti continetur.' Again Pegolotti's skill
in the practical details of business receives recognition.
The next record relates to what must have been the culmination of
Pegolotti's career, for it shows him occupying the highest position in the
Signory itself. In the list of priors who held office during July and
August, 1346 appears the name ‘Franciscus Balducci Pegolotti, per il
quartiere di Santo Spirito, vessilifero di
Giustizia.'
The quarter of
xxiv
Santo Spirito included the region ‘Oltrarno' which he had represented
earlier, the region, incidentally, in which the Bardi had their
dwellings. As ‘Banner bearer of Justice' it was Pegolotti's privilege to
preside over the Priors, his special duty to guard the Ordinamenti di
Giustizia, which formed the basic constitution of the régime, and to
punish all infringements of them. Although there were special
officers, Esecutori, to enforce these ordinances, it was still within
the province of the Gonfalonier to act upon alarms, and one may dwell with
pleasure upon the picture of good business-like Pegolotti causing the
standard of justice to be unfurled from the Palace, descending to the
Piazza to bestride his charger, and galloping away, banner in hand, at the
head of his companies to rescue or revenge some popolano who had been
set upon and maltreated by the magnates. Unfortunately, as with all such
piquant details, this scene is but imaginary, and we have no certainty that
he was ever called upon so to bestir himself.
The tradition established by Pegolotti was maintained by his family, and
from the same lists of Florentine officials we gain some knowledge of his
relations and descendants. The following entries, all recording terms as
‘priores artium,' speak clearly enough:
Giovanni di Jacopo Balducci Pegolotti, oliandolus, per
il quartiere di S. Spirito—November, 1389.
Pegolotto di Francesco Pegolotti, per il quartiere
di S. Spirito—Juli, 1393.
Bernardus Pegolotti di Francesco Balducci, per
il quartiere di S. Spirito—Mai, 1426; Januar,
1439; November, 1444.
Pegolotto di Bernardo di Pegolotto Balducci, per
il quartiere di S. Spirito—September,
1465; September, 1495.
From these entries we learn that our author had a
second brother and a nephew, and that his son, grandson, and great grandson
all succeeded him as Priors.
Finally, the last records of Pegolotti's life show him actively engaged in
administering the bankruptcy proceedings against his company after the
crash. For the great firm of the Bardi, despite its wealth, prestige, and
long success, was unable to avoid the fate of almost all of its
contemporaries. As a result of economic and political difficulties which
have been brilliantly described elsewhere,
the Bardi were forced to declare bankruptcy and to turn over their books and
documents to a commission of syndics appointed by Commune and creditors to
liquidate the business.
xxv
On June 19, 1347, these syndics and officials, ‘Francischus Balduccii
Pegolotti' at the head of the list, petition the Priors to enlarge their
authority, for those who wish to purchase some of the assets now refuse to
do so, saying that transactions ‘non possunt secure fieri nisi fiat provisio
ista.' The proposed change is accepted. Only three
months later, September 6, 1347, the syndics and officials again petition
the Priors. Pegolotti still heads the list, but some of the other names have
changed. This time the commission is bothered about procedure, the prestige
of their body being injured by uncertainty as to whether their judgments be
valid when pronounced during absence or retirement of some of their number,
and they ask for definite rules of order. The bankruptcy
proceedings, in which Pegolotti seems to be mentioned no more, resulted,
incidentally, in the payment to all but English and Neapolitan creditors of
9/3 per lira, a liquidation at 48%.
So ends our knowledge of Pegolotti's career. The statement sometimes made
that he himself went on the journey to China is contradicted by the
indication that Pegolotti is writing ‘according to the reports of the
merchants who have used' the road. It has
been said that Pegolotti worked in Naples and Barletta;
nothing is more probable than that his informative chapters on those cities
are the fruit of personal observation, and it is most unlikely that upon one
of his voyages to Cyprus he did not travel by way of the southern kingdom;
but no direct evidence of his residence there has survived.
One final and significant fact does remain. The accounts of the Bardi not
only show that Pegolotti was in their employ from 1310 until the failure of
the firm, but also list him as receiving a maximum annual salary of 290 lire
a fiorino, representing 200 gold florins or,
at $2.35 per florin, $470. The figure, even with allowance for the
then greater value of gold, may not seem large until it is realized that
employees of the company, after a year of unremunerative apprenticeship,
used to begin their careers at some 5 to 7 florins per annum, and that only
the most prominent members of the staff, who might be described as managers
of branch offices in such vital centers as London or Naples, could hope to
xxvi
reach an annual salary of 200 florins. In eloquent terms the
record proclaims that Pegolotti was among the most valued and trusted
executives of his great firm. Combine with this evidence the numerous and
responsible positions he held in the state, the extensive journeys he made,
and a picture can be formed of the man, diligent, informed, and capable,
from whose pen come the precious details of this manual.
(Unverändert aus Evans (1936))
Pegolotti was wise in the ways of commerce, his memory stored with
valuable information about the peculiar customs of far places, yet his book
is clearly more than a mere compendium of personal reminiscences, an
offering of tips and formulae from an experienced trader to ambitious
apprentices. In fact, the author himself states his intention to treat of
‘things needful to be known to merchants of divers parts of the world, and
for those to know who deal in merchandise and exchanges,'
in other words to present a comprehensive work of reference for readers of
different nations and varied interests. With this purpose in mind he
interleaved his personal knowledge with statistical information; beside the
intimate detail, the tip, for instance, on bargaining with customs officers
in Naples, is set the tariff of customs dues, the itemized account of
transportation expenses. For such facts the author must have relied upon
documentary records, and it is the few cases in which the authority for such
details can be guessed or even identified that must now be considered.
Two passages in the Pratica can be traced directly to their
sources. The long list of brokerage fees chargeable in Pisa is instantly
recognized as a mere reproduction of the brokers' tariff adjoined in 1323 to
the Breve dell' Ordine del Mare, which has been preserved and printed
in full. The notes to the text below present
the results of a thorough collation of the two documents. It will be seen
that with one or two exceptions Pegolotti follows the exact order of items
in the Pisan tariff, that the relationship of the texts is so close as to
leave no doubt of their intimate connection, yet that strange and, from the
point of view of Pegolotti's readers, distressing irregularities occur in
his copy.
No objection can, of course, be raised to the series of
changes which merely substitute equivalent terms or Florentine usage for the
Pisan words:
taccolini for
tacculini, mandorle
for
amandule, bolzone for
bolsome,
xxvii
infranto for
stracto, mondiglia for
buschalia, navoleggiamenti for
nauleggiamenti,
caffera for
canfara, risima for
lisma. Other divergences,
however, are unreasonable. Variations in the figures might possibly represent
a change in rates effected between 1323 and 1340, but there remain serious
corruptions:
mincionoe for
miccino, stame di leghi for
stame
di legati, bucherame for
baraccani, dorato
for
morato, mercato for
marcate, mele grente
for
melanghette, mulo for
migliaio, senape for
sapone, Guardia
for
Giadra, and the amazing errors in the list of silks at the end. On
the other hand, Pegolotti's copy improves on the Pisan text, at least upon the
published version, in two cases,
Bucherame d’Arzinga for
boccorare
da ringa,
oricello for
oncello.
What is to be made of this extraordinary garbling? It may be observed in
the first place that hitherto this tariff has been the most obscure passage
in the whole Pratica and that, distressing as may be the evidence
against the reliability of Pegolotti's text, one can only rejoice that so
many problems of interpretation are solved by discovery of the
original. This being so, however, it can be argued that the condition of the
text at this point was unusual, that some exceptional problem confronted the
scribe. Certainly there was no reason for any copyist working with
Pegolotti's original manuscript to break down at this point and misinterpret
so many terms with which over the previous two hundred pages he must have
become tolerably familiar. It may be a solution of the problem to suggest
that for this chapter Pegolotti seized upon a copy of the tariff made for
Florentine use, perhaps carelessly transcribed or adapted, and without close
inspection either in some way incorporated the document whole into his
volume or allowed his scribe, if he enjoyed such assistance, to copy it
in. As will be seen later, copies of documents of this nature were clearly
available to him, and only the difference in script which use of such a
source would involve can explain the weakness of his text at this point, a
weakness which, it must be repeated, is exceptional.
That Pegolotti's reports were not always inaccurate is fortunately proven
by the second textual collation. Although the privilege which he himself
procured for Florentines trading in Antwerp
is lost, the contemporaneous concessions to the Germans and the Genoese are
available in print, and these concessions by Pegolotti's own report were
similar to the Florentine privilege. Indeed,
the parallel phrasing of these two versions, and their close similarity to
Pegolotti's text justifies the use of the German charter as an exact source
for his report. The results of collation, as embodied in notes to the text
below, tell a story quite
xxviii
different from that of the Pisan tariff. There are, to be sure, the same
translations into Florentine usage; but of errors there are only two which
need to be mentioned. In one case the figure 18 has been reduced to 8, an
item concerning seal-oil has been omitted, and that is all. Here, therefore,
is an example which may fairly encourage those who wish to use
the
Pratica as a source of reliable information; this passage may
reasonably be called representative of the text as a whole. Furthermore,
this report may with certainty be traced to Pegolotti's own records. The
original document received from the Duke of Brabant had to be left in
Antwerp ‘in the hands of the
compagni' who represented the Bardi in
Flanders, so that his text must be based upon a copy drawn up either by
Pegolotti or under his supervision. The author's personal papers would seem
to be reliable; it is his second-hand information towards which caution must
be observed.
Although the source itself apparently no longer exists, there is in
another case a hint of the document which was used by Pegolotti. The tariff
of fees paid under the Missa duty of
Cyprus contains two peculiar items: mele d'abellie, cioè d’ape, and Racino . . . cioè uve. Now
although racino is no very unusual form, and even abellie is
a gallicism which might not be considered unfamiliar, yet this list derives
from the Kingdom of Cyprus, where an official tariff was likely to be issued
in French, and a possible reason for the explanations which Pegolotti added
to the terms is that he was writing from a document in which he encountered
the words abeille and raisin. This fact may account for the
puzzles that occur among the other commodities mentioned, but not even
pursuit into French has revealed the nature of frietta
and coinsines.
Mention must be made here of another source which has been suggested for
some of Pegolotti's information. There exists a Flemish price list of wools
from English monasteries, dating from the middle of the thirteenth
century, which bears such notable
similarities to Pegolotti's much longer list
that Cunningham thinks some Flemish document of like nature must have
furnished his information. It would be
impossible and on the whole unprofitable to enter upon the complicated task
of disentangling
xxix
the various linguistic traditions, English, French, Flemish, Latin, and
Italian, which would be involved in determining the question exactly, but
some observations can be made to raise doubts as to this hypothesis. It is
true that the prices given are stated to have been those which prevailed in
Flanders in a certain year, the date unfortunately a blank in the
manuscript; there is striking similarity between the Flemish versions of
English names and some of those listed in Pegolotti's
catalogue, Berlinghe in both to represent Barlings, Morgane in
Flemish, Morgana in Italian for Margam, Boukeselee
and Bocchesella for Boxley. But it is equally true that
Pegolotti's adaptations are only what might be expected from Italian efforts
to catch in writing the strange sounds of these place names, without the
intrusion of any Flemish intermediary. Chiricchistede may as well be
derived from Kirkstead as from Kerkestede, Giervalese
from Gervaulx as from Girvals, Miravalle from Merevale
as from Mireval. Furthermore, in certain instances Pegolotti shows a
better comprehension of the significance of the name than does the Flemish
list; Valdio would never be derived from Waudien, Diolaccresca
from Dieulecroisé, or Novelluogo from Niewestede. Here
Pegolotti shows that he understands the meaning of Dieulacres,
sometimes spelled Dieulacresse, where the Flemish interpretation is
incorrect, and on the other hand he seems to depend upon Latin forms, de
Valle Dei and de Novo Loco instead of the
vernacular Vawdye and Newsted. Similar tendencies may be
traced where the Flemish list offers no example at all, in the
versions Borgo San Piero for Peterborough, Ponte Ruberto
for Robertsbridge, San Chimento for Clementsthorpe. A later
Flemish document may, of course, have been more correct and more inclusive
than the example quoted above, the only one available, but there is yet more
evidence. The occasional geographical indications, Dereforte icosta a
Portsmouth, to cite only one, and the mention of monasteries which have
no wool, suggest that Pegolotti's list was intended more for a reader
interested in collecting wools in England than for the merchant who wished
to dispose of them in Flanders. Finally, the paragraph at the end of the
list warns the purchaser in England to offer sums so much less than the
quoted sale price in Flanders that the difference will cover transportation
and allow a good profit. In short, although some sort of information from
Flanders must have been at hand, it was fitted into a schedule designed for
use in England, and the work seems to have been done by an Italian who had
local and first hand acquaintance with the monasteries concerned. No more
can be said than that this description admirably coincides with what is
known of Pegolotti himself.
Again, it might be expected that the ‘Orders of Florentine Merchants'
xxx
concerning the marking of French cloths could be traced to some
official proclamation available in Pegolotti's native city. This is indeed
the case, but the search for the original of this chapter raises a curious
problem. The authority empowered to regulate the trade in French cloths was
the great Guild of Calimala, and in the statutes of the guild are rubrics
dealing with precisely the subject of how the cloths should be labeled. Over
a period of some years, moreover, the rule was subjected to material
alterations, and it might seem as though the discovery of Pegolotti's source
should contribute a definite indication of the date at which he was
writing. The results of the investigation, as will be seen, are not entirely
satisfactory.
The two Statuti related to Pegolotti's text are written in the
vernacular. The older statute, composed in 1332 and modified for the year
1336, has been published entire; of the
second, compiled in 1338, with aggiunte up to 1435, only the index
and the amendments are printed. The chapter
on taccamenti in the statute of 1332
was amended in 1334, and further altered in
1336. Now, the revised statute of 1338
condenses all these emendations into a single rule, otherwise
unchanged. The development had led to undue
complexity, and a last completely revised and much simplified form of the
rule is appended to the second statute. This
last form of the rule is immediately preceded by aggiunte of December
1341, and followed by a confirmation of June 19, 1342; we may assume that it
was formulated early in the year 1342.
The version of 1338 will be found at the top of the three divisions, its
order somewhat disturbed for greater convenience of collation; Pegolotti's
chapter occupies the central position; the text of 1342, inverted in one
instance, is at the bottom. The paragraphs are numbered for later reference,
in the early version with roman numerals, in Pegolotti's version with arabic
numbers, in the later recension with letters. The text of the statutes is
drawn from the original manuscripts referred to above, with the sole
addition of punctuation.
xxxi
1338. i (This paragraph properly
follows ii and iii below.)
. . . . und che tucti i panni di fiandra e di brabante si tacchino a
parigini, a soldi xiii e denari quattro il fiorino,
chome si solea fare. E che oltre al primo costo e a l’altre spese, a
ciascuno panno che ssi comperrà in fiandra o in brabante si ponga per
carreggio o vectura infino a parigi, quattro grossi
tornesi per panno, . . . e a’ panni di doni scotto si ponga
tre grossi tornesi per panno. . . . E tutti gli altri
panni che ssi comperranno nel reame di francia, si tacchino a quella moneta
a la quale si comperranno.
Pegolotti. 1 Ànno ordinato e vogliono i mercatanti di Firenze
che tutti i panni di Fiandra e di Brabante che per gli mercanti di
Firenze si comperano ne’ detti paesi, ciò che costeranno per lo
primo costo e per la fattura e per la bandinella e per lo
tolonneo o vero
pedaggio della villa ove fussono
comperati e per la malatolta
del reame di Francia, di questo cotale costo solamente si debbia taccare
ogni soldi 2 di grossi
tornesi soldi 26, denari
8 parigini, e questo
debbia essere il suo vero taccamento sanza porvi suso niun’altra spesa
nè di cambiora nè di vettura nè niun’altra spesa vi si debbia
porre sopra il detto taccamento.
1342. a Sia tenuto e debbia tucti i panni oltramontani i quali
si comperanno da calendi aprile proximo che verrà inanzi ne reame di
francia o di fiandra o di brabante o a qualunque moneta, taccare e
segnare e tenere teccati(!) e segnati bene e lealmente sanza alcuna
frode a fiorini d’oro in questo modo, cioè
. . . (see ¶ b). (From ¶ b): E questo sia e essere debbia il suo vero
taccare, e nulla altra spesa di cambi o di vectura o d’altra cosa vi si
debbia o possa suso mectere o taccare o segnare. . . .
1338. ii Im prima che in su’ panni
oltramontani che ssi comperano oltramonti, si tacchi il primo costo che
’l panno costa dal drappiere colle spese che diremo qui appresso: cioè
il danaio di Dio e il recare i panni a casa, (one sentence excerpted to
iii below). Anche il cardare, e ’l pianare, e ’l
piegare, e apuntare, e ogni affeto (assetto), e la bandinella lina, e
ogni assise, maletolte,
e toloneo de le
ville ove si comperarono i panni, e uscita dalle porte, e il legaggio e
caricagio e ostellaggio e vino e ogni malatolta che il re di francia tolglie, per
cagione di danari quattro per livra della compera, e d’ogni altra
malatolta che il re tolgliesse. . . . E chi
taccasse per altro modo . . . (the penalty etc., then ¶
iii following).
Pegolotti. 2 E che tutti altri panni di Francia o d’oltre i
monti che per li mercatanti di Firenze si comperassono, a quale e
chiunque moneta si comperassono quello cotale primo costo e quello che
costasse per assetto e bandinella e pedaggio di quella villa e la
malatolta del reame
di Francia si debba vedere e recare quanti fiorini
d’oro montano, e d’ogni fiorino d’oro si
debba taccare soldi 13, denari 4
parigini; e i panni che si comperano a lire di tornesi,
quelli si tacchino a ragione di soldi 16
denari 8 tornesi piccioli il
fiorino d’oro quello che costerà di primo costo e
per le sopradette spese e malatolta.
1342. b (cont.) . . . . cioè quello che’ panni costeranno del
primo vero costo e le spese della bandinella e d’ongni
malatolta del reame
di francia e delle ville, e della tintura e dell’afetto (assetto) di
panni solamente. E questo vero costo colle dette spese recare e contare
a fior. d’oro contando e mettendo il
fiorino dell’oro soldi xvi
di parigini; salvo che i panni che si comperranno a tornesi si tacchino e
segnino, e taccati e segnati si tengano, a fior. d’oro
bene e lealmente, recando e contando il fior. dell’oro
soldi xx di tornesi, mettendovi il primo costo colle
dette spese della bandinella e della malatolta
del reame di francia e delle ville e della tintura e dell’afecto
(assetto). E questo sia . . . . (as in a, then continue ¶ c)
1338. iii (Excerpt from
ii):
E se alcuno panno si tingnesse in altro colore che fosse comperato dal
drappiere, possavisi tacchare quello che cotale tignitura costasse.
xxxii
(Cont. from ii):
Anche che tucti i panni debbiano essere tacchati il costo del panno . .
. e siavi scritto il nome della villa là dove il panno è facto e ’l
nome del maestro che fece il panno. Salvo che a questo non siano tenuti
i panni di Borgi perchè li si fanno i mercatanti medesimi, nè’ panni di
tolosa, però che ssi vendono a panno . . . .
Pegolotti. 3 E se de’ panni che per li mercatanti di Firenze
saranno comperati ne’ detti adietri luoghi, ed eglino ne volessino poi
fare tignere in altro colore, sì sia loro lecito che quello che costasse
di tintura e assetto taccare e segnare insieme col primo costo al
sopradetto adietro modo. E ciascuno panno abbia sua scrittolina, in
sulla quale scrittolina sia il costo del panno e la villa d’onde <è
il panno e> il nome del maestro che fatto avesse il panno; e a’
sopradetti taccamenti non sieno tenuti i panni di Borghi nè i panni di
Tolosa però che si vendono a panno, e possonsi tenere con tacche e sanza
come piace al mercatante di cui fussero detti panni.
1342. c Ma se alcuno, poi che ’l panno sarà comperato, in
quella medesima villa il farà tignere in altro colore, possa taccare e
segnare col primo costo quello che costerae la tintura e l’afetto
(assetto) del detto modo. . . . E secondo ch’è scritto di sopra,
ciascuno sia tenuto di segnare e taccare e tenere taccati e segnati i
panni predetti e oltre le tacche avere e tenere apiccata a ciascuno
panno una scritta nella quale sia scritto il vero costo del detto panno
al modo ch’è detto recato a fior. d’oro; la quale scritta s’accordi
colle tacche; e sieno scritti di quale villa è il panno e ’l nome del
maestro da cui sarà comperato. . . . E a questi taccamenti e ordini non
sieno tenuti i panni di borgi nè’ panni di tolosa o di tolosana per ciò
che si vendono a panni; i quali panni ciascuno possa licitamente tenere e
vendere con tacche e sanza tacche come a llui piacerà . . .
It is evident that Pegolotti's rule embodies the essential administrative
alterations involved in the reform of 1342. The number of expenses which may
be included in the taccamento is limited, expressly excluding some of
the items previously permitted; there are striking similarities of phrasing,
as in the sentence ‘e questo debbia essere il suo vero taccamento' (¶
1, a) not to be found in the early version. On the other hand, there is one
ambiguity. Although all prices are to be reckoned in gold
florins, thus following the later rule, Pegolotti's phrase, ‘d'ogni
fiorino d'oro si debba taccare soldi 13,
denari 4 parigini’ (¶ 2), seems to mean that on
the label each florin shall be entered as that sum of parisis, rather than
that the cloths should be ‘taccati . . . a fiorino d'oro’
(¶ a) after reckoning the exchange. In other words, although
Pegolotti follows the later rule in establishing one system of marking for
all cloths and insisting that they be calculated on the basis of exchange
with the florin, he seems to cling to the other rule in having the label
made out in parisis, reducing prices in tournois to the same terms. On the
other hand, Pegolotti's version is in two respects closer to the rule of
1338 than to that of 1342. He retains the distinction between cloths from
Flanders or Brabant and ‘altri panni di Francia o d'oltre i monti’ which it
was the very purpose of the new rule to abolish; the distinction is in his
text purely formal, for the treatment of both kinds is similar, but the
division of matter into two paragraphs remains. Most significant, however,
is the exchange rate of 13 soldi 4 denari
parisis to the florin, the rate of
xxxiii
1338, where the rule of 1342 allows 16 soldi per
florin. The rate of 26 soldi
8 denari parisis to 2 soldi
groats tournois (¶ 1) likewise harks back to the
older rule, for the real is equal to 2 soldi
groats tournois, the groat is
usually reckoned at 12 to the florin,
the florin is in the older calculation 13 s. 4
d. parisis; the real, therefore, equals 24
groats or 2 florins or 26
s. 8 d. parisis, a result introduced
by Pegolotti into his text for the benefit of his readers and based upon the
reckoning of 1338.
The unavoidable conclusion is that Pegolotti was following an
intermediate version of the rule concerning taccamenti, a version
which contained the essential changes desired by the guild, but which had
not yet been revised as to exchange values, nor reduced to the simple terms
set down in the statute of 1342. That he was copying a document seems clear
from his wording; many of his phrases were retained in the official
recension embodied in the statute; it is difficult to believe that he merely
wrote from memory and thus confused the exchanges. Unfortunately, the
temporary original from which he was copying has disappeared and it is
impossible to control his textual work. There remains the information that
this portion of the book was formulated between the years 1338 and
1342.
Among the unique features of Pegolotti's book are the itemized statements
which list the expenses involved in producing coins at various mints. In
particular, the section devoted to Florence is predominantly occupied with a
discussion of the coinage, and the treatment includes an account of the
costs of production for each denomination of currency.
Whatever may be the source of such information in the case of other
cities, these Florentine lists may with some
certainty be traced to official tariffs of the Zecca itself. For one
example exists among the records of the mint to illustrate the type of these
tariffs, and the evident parallel between this list and Pegolotti's text
gives good assurance that a like summary was at hand when he wrote. The
passage quoted below beside Pegolotti's list is to be found in
the Fiorinario appended to a copy of the provision of July 30, 1332
which first authorized the issue of fourpenny pieces
or lanaiuoli:
xxxiv
la spesa de’ lanaiuoli piccioli: |
ovrieri |
per lb. |
2 |
sol. |
operarii |
per lb. |
23 |
den. |
adirizzare |
per lb. |
4 |
den. |
addirizzatores |
per lb. |
4 |
den. |
munetaggio |
per lb. |
9 |
den. |
moneterii |
per lb. |
8½ |
den. |
fonditura |
per lb. |
2 |
den. |
fonditores |
per lb. |
2 |
den. |
cassiere |
per year |
120 |
lir. |
casserius |
per ½ year |
60 |
lib. |
garzone |
per year |
30 |
lir. |
puer |
per ½ year |
15 |
lib. |
saggiatore |
per year |
60 |
lir. |
saggiator |
per ½ year |
30 |
lib. |
|
|
|
|
custos carbonorum |
per ½ year |
15 |
lib. |
intagliatore |
per year |
160 |
lir. |
ad intagliandum |
per ½ year |
85 |
lib. |
carboni |
per lb. |
6 |
den. |
carboni |
per lb. |
8 |
den. |
coreggiuoli |
per lb. |
4 |
den. |
correggiuoli |
per lb. |
7 |
den. |
ferri |
per lb. |
1 |
den. |
|
|
|
|
calo a fondere per 100 lbb., 8 oz. |
Of the discrepancies here observable, some may represent a change of rate,
for instance the fee of 24 den. to ovrieri
instead of 23 den., or 9 den.
for munetaggio instead of 8½, possibly also the change
from 170 to 160 lire per year to the engraver. The mint's figure
for correggiuoli includes certain miscellaneous items, one of them no
doubt Pegolotti's 1 den. for ferri. Pegolotti's
additional estimate of loss in smelting is naturally not an item which would
appear on an official tariff of fees, and the sole serious discrepancy
remains the L15 per half year payable to the ‘guardian of coals' according
to the mint tariff. Even if allowance is made for this variation, it is
surely evident that Pegolotti could find at the mint statements similar
enough to those which he embodied in his text.
This document also furnishes additional limiting dates to the composition of
the book, broader in scope than those derived from the Statutes of Calimala,
but none the less corroborative. This portion of the book must have been
written after 1332, when the issue of these lanaiuoli
was first authorized. At the same time the grossi
mentioned immediately above, struck off at 166 to the pound of alloy, with a
value of 2 soldi 8 denari, must be
the new grossi guelfi issued at precisely that weight,
but with a value of 2 soldi 6 denari,
of which mention appears as of 1318. Just when the rate rose to 2
s. 8d. is uncertain, but these coins
were discontinued in 1345 upon the appearance of a new
grosso, again called guelfo,
which was to be struck at the rate of no more than 134 per lb. and to be
valued at 4 soldi of piccioli.
The chapter on Florence may therefore safely be dated between 1332 and 1345.
Another and quite different order of material upon which Pegolotti
xxxv
might have drawn is suggested by the obvious manner in which, as will be
seen, later handbooks borrowed from him and from one another. One such book
does survive from an earlier date, and that some relation exists between it
and the Pratica has already been observed. This manual, obviously
of Pisan authorship, is preserved in a seventeenth-century copy now
available in the Biblioteca Comunale of Siena. The manuscript first
offers copies of the Capitoli della Compagnia di San Domenico di
Siena, then a number of late fourteenth-century letters from the Tolomei
archives, some transcripts from the archives of the Spedale di Sta. Maria
della Scala di Siena, and finally the following
introduction:
In un libro in quarto de carta ordinaria coperto di carta pecora, nella
quale vi è delineata un Leone rampante, sono scritte a mano diverse formole
per Processi Civili et altre cose, e instruttioni legali, doppo le quali che
sono in lingua Latina si legge nelle carte segnate dal no. . . . al
no. . . . in lingua volgare questo appresso, seguendo di poi altre formole
per Instrumenti:
In nomine domini Amen. Anno ab eius incarnatione millesimo ducentesimo
settuagesimo nono Indictione septima decimo septimo Kalendas Januarij
Hec est memoria de tucte le mercantie come carican le navi in
Alexandria e li pesi come tornano duna terra addunaltra.
The first two paragraphs of the Memoria as it continues after the above title are arranged below in parallel columns with certain passages from Pegolotti's book.
Memoria, S. 350: |
Pratica, S. 71: |
Imprimis, |
|
(1) Pepe cant. v. fulfuli per una sportata |
(a) cantar 5 forfori per una sporta die
pepe, di gengiovo, di verzino, e d’indaco; il verzino sciolto.
|
(2) Pengnano cant. v. fulfuli per una sportata |
(3) Verzi legato cant. iiii. fulfuli per una sportata |
(b) Cantar 4 forfori per isporta di verzino legato. |
(4) Succaro cant. iii. gerovi per una sportata |
(c) Cantar 2½ gerui di zucchero e di polvere
di zucchero per una sporta. |
(5) Verzi disciolto cant. fulfuli per una sportata |
|
(6) Polvere di zuccaro cant iii. gervi per una sportata |
|
(7) Lino cant iii levedi per una sportata |
(d) Cantar 3 leuedi di lino per una sporta. |
(8) Sannella menne ducento per una sportata |
(e) Mene 200 di cannella e di cassa fistola per una sporta. |
(9) Seta libbre cinquecento per una sportata |
(f) Libbre 500 di seta per una sporta.
xxxvi
|
Memoria, p. 350 (Continued): |
Pratica, p. 75: |
(10) Indico cant v. fulfuli per una sportata |
|
(11) Cassia menne ducento per una sportata |
|
(12) La libra de pisa torna in Alexandria a pesi di
mmcviiii. |
|
(13) Lo cant fulfuli torna in pisa
libbre cxxx. |
(g) Cantaro uno forfori fae in Pisa libbre 130. |
(14) Lo cant leuti torna in pisa libbre
clxxx. |
(h) Cantaro 1 leuedi fae in Pisa
libbre 180. |
(15) Lo cant gervui torna in pisa
libbre cclxxx. |
(i) Cantaro 1 gerui fe in Pisa
libbre 280. |
(16) La mena dalexandria torna in
pisa libbre
ii uncie iiii |
(j) Mene 100 d'Allessandria fae in Pisa
libbre 240. |
(17) La vendita della seta en alexandria
Ruotoli x entro unde in
quelle Ruotoli x sti
libbre xviii. pisani |
(k) Libbra una d’argento al peso di Pisa fae in
Allessandria pesi 109 di miglioresi. |
(l) Once 1 d’oro al peso di Pisa fae in
Allessandria pesi 6 e carati 9½ di
bisanti. |
etc. |
etc. |
After this point the two texts are in no way similar. The Memoria
proceeds to list in rather haphazard fashion a quantity of equations for
weights and measures between Acre and Alexandria, between Pisa and
Montpellier, Naples, or Constantinople; there is a ‘memoria de la mercantie
. . . a che peso si conperano’ in Alexandria,
a list for the ‘longhezze de drappi di francia’ in ells,
a section on ‘e vendite e lo peso del arasso in Hermenia,’
and an almanac. In none of these divisions are the
arrangements or even the terms remotely similar to those of the
corresponding parts of the Pratica.
It is extraordinary, now, to observe how neatly Pegolotti includes the
first sixteen items of the Pisan list. Two corrections must be made: if we
can assume that in line 2 the Pisan
pengnano is a corruption
of
giegiano, a word used elsewhere
for
gengiovo,
and that in line 5 the
incomplete sentence concerning
verzi disciolto implies the
figure
v cantars
fulfuli, then Pegolotti's line a is but a
summing up of lines 1, 2, 5, and 10 in the Pisan list. Line b corresponds to
3, c to 4 and 6, d to 7, und to 8 and 11, f to 9, and all are accounted for
with one discrepancy, Pegolotti's 2½ cantars of sugar or powdered
sugar as against the Pisan 3 cantars in lines c, 4, 6. Again, lines g, h, i
correspond to 13, 14, 15; k to 12, provided
xxxvii
it may be assumed that
mm stands
for
miglioresi. Line j does not agree exactly with 16,
for a hundred times 2 lbs. 4 oz., at 12 oz. to the Pisan
lb.,
makes only 233 lbs. 4 oz., not 240 lbs. The last lines of both lists are the
beginning of permanent divergence. As for the paragraphs quoted, there is
little doubt that these two small sections of Pegolotti's book are related
to the
Memoria; the relationship may, however, be indirect, and the
possibility must not be overlooked that some third version has
intervened.
Beyond this point no sources have been discovered which can be connected
by textual relationship with Pegolotti's work. Fortunately the examples are
fairly representative of three important classes of material, official
tariffs, bulletins of official regulations, and private compendiums of
information. It is as easy to guess at similar sources as it is hard to
discover the actual documents; the information about the Black Sea, related
always to Genoese measure, suggests a source among the records of the
Officium Gazariae, and there is indeed to be found a list of transportation
fees between Trabzon and Pera similar in form if not in substance to the
tariff Pegolotti presumably used; the
freight charges on the Venetian galleys are
evidently drawn from some similar bulletins, and other examples abound, but
to quote further instances which have no textual connection is
fruitless.
There still remain two different points of view from which some insight can
be gained into the methods and resources used by the author of this
book. For one thing, he was no mere private individual endeavoring on his
own account to amass this variegated compilation, but rather an important
official in an international bank writing a compendium of such nature that
his employers might well be expected to favor its progress. Now without
question, the Company of the Bardi must have preserved a vast file of
records which would be most useful to Pegolotti, and there is no good reason
to doubt that he readily availed himself of this opportunity. The nature of
the resource cannot be illustrated directly, for the archives of the Bardi,
with the exception of a few leaves from occasional ledgers, have completely
perished. Fortunately, the records of Francesco Datini have experienced
better fortune, and, although they derive from the end of the fourteenth
century, these documents may certainly be considered representative of the
contents of such a collection even at a somewhat earlier date. Here then are
masses of
xxxviii
accounts, copies of letters, contracts, and reports, dealing with situations
most of them very similar to the ones mirrored in Pegolotti's pages. In
particular, notice has been taken of two interesting items, one a notebook
containing summaries of Florentine tariffs, the other a list of the dues
payable by Florentine merchants upon their purchases in Pisa, a list copied
upon a sheet which had evidently been posted upon the wall of the
office. These examples suffice. Available to Pegolotti
in the office of his own firm, probably also in the branch offices, possibly
even in the headquarters of allied companies like the Peruzzi and the
Acciaiuoli, would be records of all necessary varieties. Tariffs were there
for public use, and at secondhand (a fact which may explain the confusions
discovered in the Pisan schedule copied into this book), notes and summaries
innumerable lay waiting. Without too freely indulging the imagination, it
may be suggested that perhaps in this way Pegolotti came across an actual
contract for delivery of grain which prompted his legalistic treatment of
that subject; indentures for the farming of mints may be
responsible for his information on mintage costs; such an office would be
likely to keep lists of the conventional terms set for bills of exchange, to
say nothing of calendars and tables of compound interest
calculations. It is even possible that there was a small
bookshelf upon which would be found, if not volumes similar to the
Pisan
Memoria, then perhaps an arithmetic from which to copy problems
concerned with the alloying of precious metals. And from this source,
in fine, would most easily be drawn the many small statements of prices and
costs, particularly costs of transportation or unloading, which look
suspiciously
xxxix
like the reports of a travelling
agent. In the absence of definite evidence
further elaboration would be hazardous, but clearly any appreciation of
Pegolotti's book must take account of this opportunity to obtain
information, not to speak of the obscurities which, in some cases, use of
this source may have introduced into his text.
Less uncertain than Pegolotti's own use of sources is his service as a source for others. For it is a remarkable fact that in handbooks written over a century after he had finished his composition there are clear traces of dependence upon his work, and one writer of a presumably more up to date manual even copied extensively from his pages. Not only does this relationship usefully exemplify the principles under which these manuals were composed, but, since the borrowings occurred before Frescobaldi undertook his task of writing the present Riccardian manuscript, it also throws some light upon earlier copies of the work. No excuse will therefore be needed for introducing a partial collation of Pegolotti's text with the work of certain later imitators.
One of the most complete commercial handbooks to be compiled in Florence
after the time of Pegolotti is the Pratica della Mercatura scritta da
Giovanni di Antonio da Uzzano nel 1442, published by Pagnini as the
fourth volume of his series. This handbook is divided into two books, and
the first book into two parts. Part i is a Libro
di Gabelle,
with long and detailed tariffs from Florence, Pisa, and Siena. Part
ii, entitled Pesi e Misure e Monete, in those
chapters which treat of particular trading centers, offers much the same
kinds of information as are to be found in the first part of Pegolotti's book.
Chapter i of this part deals with Constantinople. On
the next page, chapter ii is entitled ‘Chiarenza di
Romania, cioè nella Morea,’ and the text will be found below in parallel
column with various passages from Pegolotti. The italicized words represent
the most serious discrepancies.
Pegolotti, p. 116. |
Uzzano, p. 89. |
n Chiarenza si à due maniere di pesi, cioè peso grosso e peso sottile. Al
peso grosso si vende ogni mercatantia salvo od oro o argento. |
Chiarenza ae due pesi: a peso grosso si vende ogni mercatanzia salvo oro. |
In Chiarenza e per tutta la Morea vanno a perpero sterlini 20, e gli
sterlini non vi si vendono nè vi si veggiono, ma ispendonvisi torneselli
piccioli . . . |
In Chiarenza e per tutta la Morea vanno stelli 20 apperpero, |
Pegolotti, |
Uzzano, S. 89. (Continued) |
(p. 119). Li 12 viniziani grossi di Vinegia d’argento sono a Stiva 1
pipero, che vale sterlini 23½ comunalmente . . . Li 12 viniziani
grossi d’ariento sono 1 pipero ad Nigroponte, e comunalmente vagliono starlini
23½.
|
e a Stiva e a Negroponte vanno 12 grossi Veneziani per perpero, che
valgliono comunalmente stelli 24 e mezzo. |
(p. 117).
Lo pipero di Chiarenza si è karati 23, cioè che à carati 23 a peso
per uno perpero, cioè per uno pipero. |
Perperi si vendono chi gl’accatta a libbra, e carato, e 154
carati sono un’oncia di rengno a peso d’oro, el perpero di Chiarenza
è chaffissi 23, e quello di Stiva è caffisi 24. |
(p. 119). e il pipero di Stiva si è carati 23. . . . |
(p. 117). Diritto di mercatantia che si paga in
Chiarenza. Di ciò che metti in Chiarenza pagano i forestieri 3 per centinaio
e i borghesi della terra pure 2 per centinaio. E se la mercatantia che metti
nella terra vendi nella terra, la moneta che n’avessi a rinvestire nella
terra, paghi all’uscire 2¼ per centinaio se la rinvestissi in avere che si
pesi, in questo modo che l’uno per centinaio sia per lo peso, e l’uno
per centinaio sia per le mura, cioè 1 tornesello picciolo per pipero. |
Questi sono i diritti si pagano in Chiarenza di ciò, che vi si mette, si
paga allo entrare 3 per cento, e Burgiesi della terra pagano 2 per
cento; |
e se questa mercatanzia vendessi in Chiarenza, o vuoi rinvestire la
moneta nella terra, paghi all’uscire 2 e un quarto per cento, se la
rinvestisse in avere, che si pesi in questo modo, che l’uno paghi per lo
peso i cento, uno e un quarto per le mura, cioè uno tornezello per
perpero; |
xl
The next six paragraphs in Pegolotti are paraphrased as closely by Uzzano
as the above passage. Then Uzzano, after the brief comment concerning
lo
dobbiere della Morea der Peloponnes proceeds as follows:
Pegolotti, p. 288 |
Uzzano, p. 90 |
|
Divisamento a che leghe etc. |
Perperi d’oro paglialoccati a carati 15½; e conoscesi chè l’una delle
due figure dall’un lato à uno viso nel petto, e lo cerchio della grande
figura ch’è dall’altro lato non è tondo, anzi è lungo. |
Perperi nuovi paglalogati sono a carati 15 e mezzo d’oro fine per oncia:
cognosconsi che l’una delle due figure che sono dall’uno lato, à uno viso
nel petto, el cerchio della gran figura ch’è dall’altro lato, non è tondo,
anzi è lungo. |
The next two paragraphs in Pegolotti are copied faithfully enough until:
. . . ed è piggiore da fiorino 1 d’oro l’oncia. |
. . . ed è peggio intorno di fiorino 1 per ciento. |
Three more paragraphs are reproduced with some variations, even the
little sketches faithfully reappearing, until the closing phrase:
. . . ed è peggio che gli altri detti a dietro denari 6 a
fiorino l’oncia. |
. . . ed è peggio l’oncia in carati 6 a fuori che gl’altri. |
(p. 118). La moneta picciola di Chiarenza si è di lega d’once 2½
xli
d’ariento fine per libbra, e vannone in una libbra soldi 33,
denari 4 a conto, e chiamasi tornesella picciola, e ànno di spesa a
lavorargli nella zecca come dirà qui appresso: Primieramente per once 2½
d’argento fine, piperi . . .
|
Batte la Zecca di Chiarenza a once 2 e mezzo di
vinan̄. per libbra, e riannone in nuna libbra soldi
336 e un quarto, costa come diremo.
|
Per mancamento a fondere, da starlini 3 per libbra. |
Chalo a fondere stell. 3 per libbra. |
Per uvraggio agli uvrieri che ’l lavano, da sterlini 2½ per libbra. |
Overaggio stell. 2 e mezzo per libbra. |
Per affinatura, istarlini ½ per libbra. |
Affilatura stell. un mezzo per libbra. |
(see below) |
Monettieri stell. 1 e mezzo per libbra. |
Per salaro dello ’ntagliatore de’ ferri . . soldi 150 di viniziani grossi l’anno. |
Intaglare in ferrati soldi 150 di grosso l’anno. |
Per salaro del fabbro che fa i detti ferri, e a conciare
gli altri stovigli della zecca, piperi 100 l’anno. |
Fare inferrati al fabro |
l’anno perperi 1 l’anno. |
E per salaro di colui che sta alla bilancia pipperi 100 l’anno. |
|
E per salaro de’ maestri della zecca, piperi 300 l’anno. |
Al Maestro della Zecca l’anno perperi 300 l’anno. |
E per monetaggio a’ monetieri che coniano, sterlini 1½ per libbra. |
(see above) |
|
(At the side a remark:) Ogni 111 perperi è di tre 1. |
|
(p. 91) Come tornano le condizione di Chiarenza con Stiva e Negroponte |
Libbre 100 di Chiarenza fanno a Stiva libbre 107 (and from another
paragraph:) Libbre 100 di Chiarenza fanno a Nigroponte libbre 93. |
Libbre 100 di Chiarenza sono in Stiva libbre 107 e in Negroponte
libbre 93. |
Metri 12 di vino di Stiva fanno in Chiarenza metri 24. |
Metri 12 di vajo di Stiva sono in Chiarenza metri 24 e
sono una botte di mezzo migliajo di Puglia. |
(In P. the following item precedes the above.) |
Moggio 1 di biado di Stiva fanno in Chiarenza moggia 3. |
Moggia 4 di formento di Stiva sono in Chiarenza moggia 3. |
The collation above proves conclusively that in certain
passages Uzzano's information is closely related to his predecessor's work,
and that some of his exchange tables greatly resemble items scattered
through various parts of Pegolotti's book. Of the differences between the
two texts, some are clearly in favor of Frescobaldi's copy; carati
should stand in the place of Uzzano's chafissi, den. a fiorini
for carati a fuori, vannone for riannone, sol. 33,
den. 4 for 336 soldi e un quarto, vino for vajo.
Judgment on other divergences must await additional evidence; some
variations in the description of eastern coinage must await sufficient
numismatic information before they can be determined. Finally, in two cases
Uzzano, in spite of a faulty text, improves upon the present reading of
Pegolotti; the 2¼% tax at Chiarenza is subdivided into items of 1%
and 1¼% instead of 1% plus 1%, obviously a more accurate or a
corrected rendering; the equivalence of 4 rather than 1 Stiva moggio to 3
Chiarenza moggia is correct.
This proportion between the corrections that can be made in one text from
the other holds true throughout all passages in which any relation between
the two books can be observed. The text below benefits by a few corrections
from Uzzano,
but would itself serve in a larger number of cases to correct him; and where
Frescobaldi's errors thus revealed are
xliii
largely mistakes in figures, or reasonable misinterpretations of symbols,
Uzzano makes wilder mistakes. One more passage illustrates vividly the
difficulty under which Uzzano seems to have labored:
Pegolotti, p. 134 |
Uzzano, p. 97 |
Miglioresi nuovi 232 di Tunizi a conto fanno libbre 1 d’argento
in Napoli e dànne la zecca di Napoli tarì 38 e grani 17 di
gigliati d’argento della libbra |
De mille nuovi di Tunizi, che 8 sono uno bisanto, vanno nella libbra di
Napoli 232, e danne la zecca 188 grani 17 dassi della libbra. |
The second handbook which seems to owe a debt to Pegolotti is the
Libro
che tracta di mercatantie et usanze de’ paesi, commonly attributed to
Giorgio Chiarini. Several manuscripts of this work exist, of which the
earliest is dated 1458; the book was printed three times, and a complete
version was included in the famous manual of Fra Luca Paccioli. To
xliv
discuss the complicated problem of the interrelation between these
manuscripts and editions would scarcely serve the present purpose, and it
will be sufficient to concentrate attention upon the edition printed in
Florence in 1481 by ‘Francesco di Dino di Jacopo, Kartolaio
Fiorentino’.
A few collations will quickly prove that the texts of Chiarini and
Pegolotti run closely parallel:
Pegolotti, p. 203: |
Chiarini, chapter 3i: |
Con Sallonicchi di Romania |
Firenze con Salonia di Romania |
Libbre 100 di cera o di cotone al peso di Sallonicchi fa in Firenze
libbre 100 |
Libbre cento di cera o di cotone fanno in Salonia di romania libbre cento |
Libbre 10 di cera al peso di Sallonicchi fa in Firenze libbre 9 |
Libbre dieci di seta di Salonia fanno in Firenze libbre noue. |
|
Braccia cento di panno di tela o canauacci fanno in Salonia braccia cento xi. |
The names in the first item are inverted, a trick harmless in this case,
less so in others. It is impossible to make a choice between seta
and cera in the second item. Chiarini adds a new item, as he
frequently does.
Pegolotti, p. 105: |
Chiarini, chapter xli: |
Rodi con Firenze |
Firenze con Rhodi |
Cantaro 1 di Rodi fae a Firenze libbre 670. |
Cantare uno di Rhodi fa in firenze libbre cccccclxx. |
Libbre una d’ariento di firenze fa in Rhodi marchi uno, once
iiii. starlini septe di starlini uenti per oncia. |
Canne 10 di Firenze fanno a Rodi canne 11 e 15/16 fusto a fusto sanza presa. |
Canne dieci di panno di firenze fanno in Rhodi canne undici & xv sedecimi. |
Picchi 100 di tele di Rodi fanno in Firenze canne 32. |
Picchi cento di Rhodi fanno in firenze canne trentadua. |
This passage represents Chiarini's closest parallel with Pegolotti.
Pegolotti, p. 201: |
Chiarini, chapter lxiii: |
Firenze con Vignone: (out of order) |
Firenze con uignone: |
Cantaro uno di Vignone, che è libbre 100, fa in Firenze libbre 123 in 125 |
Libbre c23 in cxxv di firenze fanno in uignone cantare i. e libbre c. |
Libbre c. di firenze fanno in uignone cantare i. |
Libbra i di firenze fa in uignone once xi danar ix. |
Marco 1 d’argento di Vignone fa in Firenze once 8, denari 7. |
Marcho uno d’ariento di uignone fa in firenze once octo danar septe. |
After this point Chiarini quotes the remaining two items in Pegolotti's
paragraph and adds one more of his own. The purpose of this comparison is to
show the unreasoning way in which Chiarini could combine two texts, for if
123 lbs. Florentine made 1 cantar in Avignon, then it is ridiculous in the
next line to give 100 lbs. the same equivalence.
xlv
Pegolotti, p. 145: |
Chiarini, chapter lxxii: |
Vinegia con Ferrara; |
Vinegia con Ferrara; |
Moggio 1 giusto di formento di Ferrara, che è 20 staia giuste e 22
staia rase, torna in Vinegia staia 7 meno 1/5 di staio. |
Moggio uno giusto di uinegia sono in Ferrara staia venti & di rase
sono staia venti dua fanno in uinegia staia sedici & quattro quinti. |
Again Chiarini inverts the labels. The change in the fraction is
characteristic. There can be no doubt that the reading in Pegolotti is
correct in form, but it has been impossible to check the relative values so
as to decide whether the figure should be 7 or 17.
Pegolotti, p. 161: |
Chiarini, chapter xv: |
Ancona con Firenze |
Firenze con Ancona |
Libbre 100 d’Ancona fanno in Firenze libbre 102 |
Libbre c. di firenze fanno in ancona libbre cii. |
Canne 10 di Firenze fanno in Ancona braccia 37½ |
Canne x di panno di firenze fanno in Ancona braccia 37 e mezo. |
Marco 1 d’argento al peso d’Ancona fa in Firenze once 8¼ |
Marcho uno dariento dancona fa in firenze once viii danar vi. |
Soma 1 di grano d’Ancona fa in Firenze staia 8 scarse. |
La soma del grano di firenze fa in ancona staia vi e mezo. |
|
Mirri xl dolio dancona fa in firenze orcia xxi e mezo. |
Pegolotti, p. 202:
Firenze con Ancona
Libbre cento d’Ancona fanno in Firenze libbre 107
Canne 10 di Firenze fanno in Ancona braccia 37¼
Marco 1 d’argento d’Ancona fa in Firenze once 8, denari 6
Soma 1 di grano d’Ancona fa in Firenze staia 7 colme
Chiarini and Pegolotti each make an error; in the fourth item of Chiarini's
list,
Ancona and
Firenze should be transposed, for
the soma is the Anconetan measure; Pegolotti is wrong in the second
list in giving
107 lbs. It is possible that in the fourth item
Chiarini's 6½ staia should be emended to read 7½ and so stand
midway between Pegolotti's 7 heaped and 8 level staia. But the interesting
features here are the constant order of items, and the fact that Pegolotti
gives two variants of the same list, the only occasion on which such a
phenomenon is to be observed. In this case it becomes clear that the
relationship between Chiarini and Pegolotti lies in a common source, a
source which may be pictured as a family of documents, small tables or
collections of facts which, as they were copied, easily retained the same
structural form, but as easily underwent correction or corruption in
detail. Pegolotti seems to have picked up two differing versions, Chiarini a
third, but all apparently derived from the same stem.
xlvi
Of the remaining exchange tables in this part of
Chiarini many deal with places not so much as
mentioned by Pegolotti, Florence with Piombino, Bolsena, or Sutri, and
Venice with Chios, Sorghat, Malaga, or Francavilla; the other tables do not
draw upon the information available in Pegolotti's book. After 30 pages have
been devoted to the exchanges of Florence, and 72 to those of Venice, the
remainder of the book (88 pages beginning with Chapter clii) first takes up
briefly the ‘customs' of various towns—Bruges, Paris, Seville,
Valencia, Bologna, Lucca, Sicily, Tunis, Alexandria, Constantinople indicate
the scope; it continues with a very brief description of certain wares,
which has no relation with the similar chapters by Pegolotti; and it closes
with 20 pages on alloys of coins, terms for letters of payment, and periods
of scarcity of cash.
The closest similarity between the two texts is to be observed in the
table Alexandria con Ancona of the later version:
Pegolotti, p. 74: |
Tarifa, p. 39: |
Cantaro 1 forfori d’Allessandria fae in Ancona libbre 120 in 122. |
Chanter 1 forforin torna in Ancona livre 120 in 122. |
Cantaro 1 leuedi torna in Ancona libbre 165 in 166. |
Kanter 1 leitin torna in Ancona livre 164 in 122. |
Cantaro 1 gerui torna libbre 255 in 260. |
Kanter 1 zeroin torna in Ancona livre 264 in 265. |
Mene 100 d’Allessandria fanno in Ancona libbre 225 in 230. |
Mine C de Alexandria è in Ancona livre 232 in 236. |
Marchio 1 d’argento d’Ancona fae in Allessandria pesi 77 di migliaresi. |
Marca 1 de Ancona è pexi 77 in Alexandria. |
Once 1 a peso d’oro d’Ancona fae in Allessandria pesi 76 e carati 6¾ a
peso di bisante. |
La onza de l’oro de Ancona è in Alexandria livre 6, karati 18¾. |
Two or three paragraphs concerning Majorca connect both versions of
the Tarifa with Pegolotti, for instance:
Anchora è uno altro pexo, che se chiama kanter, al qual se vende zucaro
chandy, zenabrio, arzento vivo, endego, verderame, melegete, lane, e
ancheline de Maiolicha e de san Mathio, e lane unglese. E questo kanter si è
livre 104 de la tera; e livre 3 de Majolicha torna a Veniexia livre 4 a
xlviii
sotil, sì che questo kanter geta a Veniexia 158⅔ livre. Kanter 11 1/2
de Maiolica geta a Veniexia miero 1 grosso.
Carica 1 di Maiolica fae in Vinegia libbre 420 sottili.
If this paragraph is compared with Pegolotti's lengthy discussion on page
366, it will be seen that there is actually but one point of contact;
xlix
certain lumps, known as
costiere, may form, ‘dura in modo di pece, ma
ove la pece è nera, e quelle cotali costiere . . . sono rossi e del colore
della lacca acerba, e truovasi più quelle cotali costiere nelle lacche
acerbe che nelle lacche mature.’ This matter of pitch or tar,
and they are not necessarily the same thing, is surely a technicality which
would be familiar to all merchants who had to deal with lac, and which would
easily creep into any such description as this. The same may be said of the
other
chognoscimenti; compared to Pegolotti's excellent discussions,
they are bare and thin, and if occasional words appear in both texts, this
is most likely due to the fact that the qualities of wares and the manner
of describing them are, after all, conventional and more or less universal
factors. The lists of items treated are by no means the same, and in the
subjects which are common to both books the Venetian has marvellously
neglected the most individual and most valuable elements in Pegolotti's
work.
Without now going into greater detail of comparison, it may be said in
general that the above are the closest parallels that can be drawn;
elsewhere, the Venetian, if he was using Pegolotti, must have skipped about
a great deal in selecting his quotations, for the related sentences are
scattered haphazard and embedded in quantities of other material. He must
also have adapted freely, for in the lists of wares the order is altered,
items are entered under other units of weight or measure than those given by
Pegolotti, and omissions or additions are numerous. Certainly, if Pegolotti
is to be claimed as a source for the later version, he must also be allowed
his share in the earlier recension, as the above example concerning Majorca
shows. The fact is that, after studying the earlier collations with Chiarini
and Uzzano, one is inclined to doubt that the Venetian actually was
borrowing from Pegolotti, for, except in the few exchange tables, there are
here neither the similarities of phrasing nor the parallel order of items
which in Chiarini particularly are so striking. Without these criteria it is
safer to say that the relationship is rather one of milieu than of direct
contact.
Even so, the Venetian
Tarifa, by reason both of its date and of its
substance, must be singled out as the most effective supplement to
Pegolotti's book which is to be found among available manuals of mercantile
practise. Its author was interested in the same kind of detail, in the
technique of handling wares, in the processes of commerce; it is because
later authors allow the financial interest to predominate, because they
sacrifice discussions of practical procedure to schematic tables of exchange
and money movements that they lose the colour and the solidity of these
fourteenth century writers. At the same time, the
l
Tarifa offers a usefully compact example of the manner in which
authors went to work in compiling their treatises, copying material, freely
modifying and adapting it. The small addition made to the text by a
different hand, like the later notes appended to Pegolotti's list of spices,
shows how even to the finished book anonymous contributions might still be
made, accretions which in any subsequent copy would no doubt be integrated
with the original text.
The Pratica has experienced some vicissitudes since it left
Pegolotti's hands. Subsequent copyists have occasionally lost their way in
his long, repetitious sentences; they have cavalierly distorted his figures,
and garbled terms with which they were unfamiliar. Some of his sources were
unwisely chosen, and it is well to make a distinction between those parts of
the book which derive from Pegolotti's personal experience and those which
may be assumed to rest upon second-hand information. More allowance must be
made, perhaps, than might have been anticipated for the blurring of details,
but the Pratica none the less remains an invaluable mirror in which
can be seen reflected at once the broad interests of the Florentine
community, the manifold concerns of the House of the Bardi, and the faithful
ability of the author, Pegolotti himself.