Chancery Officials and the Business of Communal Administration in Republican Florence

Home , Battle of Campaldino, Carroccio, Donato Acciaioli, Laterina, Leah (sculpture)

Ventura and Niccolò Monachi, Chancellors of Florence (1340-48/1348-75)

Leah Faibisoff

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto

Ventura and Niccolò Monachi, Chancellors of Florence (1340-48/1348-75)

Leah Faibisoff

Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Medieval Studies University of Toronto

2018

Abstract

This dissertation studies the chancery of the Florentine Republic by examining the administrative offices that constituted the institution and some of the notary-administrators who held principal positions within it. The scholarship on Florentine government often presupposes the existence of some kind of permanent bureaucratic workforce that provided stability for the city’s system of amateur, short-term political office. My dissertation instead suggests that the susceptibility to change in Florentine government extended also to its administrative organization. It can be found at the level of institutional dynamics, but it was also experienced by chancery officials themselves who continually had to negotiate the forces of instability in the performance of their duties, ultimately affecting their attitudes towards their work.

The first half of this dissertation considers the institutional dynamics of impermanence within the chancery through an examination and description of the three main offices of the institution during the republican period: the notary of the priors, the notary of legislation, and the chancellor. The main contention of this section is that within the institution of the chancery there was an apparent tension between the semi-permanent, rationalizing force of a very few administrative agents and the impermanent destabilizing force of hundreds of administrative agents who cycled through the chancery. iii The second half of the dissertation then turns to look in detail at the lives and careers of two long-serving chancellors, Ventura Monachi (chancellor, 1340-1348) and his son Niccolò Monachi (chancellor, 1348-

1375). In his lyric poetry, Ventura negotiates the incessant forces of unpredictability as both a notary- administrator and chancellor, while Niccolò’s book of Ricordanze demonstrates how even a notary- administrator who operated as a semi-permanent official was vulnerable to the shifting political sands of the Florentine commune.

This study contributes a new set of insights and perspectives to our understanding of the institution of the Florentine chancery through an examination of the relationship between socio-political dynamics and institutional form; the formation of an administrative habitus as evidenced by the exchange of symbolic capital in municipal poetry and communal art; and, the everyday functionality of an institution structurally based on a persistent tension between stability and instability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The people whose mentorship, intellectual collaboration, and emotional support I have relied on throughout the research and writing of this dissertation are too many to mention in this short space. It must suffice to name only a few here:

Firstly, thanks are in order for the members of my committee, Nicholas Terpstra, Elisa Brilli, Lawrin Armstrong, and my tireless supervisor, William Robins. I also would like to express my appreciation for the comments and encouragement offered by my external examiners, William Caferro and Konrad Eisenbichler. Many thanks to Roisin Cossar who first set me to work in the archive as well as to friends and colleagues at the Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florence, particularly Carolin Behrmann, Felix Jäger, and Stefan Huygebaert. I would also like acknowledge the advice and friendship of those in Toronto, particularly: Kara Gaston, Kenneth Bartlett, Jill Ross, Isabelle Cochelin, Greti Dinkova-Bruun, and Fred Unwalla. Ringrazio il dott. Luca Boschetto e la dott.ssa Maria Francesca Tiepolo di avermi guidato tra i fondi notarili degli archivi di Firenze e Venezia.

Sono tanti gli amici italiani che mi hanno accompagnato lungo questa strada. Al rischio di ometterne troppi, ne nomino solo alcuni: Giulio Ricci e famiglia, Renata, Luigi, Francesco, e Josef; Osvaldo e Piera Vallese; Andrea e Alessandro Lazzati; Ada e Andrea Debiasi; Roberto Dadone, Mileidis “Milli” Fernandez, Luca e Sandra Gagliano, Angelo e Giovanni.

Inoltre, vorrei menzionare alcune persone per cui le parole non bastano per esprimere l’affetto che provo per loro: la mia famiglia italiana, Lisa Bianchi e Aldo Lazzati, vi tengo sempre nel cuore; Paolo Piaggi, che non si stanca di incoraggiarmi e darmi fiducia, e mi accompagna nei prossimi passi; Don Giorgio Fedalto, mio nonno spirituale, ecco un altro mattone per riempire il tuo caminetto; e Monsignor Luigi Villa, le cui parole italiane ho ascoltato per la prima volta nella mia vita.

My family has been a source of unreserved love and support. None of the pages of this dissertation could have been written without my mother, who read every word twice, my father, who championed me throughout, my brother Daniel, my sister Sara, little Alistair, and my beloved cats.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements iv

Table of Contents v

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

List of Appendices viii

Archival References and Abbreviations ix

Introduction 1–20

Chapter One The Administrative Organiz ation of the Chancery 21–45

Chapter Two An Impermanent Bureaucracy 46–81

Chapter Three Ventura Monachi 82–145

Chapter Four Niccolò Monachi 146–220

Epilogue 221–230

Bibliography 231-247

TABLES

2.1 Degrees of Permanence and Impermanence

2.2 Tenure Duration of “Permanent” Republican Chancery Officials

2.3 Percentages of Individual notai with 1 or more Tenures

2.4 Notaries with more than one (1+) tenure each decade

2.5 Notaries with only one (1) tenure in each decade

2.6 Actual Notaries Every Decade

2.7 Average Time Between Tenures

2.8 Notaries with only one (1) AND more than one (1+) every five years

2.9 Notaries with only one (1) AND more than one (1+) every twenty years

2.10 Chancellors as notai dei priori

2.11 Second Chancellors as notai dei priori

4.1 Distribution of Niccolò’s Administrative Offices by Type

4.2 Niccolò’s Land Purchases, 1350-1372

4.3 Niccolò’s Annual Income from Administrative Offices

4.4 Niccolò’s Annual Salaries vis-à-vis his Annual Investments

vii

FIGURES

1.1 “Segreteria”

1.2 The Chancery within the Florentine Organization of Government

3.1 Palazzo della Signoria, Layout of Third Floor

3.2 The Monachi Tomb Slab, Santa Croce

3.3 The Monachi Family

4.1 Booklet E and the Bastardello, Ricordanze, 73v-74r

4.2 Via Vinegia

viii

APPENDICES

Appendix I The notai dei priori, 1282-1532 248-282

Appendix II The Translated Sonnets of Ventura Monachi 283-317

Appendix III The Administrative Offices of Niccolò Monachi 318-321

Appendix IV The Testament of Niccolò Monachi 322-326

ARCHIVAL REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS

Archivio di Stato di Firenze ASF

Arte dei Giudici e Notai AGN

Carte Strozziane Cart. Strozz.

Catasto Catasto

Capitano del Popolo e difensore delle Arti Capitano

Capitoli del Comune, registri Cap., reg.

Consulte e pratiche Consulte

Diplomatico Dip.

Esecutore degli ordinamenti di giustizia Esecutore

Libri fabarum Lib. fab.

Manoscritti Manoscritti

Notarile Antecosiminiano Not. Ante.

Pareri dei savi Pareri

Podestà Podestà

Priorista di Palazzo Priorista

Provvisioni, Registri Provv. reg.

Raccolta Sebregondi Racc. Sebre.

Riformagioni, Capitoli Rif. cap.

Riformagioni, Provvisioni Rif. Provv.

Signori, missivi I cancelleria Sig., miss. I canc.

Tratte Tratte 1

INTRODUCTION

This dissertation examines the chancery of the Florentine Republic by means of analyses of the principal administrative offices that constituted the institution (the notaio dei priori, notaio delle riformagioni, and notaio dettatore, or chancellor) and some of the notary-administrators who held those offices.1 Responsible for the coordination of the exercise of the city’s sovereignty, the institution of the chancery was located at the heart of administrative organization and governance in Florence. Throughout the republican period it remained an important site of interaction between the exercise of political power and the daily functioning of the commune’s administrative apparatus. The institution’s specific form changed over time to accommodate the socio-political dynamics of the commune. Thus, the first half of this dissertation illustrates the long-term evolution of the chancery primarily through a statistical analysis of the office of notaio dei priori from 1282 to 1532. As we will see, the data suggest that the parameters of this office changed over time in parallel with a historical tendency that saw the office-holding class elected to staff the executive magistracy of the Signoria constantly grow under regimes

1 For the offices that collectively constituted the Florentine chancery see Marzi, La Cancelleria, passim. 2 commonly regarded as oligarchic. The second half of the dissertation then turns to examine the office of chancellor, focussing on the four decades immediately prior to 1382, the date that some scholars have given for the beginning of oligarchic hegemony in Florence. It offers detailed studies of the lives and careers of two long-serving fourteenth-century chancellors, Ventura

Monachi (chancellor, 1340-1348) and his son Niccolò Monachi (chancellor, 1348-1375), and considers the development of the business of communal administration in relation to some of the socio-political realities in which notary-administrators lived and worked.

Over the course of exploring the chancery, one of the major questions that has arisen has to do with the tension between stability and instability in the functioning of Florentine administration that reflected the negotiation of authority between conflicting political outlooks and functioned to shape the social dispositions of notary-administrators. One of the main contentions of this dissertation is that within the institution of the chancery there was a distinct tension between the semi-permanent, rationalizing force a very few administrative agents within the chancery and the impermanent destabilizing force of hundreds of administrative agents who cycled through the chancery. The functionality of an administrative organization (or bureaucracy) that operated contrary to the rationalizing dynamics of a modern-day bureaucracy is hard to imagine. Under such conditions of impermanence, one might expect more chaos in the everyday workings of Florentine administration and, in fact, many scholars have assumed that there must have been at least some kind of permanent bureaucratic workforce that lent consistency to governance in Florence. This dissertation, instead of seeking possible mechanisms that might have rendered stability to a mode of administration that was fundamentally irrational, considers impermanence as an operative mode of governance and a palpable social force in fourteenth-century Florence.

This study is in dialogue with three important discussions in the historiography of pre- modern Florence, namely those concerning: 1) the functionality of communal administration 3 and the growth of bureaucracy as conceived by Max Weber and evinced for Florence in particular by R. Burr Litchfield (for the Florentine Duchy);2 2) the habitus of an administrative class composed primarily of notaries and their social fields of interaction as understood in light of sociological categories described by Pierre Bourdieu;3 and 3) the dialogue of power between an entrenched Florentine oligarchy and an assertive popolo as described by John Najemy, where the former sought the restriction of sovereign authority and the latter advocated the distributed power of a government modeled on the principles of corporatism.4

The Florentine chancery has been studied primarily in three different ways, all of which

I build on. Firstly, through the comprehensive examination of the institution of the chancery during the republican period, Demetrio Marzi’s La Cancelleria della Repubblica fiorentina remains the only inclusive examination of the republican chancery to date.5 On account of the sheer breadth of Marzi’s archival knowledge, it remains the most authoritative and invaluable text on the subject. Our methods of historical analysis and ways of thinking about Florentine society in the republican period have changed, however, in the century since Marzi’s work appeared. Thus, a reconsideration of Marzi’s meticulous study equal to the rigour of his original investigation is wanting. Since Marzi, the chancery has been studied in ways tangential to the institution itself. The second way in which the chancery has been considered is through biographical examinations of individual humanists employed to work in the Florentine

2 Weber, Economy and Society; Gerth and Mills, From Max Weber; Burr Litchfield, Emergence of a Bureaucracy. 3 Bourdieu, Cultural Production; Bourdieu, “The Force of Law.” 4 Najemy, Corporatism and Consensus; Najemy, “The Dialogue of Power;” Najemy, “Guild Republicanism;” Najemy, A History of Florence. 5 Marzi, La Cancelleria. 4 administrative organization.6 This was a prevalent mode of examination especially in the second-half of the twentieth century and the numerous studies that emerged under this mode of examination provide useful local overviews of the institution during particular periods in

Florence’s republican history, especially for the period after 1375. The third way of examining the chancery remains one of the more prevalent in the scholarship today. It regards the development of chanceries throughout Italy as indicative of the development of a “documentary consciousness” that contributed to processes of territorialisation coinciding with the concentration of political power and authority in the hands of an oligarchy or autocratic authority. 7 The chanceries of Italian communes and city-states are seen to have strengthened the fragile legitimacy of the authority they served through the use of documentary resources. In this third way of considering chanceries, the significance of such offices is interpreted in terms of processes of “statecraft,” state building, and territorialisation.

Unlike Marzi, scholars using these final two modes of examination are not directly interested in the chancery as an institution. That is, in the second mode of investigation the focus is on individuals living during the second-half of Florence’s republican age while, in the third,

6 Some examples include: Eugenio Garin, “I cancellieri umanisti” in La cultura filosofica, 3-37; Petrucci, Coluccio Salutati; Witt, Coluccio Salutati; Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads; Brown, Bartolomeo Scala; De Rosa, Coluccio Salutati; Black, Benedetto Accolti; Robert Black, “The Political Thought” in Cardini and Viti, Coluccio Salutati e Firenze. A notable exception to the rule is Brucker, “Bureaucracy and Social Welfare,” which focusses on the numerous petty officials in service to the Signoria. The article did not apparently inspire further studies along similar lines. 7 Most recently, Isabella Lazzarini, “Records, Politics and Diplomacy: Secretaries and Chanceries in Renaissance Italy (1350-c.1520)” in Dover, Secretaries and Statecraft, 16-36; but also see: Guidi, “The Florentine Archives;” Lazzarini, “Le pouvoir;” Gian Maria Varanini, “Public Written Records” in Gamberini and Lazzarini, The Italian Renaissance State, 385-405; Lazzarini, “Scritture dello spazio;” Zorzi and Gualtieri, “Pratiche politiche;” Klein, “Costruzione dello stato;” and Vigueur, “Révolution documentaire.” 5 the focus is on documentary production and the emergence of the State. In both modes however, the chancery remains a mere backdrop either to humanist personalities or to documentary culture. By approaching the chancery in light of the four historiographical directions outlined above and by focussing on the institution before 1375, I aim to contribute a new set of insights and perspectives. While institutional organization, documentary culture, and biography remain underlying currents of this dissertation, it addresses these currents by exploring three particular aspects of the chancery and its place in Florentine society: the relationship between socio- political dynamics and institutional form; the formation of an administrative habitus as evidenced by the exchange of cultural/symbolic capital in municipal poetry and communal art; and finally, the everyday functionality of an institution structurally based on a persistent tension between stability and instability.

My use of the term “communal administration” throughout this dissertation does not include communal offices with specifically political functions, namely, those with executive, judicial, or legislative force. Although many who worked in the Florentine administrative organization were not notaries, in this dissertation, “communal administrators” refers to specifically the “notary-administrators” who offered their professional expertise in support of the day-to-day running of communal offices with political functions.

While there is considerable evidence that provides context for offices that had political functions (such as, for example, the podestà and the priori), this is not the case for communal offices with primarily administrative functions. For example, there are no advice treatises or instructional books of proper conduct written for notary-administrators.8 Also, it is hard to know if and how the performance of notary-administrators was assessed because there were no formal

8 This was not the case for the commune’s foreign officials, in particular, the podestà, for whom were written instructional manuals and treasties. 6 scrutiny procedures in place to evaluate their work.9 Even communal legislation and statutes, which do often mention the basic parameters of auxiliary offices, remain relatively inexplicit before the last decade of the fifteenth century. 10 The everyday functionality of administration remains unknown while the administrators who daily served Florence’s citizen-magistrates and councils remain hidden behind the documents they drafted and the minutes they recorded. As a consequence, no single type of evidence or interpretative construct satisfactorily communicates the everyday realities and structure of the field of communal administration.

To that end, the forms of evidence I examine are heterogeneous and my methodologies function within a multi-disciplinary framework. I examine evidence relating to chancery officials in a variety of formats including statutes, legislation, electoral registers, chronicles,

9 This is as opposed to the procedure of sindicato (syndication) which ensured the accountability of the city’s foreign judiciary employed by the commune. It was reserved in particular for the podestà, the capitano del popolo, and the esecutore degli ordinamenti di giustizia. The notaio delle riformagioni, always a foreigner, was also annually subject to a five-day procedure of syndication before the esecutore; see Caggese, Statuti 2, 34. To my knowledge, we know little of how questions of malfeasance regarding specifically Florentine political and administrative officials were officially dealt with. In the communal statutes, concerns regarding official malfeasance refer to the wrongdoing of foreign officials (although see Caggese, Statuti 2 (1325), rubric 10, “De puniendo qui furtum fecerit de avere communis,” which includes Florentine officials, and rubric 125 “De corruptione officialium,” which regulates Florentines who bribe foreign officials). Complaints against Florentine officials could be lodged before the Signoria and the colleges (see Chapter Four below) and accusations against the Signoria do appear in the judicial records of the esecutore and the podestà. For the most part though, it seems as though limits on the office terms satisfied most Florentines as a restrictive measure, but threats of violence and actual attacks on officials and/or their property appear also to have been a popular option. See Brucker, Florentine Politics, 65-66. 10 See Marzi, La Cancelleria, 279-281 where he treats the mass reform of the chancery after the expulsion of the Medici in 1494. This reform is significant in the history of the institution on the one hand because it treated all areas of the chancery in a single place. In the past, reforms of the chancery had been done in a relatively piecemeal fashion, one office at a time. On the other hand, this reform is significant for the explicit nature of its stipulations all concentrated in one place. 7 testaments, books of ricordi, poetic compositions, and visual iconography. Although some of these different forms of evidence are at first glance incommensurable with others, examination of these different bodies of evidence in light of each other, in so far as this is possible, actually reveals a great deal about a professional field that is otherwise little attested. To that end, I similarly use a number of apparently incommensurable research methodologies including: institutional history, statistical data analysis, literary analysis, iconographic analysis, biographical study, and prosopography. These methods draw upon several disciplines including not only social and institutional history but also art history and literary analysis. This has resulted in a multi-faceted study that aims to reveal how socio-political dynamics in Florence and the negotiation of authority helped to shape both the structures of administrative organization at the highest level of that organization and the behaviours and practices of the administrative officials located there.

The experience of communal government in republican Florence involved highly decentred, adaptive modes of governance in which public power, rights, and institutions were not considered distinct from private power, rights, and organizations. As the backdrop against which Florentine governance and administration played out, this mode of governance has been described by Paolo Grossi and Giorgio Chittolini as “stateless” (senza stato), by which they do not mean the absence of territorial structures. Rather, “stateless” is meant to imply the “private” nature of power relations and the absence of elements that characterize the modern state; such as a top-down, highly formalized and “public” body politic exercising absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over all things by way of control of all legitimate language and force.11 These

11 Grossi, “Un diritto senza stato,” and Giorgio Chittolini, “Il ‘privato,’ il ‘publico,’ lo ‘Stato’” in Chittolini, et al., Origini dello Stato. 8 “stateless” dynamics of governance are also described as those of a “patrimonial state” wherein political organization was based not on public-minded structures of power, but rather on a complex assembly of private associations, relations, and informal connections. Power was distributed horizontally, not hierarchically while even Florence’s relationship with its dependent territories was highly adaptive and based on informal negotiation carried out across “networks of mutual trust.”12

In Florence, tendencies toward oligarchy and autocracy were contested by groups supporting a corporatist approach to government, a system that would ideally operate according to a broad distribution of power across the commune’s guild community as opposed to its elite families. Historians are in general agreement that the slow formation of oligarchic hegemony in

Florence was the result of a long process of dissent and compromise, a “dialogue of power” between the advocates of “corporatism” and those of “consensus.”13 Shaped by intermittent

“surges of guild republicanism” in the fourteenth century in particular, oligarchic forms of authority in Florence ultimately acquired the consent of the guild community through the perceived exercise of “corporatist” ideologies – that is, through the appearance of broad-based

12 Patrizia Salvadori, “Florentines and the Communities of the Territorial State” in Zorzi and Connell, Florentine Tuscany, 208. 13 This terminology is found in Najemy, “Guild Republicanism” and Najemy, Corporatism and Consensus. More recently, Moritz Isenmann, “From Rule of Law,” in Armstrong and Kirshner, The Politics of Law, 55-76, offers an alternative to the corporatism and consensus model, suggesting that the periodic imposition of government by balìa in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Florence amounted to a permanent “state of emergency,” or rule by the implicit threat of violence. Unlike Najemy, Isenmann does not consider oligarchic hegemony as a product of the manipulation of the constitution and/or the use of corporatist language so much as through the oligarchy’s effective use of contradictions already inherent in the legal and political culture of the commune, namely in the practice of suspending the rule of law in times of need in order to ensure public welfare. 9 governance.14 For Najemy, these “surges of guild republicanism” constituted changes in the basic parameters of the government in power enough to constitute a separate “regime.”15 Under more popular regimes, the government was seen to conform to basic corporatist principles and language: the inclusion of the entire guild federation (major and minor guilds) within the executive magistracies, the regular consultation of the guilds on questions of policy and legislation, etc. The opening of the office-holding class to an ever broader social group was an oligarchic strategy that gave appearance enough of conformity to the corporatist model to gain the consent of the guild community, even as in reality there was a slow concentration of power over time into ever fewer elite hands.16 Over time, the elite learned to speak the language of

14 John Najemy’s “guild republicanism” offers important nuances to the basic political-sociological paradigm known as the “oligarchic interpretation of democracy,” which justifies a particular interpretation of the inevitability of elitism and dominated the schools of Florentine historical thought throughout the twentieth century (for example, Ottokar, Il comune di Firenze; and Bertelli, Il potere oligarchico). Najemy, by contrast, offers a historical alternative this model suggesting that “popoular” principles and ideologies (guild republicanism) ultimately shaped the terms of oligarchic hegemony in republican Florence; see Najemy, “The Dialogue of Power.” However, for a corrective see Vallerani, “Le città e le sue istituzioni” where the author is critical of the theory of the oligarchical school but also critical of Najemy for looking only at the Priorate for evidence of the existence of an oligarchy. 15 Florentine authority was “republican” for the entire period from 1282 to 1532. Throughout this dissertation I refer to popular and oligarchic “regimes” which dominated the city’s government throughout that same period in order to better situate the socio-political dynamics which impacted the careers and experiences of notary-administrators. In doing this, I conform to the basic schema found in Najemy, A History, passim. He sets the dates for surges in popular corporatism (which, in other places, he sometimes refers to as “popular/guild governments” or, “regimes”) in 1250-1260 (primo popolo), 1292-1295 (secondo popolo), 1343-1348, and, finally, 1378-1382. Also see Najemy, “The Dialogue of Power,” Najemy, Corporatism and Consensus, and Najemy, “Civic humanism.” 16 David Herlihy, “The Rulers of Florence,” in Molho, et al., City States in Classical Antiquity, 197-221. 10 popular sovereignty, representation, and consent, even as, in reality, fewer members of society wielded any real power.17

For the most part, the dynamics of power in republican Florence have been considered in terms of the relationship between a “ruling group” and a “governing group.” Where the ruling group is considered to enjoy political hegemony and determine the direction of governance, the governing group is employed or engaged by the ruling group to administer, fulfill, and legitimize that direction.18 In Florence, the ruling group might properly be considered those members of the oligarchy who advised on policy and exerted influence in the city’s legislative councils. The governing group instead consisted of those male Florentines matriculated in one of the city’s guilds who, as such, were deemed eligible to be elected to political office and hold positions within the city’s executive magistracies. The particular dynamics between the two groups do allow for a better understanding of the circumstances of political power, but this mode of consideration also tends to neglect the existence of a third group, an “administrative” group charged with the management of offices with political force. There is a general tendency in the scholarship to blur the distinction between governing and administrative functions.19

17 My understanding of this dynamic has greatly profited from Lawrin Armstrong’s “The Organic Intellectuals of Early Renaissance Florence” (unpublished paper, 2017). His ideas about the function of the Florentine civic humanists as organic intellectuals greatly influenced my thinking throughout the writing of this dissertation and very much shaped its Epilogue. 18 See Burr Litchfield, Emergence of a Bureaucracy, who shows how the “administrative class” of the Florentine Duchy (1532-1790), was composed entirely of members of the old, elite families, members of the “governing class” whose allegiances were to the ruling Medici Dukes (the “ruling class”) and later to the Hapsburg-Lorraine regents. 19 The paucity of research on administrative officials and offices in republican Florence may in part be a result of how scholars locate political power there. On this problem for Italian communes and city- states in general, see Antonio Ivan Pini, “Dal comune città-stato” in Capitani, et al., Comuni e signorie, 507-509, 517-518. Pini maintains that only for the fifteenth century is it possible to distinguish an “administrative class” in a kind of bureaucracy comprised of a class of “professional” bureaucrats. Some 11 Admittedly, it is often difficult to delimit the boundaries between the governing structure and the administrative organization in communal Florence. However, this dissertation focuses primarily on the notary-administrators who were employed from the beginning of the communal period to perform the clerical tasks associated with Florentine governance and act as an auxiliary staff to the offices with political functions were notaries by profession.20 In many cases, these notary-administrators were also elected to hold positions with political functions.

Thus, although they could never hold political and administrative offices simultaneously, notary-administrators might at different points in their lives be as involved in the political functions of governance as any other matricuated Florentine. As such, their socio-political experiences and formation were affected by the broader socio-political dynamics of communal

Florence between “corporatism” and “consensus.”

Most scholars agree that the republican ruling class in Florence was primarily oligarchic.

Until at least 1382, oligarchic tendencies were tempered by periodic surges of popular, corporatistist attitudes and did not reflect the authority of any single family or person. Rather it was a horizontal category with a broad inclusivity which, although subject to fluctuation at different times, nevertheless in theory extended to all Florentine citizens who might hold communal offices with governing functions. Beginning in 1282, Florentine citizens matriculated

examples of recent scholarship which addresses the question of offices and office-holders, but in which the distinction between “administrative” and “governing” functions remains vague, are: Guido Castelnuovo, “Offices and Officials” in Gamberini and Lazzarini, The Italian Renaissance State, 368- 384; Laura De Angelis, “Territorial Offices and Officeholders” in Connell and Zorzi, Florentine Tuscany, 165-182; Zorzi, “I fiorentini e gli uffici pubblici;” Chittolini, “L’onore dell’officiale;” Zorzi, “Giusdicenti e operatori di giustizia.” 20 On the Florentine notariate in general see, Scalfati, Un formulario notarile fiorentino; Panella, “Le origini dell’Archivio notarile;” Calleri, L’Arte dei Giudici e Notai; Mosiici, “Note sul più antico protocollo;” Sznura, “Per la storia del notariato fiorentino” in De Robertis and Savino, Tra libri e carte, 437-515; Soffici, Matteo Biliotto. 12 in one of the city’s guilds could be drawn for the city’s chief magistracies – the Tre maggiori, which consisted of the eight Priori and the gonfaloniere di giustizia, and the advisory colleges of the sedici gonfalonieri di compagnia and the dodici buonuomini – as well as sit on its legislative councils known as the consigli opportuni.21 Guild members could be imbued with governing functions as representatives of their guilds’ rights to shares in the sovereign authority of the confederation of the guilds. Thus, in theory, all Florentines could exercise their rights to short-term authority as executive or legislative functionaries with governing functions.

On the other hand, the republican administrative group more specifically provided auxiliary services to offices with governing functions in order to facilitate the duties and responsibilities associated with political and legislative offices. Unlike offices with governing functions, which were staffed by amateur politicians, offices with administrative functions required a staff with specific expertise. From as early as 1282, this specific expertise was found primarily in private practitioners of the notarial profession who were periodically approached to carry out auxiliary duties on behalf of the government. Not all political functionaries could be administrative functionaries because they lacked the expertise and knowledge to carry out the specific kind of work required for the daily operation of the commune. By contrast, administrative functionaries, usually enrolled as members of the Arte dei giudici e notai (Guild of Judges and Notaries), were included not only in the allocation of administrative fuctions but also in the lists of men who might be given political function. In this sense, the versatility of notary-administrators meant that, as a group, they might predominate within communal

21 In the fourteenth-century, the consigli opportuni referred to the five different legislative councils through which all legislation formulated by the Signoria and the colleges had to pass: the Consiglio del cento, the general and special councils of the podestà (sometimes referred to collectively as the Consiglio del comune) and the general and special councils of the capitano del popolo (sometimes referred to collectively as the Consiglio del popolo). 13 government because they could perform either political or administrative functions, although never at the same time.

Frequent legislative attempts to limit the potential power that notary-administrators might wield as a result of frequent or coinciding terms in administrative and political offices suggest that the influence of administrative functionaries was a matter of concern. Moreover, despite the seemingly silent nature of their work in government, administrative functionaries were nevertheless associated with the governments they served. During times of political turmoil, some found themselves condemned as vigorously as political functionaries.22

Ultimately, socio-political circumstances determined the careers of many notary-administrators.

While scholarship on republican government in Florence and the modes of Florentine governance has been dominated by debates about the location of real power and the relative influence of the men who tenured the rapidly rotating executive magistracies and legislative councils, much has been left to the imagination about how power functioned or was actually implemented on an everyday basis. Since it is hard to imagine the functionality of such a lateral and decentred mode of governance without the stability and continuity promised by some kind of “bureaucratic” force, scholars have often assumed, but have as yet failed to demonstrate, that the Florentine government had recourse to a small but permanent bureaucratic workforce, the members of which exhibited the habits and mentalities of modern-day, professional civil servants.23 As this dissertation argues, administrative modes of operation mirrored political ones

22 For example, Robert Black, recounts measures taken against notary-administrators, especially those perceived as too involved in politics; see Black, Benedetto Accolti, 131-133. 23 See Brucker, “Bureaucracy and Social Welfare.” Also see Banti, Florentine Politics (review), 719-721, 724. “There was a kind of permanent bureaucracy made up of notaries, many of which, cycling through offices as they did, remained in continuous service to the commune thus taking on the habits and mentalities of professional bureaucrats” (una specie di burocrazia permanente, costituita dai notai, molti dei quali, pur variando di ufficio, rimanevano di continuo al servizio del Comune ed acquistavano perciò 14 in that administrative and political offices were both characterized by a professional independence from, but personalized involvement in, communal governance and by a complex network of private relations and connections. Furthermore, the same discourses that characterized the dialogue of political power between classes were also spread through communal administration. Moreover, institutions of administration were in part responsible for the legitimization of the political regime they served and the promulgation of its political ideologies.

In the scholarship on the political institutions of Florence there is a general lack of clarity about the actual composition of the administrative workforce of the Republic as it is admittedly difficult to gather comprehensive data regarding communal adminstrators. Gene

Brucker examined the codice delle sega for a single year (1352) and found seventeen couriers, eighteen tax collectors, thirty-nine notaries, and fifty-five numptii.24 However, such a calculation cannot be considered exact given that not all heads of house necessarily specified tenures they may have held within the city’s administration. Furthermore, it is uncommon to find lists that provide the names of those serving specific republican offices in an administrative

il costume e mentalità dei burocrati di professione). In his review, one of Banti’s main criticisms is that Brucker doesn’t account for the administrative stability provided by the government’s regularly employed administrators. He asserts that while it is true, as Brucker states, that the fourteenth century was a period “of endemic crisis [in which] very few States in Latin Christendom enjoyed stable government,” it is more accurately portrayed as a “period of transition with regard to the formation of larger and better organized bodies of state” (un’epoca di trapasso verso la formazione di entità statali più grandi e più solidamente organizzante). See Brucker, Florentine Politics, 60, 87-90; Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft, 170-171; Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, 113-116; Martines, Power and Imagination, esp. 204-05. 24 Brucker, Florentine Politics, 60 f. 12. 15 capacity.25 Archival sources, such as they are, do not in all cases allow for comprehensive surveys of the commune’s entire administrative workforce found across a complex system of public and semi-public institutions of governance. With no specification about which communal offices might be considered “administrative” in the managerial sense, nor any distinction regarding the type of administrative offices assessed (that is, regarding the different functions and requirements within the administrative organization itself), estimations regarding the size of the administrative workforce do little to aid in understanding its specific characteristics. Indeed, there exists no standard working definition of communal administration in republican Florence, nor a common understanding about who made up this group of administrators and what their socio-political force was.26 While this dissertation deals only with notary-administrators, the term “communal administration” more properly encompasses a much broader concept of administrative organization that included major and minor officials with no notarial training.

From 1427 (but possibly even earlier), Florentine notaries had begun to understand their profession as divided into three different groups: those who acted as procurators (il procurare); those who redacted imbreviature and drafted legal documents for private clients (il rogare); and those who worked as communal administrators in the offices of Florence’s institutions of governance (l’andare in ufficio).27 Most modern scholars concur that notaries who went in ufficio specialized in particular fields of Florentine administration, as scribes at the court of the

Mercanzia (the Merchant Court), as managers of the Compagnie armate del popolo (community

25 As we will see in chapter 2 however, a comprehensive examination of the composition of the administrative workforce that served the priori is possible, given that their names were listed alongside those of all incoming priori in the prioristi volumes which detail two hundred fifty years of the office. 26 This was pointed out some decades ago in Brucker, “Bureaucracy and Social Welfare.” 27 These were not mutually exclusive; most notaries practiced some combination of the three. See Franek Sznura, “Appunti su Coluccio Salutati” in Cardini and Viti, Coluccio Salutati, 47- 71, 57. Sznura bases this on Catasto records. 16 militias), as the notary-controllers at the Camera del comune (the Treasury), or at the office of the Gabelle (the offices of indirect taxes and revenue), etc.28 To some degree, the technical knowledge these administrators shared as notaries ensured a level of administrative continuity that offered stability to counter the amateur, temporary nature of political office-holding. Found in every major rotating magistracy and nearly every fiscal, judicial, and legislative office,

Florentine notaries have been described as the “mainstay of the administration of government.”29 No matter what factions or interests were in control in Florence, the basic competencies of those who practiced the notarial arts – recording legal acts ad hoc, retaining written records of those acts, drafting contractual instruments, etc. – made notaries particularly suited for the everyday business of governance.

It is not the aim of this dissertation to define the precise scope of the administrative workforce of Florence. However, by striving to clarify important aspects of the operational structures and expectations within which notary-administrators functioned in the offices of the chancery, this dissertation does aim to lay some groundwork for a more extensive study of communal administration in republican Florence. To that end, the first half of this dissertation considers the bureaucratic nature of the Florentine administrative organization.

Historians of Florence tend to disagree about the applicability of the term “bureaucracy” when it comes to communal administration in Florence for the period between around 1250 – which supplies the earliest extant documentation – and the beginning of the Duchy in 1532.

28 For example, see Tognetti, “Ser Bartolo,” in Maccioni and Tognetti, Tribunali di Mercanti, 1-28. To my knowledge, however, the idea that notaries specialized in specific areas of administration is a scholarly assumption based on impressions of archival records and there have been no comprehensive studies supporting the claim. 29 Julius Kirshner, “A Critical Appreciation” in Armstrong and Kirshner, The Politics of Law, 7-39, 14. 17 Some use the term freely and without qualification.30 Others are more cautious, only conditionally using the term and sometimes citing a general lack of research done on the functionality of the administrative organization in Florence.31 Still others avoid the term altogether.32 In this dissertation, the term “bureaucracy” is considered useful insofar as it aids in the description of the administrative organization entrusted with the execution of the general policy determined by the governing authority. In Florence, notary-administrators were charged with this very task, but particulars about the organization’s form and function for the most part remain obscure and understudied. Where the first chapter focuses generally on the main administrative institution of the commune – the chancery – and the historiographical tradition that has treated it, the second chapter considers the particular form and functionality of the workforce within that institution, relying on some of Max Weber’s basic principles about domination, or authority, (Herrschaft) and how an administrative organization underpins and legitimizes authority. The statistical examination of one of the three main offices of the chancery, the office of notaio dei priori (Notary of the Priors), reveals a bureaucratic framework that conforms only in part to Weber’s definition of a rationalized bureaucratic organization.

The republican chancery reflected the “stateless” nature of the Florentine Republic, as described above, and its evolution was shaped by the various forms of authority defining

Florentine republicanism over the course of two hundred fifty years. From its inception, the chancery was an inherently impermanent, horizontally-organized institution staffed entirely by

30 For example, Brucker, “Bureaucracy and Social Welfare;” and Becker, Florence in Transition, II, 214, 216. 31 For example, Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, 112-113 f. 7; and Banti, Florentine Politics (review), 719-721, 724 where he argues that the modern mind can only with difficulty conceive of how Florentine administration might have actually functioned. 32 Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft. 18 private citizens who retained their individual interests and maintained their private connections to vast socio-political networks. Only gradually did it evolve into the linchpin of ducal administration, staffed by a permanent, hierarchically-organized, fully rationalized and professional workforce of “secretaries” dedicated solely to the State that employed them.

Chapter Two addresses the size and exact composition of the republican “administrative class” by focussing on the workforce of a single office for the entire republican period (1282-1532).

Every two months a new notary was chosen to live with and to serve the priori during their two- month terms. Of the three areas of the chancery, the one headed by the notaio dei priori saw the highest regular turnover of administrative personnel. The office thus provides useful data sets that demonstrate the relative composition of the administrative workforce and the degree of continuity administrative agents were able to offer the communal government. 33

The second half of this dissertation then turns to two Trecento chancellors, placing them in their socio-political contexts in order to consider some of the ways in which they perceived

33 Markedly missing from this dissertation is a comprehensive examination of the third office of the chancery – the notaio delle riformagioni. The significance of the office of the notaio delle riformagioni in relation to the larger governmental and administration structures is of particular interest. Like the chancellor, the notaio delle riformagioni enjoyed de facto permanent tenure in the chancery; unlike the chancellor, however, the notaio delle riformagioni was always a foreigner. He was vital to the everyday documentation of the acts of government. Among his duties were: the copying of legislation approved by the consigli opportuni and the Tre maggiori, maintenance of the Tratte (electoral pouches), and the preservation of governmental documentation in an office he shared with the chancellor on the third floor of the Palazzo dei Priori. The everyday work experience of the notaio delle riformagioni placed this official at the crossroads between politics and administration, as daily contact with the commune’s main executive and legislative actors was complemented by a close, working relationship with the chancellor and the notaio dei priori. Although time has not permitted me to research this position and its actors, the significance of this office should not be lost in any study of the Florentine chancery and a more thorough examination of it and its officials in relation to the other chancery officials would be revealing. For more on this office, see Black, Benedetto Accolti, 91-94, 96-97, 100-102, 117-119 and Klein, “Costruzione dello stato.” 19 their functions as administrators. Their extant “private” writings give form to many of the everyday concerns of communal administrators. Chapter Three focuses on Bonaventura

(Ventura) Monachi (c. 1288-1348). Perhaps more commonly known in scholarship for his contributions to the vernacular lyric tradition of Florence, Ventura served in several administrative positions including the position of chancellor for the period from 1340 to 1348

(excluding the short interlude of the signory of Walter of Brienne, titular Duke of Athens, from

September 1342 to August 1343). Ventura’s poetry, written in dialogue with other Trecento lyricists, is considered here as a mode of sociability that allowed him to negotiate concerns about the inherent instability of Florentine forms of governance and navigate the socio-political dynamics that shaped the various fields within which he operated during the first half of the fourteenth century. As we shall see, throughout his poetic oeuvre, Ventura expressed an abiding concern with impermanence in all its various forms: instability, insecurity, fortune, the unknown, etc. While such language derived from philosophical, Boethian constructs and mercantile paradigms of risk, for Ventura it was also connected to discourses about communal government. Through poetry, Ventura was able to grapple with the forces of uncertainty that all notary-administrators faced throughout their careers. His poetry gives form to the experiences of other notaries involved in the apparently deliberate impermanence of the Florentine administrative workforce. My chapter presents the first treatment in English of Ventura’s biography and poetic production while Appendix II of this dissertation provides, for the first time, English translations of all of Ventura’s known poems.

The final chapter turns to Ventura’s successor in the chancery, his son, Niccolò

Monachi. Sometimes portrayed in modern scholarship as the morally wayward, grasping predecessor of Coluccio Salutati, Niccolò has received no comprehensive biographical consideration since Demetrio Marzi’s short treatment of him in 1910, nor has his book of ricordanze (ASF, Carte Strozziane, serie II, 2) been subject to comprehensive study or critical 20 treatment.34 As a mode of sociability, the ricordanze reveal some of the ways in which Niccolò located himself within communal administration and, more generally, how he asserted his own place within the perpetually shifting sands of Florentine society and politics in the fourteenth century. As chancellor, Niccolò occupied a highly visible, de facto permanent, office within the administrative apparatus of the commune. He did not appear to favour the Albizzi oligarchs, the elitist faction operating largely out of the Parte Guelfa that had little sympathy for the guild community. Rather, he was closely allied to the opposing oligarchic faction, the Ricci, and was deeply supportive of the guild community. This chapter treats the ricordanze as a reflection of how Niccolò understood his place within Florentine society and administration, relating his ricordi to archival documents where possible. In particular, his ricordi reflect how he sought, as a communal administrator, to negotiate and secure a stable position within the socio-political world around him. I am currently working on completing a diplomatic edition of this document, which has never been edited.

These four chapters of the dissertation allow us to understand key relational dynamics that connected chancery officials to the institution of the chancery, to the governments for which they worked, and to the society in which they lived.

34 Marzi, La cancelleria, 94-105. The most negative portrayals of Niccolò are: Novati, Epistolario, 29 f. 1, and Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, 119-120, 143, 148. Hereafter I refer to this document as ricordanze. 21

CHAPTER ONE

The Administrative Organization of the Chancery

The functionality of a private, impermanent workforce managing the daily administrative demands of a government that was equally private and impermanent is puzzling. However, any attempt to consider the form and functionality of the chancery must consider the social dynamics and political contingencies that characterized the Florentine Republic more broadly.

This chapter argues that changes in the gradual evolution of the chancery can be understood according to the varying forms of authority that defined Florentine government at different moments in the commune’s history.

As mentioned above, scholarship on specific chancellors (looking in particular at the civic humanists that held the position beginning in 1375) has considered the localized socio- political circumstances in which those individual chancellors found themselves, and considers their responses to such circumstances to have been the driving forces behind institutional reform.1 On the other hand, scholarship on the rise of a “documentary consciousness” as a factor

1 This tendency begins with Marzi, La Cancelleria, who organizes his book according to the chancellorships of individual chancellors. Some examples of localized examination of the chancery via 22 in the increasing centralisation of the Florentine State has considered the chancery as a important factor during the city-state’s advance into the surrounding countryside.2 In both of these ways of considering the chancery, however, a sense of the long-term development of the administrative institution in response to the needs of the government is lost. As the right hand of the executive magistracy of the Signoria, the institution of the chancery was as much a product of the regimes for which it was working as it was shaped by the notaries and chancellors the regime employed to work there. As we will see, changes to the organization of the chancery very frequently accompanied major changes in the form of Florentine political authority.

Segr eter ia

The tendency to focus on the chancery only following the arrival of the civic humanists has shown a remarkable power of endurance. It can be found already fully-fledged in the second half of the seventeenth century when Grand Duke Ferdinando II de’ Medici (1621-1670), commissioned a series of “grotesque” frescoes on the ceiling of the Uffizi in the so-called

individual chancellors include: Eugenio Garin, “I cancellieri umanisti” in La cultura filosofica, 3-37; Petrucci, Coluccio Salutati; Witt, Coluccio Salutati; Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads; Brown, Bartolomeo Scala; De Rosa, Coluccio Salutati; Black, Benedetto Accolti; Robert Black, “The Political Thought” in Cardini and Viti, Coluccio Salutati e Firenze. 2 For example: Isabella Lazzarini, “Records, Politics and Diplomacy: Secretaries and Chanceries in Renaissance Italy (1350-c.1520)” in Dover, Secretaries and Statecraft, 16-36; but also see: Guidi, “The Florentine Archives;” Lazzarini, “Le pouvoir;” Gian Maria Varanini, “Public Written Records” in Gamberini and Lazzarini, The Italian Renaissance State, 385-405; Lazzarini, “Scritture dello spazio;” Zorzi and Gualtieri, “Pratiche politiche;” Klein, “Costruzione dello stato;” and Vigueur, “Révolution documentaire.” 23 corridoio di ponente.3 The project was a continuation of his grandfather’s (Ferdinando I, 1549-

1609) initiative to cover the white walls and ceilings of the corridors of the administrative offices of the government completely in imagery representing the ducal authority of the Medici.

For the unfinished corridors, Ferdinando II appointed members of the Accademia della Crusca –

Alessandro Segni (1633-1697), Lorenzo Panciatichi (1635-1676), and Ferdinando Del Maestro

(1630-1665) – to design a visual program to put Tuscan prestige on display.4 The product was a series of personified topics – Agricoltura, Pittura, Architettura, Istoria, Medicina, Filosofia,

Legge, Teologia, Matematica, etc. – accompanied by portraits of illustrious Florentines whose lives and deeds exemplified their respective topics.5 The Accademici consistently deployed republican figures on the ceilings of the ducal offices of State in order to suggest “the continuity and magnificence of the Medicean dynasty.”6 One of the bays represents the allegorical figure

Segreteria who sits at a desk with her pen poised and her eyes looking upward (see Figure 1.1).

Behind her, the tower of the Palazzo della Signoria – the seat of republican administration – and the dome of Santa Maria del Fiore stand out against a blue sky, giving the impression that she sits at her desk within the Uffizi, the headquarters of the ducal administrative offices from 1560.

Around her are allegorical figures representing the four continents – America, Africa, Asia, and

Europa. Further out still amid an array of miscellaneous grotesque faces and figures are ten

3 The “grotesque” is a decorative mode that came into vogue toward the end of the fifteenth century. The artist Benvenuto Cellini (1500-1571) suggests the word refers to the ornamentation of the underground grotte of Nero’s “Domus aurea,” rediscovered in 1480. The “grotesque” is usually characterized by the representation of hybrid creatures pictured alongside geometric, naturalistic ornamentation usually on a white or monochrome backdrop. On the grotesque frescoes of the ceilings in the Uffizi, see Acidini Luchinat, Grottesche: Le volte dipinte and Vezzosi, Dalle grottesche al fantasy. 4 Some of Lorenzo Panciatichi’s notes for the decoration of the ceiling are extant in Panciatichi, “Pensieri.” 5 Some bays are dedicated to the most important cities of the Duchy, like Livorno and Arezzo. 6 Acidini Luchinat and Scalini, Splendore dei Medici, 28. 24 portraits of famous Florentines, all communal administrators of the Florentine Republic. Seven of them were republican chancellors: Coluccio Salutati (1375-1406), Benedetto Fortini (1406),

Leonardo Bruni (1410-1411, 1427-1444), Carlo Marsuppini (1444-1453), Poggio Bracciolini

(1453-1458), Bartolomeo Scala (1464-1497), and Marcello Virgilio Adriani (1498-1521). Two were secretaries of the Seconda cancelleria – Alessandro Bracci (1498) and Niccolò

Machiavelli (1498-1511). The tenth figure was a secretary of the Dieci della libertà e pace,

Donato Giannotti (1492-1573).

These illustrious men are portrayed here because both individually and collectively, as the summit of secretarial activity and administration in Florence, they brought glory to the

Republic, a consequence not only of their official positions but also because in exercising those positions they demonstrated their natural virtue and rhetorical prowess. Their letters sent on behalf of the Republic across the four continents spread the reputation and renown of Florence to the corners of the earth. At one edge of the fresco stands a female figure holding a pen in one hand and a book in the other, balanced at the opposite edge by another female figure who stands next to a printing press, reminding viewers of the public, intellectual activities of these chancellors and secretaries, all of them humanists who produced treatises on governance or politics. On the long edges of the fresco, scenes depicting the dispatch of ambassadors and other communal representatives encourage us to equate Segreteria with Cancelleria.

25 Figure 1.1: “Segreteria” (vault, corridoio del ponente, Galleria degli Uffizi)

Photo credit: Daniel Faibisoff 26 Where the men pictured in the fresco of Segreteria had worked at the heart of republican governance in the Palazzo della Signoria, the ducal secretaries who sat below the fresco had long been relocated to their new headquarters in the Uffizi. Moreover, the socio-political status of ducal administrators differed greatly from the republican administrators pictured above them.

Where during the Republic communal administrators tended to be members of the popolo – usually notaries and in some cases, lawyers – the Duchy exclusively recruited administrators from the patrician class, the same class that during the Republic had staffed the rotating executive magistracies and legislative councils.7 By the time the fresco appeared on the ceiling of the Uffizi in the seventeenth-century, the administrative organization of the Duchy had emerged into a fully-fledged rationalized bureaucracy. Yet the idea behind the fresco is clear: the republican chancery brought honour and renown to republican Florence and continued to do so for ducal Florence.

From the seventeenth-century Accademici who proposed the visual scheme for the

Uffizi’s ceilings to more recent biographies of Florence’s humanist chancellors, the republican chancery has been imagined and examined through the lens of humanism. Modern scholarship continues to be influenced by the way republican chancellors conceived of and characterized their positions within the administrative complex of the city of Florence.8 The humanist chancellors themselves raised the profile of their office even as they idealized the city of

Florence as a free Republic.9 This began with Coluccio Salutati (chancellor from 1375 to 1406)

7 Burr Litchfield, Emergence of a Bureaucracy, esp. 65-83. 8 For example, Garin, La cultura filosofica; Petrucci, Coluccio Salutati; Brown, Bartolomeo Scala; De Rosa, Coluccio Salutati; Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads; Black, Benedetto Accolti; Cardini and Viti, Coluccio Salutati. 9 On civic humanism, republicanism, and liberty see the essays in Hankins, ed. Renaissance Civic Humanism. 27 who in 1375 referred to his new office which had from its origin been a clerical position as “hoc gloriosum officium” (this glorious office).10 The process of bolstering the public image of the chancery continued with every successive humanist chancellor until, by the end of the fifteenth century, Bartolomeo Scala (1464-1497) could write that his office came directly “ex Deo.”

(from God).11 Reverence for the office was prompted by the men who held tenure of it and contributed to the complex humanist representation of the Republic.

In this humanist light, Florentine centralization in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was enabled in part by a chancery that provided continuity and stability to a government based on high rates of turnover. Accordingly, it was staffed with illustrious, lettered chancellors whose strong moral convictions and eloquence helped to reinforce the legitimacy of the buregeoning city-state. This humanist conception of the chancery is, of course, self-serving and has had at least two adverse consequences for modern scholarship. The first is a tendency to overlook the chancery and chancellors prior to Coluccio Salutati. If we conceive of a chancellor as a renowned public figure active in the service of “civic humanism,” then those who held the office in earlier periods seem not really to be chancellors, or at the very worst to be bad chancellors.

The second consequence is that scholarly attention on the chancery tends to focus on the personalities of the chancellors themselves and less on the institution within which they worked or the political regime that employed them. This dissertation aims to address both of these imbalances.

For archivist Demetrio Marzi (1862-1920), who published what continues to be the most authoritative study on the republican chancery, the institution was the apex of communal

10 Novati, Epistolario I, 224. 11 Brown, Bartolomeo Scala, 135. 28 administration in Florence.12 All other political, fiscal, and administrative offices depended upon its seamless operation. By the end of the thirteenth century when the Priorato delle Arti was established as the commune’s executive magistracy, the chancery was a triadic institution. As one of its three branches, the notaio della Signoria (Notary of the Signoria), also called the notaio dei priori (Notary of the Priors), was tasked with writing, registering, and archiving the acts, deliberations, and orders of the priori. A second branch was the notaio delle riformagioni

(Notary of Legislation) who was responsible for writing, registering, and archiving all the acts, laws, and deliberations of the city’s two legislative councils. Thirdly, the notaio dettatore

(notary dictator, or chancellor) was charged with writing, registering, and archiving the letters and embassies concerning Florence’s dealings with foreign city-states. While this basic triadic structure, firmly established by 1282, remained in place until the end of the Republic in 1532, the structure of the chancery nevertheless was subject to many reforms and reorganization initiatives during this period.

In terms of length of tenure and frequency of turn-over, the office of notaio dei priori stood in sharp contrast to the offices of the notaio delle riformagioni and of the chancellor, tenure of which was effectively permanent. The office of notaio dei priori possessed one of the highest turn-over rates of all administrative offices throughout the history of the commune.13 A single new notaio dei priori rotated into office every two months alongside the new men elected to serve as priori in the Signoria. Thus, in any given year, usually six different notaries would hold the office in at least six different terms. By contrast, the notaio delle riformagioni and the chancellor, whose tenures were renewed annually, could in principle remain in office for life.

12 Marzi, La Cancelleria. 13 The majority of administrative positions located in the Signoria and in various other institutions – guild, financial, fiscal, juridical, etc. – were held for anywhere between four months and one year. Guidi, Il governo, passim. 29 The longest serving chancellor was Bartolomeo Scala, who served for thirty-three years (1464-

1497), followed closely by Coluccio Salutati with a thirty-one year-tenure (1375-1406) as chancellor. The longest serving notaio delle riformagioni was Viviano di Neri di Viviano

Viviani dei Franchi da Sambuco with a 36-year tenure (1378-1414), followed by his immediate predecessor Piero di Grifo da Pratovecchio with a thirty-year tenure (1348-1378).14

For most scholars since Marzi, the function of the Florentine chancery stands out with singular importance in the larger system of Florentine administrative organization: the sole mechanism that rendered continuity to a system of government characterized by rapidly circulating magistracies and councils.15 Yet, its history as a republican institution has remained remarkably understudied ever since Marzi’s comprehensive examination. His study of the institution of the chancery was also organized according to the chancellorships of individual chancellors. While every chapter does specifically discuss the other two main officials of the chancery, the chancellors always take centre stage with chapter titles even bearing their names.

In this focus on individual personalities, Marzi’s analysis of the institution of the chancery has a structure and outlook interestingly similar to the celebratory, humanist-inspired vision of the chancery on display in the Uffizi fresco.

14 On ser Piero di ser Grifo’s interesting career before he arrived in Florence in 1343, see Barlucchi, “Formazione e gavetta.” I thank William Caferro for this reference. 15 For example, Guidi, Il governo 2, 41-48, esp. 41; Brucker, Florentine Politics, 87-90; Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft, 170-171; Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, 113-116; Martines, Power and Imagination, 204-05. Also see Banti, “Florentine Politics (review); Brucker, Florentine Politics. Banti’s main criticisms is that Brucker doesn’t account for the administrative stability provided by the government’s regularly employed administrators. He asserts that while it is true, as Brucker states, that the fourteenth century was a period “of endemic crisis [in which] very few States in Latin Christendom enjoyed stable government,” Banti insists that it was more accurately a “period of transition with regard to the formation of larger and better organized bodies of state” (un’epoca di trapasso verso la formazione di entità statali più grandi e più solidamento organizzante). 30 Marzi’s formative work on the chancery remains indispensable. It covers many of the aspects of the institution including a detailed consideration of how the chancery functioned and its reforms over the course of the Republic. However, by organizing the history of the institution according to the tenures of individual chancellors, it has privileged the role of members of only a single area of the chancery, and it has tended to obscure a view of how structural reforms were related to political factionalism, class conflict, ideological discourses, and governmental shifts.

A CLASS OF NOTARY -ADMINISTRATORS

From the beginning of the Republic nearly all members of administration appear to have been notaries, the majority of them members of the popolo, the city’s non-elite political class that drew its force in part from from guild association. Bound together by a federation of professional corporations – the so-called Arti (guilds) – the popolo promoted a political ideology that upheld the principles of corporate organization at the level of communal government and relied on city’s juridical system in order to ensure the good of the commune.16 Opposing the popolo’s socio-political advances and its ideology of corporatism were the elite members of

Florentine society who as propertied, long-time citizens of Florence (some of them titled nobility, others from the rich merchant class) subscribed to a different political ideology that, at least until 1382, favoured a mode of governance based on exclusion, confrontation, consensus among the elite, and the extra-judicial expedients of admonition and persuasion. Although the non-magnate members of the elite were members of the city’s guilds after 1282, they did not see themselves as part of the same socio-political community which bound members of the popolo

16 This is a system which scholars following John Najemy characterise as “guild republicanism;” see Najemy, “Guild republicanism.” 31 together. Intense political struggles between the elite and the popolo dominated Florentine politics in the fourteenth century and shaped the kind of republicanism which the city adopted in the fifteenth century.17 Intermittent surges of guild republicanism in the fourteenth century (in particular, the “guild” governments or regimes of 1250-60, 1293-1295, 1343-1348, and 1378-

1382) impelled the elite to learn to “speak the language of popular corporatism” in order to redeploy it in support of their own vision of republicanism.18

Throughout the fourteenth century, as members of the popolo became wealthier and more propertied, their influence presented serious opposition to elite power. In response, the elite criticized members of the popolo on the basis of their status as nouveau riche, parvenus, and unknown entities from the country. This class of “new men” has come to be known as the gente nuova.19 Many notaries and notary-administrators were from families belonging to this group of immigrants. Marvin Becker estimates that “sixty-five percent of all notaries who held

17 I have found Najemy’s formulations about Florentine political factions, their ideologies, and their modes of applying those ideologies through the city’s electoral system particularly useful. See Najemy, Corporatism and Consensus where he divides the political factions of fourteenth century Florence into three main groups: the grandi who subscribed to a consensus-based political model; the popolo who subscribed to a corporate model; and finally, a large group of artisans and labouring classes, known as the popolo minuto. Members of this last group were for the most part forbidden from organizing into guilds and they thus remained subordinate to the guild community. However, during the fourteenth century especially, their sheer size gave them political force, and they are intermittently found in direct, often violent opposition to the grandi even as they challenged the popolo to embrace the wider, universal implications of a “Republic of the guilds.” 18 Especially Najemy, “The Dialogue of Power.” 19 The term gente nuova appears to be of relatively recent vintage. It is used only once by Dante in Inferno 16 and it does not appear in any fourteenth-century chronicle sources. I thank Elisa Brilli for pointing this out to me. Some scholars interpret the term in reference to general urban demographic growth. However, my use of the term here is specifically in reference to the new ruling classes that resulted from urban demographic growth beginning in earnest around the 1280s. On the population of Florence before 1348 see Day, “The Population of Florence.” 32 communal office between 1343 and 1382 came from families recently migrated to the city.”20

Over the course of the fourteenth century and through the influence of the Parte Guelfa (the

Guelph Party), in what was considered even by contemporaries to be a blatant attack on the popular political party, countless members of the popolo were disenfranchised on the basis of their outsider status and their supposed Ghibelline allegiance. Those who were “warned”

(ammoniti) or outright “banned” (banditi) from office seem to have included many of Florence’s notary-administrators.21 While most notary-administrators as members of the popolo and, often, of the gente nuova seem to have been promoters of popular (popolo) political agendas, some of them came to be associated with the elite advocates for oligarchic rule, demonstrating how the allegiances of these men were complicated by personal connections or patronage ties. 22

Scholars have demonstrated how these same socio-political struggles between popolo and elite shaped the fields of guild administration in particular. Lauro Martines has shown how attempts on the part of the elite to subvert popolo influence in government coincided with attempts to subvert notarial influence in the powerful Arte dei giudici e notai that supplied the government with its notary-administrators.23 While the giudici, or jurists, in Florence generally represented the urban patriciate and advocated for consensus politics, the notaries tended to

20 Becker, “Florentine Popular Government,” 370 f. 53. Like Brucker who estimates the size of the administrative workforce as discussed in the Introduction above, Becker is not specific about the parameters used to generate this claim. Presumably he is referring to notary-assessori and revisori in the offices of the gabelle. 21 This is my impression based on time with the records. It would be useful though to conduct an actual study on this. 22 For example, the fourteenth-century notaio delle riformagioni ser Piero di ser Grifo da Pratovecchio. His case will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four. 23 Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft, 40-51, 54-55, 170-171, 400 where he connects the earliest social and political struggles present within the Guild to struggles between Guelfs and Ghibellines and, later, to struggles between elite and popolo. Also, Brucker, Florentine Politics, 87-90. 33 uphold the corporate-based approach of the popolo (exceptions appear on both ends of this socio-political spectrum: some jurists hailing from elite families certainly sympathised with their notary counterparts and the larger guild community, and vice versa). 24 In the fourteenth century, especially, the political power of the notaries in the Arte dei giudici e notai was often greater than that of the jurists because there were fewer posts open for jurists within the guild’s administration. The guild’s executive head, the proconsolo (Proconsul), was always a notary and the consoli (consuls, the chief officers under the proconsolo) were more often than not notaries; even in more minor administrative positions, the number of notaries often exceeded that of jurists. By the fifteenth century and the beginning of oligarchic hegemony, however, the power of the notaries within the Arte dei giudici e notai can be seen to have diminished as preference for tenure of administrative posts tended to be given instead to their jurist counterparts.

THE BUSINESS OF COMMUNAL ADMINISTRATION

Notary-administrators treated their offices as private property, the rights of which they could freely rent or sell. While it is true that many communal administrators were capable of corruption, the fact that they treated their offices as business does not necessarily suggest a moral delinquency on the part of the entire class. From the earliest communal documentation, it is clear that the notaries who drafted documents for the government were private practitioners.

Administrative officials were professional only in the sense that they were matriculated

24 Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze IV, 2, 224-225. On the consensus and corporate models of politics see Najemy, Corporatism and Consensus; Najemy, “Guild Republicanism”. Also, Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft, 41 who also finds that the high status and social ties that Florentine lawyers enjoyed tended to draw them closer to the commune’s more aristocratic and oligarchic forces. 34 members of the Arte dei giudici e notai; they were not civil servants trained specifically for work in the government and loyal only to the government. It was only very slowly over the course of the Republic that they began to assume some of the attitudes and attributes akin to those of modern civil servants.

The administrative officials who served the executive magistracies and the bodies that delegated sovereign authority were for the most part elected (imborsati) rather than appointed positions. Administrative officials for these offices had their names drawn from bags containing the names of eligible candidates. These bags were similar to, but distinct from, the bags used during electoral procedures for political offices (only a few managerial offices were appointed, such as, for example, the notaio dei sedici gonfalonieri who was nominated by the Signoria25).

After receiving the rights to an office by lot, notary-administrators were obliged to exercise the duties entailed by the office; but they also enjoyed the prerogative to protect and make use of this asset. Such a practice might be considered part and parcel of a general mercantile mentality that pervaded Florentine fields of activity which held that the pursuit of personal wealth contributed to and made possible the good of the commune.26 Thus is appears that communal administration was considered by its practitioners to be much like any other business venture in

Florence. Just as in private mercantile endeavours, the business of communal administration was an unpredictable affair subject to fluctuating social conditions and volatile political factionalism.

Notary-administrators holding their offices as assets had to negotiate the parameters of the field and secure the stability of their interests.

25 Guidi, Il governo, esp. vol II. 26 For a discussion of the relationship between commercial wealth and politics in fifteenth century Florence, see Jurdjevic, “Virtue, Commerce.” 35 From the beginning notaries were employed and compensated by the Republic precisely because of the legal training and professional competencies they had accumulated as private practitioners of the notarial arts. Their occupational expertise complemented the operations of a government that was contractual in nature and their managing presence in every public and semi-public institution of governance ensured the administrative continuity and seamless operation of the Republic. Their skills and abilities made them both flexible and indispensable to Florentine political officials. They are found attached to every office with political functions, although, as notary-administrators, they did not themselves officially carry any political mandate.

Ultimately, administrators were expected to be silent professionals, significant figures only insofar as they had been privately invested with the force of publica fides. They were available when needed with pen and paper in hand, ready to draft the necessary documents of governance. Despite the fact they remained professionally neutral, their involvement was necessarily complicated by the fact that the individuals who served as administrators always to some degree remained tied to their personal connections, their political allegiances, and their positions within various fields of socio-political activity outside of communal administration.

The government attempted to limit the possibility of excessive influence on the part of administrators through sanctions directed at limiting the time that these men might spend in either an administrative or a political office, including ensuring that those ending their terms as managerial administrators could not immediately serve in a political office.27

27 As, for example, in the case of the notaio dei priori whose divieti, or sanctions on their terms of office, will be discussed in greater detail below. 36 Cancelleria

One specific area of communal administration that had wide-reaching political and cultural significance was the chancery. As the leading administrative body responsible for the documentation and the procedural regularity of the city’s exercise of its executive, diplomatic, and legislative power, the chancery was the capstone in the administrative organization of

Florentine governance.

Figure 1.2: The Chancery within the Florentine Organisation of Government

Arti Tre Maggiori: 16 Compagnie Signoria (2) Parte Guelfa 12 Buonuomini (6) 16 Gonfalonieri di compagnia (4)

Consigli opportuni: Consiglio del popolo (4) Consiglio del comune (4) Cancelleria: Notaio dei priori (2) Notaio dei 16 (4) Notaio dettatore (de facto permanent) Notaio delle riformagioni (de facto permanent) Based on the 1355 redaction of communal statues *Numbers in ( ) indicate tenure terms in months

The administrative offices of the chancery ultimately served the executive offices of the

Signoria which consisted of the eight (before 1343, six) priori and the gonfaloniere di giustizia.

The Signoria together with the two advisory colleges of the sedici gonfalonieri and the dodici buonuomini made up the Tre Maggiori, the three highest executive offices of the commune. The offices of the Signoria were renewed every two months, the sedici every four months (before

1328, every six), and the dodici every six months. The sovereign authority that they exercised was delegated to them by the arti maggiori, the sedici compagnie armate, and the Parte Guelfa. 37 In its service to the Signoria, the chancery was divided into three parts, each managed by a notary-administrator. The notaio dei priori assisted with the executive matters of the Signoria; the notaio dettatore assisted the priori and the gonfaloniere di giustizia in all internal and external correspondence on behalf of the commune; and the notaio delle riformagioni was the

Signoria’s link to the consigli opportuni, the scrutiny and election of whose members were the responsibility of the priori, the gonfalonieri di giustizia, the dodici buonuomini, and the sedici gonfalonieri. The sedici were also served by a notary-administrator whose term coincided with those of the men sitting in the magistracy and who was not considered to be a part of the chancery; the buonuomini do not appear at any point to have had the support of a notary.28

It is important to bear in mind that within the chancery the notaio dettatore was the official head of his section alone, while the other two sections remained autonomous throughout the republican period. With the arrival of the humanist chancellors in 1382 however, the role of the chancellor became regarded as one of special importance. Thereafter chancellors appear as heads of the entire chancery, even if the institution remained de jure the sum of all the offices responsible for the everyday paperwork and administrative affairs of Florence’s executive offices and legislative councils.

The chancery was subject to many structural revisions over the course of the republican period as it gradually became a more complex and rationalized centre of administrative activity.

In many cases these changes were driven as much by a desire to increase efficiency as by political exigencies. As R. Burr Litchfield has shown, even as republican communal administration slowly progressed toward what we might today recognize as a “bureaucracy,” it

28 On the notaio dei gonfalonieri, Marzi, 660 f. 4. The Buonuomini were not aided by a notary. 38 was only with the beginning of the Duchy in 1532 that a fully bureaucratic administration would emerge.29

This dissertation aims to establish some of the groundwork for a comprehensive consideration of the evolution of the chancery as a response to political contingency and the needs of the government it served. Thus, I here suggest five major phases in the structural evolution of the republican chancery (c. 1250-1532) that account for those socio-political gestures between the popolo and the oligarchy that effected the balance of power in Florence.

Phase One: cir ca 1250-1282

Although communal documents are extant from as early as 1217, these were generally drafted on an occasional basis by private notaries on behalf of the commune. These early notary- administrators cannot be considered “officials” of the commune. It is not until during the government of the Primo popolo, begun in October 1250 and headed by twelve Anziani

(Elders), that notaries began signing their documents with official titles. Brunetto Latini in

February 1254 signs as “at present, the scribe of the Anziani and of the Commune, or the chancellor of the Florentine People” (nunc ancianorum scriba et comunis, seu populi florentini cancellarius),” and in February 1259 a certain ser Petrizolo signs as “notary for the writing of legislation” (notarius ad scribendas riformationes).30 Despite the fact that these notaries clearly identify their activities here as in the service of specific communal institutions, it remains unclear how their offices actually functioned. They do not appear to have been fixed posts.

29 Burr Litchfield, Emergence of a Bureaucracy. 30 ASF, Rif., Cap., 30, 185 and ASF, Rif., Cap., 29, 151. 39 Rather, the executive members of the commune seem to have nominated notaries to serve as needed and for unspecified lengths of time.31

Brunetto Latini acted in some kind of official administrative capacity from as early as

1250 or 1260, when he was sent on embassy to King Alfonso X of Castille to seek aid in

Florence’s war against Siena. After his return from six years of exile in 1266, evidence of his engagement in communal administration is more generous and we find him active in various official capacities. He was at once principal letter writer of the commune, recorder of the meetings of legislative assemblies, and drafter of approved legislation. At other times he acted as the general manager and scribe of the executive Anziani along with at least one other notary.

Thus, Marzi describes Brunetto Latini as in effect the first “chancellor” from as early as 1254 until 1294, and he was active in the role of notaio delle riformagioni from 1254 to 1280.

Phase Two: 1282 -1374

A second phase in the evolution of the chancery began after the discontinuation of the Consiglio degli anziani as the executive body of the commune and the introduction of the Priorato delle arti (Priorate of the Guilds) as its executive magistracy (it would remain in place until the end of the Republic). From this point on, a clear triadic division of duties appears in the chancery.

Three officials now shared the responsibilities of serving the executive – the notaio dei priori, the notaio delle riformagioni, and the notaio dettatore. These latter two officials had recourse from as early as 1282 to the aid of coadjutors. By as early as the mid-fourteenth century, also the notaio dei priori had recourse to coadjutors to aid him in his work. No office was secondary to

31 For other points open to debate about this early period of administration see Marzi, La Cancelleria, 18-19. 40 any other. Each office remained autonomous even if many duties might often have overlapped, which means these three officials must have worked in very close contact with one another. The office of notaio dei priori was a two-month tenure that coincided with the term of the priori themselves. The Notary worked, dined, and resided with the priori on the third floor of the

Palazzo della Signoria and was responsible for copying the minutes of their meetings and for writing all the acts and provisions issued during their term. The notaio delle riformagioni was in charge of recording the results of meetings of the legislative assemblies – the Consiglio del comune and the Consiglio del popolo – and for drafting legislation approved by these assemblies. He shared an office on the third floor of the Palazzo della Signoria with the notaio dettatore who was responsible for composing diplomatic letters on behalf of the Signoria in its capacity as the highest magistracy of the commune and for writing commissions and instructions for communal ambassadors. The offices of notaio dettatore and notaio delle riformagioni were the only senior-level administrative officials of the commune with de facto permanent tenure.

Phase Three: 13 74-1437

A third phase began in 1374 with the addition of a fourth office, the notaio delle tratte (Notary of the Elections), to the triadic structure. The addition of this office was a harbinger of a major political shift after the final popular government (1378-1382) was overthrown, initiating an era of lasting oligarchic hegemony.32 Officially, the new office was meant to relieve some of the

32 John Najemy refers to the government of this four years regime as the “final guild government,” in Najemy, A History of Florence, 166-161, 167. Chapter Four below treats the addition of this fourth office in more detail. 41 burdens of the notaio delle riformagioni by providing him with an aide who would manage the city’s electoral program and work under the purview of the office of the riformagioni as something more than a coadjutor. However, the first notary to hold the office of notaio delle tratte became chancellor in 1375 and simultaneously held both positions until 1408. From the year after its inception, the office was uncoupled from that of the notaio delle riformaggioni and accrued more institutional significance than that of mere auxiliary.

During this third phase the main offices of the chancery began in effect to be organized according to a specific hierarchy, even as the offices remained de iure autonomous. By unwritten agreement, the position of the notaio dettatore became the most authoritative of the four offices, perhaps by virtue of the public nature of the role. The offices of notaio delle riformagioni, notaio dei priori, and notaio delle tratte began to be considered secondary to that of the chancellor. Even today, it is not fully appreciated by scholars that all four offices together made up the complex of the chancery.33 Whereas before, the offices of the chancery had been quotidian, paper-pushing positions, the chancery and the office of the chancellor, in particular, came to be regarded as reflections of the prestige of the commune and the virtue of its citizens.

Such a humanist conception was an important part of the rationalizing process toward a more bureaucratic-like attitude.

Phase Four: 1437 -1494

33 Another change in this period was the division in 1376 of the duties of the chancellor; where the first chancellor was in charge primarily of the city’s foreign correspondence while domestic communications were left to the second chancellor. This division, however, lasted only one year. 42 During the fourth phase, chancery officials can be understood to be in the service of the ruling

Medici family which had wrested power away from the Albizzi oligarchs in 1434. The establishment of the Medicean age included a series of reforms and constitutional experiments.

In an unprecedented turn of events in 1437, the regime authorized then chancellor, Leonardo

Bruni (1410-1411, 1427-1444), to join the political ruling group by taking political office.34 In order to relieve the burden caused by the addition of political duties to his administrative ones, the chancellor’s office was divided into two sections. The so-called Prima cancelleria (the first chancery) was responsible for the diplomatic affairs of the commune and for supervising ambassadorial missions to foreign countries while another notary, as head of the Seconda cancelleria (the second chancery) became responsible for all relations with Florence’s subject territories.35 Among other major reforms occurring during this period was the suspension in

1483 of private ranks and titles like “notary” in favour of a more universal term: “secretary.”36

This seems aimed to promote the idea that administrators were entitled to act only in the name of the commune they served, that is, not in their own interests as private professionals. Such reforms were part of a general process of rationalization whereby an impermanent chancery of

34 Interestingly, the tendency amongst Florentines to consider communal administrators as illicitly involved in the politics of the commune becomes particularly conspicuous around this time. Florentines are seen more often to verbally or violently maintain that it was a violation of constitutional traditions for members of the chancery to enjoy political prominence (although I have been unable to find any wording in the statutes which suggests such a tradition). For example, one of the most powerful and hated of chancery officials at the centre of the Medicean regime, Giovanni Guidi (notaio delle riformagioni, 1477-1494), was tortured after the fall of the regime and then imprisoned for four years in the fortress at Volterra. All his goods were confiscated, and his sons were condemned with him. Robert Black recounts the measure taken against Giovanni Guidi in Black, Benedetto Accolti, 132-133. 35 This division had been attempted also in 1382 after the rise of the oligarchy and during the chancellorship of Coluccio Salutati but it was quickly revoked in 1383. Marzi, La Cancelleria, 196-197. 36 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 599-602. 43 private notaries that acted by virtue of the imperial recognition of their notarial qualifications became something approaching a permanent secretariat in service to what was increasingly becoming a more centralized “state.” In the lead-up to the ultimate collapse of the Medicean regime in 1494, the family began more seriously to attempt the reforms and practices that would, half a century later, shape the rationalized bureaucracy of the Medicean Duchy.37

Phase Five: 1494 -1532

The final phase of the republican chancery began with the collapse of the Medicean regime in

1494. The new regime planned to return to older models of authority where power was distributed among more than a single family, and accordingly introduced a complete overhaul of the chancery. Most of the reforms of this period had to do with the election and salaries of chancery officials. However, what Marzi considers to be most significant about the reforms following the expulsion of the Medici was their centralizing effect. Unlike earlier reforms, changes were made at the same time to every part of the chancery. “Thus, the chancery became more unified, while the cancelliere dettatore, who morally and implicitly became the head chancellor, acquired greater jurisdiction and authority.”38 Now, the cancelliere dettatore (no longer known as the notaio dettatore) became the official head and jurisdictional authority of all the chancery. Another significant reform in 1498 was the decree affirming that even non- notaries could be nominated as chancery officials, acquiring the authority to draft documents as

37 Brown, Bartolomeo Scala, passim. 38 “Così la Cancelleria acquista maggiore unità, il Cancelliere Dettatore, che moralmente ed implicitamente apparisce il Cancelliere capo, maggiore giurisdizione ed autorità.” Marzi, La Cancelleria, 280. 44 if they possessed a notarial investiture and had matriculated in the Arte dei giudici e notai.39 In

1499, a new ceremony was introduced whereby every two months, with the installation of the new Signoria, all members of the chancery, including the chancellor, were required to come before the new priori and swear an oath to serve them specifically.40 Overall, the reforms of this final period of republican administration had powerful centralizing and rationalizing effects, and, with the expansion and professionalization of the administrative class and the insistence on the idea that communal administrators were civil servants, not private professionals, they foreshadowed the ducal bureaucracy of the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Throughout the Florentine Republic, there was a distinction between the governing functions assigned to those called to exercise executive and legislative power and the auxiliary functions of those employed within the administrative organization of the commune, as is clear from the fact that managerial offices were not considered by Florentines themselves to be de iure political. The scope of these administrative offices was inherently auxiliary, and their officials were responsible for documenting the commune’s activities. Nevertheless, the administrators themselves have been left relatively neglected by scholarship. This may be in part because it is assumed that they did not really direct the work performed by their offices.41 That is, they wrote what they were told to write. However, it would be a mistake to overlook so quickly the influence of communal administrators in republican governance precisely because they were private professionals whose behaviours and actions could not have been anything but

39 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 280-281; also Brown, Bartolomeo Scala, 192 f. 72. 40 “Quando entra la nuova Signoria, la mattina, tornati che sono dalla massa, tutti e Cancellieri et Coadiutori, si rapresentano, et prima pel Cancelliere delle Tratte si dà un altro giuramento a’ Signori particulare.” Marzi, La Cancelleria, 619-621, 619. 41 For example, Brown, Bartolomeo Scala. 45 nonpartisan. An understanding of the salient characteristics of the workforce of the chancery is the task of the remaining three chapters of this dissertation. 46

CHAPTER TWO

An Impermanent Bureaucracy: The notai dei p r ior i, 1282-1532

This chapter reveals some of the office-holding characteristics of the workforce that staffed one of the offices of the chancery over the course of the republican period, the notai dei priori. It ends with a consideration of these characteristics in relation to those of the workforces that staffed the other two offices of the chancery and that demonstrated different characteristics.

I argue here that the guiding force behind the administrative organization of the chancery appears to have been a tension between the semi-permanent, rationalizing force of very few administrative agents and the impermanent, destabilizing force of hundreds of administrative agents who cycled through the chancery. This mode of operation is a system that I call

“impermanent bureaucracy,” an intentionally incongruous term that is meant to both convey a sense of the dissonance that existed across different workforces within the chancery and imply the resulting tensions that determined the rationality of administrative functions in general.

Despite the unwieldiness of the term “bureaucracy” in the context of republican Florence, I retain it here because, as we will see, there were some broad similarities between the Florentine administrative organization and what Max Weber describes as the “rational-legal” type of bureaucracy. The salient differences, I will argue, can be understood and analysed in light of the 47 impermanence of the administrative workforce as it existed in tension with those rationalizing characteristics of the Florentine administrative organization. While it is not my intention in this dissertation to wade into questions regarding “rationality” or the development of the “State,” my examination of the notai dei priori is constructed on the concepts and terminology of such discussions.1 As such, it is useful here to summarize some of the more salient points.

For Weber, the characteristics of administrative organization reflect the actual form of a given system of authority.2 He analyzes forms of authority in terms of three “ideal” types of legitimate rule – traditional authority, rational-legal authority, and charismatic authority.3 These

1 Recent scholarship on early modern England that draws on Weber’s concepts regarding bureaucracy is particularly useful for thinking about nascent forms of bureaucracy; in particular, Braddick, State Formation, who preserves the term “bureaucracy” for pre-modern contexts but appends the the prefix “proto-” because, unlike in modern contexts, the “terms [of office-holding] were relatively informal” and based on the dynamics of private association (quoted at 27). Furthermore, d’Avray, Rationalities is useful for considering the relationship between bureaucratic functionality and legitimate power through his demonstration, in particular, of the interconnectivity of Weber’s instrumental rationality (Wertrationalität) and value rationality (Zweckrationalität). 2 For what follows, see Weber, Economy and Society, esp. 212-241, 956-1109. 3 “Traditional” authority is based on a belief in “the sanctity of age-old rules and powers” and can be held by those considered to be the most steeped in traditional wisdom (gerontocracy). As forms of “traditional” authority become more complex, authority becomes based on the household unit, where the head of a family holds authority that has been transmitted from generation to generation by rules of inheritance (patriarchy). In the most complex form of “traditional” authority, domination is absolutely exercised as the singular right of whosoever holds authority, marking a clear distinction between ruler and subjects and legitimized by the household administration of the ruler (patrimonialism). Under “Rational-legal” authority, the individual who holds authority must himself be subject to the same impersonal norms as his subjects who themselves owe no personal allegiance to the ruler. They follow the individual’s demands only insofar as his specified jurisdiction allows. It is under this “legal” type that the “bureaucratic” administrative organization develops. Weber’s third type, “Charismatic” authority is wholly distinct from the other two in that it is based entirely extraordinary circumstances – that is, it can neither boast of a permanent system of administration nor is it concerned with the routine tasks of everyday life. 48 different types of authority are, in turn, aided by appropriate forms of administrative organization that develop according to the needs of the authority and function to legitimize that authority. Of course, these ideal types are abstractions. Historically speaking, the forms of administrative organizations lending legitimacy to specific authorities are as diverse as those varying authorities.4 In Florence, civic authority assumed different characteristics at different points. It slowly evolved from an aristocratic authority vested in the age-old power and influence of the magnati into an authority legitimized by the charismatic force of foreign rectors

(namely, the podestà, the capitano del popolo, and the esecutore degli ordinamenti di giustizia) and the language of association, until finally culminating in the authority of a restricted and largely merchant oligarchy. The administrative organization that legitimized this hybrid of authority types was equally complex. Generally speaking however, it appears that from the late thirteenth century the administrative legitimization of Florentine authority was partly generated through the private persons of notaries whose legal status as bearers of publica fides might be understood as facilitating a general acceptance to the authority of the Republic.

Even if Florentine administration cannot be considered conventional in the modern sense of the term, Weber’s “rational bureaucracy” provides a helpful vocabulary for establishing and discussing those aspects of the Republic’s administrative organization that were not rational and those that were. To that end, when considering the specific characteristics of the Florentine workforce of notary-administrators, it remains helpful to consider Weber’s formulations about what constitutes a bureaucratic organization.

Weber contends that an organization is bureaucratic based on its demonstration of specific characteristics relating to how officials are appointed and carry out their work: 5 1) they

4 Gerth and Mills, From Max Weber, 196-244. 5 Weber, Economy and Society, 220-221. 49 are organized in a clear hierarchy of offices and each office has a clearly defined sphere of competence; 2) they are subject to authority with respect only to their impersonal obligations, 3) their relationship to their office is free and contractual; 4) candidates are appointed by a superior authority on the basis of technical qualifications and not elected by the governed; 5) remuneration is in the form of fixed salaries; 6) the office is the sole, or at least, the primary occupation of the incumbent, constituting a career or a vocation; 7) officials do not consider their offices to be either legally or actually a source of rent or emolument and cannot appropriate their positions; and 8) officials are subject to strict discipline and systematic control in their conduct of the office. For the purpose of understanding the Florentine chancery, we can transpose Weber’s characteristics into five factors:

A) written rules specifying the duties of the workforce and governing its conduct and

remuneration (see 5 and 8 above)

B) appointment of the workforce based on a demonstration of competence (4)

C) a hierarchical organization of the offices of the workforce (1, 2)

D) a separation between personal and official roles, such that the office is not owned by

the official (3, 7)

E) a permanent workforce that carries out its duties on a regular basis (6).

The degree to which the administrative organization of republican Florence conformed to these criteria of bureaucracy varied. Since the managerial offices that assisted the commune’s most important political offices were governed by the general rules and regulations set out in the city’s statutes, Florence, for the most part, satisfies the criterion of having written rules specifying the duties of the workforce and governing its conduct and remuneration (A). Indeed, the statutes were occasionally revised with the aim to establish a kind of formal rationality, although this was often done in a piecemeal fashion, one office at a time. The criterion that employment within the administration be based on a demonstration of competence (B) is 50 satisfied by the fact that the city’s administrative workforce, as I have defined it above, was drawn exclusively from the city’s notariate (that is, at least until the 1480s when legislation permitted men without notarial investitures to work in what had been exclusively notarial administrative offices). Since all notaries shared the same basic knowledge and competencies, they were, to a degree, professional functionaries.

By contrast, however Florentine communal administration does not satisfy the criterion of having a hierarchical organization of the offices of the workforce (C) for it was organized by and large in a horizontal, not hierarchical, manner. The chancery in particular did not become significantly hierarchical until reforms enacted at the end of the fifteenth century, as we saw detailed above. Nor does it demonstrate a clear separation between personal and official roles

(D). Most Florentine managerial agents considered the work that they performed to be a professional service they provided as private practitioners and not a civic duty that they performed as employees of the state. They often considered their holding of an office to be a source of rent or emolument.

Florentine administration clearly demonstrated a degree of bureaucratic coordination in its satisfaction of certain criteria. If we consider the degree to which the administration manifested the criteria of having a permanent workforce that carries out its duties on a regular basis (E), things become a bit more complicated. Examination of this factor is difficult, and the exact makeup of the administrative workforce of Florence and its permanence have remained for the most part unknown. In this chapter, I address this question specifically in terms of the workforce of the chancery. While the positions of notaio dettatore and notaio delle riformagioni were effectively permanent offices with some officials serving for decades in these roles, the position of notaio dei priori was, by contrast, subject to turnover every two months, ensuring that many notaries would occupy the position over time. Theoretically, a small number of notaries could have served as notai dei priori many times and in as rapid succession as the terms 51 of office would allow. In so doing, they could have contributed a sense of permanence to this particular office of the chancery and, working in concert with the two other permanent officials of the chancery, they could theoretically have contributed to a “bureaucratic” workforce that lent stability to an inherently unstable system of government. Indeed, such a hypothetical situation would coincide with scholarly consensus about the administrative workforce of the Florentine commune; namely, that a small core of notary-administrators circulated rapidly through the administrative offices of the commune to ensure some sense of permanence and stability.6

A simple quantitative analysis of the group of notaries who held tenure of the office of notaio dei priori over the course of the republican period (1282-1532) instead confirms an extremely high degree of “impermanence” among the administrative agents of this office throughout the republican period. In contrast with general assumptions that a more centralized political authority will generate a more fixed bureaucratic apparatus, the data about the notai dei priori shows that this position did not become more permanent. If anything, it became even less permanent during periods of oligarchic hegemony and as Florence expanded into a more centralized, territorial city-state. The chapter concludes then with a discussion of why an oligarchic authority of patricians would be content with an impermanent administrative workforce, rather than seek to secure control through the regulation and restriction of administrative offices. I suggest that the workforce dynamics of administrative offices like that of notaio dei priori were tied up in specific socio-political realities of Florence, namely in the

6 Guidubaldo Guidi’s statement is representative: “In the government of Florence, the diverse chanceries had a [role of] notable importance because, in the rapid succession of magistrates and council members, they represented the sole element of continuity” (Nel governo di Firenze le diverse cancellerie avevano una notevole importanza perché, nel rapido succedersi dei magistrati e dei consigli, rappresentavano il solo elemento di continuità.). Guidi, Il governo della città-repubblica I, 41. However, also see Banti, “Per la storia della cancelleria.” 52 tensions that formed between popular and oligarchic interests and on the specific consensus- building approaches practiced by the oligarchy as a means of securing its hegemony.

The Office of notaio dei p r ior i

The office of notaio dei priori was one of three administrative offices that made up the

Florentine chancery. There were periodic changes in the way the office functioned, but there are some basic procedural aspects that remained the same throughout the republican period. For example, the notary’s term coincided with the two-month term of the Signoria he served. He was responsible for writing all the acts and provisions issued during the Signoria’s tenure and for sending letters to offices or private individuals within the commune on behalf of the

Signoria.7 The notary lived, ate, and worked alongside the priori on the third floor of the

Palazzo della Signoria for the duration of his two-month term, enjoying all the same rights, immunities, and privileges as the priori, but unlike the priori the notary was compensated for his time in office.

For the period before 1282 it is hard to determine the precise functions and remuneration of notaries who served the executive magistracy of the Anziani, given the lack of relevant documentation. However, after the creation of the Priorato delle arti, and in the last decade of the thirteenth century in particular, reforms of the notarial office serving the commune’s executive magistracy provide some particulars. In order to be chosen for the position as notaio

7 Marzi, La Cancelleria, passim; Guidi, Il governo della città-repubblica II, 35-36. For more on the other members of the Signoria’s familia, Brucker, “Bureaucracy and Social Welfare.” Letter-writing in the name of the Signoria was one of the duties of notaio dei priori which sometimes overlapped with the duties of the notaio dettatore who was tasked with writing letters to on behalf of the commune specifically. 53 dei priori, prospective notaries had to be Florentine citizens eligible to hold political office and

(after 1355) at least thirty years of age. The notary’s purpose was to serve as principal scribe and secretary to the Signoria, which consisted of the priori and the gonfaloniere di giustizia. The earliest indications of his precise function are found in a reform approved on 6 April 1299 where the notary is explicitly charged with recording all deliberations, appropriations, and policies within three days of their approval by the Signoria in designated registers kept in a locked cabinet on the third floor of the Palazzo della Signoria.8 At the end of every two-month priorate and upon his exit from office, the notary was responsible for depositing the records and acts he wrote with the guardiani degli atti (“Guardians of the Acts) in the Camera dell’arme (the

“Treasury of Arms”) just two floors below in the Palazzo della signoria.9 Until the beginning of

8 See the provvisione edited by Marzi in La Cancelleria, 532-535, quoted at 533-534. “Said Notary is required to write and keep all the appropriations and provisions made by the lords Priors and the Standard-bearer; he is required to write all the acts that concern and regard his office, both in the name of the Florentine Commune and of private persons […] and all the letters, appropriations, and provisions that the Notary records for the Commune of Florence must be written and published within three days […] and acts made for previous Priors and Standard-bearers, and also all other acts which are not deposited at the Treasury of the Florentine Commune, must be stored in a cabinet which shall be and shall be made to be in the home where these Priors and Standard-bearers live […] and the keys of said cabinet will remain in the hands of the incumbant lords Priors and the Standard-bearer.” (Et quod dictus Notarius scribere, teneatur, et debeat, omnia et singula stantiamenta et provisiones que fierent per ipsos dominos Priores et Vexilliferum […] tam pro factis Communis Florentie quam etiam singularium personarum et facere omnia et singula que pertinent et spectant ad suum offitium, et que fuerint eidem dicta et iniuncta seu precepta per Priores et Vexilliferum […] et quod omnes scripturas, stantiamenta, et provisiones que et quas idem Notarius fecerit pro comuni Florentie infra tertium diem teneatur scribere et ponere in actis […] et quod ipsa acta, ac etiam, omnia alia acta que non essent in Camera Comunis Florentie, facta per preteritos Notarios Priorum et Vexilliferi, reponi debeant in quodam armario, quod fiat, et fieri debeat, in domo in qua morantur ipsi domini Priores et Vexillifer […] et quod claves dicti armarii debeant esse et stare penes dominos Priores et Vexilliferum qui pro tempore fuerint.) 9 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 537. 54 the fifteenth century, the notaio dei priori was also charged with keeping records of all actions concerning the commune’s ambassadors and that had been approved by the Signoria and the colleges (election of ambassadors, the dates of their embassies, their payments, etc.).10 However, in practice it appears that these particular duties often overlapped with the activities of the notaio dettatore, who also wrote directly to the commune’s ambassadors from as early as

1308.11 The notary was required to draft documents without charge for the Signoria as well as for any private citizens indicated to him by the Signoria and his salary was fixed at twenty-five lire for two months. This provision was revised in March 1320, when notai dei prioi were permitted to charge up to 20 soldi for every notarial act they drafted for private citizens. For this reason, the actual salary any notary might have earned while in office was subject to fluctuation.

Until the end of the fourteenth century there was the possibility that the offices of notaio dei priori and notaio dettatore could occasionally be held simultaneously by the same notary. In terms of functionality, this practice likely allowed for a more seamless operation of administrative activities that often overlapped. The offices of the notaio dei priori and of the notaio dettatore technically provided auxiliary support and service for the same magistracy, the

Signoria. In practice, however, the operations of the two offices were distinct. The notaio dei priori was charged with the documentation of executive activities on behalf of the Signoria for which he had been elected to serve during their two-month term. The notary drafted acts and wrote letters on behalf of the Signoria on matters only within the jurisdiction of the priori and the gonfaloniere and only for their limited term of office. The notaio dettatore worked often for decades in close proximity to every successive two-month Signoria in their capacity as

10 In 1355, the Statuti del Podestà 1, rubric 57 tasks the notaio dei priori with this particular duty. The Statutes of 1409 appear to shift these duties to the chancellor. 11 Beginning with ASF, Missive I Cancelleria, 1. 55 represtantives of commune. Yet, unlike the notaio dei priori, the notaio dettatore functioned on behalf of the entire commune and every successive Signoria. The notaio dettatore exercised an important role in the representation and assertion of the authority of the Florentine commune not only outside but also within the city walls. Despite their differing representational roles, the actual duties of both officials often overlapped in practice and when he was not himself serving as the notaio dei priori, the notaio dettatore would have worked in physical proximity to whatever notary was holding that office in order to ensure continuity. The practice of the same notary occasionally holding both the offices of notaio dei priori and notaio dettatore continued until the beginning of the fifteenth century.12

The process of election to the office of notaio dei priori was also subject to reform over the course of the republican period. These changes are partly indicative of the ways in which the office of notaio dei priori was located not only within the administrative organization but also within the larger complex of communal government. In some ways, reforms of electoral procedures for this particular administrative office are indicative of how it was seen to function on the cusp of what was deemed political. As we will see, processes of selection/sortation for this administrative office began over time to mimic those processes of selection/sortition in place for the executive offices. This mirroring suggests that electoral politics guiding the selection of the commune’s executive magistracies pertained to some degree also to the auxiliary functionaries who served those executive magistracies.

12 See Marzi, La Cancelleria, 43-44, where he makes a point of discussing this tendency. Incidentally, also notaries serving in the office of notaio dei sedici gonfalonieri (which was not considered an office of the chancery) might simultaneously serve as notaio dei priori or notaio dettatore, at least until the early fourteenth century when they were prohibited by statute from doing so. 56 At first, selection for the office of notaio dei priori was informal and apparently based entirely on who knew whom.13 The incoming priori would arbitrarily choose a single notary from amongst the entire Florentine notariate. However, the mode of election and some specific parameters of the office seem to have become problematic within the first two decades of the

Priorato delle arti. The April 1299 reform mentioned above address three specific issues: first, the fair election of notaries to the office of notaio dei priori; second, the suspension of the notary’s private practice while functioning as the notaio dei priori; and finally, the allocation of a fixed salary to the notaio dei priori in order “to prevent grievances” (ad tollendas querelas).14

The first issue seems to have been a concern about a lack of notarial representation from all the city’s different sestieri (the six subdivisions of the city; quartieri were introduced after

1343). The reform stipulates that the priori had to extract by lot the sestiere from which they would choose one notary “ex melioribus et magis ydoneis” (from amongst the better and best suited).15 For the subsequent election of the next notary, the sestiere of the incumbent notary was set aside, and the new priori would extract by lot the next sestiere to supply a notary, thus allowing for notaries from all parts of the city to hold the post. The second issue dealt with in the 1299 reform suggests that the notarial community actively sought for the commune to clearly demarcate those functions they performed on behalf of the government from their private

13 There is little information regarding the election of the notaio dei priori before the Ordinamenti di giustizia (1293). Salvemini, Magnati e popolani, 384-432, 391. 14 “[…] in order that the election of the Notary of the lords Priors of the guilds and of the Standard- bearer of Justice be seen to be fair; and in order that the requests which are daily made to these elected Notaries cease, and in order for the removal of the quarrels and aversions which are made because of the paying of the salaries of these Notaries […]” (ut in electione Notarij dominorum Priorum Artium et Vexilliferi iustitie observetur equalitas et, ut cessent rogamina que cotidie fiunt de ipsis Notariis eligendis et ad tollendas querelas et abhominationes que fiunt propter exactionem salariorum ipsorum Notariorum). The reform is edited in Marzi, La Cancelleria, 533-535, 533. 15 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 533-535. 57 activities as practitioners of the notarial arts. From this point forward, those serving in the office of notaio dei priori were restricted from drafting documents for private parties unless under the explicit command of the priori themselves.16 Instead, they would now earn a fixed a salary (the third issue addressed in the reform) of twenty-five lire. Another significant point found in this reform is in the stipulation that forbade notaries from serving in any communal office for at least one year after they had completed their tenure as notaio dei priori, a divieto (exclusion) similar to those in force for executive positions.17

The 1322-25 statutes established a divieto of two-years before a notary could again hold the position of notaio dei priori.18 Thus, after 1325, there were divieti of two different sorts placed on the office of notaio dei priori: a general one that precluded the notary from holding other communal offices, and a specific one determining the period of time before which a notary could serve in the same office of notaio dei priori again. The existence of the more general divieto reveals an anxiety about a concentration of power in the hands of a few people that, interestingly, extends beyond political office-holding to include major administrative offices as well. The 1322-25 statutes further spell out that once the sestiere of the succeeding notary had been chosen by lot, the incoming priori would nominate “four of the best and most suitable

16 Only with the say-so of the priori could the notaio dei priori extract a fee for notarial services. 17 “And that this Notary of the lords Priors and of the Standard-bearer, from the day of departure from office, for one year, cannot be elected to any office of the Commune of Florence, and if he should be elected, the election is not valid” (Et quod ipse Notarius dominorum Priorum et Vexilliferi, a die depositi offitij ad unum annum, non possit eligi ad aliquo offitium Comune Florentie, et, si electus fuerit, non valeat electio). Marzi, La Cancelleria, 533-535. 18 “[…] that notary shall have a divieto of two years in said office from the day of his departure” (qui notarius devetum habeat in dicto officio per duos annos a die depositi officii). In Caggese, et al., Statuti I, 73. 58 notaries of that sestiere.”19 The one receiving the most votes would be appointed to the position.

The selection process for the position of notaio dei priori thus combined chance (choosing the sestiere by lot), nomination (direction from the priori), and election (voting amongst the priori).

In 1328, minor changes were made to the process of election to the office of notaio dei priori that coincided with the major reform of 1328 that established the institution of general scrutiny and sortition for all communal offices with specifically political functions.20 Although the priori still reserved the right to nominate their own notary, this was now done by secret ballot on the day of their election to office and before they exited the sala grande (today, the

Sala dei Dugento) of the Palazzo della Signoria where they had been sworn in to their new office.21 At least five priori had to be present and the notary had to have the approval of at least two-thirds of those present. The notary’s specific divieto was increased to three years; that is, he had to wait three years before serving in the office of notaio dei priori again. Further, he could not simultaneously be notaio dei gonfalonieri di compagnia, nor hold that position for at least one year after his tenure as notaio dei priori, and vice versa.

19 “The Priors and the Standard-bearer of Justice shall elect said notary, a Florentine citizen, matriculated and living in the sestiere in which he was elected. And it shall be done in no other way than by choosing by lots from which sestiere he is to be elected; and in that sestiere, which was decided upon by lot, four of the best and most suitable notaries of that sestiere are to be elected, and whichever one has more votes shall be the Notary. And thus it shall proceed in turn, by lot, until the election of said notary has been celebrated in every sestiere” (Qui Priores et Vexillifer iustitie dictum notarium eligant civem Florentie allibratum et habitantem in sextu pro quo fuerit electus, faciendo per sortes in quo sextu eligi et esse debeat et non aliter, et in eo sextu, in quo per sortem venerit, eligant quatuor notarios de melioribus et magis ydoneis eiusdem sextus, et qui plures voces habuerit sic notarius; et sic per ordinem et per sortem procedatur quousque in quolibet sextu fuerit electio dicti notarii celebrata). In Caggese, et al., Statuti I, 73. 20 On the introduction of sortition in Florentine electoral processes see Najemy, Corporatism and Consensus, 99-125. 21 Described in Demetrio Marzi, La Cancelleria, 65-66. 59 It was not until 1339 that sortition was introduced into the electoral process for the office of notaio dei priori.22 Already introduced for all political offices in 1328, sortition was a formal process by which the names of those eligible for political office, after having been vetted and approved by special scrutiny committees, were drawn by lot from electoral bags. The process of sortition has been identified with the election for positions with political force. It is significant then that this process was extended to the office of notai dei priori, which did not in and of itself possess any political force. In fact, the office of notaio dei priori was one of the few managerial offices subject to sortition, suggesting the perceived, tacit political force of this administrative office. Now there were six (and after 1343, four) separate bags for each sestiere (or, quartiere after 1343). Prospective notaries had to go through a special scrutiny and their names were placed according to sestiere into bags from which the incoming priori would draw a name. After

1339, not only was the sestiere supplying the notary chosen at random but, so too was the name of the notary who would serve. The rotation by lot of sestieri, and later, quartieri, continued for the duration of the republican period.

In 1343, the general divieto on notaries serving as notaio dei priori increased to two years to match the two-year specific divieto; that is, they could serve neither as priore, gonfaloniere, nor as notaio dei priori within two years of having served as notaio dei priori.23

These divieti were reinforced in the 1355 redaction of the Statutes, when notai dei priori were also required to wait six months before taking any political office whatsoever on pain of a fine: one hundred lire for whoever elected the notary and two hundred lire for the notary who accepted.24 The prospect of not only notai dei priori, but notary-administrators in general,

22 ASF, Provv., reg., 30, 97r et seq. The provision is examined and edited in Marzi, La Cancelleria, 70, 549-552. 23 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 74-75. 24 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 84-85. 60 holding elected (imborsate) positions too soon after their tenures in managerial administration, and vice versa, continued to be a real source of anxiety during the last quarter of the fourteenth century, as these prohibitions were revisited and new, higher fines imposed.25

In 1407, divieti were placed on all of the notary’s consorti (blood-relations) through the paternal line.26 No consorte of any notary could hold any of the offices of the Tre maggiori during the notary’s tenure, and vice versa. Many of the regulations for the notaio dei priori in the 1409 redaction of the Statutes for the most part correspond to that of 1355.27 The 1409

Statutes describe the scrutiny procedures for communal offices in much more detail than the

1355 Statutes.28 It is here we learn that new scrutinies of eligible notaries for the office of notaio dei priori were held every five years.29 The scrutiny committee consisted of the notaio dettatore

(chancellor), the notaio delle riformagioni, the notaio delle tratte, the frati of the Camera delle armi, and whoever else the Signoria desired. Secret, the scrutiny had to occur in the sala grande in the presence of the Tre maggiori and the podestà (or his first judge, or the capitano del popolo, or the esecutore degli ordinamenti di giustizia). A few years later in 1414, it was decided that the division of notaries by quarter into four different bags would no longer be the

25 Heavy fines were also imposed on the Notary who did not register acts properly or promptly hand over his register of acts upon leaving office. See Marzi, La Cancelleria, passim. 26 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 118. The provision is found in ASF, Provv., reg., 65, 59r-66r. The prohibition on consorti was reconfirmed in 1378, see, ASF, Provv., reg., 67, 20r and again in 1407, see ASF, Provv., reg., 96, 131r. 27 For example, he had to be at least thirty years old; he was subject to a general two-year divieto from the offices of the Signoria; neither he, nor his coadjutor/s, could serve at the same time in any other elected office without the approval of the Signoria; none of his consorte could serve as priore nor as one of the dodici buouomini or sedici gonfalonieri; etc. ASF, Statuto 1409, 1vB-5rA. Additionally, in 1377 there were three coadiutori employed as aids to the notaio dei priori. 28 For a comparison of the 1355 and 1409 redactions, see Tanzini, Statuti e legislazione, 113-122, 114 (on the explication of electoral mechanisms in 1409). 29 ASF, Statuto 1409, 1vB-5rA. 61 norm; instead, the existing notaries in the original four bags were mixed together in a single bag, albeit with the usual distinctions by quarter on the name slips. Extractions for the office of notaio dei priori from this point on were made from one bag.30

Throughout the fifteenth century, minor changes and some suspensions were periodically imposed on the process of scrutiny for future notai dei priori. Most of the changes made to the election of the notaio dei priori mirrored reforms in the election process for the priori, and signal how intertwined the boundaries between these particular administrative and political offices (that of notaio dei priori and priori) were becoming. For example, in 1433 a balìa confirmed the election of the so-called accoppiatori, magistrates with extraordinary powers charged with overseeing the scrutiny of eligible candidates for the Signoria. These accoppiatori also became responsible for determining the names of notaries eligible to become notaio dei priori. In 1466, a balìa confirmed that for the next ten years, the priori and their notaio would be elected by the ten accoppiatori. The selection of the notai dei priori happened once a year, when the accoppiatori chose by secret ballot from a restricted list that had been compiled by the accoppiatori themselves the names of the next five eligible notaries to serve in the office.31 In 1495, the newly created Consiglio maggiore, which guided the elections of the

Signoria, was charged with choosing the new notai dei priori. After 1512 however, there was a return to the institutional practices from the period between 1432 and 1494, and from 1512 until the Republic’s end in 1532 the notary was again elected by accoppiatori.

30 ASF, Provv., reg. 104, 34r. 31 The process is described in more detail in Marzi, La Cancelleria, 233-234. 62 The Administrative Workforce s of t he C ha ncer y

This particular office of the chancery was characterized from its beginning in 1282 until the end of the Republic until 1532 by the high turnover of officials. The office’s short terms of tenure mirrored the short terms of political tenure of the commune’s executive offices. The near complete lack of continuity in this office’s workforce complicates a scholarly assumption that has never been fully substantiated: that despite the rapid turnover of administrative and political offices in Florence there was a small group of permanent bureaucrats who lent stability to a system of political office-holding based on short-term, amateur tenure. The rest of this chapter will demonstrate how at least in the case of the chancery, the senior-most administrative institution of the Republic, permanence was not a guiding force. There were two effectively

“permanent” officials heading two of the three offices of the chancery. The third office was staffed by an impermanent and ever-broadening workforce of notary-administrators. The guiding force behind the administrative organization of the chancery appears instead to have been a tension between the semi-permanent, rationalizing force of very few administrative agents and the impermanent, destabilizing force of hundreds of administrative agents who cycled through the chancery. Rather than demonstrating the long-term presence of a select group of career administrators, a comprehensive study of the workforce the Florentine chancery uncovers a large provisional workforce in one chancery office that grew, surprisingly, to become even more transient over time.

If we understand bureaucratic permanence as a situation where the same officials cycle through a given office with the least amount of turnover that is allowed under communal statutes (which, in most cases, stipulated a period of ineligibility after a tenure) then, by contrast, bureaucratic impermanence can be understood as the continuous turnover of offices among single-term agents, or agents who would serve once and never again. 63 Ta b l e 2.1: Degrees of Permanence and Impermanence

Permanence Impermanence

Maximum tenures held by multiple-term agents Maximum tenures held by single-term agents (Minimum agents overall) (Maximum agents overall)

Degrees of near maximum bureaucratic permanence characterized two of the three offices of the chancery: that of the notaio delle riformagioni and of the notai dettatore. In two hundred fifty years, there were twenty (20) notai delle riformagioni and nineteen (19) notai dettatori.

Table 2.2: Tenure Duration of “Permanent” Republican Chancery Officials

Notai delle riformagioni Notai dettatori [1254-1260], [1254-1260] Brunetto Latini Brunetto Latini [1267-1280] [1267-1295] 1295-1301 Bonsignore di Guezzo da Modena 1280-1314 Chello Baldovini 1301-1335 [1314-1316], Graziolo di Corrado da Modena Corso di Gherardo 1301 1316-1334 1335-1341 Folco d’Antonio di Bonsignore di Guezzo Naddo Baldovini 1335-1340 1342-1345 Orlando Fantucci da Modena [1341-1342] Ventura Monachi 1340-1348 Cardino di Dino da Colle 1345-1348 Niccolò Monachi 1348-1375 Pietro di Grifo da Pratovecchio 1348-1378 Coluccio Salutati 1375-1406 Viviano di Neri di Viviano Viviani dei Franchi da 1378-1414 Benedetto Fortini 1406 Sambuco Martino di Luca di Martino da Fabiano 1414-1429 Pietro di Mino 1406-1410 1410-1411, Filippo di Ugolino Pieruzzi da Vertine 1429-1444 Leonardo Bruni 1427-1444 Filippo di Andrea di Balduccio da Lucca 1444-1457 Paolo Fortini 1411-1427 Leone di Francesco Leoni da Prato 1457-1458 Carlo Marsuppini 1444-1453 Alberto di Donnino di Luca 1458 Poggio Bracciolini 1453-1458 Bartolomeo di Guido Guidi da Pratovecchio 1458-1477 Benedetto Accolti 1458-1464 1464-1494 Giovanni di Bartolomeo Guidi da Pratovecchio 1477-1494 Bartolomeo Scala [1494-1497] Antonio di Battista Bartolommei 1494-1495 Pietro Beccanugi 1494-1498 Niccolò di Simone Altoviti 1495-1499 Marcello Virgilio Adriani 1498-1521 Francesco di Ottaviano d’Arezzo 1499-1514 Alessio Lapaccini 1522-1531 Iacopo Modesti da Prato 1515-1527 Francesco Campana 1532 Silvestro Aldobrandini 1527-1532

64 However, the opposite was the case for the third office of the chancery, the office of notaio dei priori, where nine hundred eighteen (918) different notaries held tenure of the office over the course of two hundred fifty years. By means of a quantitative analysis of data collected about officeholders of the office of notaio dei priori for the republican period, it is possible to examine the varying degrees to which the workforce of the office of notaio dei priori can be characterized as impermanent.

The data pertaining to the tenures of the office of notaio dei priori is found in the

Prioristi volumes compiled by the commune (in particular by the notaio delle riformagioni).

These contain the names of all priori, gonfalonieri di giustizia, and their notai listed chronologically.32 Demetrio Marzi chronologically inventoried all the names of the notai from the Prioristi and from other sources (where the Prioristi were lacking) and published them in an appendix to his La Cancelleria della Repubblica fiorentina.33 Using Marzi’s lists, and in order to more easily manipulate the evidence about administrative office-holding, I created a digital database of the notaries who held tenure of this office. Since Marzi’s notai are listed by year, his appendix can be unwieldy for users looking for specific notaries. Thus, an alphabetical list generated from my database of all the notaries and the years in which they served is included in

Appendix I.

The parameters of a two-month incumbency meant that on average there were six (and occasionally seven) tenures of the office notaio dei priori every year. For the entirety of the

32 Guidi, Il governo della città-repubblica II, 32. 33 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 483-513. Marzi compiled this information primarily from the archival fonds, “Priorista di Palazzo,” found in the State Archive of Florence. He supplemented the information he found there with a number of sources, including (for up to 1343) the lists of notai dei priori in Stefani, Cronaca Fiorentina and (for up to 1432) in Rastrelli, Priorista Fiorentino. 65 republican period (1282-1532), there were 1516 total tenures of the office of notaio dei priori. 34

These tenures were held by 918 different notaries. This means that on average every one of 918 notaries held just over one-and-a-half (1.65) tenures of the office; that is, more than three of the six tenures every year were typically in the hands of a notary who had never served in that office before. Thus, more than three notaries were introduced into the office every year. The only two exceptions were in 1305-6 and in 1484, when all six notaries holding tenure during those years had previously served in the office at least once.

Throughout the republican period, the majority of this office’s workforce was constituted by notaries that had never before held the office. That is, new notaries consistently held over half the total number of tenures every year.

For this workforce, a maximum degree of permanence would entail zero new notaries per year, continuing year after year to be as close to zero new notaries as allowed by divieti imposed on the office. By contrast, a maximum degree of impermanence would entail six

(occasionally seven) new notaries every year, with absolutely no repetition. In its actual functioning, the office of notaio dei priori fell somewhere within these two boundaries. If there was a permanent, core group of managerial agents who remained in constant service to the commune, then the office of notaio dei priori, with its critical function of assisting a limited- term executive magistracy, ought to have witnessed high rates of repeat tenure by the same notaries. That is, the names of the same notaries ought to dominate the lists of notai dei priori in order to allow for the highest degree of permanence possible. Thus, even despite extremely high numbers of individual tenures (i.e., six different tenures every year), a small cadre of preferred notaries could theoretically have monopolized the position through repeat tenure. However, the

34 The office of notaio dei priori was operative for two hundred fifty years. 66 data show that of the total number of notaries who held tenure over the course of the Republic, well over half (60%) held tenure only one time.

Ta b l e 2 . 3 : Percentages of I n d i vi d u a l n o t a i with 1 or more T e n u r e s

918 Notaries of the Priors 1282-1532 4 – 7, 3 6% 10% >1, 1 40% ONLY, 1 60% 2 24% 60%

The other forty percent (40%) constituted notaries who held tenure more than once: twenty-four percent (24%) served twice, ten percent (10%) served three terms, and six percent (6%) served more than four (and never more than seven) terms. There were only two seven-term notaries, and both held their tenures between 1282 and 1299, when the first regulations regarding the selection of notaio dei priori were in force.35 Given than sixty percent of this workforce was composed of single-term notaries who would never again serve the priori, it is clear that the office of notaio dei priori existed in a state between permanence and impermanence with a significant lean toward the latter. However, the data collected on the workforce of the office of notaio dei priori allows also for the specific examination of trends in the degrees of impermanence demonstrated by this workforce over specified periods of time.

For example, points on the graph in Table 2.4 below refer to the percentage of the total number of notai every decade who served multiple-terms in a given decade. That is, the graph

35 The notaries were: Marco Consigli who served in 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1291, and 1294 and Bonaiuto Galgani who held tenure in 1282, 1283, 1285, 1290, 1293, and (the exception) 1301/02. 67 shows the ratio of the total number of notaries who served in a given decade and are known to have served several times in that same decade. Typically, there were anywhere between fifty and sixty different notaries who served within the space of ten years.

Ta b l e 2.4 : Notaries with more than one (1+) tenure each DECADE

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 38.50% 40% 30% 19.60% 20.00% 15.70% 20% 10.90% 8.80% 10% 1.70% 3.40%

1332 1422 1512 1292 1302 1312 1322 1342 1352 1362 1372 1382 1392 1402 1412 1432 1442 1452 1462 1472 1482 1492 1502 1522 1282

For example, in the ten-years from 1292 to 1301, thirty-eight percent (38.5%) of all the notai held more than one tenure during that decade. This percentage rapidly decreases in the succeeding decade (beginning in 1302) to sixteen percent (15.7%). The data show that from the outset, the workforce of this office was marked by high degrees of impermanence. Only as much as 38.5% of all notaries every decade would ever serve multiple terms. After 1302 the ratio of notaries serving only once every decade consistently remains below twenty percent

(20%). The workforce employed in this office did not become more permanent. Simple linear regression analysis of the data suggests that if anything there was a slight overall increase in the degree of impermanence. Table 2.5 presents the numerical complement of Table 2.4, showing the percentage of notai every decade who only served once during that decade.

68 Ta b l e 2.5: Notaries with only 1 (1) tenure in each DECADE

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

1292 1302 1312 1322 1332 1342 1352 1362 1372 1382 1392 1402 1412 1422 1432 1442 1452 1462 1472 1482 1492 1502 1512 1522 1282

Table 2.6, shows these percentage in terms of actual numbers.

Table 2.6: Actual Notaries Every Decade

% of % of Notaries with Total # of Notaries Notaries with Notaries Decade ONLY 1 notaries with ONLY 1+ tenures with 1+ tenure 1 tenure tenures 1282 - 1291 30 19 63.3% 11 36.7% 1292 - 1301 39 24 61.5% 15 38.5% 1302 - 1311 51 43 84.3% 8 15.7% 1312 - 1321 51 44 86.3% 7 13.7% 1322 - 1331 52 44 84.6% 8 15.4% 1332 - 1341 57 50 87.7% 7 12.3% 1342 - 1351 56 48 85.7% 8 14.3% 1352 - 1361 51 41 80.4% 10 19.6% 1362 - 1371 51 41 80.4% 10 19.6% 1372 - 1381 59 57 96.6% 2 3.4% 1382 - 1391 59 58 98.3% 1 1.7% 1392 - 1401 59 57 96.6% 2 3.4% 1402 - 1411 57 52 91.2% 5 8.8% 1412 - 1421 55 49 89.1% 6 10.9% 1422 - 1431 53 48 90.6% 5 9.4% 1432 - 1441 55 50 90.9% 5 9.1% 1442 - 1451 54 48 88.9% 6 11.1% 1452 - 1461 57 53 93.0% 4 7.0% 1462 - 1471 58 56 96.6% 2 3.4% 1472 - 1481 55 49 89.1% 6 10.9% 1482 - 1491 58 56 96.6% 2 3.4% 1492 - 1501 50 40 80.0% 10 20.0% 1502 - 1511 52 44 84.6% 8 15.4% 1512 - 1521 55 51 92.7% 4 7.3% 1522 - 1532 57 52 91.2% 5 8.8%

69 As we see, there were fifty-one (51) invidual notaries who held tenure of the office of notaio dei priori between 1302 and 1311. Of these fifty-one, only eight (8) individual notaries would go on to hold another tenure of the same office again within that decade. A glance at the

“Notaries with 1+ tenures” column in Table 2.6, reveals how from 1372 until 1491, the total number of notaries every decade to hold multiple tenures in a given decade consistently remained well below six with an average of only four (3.8) repeat notaries every decade.

Looking again at Table 2.4, we see that during the thirty years spanning 1372 and 1401

(beginning in 1372, 1382, and 1392) as well during the years between 1462-1472 and 1482-

1492, the workforce exhibited degrees of near maximum impermanence, when less than five percent (5%) of all notai held more than one tenure during those years. The ten years between

1382 and 1391 saw near maximum impermanence with only one of fifty-nine notaries (1.7%) serving multiple times that decade.

These extremely high degrees of impermanence might be considered as corresponding with major political upheaval or regime change. The decade from 1372 to 1381, which saw only two repeat notaries, was marked by the Ciompi revolt in 1378 and the final popular government

(1378-1382). In 1382, the Abizzi oligarchy succeeded in establishing a lasting hegemony until

1432 when the Medici family wrested power from them. It was around 1382 that the office- holding class for the city’s executive magistracies also widened.36 Consistently low degrees of impermanence would continue to characterise this workforce until the decade beginning in 1492 when suddenly as many as ten different notaries held multiple tenures that decade. In 1494, the

Medici were expelled from Florence and the “Florentines were suddenly faced with the task of reinventing their government and political order.”37 Ten repeat notaries in the span of a decade

36 This will be discussed in further detail below. 37 Najemy, A History, 381. 70 represents a marked contrast in the character of the workforce since the number of multiple-term notaries in that office hadn’t been so high in over a century (since 1362), indicative of a return, beginning in 1492, to the workforce’s original characteristics of relatively more permanence.

If we understand the functional state of a bureaucratic workforce as a spectrum that ranges from its maximum re-employment to its maximum turnover (or maximum permanence to maximum impermanence) then the workforce serving the Signoria exists in relative, but consistently high degrees of impermanence. Of course, this does not immediately preclude the idea that a small percentage of notaries holding multiple tenures could not theoretically have held the office so frequently so as to provide continuity through regular, repeat tenure. As we saw in

Table 2.3 above, over the course of two hundred fifty years, just under half of all notai dei priori held multiple tenures (40%) and their regular presence as multiple-term notaries could theoretically have counteracted the periodic disruption of irregular tenure by single-term notaries.

However, the same data also demonstrate that an average of ten years passed between a notary’s first and second tenure and while the period of hiatus did gradually decrease as a multiple-term notary accumulated more tenures, no notary ever served within four years of having previously held tenure of the office. This is in conformity with the special divieto mentioned above whereby all notai had to wait at least two years before they could once again hold tenure of the same office.

Ta b l e 2 . 7 : Average Time Between T e n u r e s

6th-7th 4.5 5th-6th 4.1 4th-5th 6.1 3rd-4th 7.7 2nd-3rd 8.9 1st-2nd 10.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

71 Table 2.7 shows the average number of years that passed between tenures held by multiple-term notaries. On average, multiple-term notaries (only 40% of the total workforce) had to wait ten

(10.2) years before they would hold the office a second time, nine (8.9) years before their third tenure, and so on. For all multiple term notaries (40% of the total workforce), there was an average hiatus of 6.26 years between tenures. Such long hiatuses between tenures would necessarily have worked against any strong sense of continuity or permanence of service within the office. Despite the fact that multiple-term notaries did not typically serve within six years of their previous tenure, it is still important for a comprehensive understanding of this workforce’s relative degrees of impermanence that we consider the ratio of notaries who served multiple terms within shorter and longer periods of time than ten years. As we see below, the data consistently show the same trends toward impermanence even when organized and analyzed for shorter periods of time (five years) and longer periods of time (twenty years).

Table 2.8 shows the data refined into periods of five years, which demonstrate even higher degrees of impermanence.

Ta b l e 2 . 8 : Notaries with only 1 ( b l u e ) A N D 1 + ( r e d ) every FIVE YEARS

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0% 26.7%

20.0% 14.8% 15.4% 6.5% 7.1% 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 7.1% 3.2% 0.0% 1282 1332 1382 1432 1482

72 As we see, beginning around 1300, the total number of notaries serving multiple terms in any given five-year period remains consistently below ten percent (10%) of the entire workforce

(excepting for two periods: 1327/1332 and 1502/07). As to be expected considering what we know about the average hiatus between terms, at seventeen distinct points in two hundred fifty years, the workforce demonstrated a maximum degree of impermanence (see the blue markers at

100% impermanence in Table 2.8).

Given how, as we saw earlier, multiple-term notaries were absent from the office an average of ten years before they would again hold tenure, it comes as no surprise that the percentage of notai who actually held multiple tenures within a five-year period remains somewhere between zero and ten percent (10%). It should be noted that such slight changes in the degrees of impermanence make it hard to venture any historical justification for variation within such short periods of time. Even still, whether the data is analyzed according to ten- or five-year periods of time, simple linear regression (the black dotted line) demonstrates how the gradual trend over time toward impermanence is a consistent within the data set.

We can anticipate the ratio of multiple-term notaries serving within periods of twenty- years to be somewhat higher given the fact that, as we have seen, less than half of all multiple term notaries held more than three tenures (16% of all multiple-term notaries, see Table 2.3 above) and these tenures occurred within a period of six (6.26) years on average. As in the ten- and five-year analyses, the ratios of single- and multiple-term notaries continue to demonstrate persistent degrees of impermanence with a gradual trend toward higher levels of impermanence.

73 Ta bl e 2 .9: Notaries with only 1 ( bl ue ) AND 1+ ( re d) every TWENTY YEARS

100% 93.9% 80%

60% 44.83% 40% 25.27% 23.16% 20.20% 18.63% 20% 14.56% 6.14% 8.77% 0% 1282 1302 1322 1342 1362 1382 1402 1422 1442 1462 1482 1502 1522

Here, where we see the ratio of notaries serving single- and multiple-term tenures within periods of twenty-years are relatively higher and the line of regression sloping toward maximum impermanence is more pronounced. Interestingly, the two decades between 1382 and 1402, the peak of the Albizzi regime, witnessed the highest percentage ever of single-term notaries within the space of twenty years at ninety-four percent (93.9%).

In the tables above, we see how the data pertaining to notai dei priori for a two-hundred- fifty-year span of time can be analyzed according to three different parameters of time (five-, ten-, and twenty-year periods). In all three of those different ways of representing the data, the regression lines clearly mark a slope, albeit modest, toward maximum impermanence. Although gradual, this visible trend toward greater impermanence seems paradoxical given the fact that, as many scholars have shown, Florence was continually engaged in processes of territorialisation during this period as the commune steadily evolved into an early modern city- state.38 Such processes, it has been argued, led to the greater centralisation and rationalisation of

38 On Florence’s territorial expansion, the bibliography is extremely large. For fourteenth-century expansionist policies in particular see Paolo Benigni, “L’organizzazione territoriale dello stato fiorentino nel ‘300” in Gensini, La Toscana nel secolo XIV, 151-63; and also Scott, The City-State in Europe, 119- 74 the administrative organization of Florence and, one would expect, the greater continuity of its workforce. However, the statistical data for this office provides us with proof of a general tendency that, over time, this administrative workforce was characterized by an increase in the number of single-term notaries and thus, a decrease in its relative permanence.

This tendency in fact mirrors a trend in the data relating to the political office-holding class, namely those who held tenure of executive offices within the Signoria. In his work on the

Tratte records, David Herlihy found that “the number of citizens actively seeking [political] office increased continuously, even spectacularly, from the early fourteenth to the late fifteenth century,” which he found puzzling given the fact that it was during this period that the political system of the Republic became steadily more oligarchic.39 “How could the number of citizens holding high office constantly grow [...] under regimes commonly regarded as oligarchic?”40

John Najemy explains that from the earliest years of the Republic, oligarchic dominance in Florence was tempered by the rise of the popolo, “coalitions of nonelite merchants, notaries, artisans, and shopkeepers organized in guilds and federations of guilds.”41 At various points in

Florentine history, the ideology of the popolo offered an alternative to elite power. Especially in the fourteenth century, popular movements and intermittent surges of guild republicanism repeatedly and often successfully presented challenges to oligarchic hegemony, to which the elite responded through the manipulation of the electoral process and the re-deployment of the

128. On Florence’s territorialisation more generally, a very good bibliography can be found in Connell and Zorzi, Florentine Tuscany. 39 David Herlihy, “The Rulers of Florence” in Molho, et al., City States in Classical Antiquity, 197- 221. 40 David Herlihy, “The Rulers of Florence” in Molho, et al., City States in Classical Antiquity, 197- 221, 197. 41 Najemy, “The Dialogue of Power” in Molho et al., City States in Classical Antiquity, 269-288, 270. Also see Rubinstein, The Government of Florence. 75 popular ideology of broad participation in the service of oligarchic hegemony. Thus, the rapid turn-over of personnel in the magistracies meant that the corporatist standards of broad-based, political participation were being met because many new families were drawn for offices.

However, it remained the case after 1382 especially that those who were drawn for political office never acquired the force of permanence to significantly influence policy. Thus, even as the appearance of distributed political power satisfied the corporatist demands of the guild community, the control of political power nevertheless remained in the hands of a select cadre of elite families.

When it comes to administrative offices, the scholarship usually suggests that a system of rapidly circulating offices would have needed the stability offered by an experienced bureaucratic workforce. “In the government of Florence, the diverse chanceries had a notable importance because, in the rapid succession of magistrates and council members, they represented the sole element of continuity.”42 Notary-administrators are assumed to have been members of a small corps of seasoned notaries who, even as they rotated quickly in and out of the same offices, lent stability to the everyday functioning of the government through their recurrent presence. Statistical analysis of those notary-administrators who rotated into the office of notaio dei priori however suggests a widening of this administrative office-holding group that paralleled the widening of the political-office holding class.

As we saw earlier, through various reforms over time, the office became subject to electoral dynamics similar to those in place for the executive office it served. While it was not within the scope of this dissertation to examine the exact relationship between the members of

42 “Nel governo di Firenze le diverse cancellerie avevano una notevole importanza perché, nel rapido succedersi dei magistrati e dei consigli, rappresentavano il solo elemento di continuità.” Guidi, Il governo della città-repubblica, 41. 76 the magistracy and their auxiliary workforce (that is, the priori and their notaries), the operational and electoral relationships between the two offices, political and administrative, certainly would merit futher investigation. Even as the electoral dynamics of this administrative office mirrored those of the political office it served, the office of notaio dei priori technically remained one of three main pillars of the administrative organization of the chancery. It appears then, that in the chancery, bureaucratic force was sustained by a deliberate dynamic of purposive tension between the stability of its effectively permanent officials (the notaio delle riformagioni and the notaio dettatore) and the changeability of its third office (notaio dei priori), which was staffed by an ever-expanding workforce of notaries.

An Impermanent Bureaucracy

The impermanent workforce of this office within the chancery remained in tension with the de facto permanence of the other two offices of the chancery. The dissonance arising out of the operational relationship between chancery workforces are, I suggest, indicative of a system that I call “impermanent bureaucracy.” For Weber, a bureaucracy that underpins rational-legal authority must exhibit a permanent workforce dedicated to administrative functions alone. In more rudimentary forms of administrative organization (like those associated with traditional or charismatic types of authority), the administrative staff, when there is one, is subordinated by ties of personal allegiance to a master while the tasks of its members are ambiguously defined and subject to modification as needed by the ruler. As we have already seen, neither of these types fits the reality of Florentine authority or administration. While the administrative organization of the Florentine chancery had many features of a rationalized bureaucracy, some specific characteristics counteracted what rationalizing characteristics it did have. 77 For example, on the one hand, administrative privileges and duties, although periodically redefined, were based on relatively impersonal norms of communal legislation. Yet, on the other hand, many if not most of the members of the administrative workforce were private professionals who casually and only temporarily worked for a government from which they remained professionally independent. That is, the members of the Florentine administrative workforce were not professionally subservient to the government they served. They carried out their duties not as a civic service to the commune, but rather as a form of commission because it was their professional prerogative to do so. As we have seen, this was an attitude that began to change especially after 1382. Further, neither does it appear that this “private” workforce operated with any reliable permanence. Rather, the workforce that constituted the office of notaio dei priori became more transient over time as oligarchic authority became steadily more entrenched. In fact, it appears that under oligarchic regimes there was a tendency to intensify the already inherent tensions between permanence and impermanence in the chancery. This is evident in the simultaneous expansion of one workforce within the chancery (that of the office of the notaio dei priori) and the measured limitation of the other two workforces of the chancery

(those of the offices of the notaio delle riformagioni and the notaio dettatore). However, the distinction between permanent and impermanent workforces in the chancery was heightened also through changes in practices of office-holding across the three offices of the chancery.

Where the notaio delle riformagioni, always a foreigner, was never called on to serve in either of the other two offices of the chancery, it was commonplace (as already suggested) until the end of the fourteenth century for the notaio dettatore, or members of his family, to hold tenure also of the office of notaio dei priori. Every chancellor from 1282 to 1375 held tenure of the office of notaio dei priori at least once. Chello Baldovini, notaio dettatore from 1295 to

1335, was notaio dei priori six times. Chello’s younger brother, Renaldo Baldovini, notaio dettatore after his brother’s death in 1335 until 1342, served as notaio dei priori twice. Ventura 78 Monachi, notaio dettatore from 1342 until his death in 1348, was notaio dei priori once while his son and coadjutor, Niccolò Monachi, who succeeded him as notaio dettatore in 1348 and remained in that position until 1375, was notaio dei priori five times.

Ta b l e 2 . 1 0 : Chancellors as notai dei priori

chancellor: 1254-1260 and 1267-1280 Brunetto Latini notaio degli anziani, the executive magistracy before 1282 chancellor: 1295-1335 Chello Baldovini notaio dei priori: 1289, 1292, 1295, 1296, 1299, 1301 chancellor: 1335-1340 Renaldo Baldovini notaio dei priori: 1314, 1318 chancellor: 1340-1348 Ventura Monachi notaio dei priori: 1330 chancellor: 1348-1375 Niccolò Monachi notaio dei priori: 1343, 1350, 1362, 1371, 1377 chancellor: 1375-1406 Coluccio Salutati sons were notai dei priori: B. Salutati (1418), A. Salutati (1425, 1446, 1456) chancellor: 1406 Benedetto Fortini notaio dei priori: 1381, 1402, 1406 chancellor: 1406-1410: Pietro di ser Mino father and grandfather were notai dei priori: Dominco di Mini (1368), Mino di Domenico (1393, 1401)

Beginning after 1375, the presence of chancellors or the families of chancellors in the office of notaio dei priori began to abate considerably until, by the first decade of the fifteenth century, the practice was entirely abandoned. Only Benedetto Fortini, who died only nine months after becoming chancellor, had previously served as notaio dei priori. Neither his predecessor nor his successor, Coluccio Salutati and Pietro di ser Mino, were ever notai dei priori even if members of each of their families had been. No chancellor after Pietro di ser Mino served as notaio dei priori or had any family members that served in that office. Thus, even as the office of notaio 79 dei priori was opened up to more notaries, its workforce was also gradually alienated from those of the other two offices of the chancery.

More than half of all “second chancellors” (an office initiated in 1437) until the end of the Republic in 1532 had previously served as notaio dei priori before becoming second chancellors.

Ta b l e 2 . 1 1 : Second Chancellors as notai dei priori

second chancellor: 1437-1453 Giovanni di Guiduccio di Riccio de Montevarchi notaio dei priori: 1427, 1436 second chancellor: 1459-1475/1488-1499 Antonio Muzi notaio dei priori: 1452 second chancellor: 1475-1488 Niccolò di Michele di Feo di Dino notaio dei priori: 1448 Francesco Gaddi second chancellor: 1494-1498 second chancellor: 1498 Alessandro Braccesi notaio dei priori: 1474 Niccolò Machiavelli second chancellor: 1498-1512 Niccolò Michelozzi second chancellor: 1512-1520 second chancellor: 1520-1531 Lorenzo Violi notaio dei priori: 1522, 1524 Ludovicus Peraccinus second chancellor: 1532

In the case of the second chancellors, we might consider that some were chosen for their office partly on account of the fact that they had previous chancery experience as notai dei priori.

Again, this occasional crossover between the offices of the chancellor/second chancellor and notaio dei priori did not extend to the office of notaio delle riformagioni, which was staffed 80 exclusively by “foreign” notaries.43 Indeed only one Florentine notary, Alberto di Donnino di

Luca, served as notaio delle riformagioni (in 1458) and had previously been notaio dei priori (in

1445 and 1452). He was acting as a temporary substitute.44

Not only would chancellors acting as notai dei priori ensure a degree of continuity within the chancery, they could also boast a high degree of administrative experience, offering a kind of stability on account of their long-time observation of and involvement in communal governance. Yet, beginning in the last decades of the fourteenth century (that is, at the beginning of what is now considered by scholars to be oligarchic hegemony), the permanent and impermanent workforces of the chancery offices were brought into even more tension with one another as the workforce that constituted the notai dei priori became more transient and detached from those of the other chancery offices. The oligarchic regimes of the fifteenth century then may be said to have been engaged not only in the reorganization of the political as well as its administrative office-holding classes. That is, as the political office-holding class within the Signoria widened, the administrative base of one of the three offices of the chancery also grew. The acute differentiation between the workforces of the chancery might be considered as having encouraged the hierarchical distribution of chancery offices and the professionalization of the specific offices of chancellor and notaio delle riformaggioni. While permanent, seasoned, erudite, and widely-celebrated administrators tended to the most consequential business of state, everyday notaries were invited to serve on occasion for two- month terms and return then promptly to their private practices.

43 The requirement that the notaio delle riformagioni be “forensis” was in place as early as 1325. See Marzi, La Cancelleria, 545, where he provides an edited rubric from the Statuto del Podestà on the election of the notaio delle riformagioni. 44 Black, Benedetto Accolti, 92. 81 Professionalization of the administrative workforce was also at work at the level of ideology. The regular employ, after 1375, of civic humanists as chancellors coincided with an ideological process that enhanced their status from that of mere notaio dettatore to cancelliere dettatore. Where the term “notaio” indicated someone who independently practiced a profession for public or private actors, the term “cancelliere” generally indicated someone adept at the specific duties of public office, that is the public presentation and drafting of letters to sovereigns, courts, or more generally communities. Shortly after 1375 the civic humanist chancellors (no longer exclusively notaries) came to portray themselves as high-ranking civil servants professing a new ethic of civic service equal to the solemnity of their positions. The way in which humanist chancellors conceived of their position is well documented in various recent studies on individual civic humanists.45 In the second half of this dissertation, I examine the careers and textual production of two notai dettatori who served immediately prior to the civic humanist chancellors in order to show how tensions between stability and instability, often derived from the socio-political dynamics between popular and oligarchic interests, gave shape to the habitus of fourteenth-century administrative officials.

45 For example: Petrucci, Coluccio Salutati; Martines, The Social World; Witt, Coluccio Salutati; Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads; Brown, Bartolomeo Scala; De Rosa, Coluccio Salutati; Black, Benedetto Accolti; Cardini and Viti, Coluccio Salutati e Firenze. 82

CH AP TER THREE

Ventura Monachi

This chapter examines the notary-administrator and Trecento chancellor Ventura (Bonaventura)

Monachi and his lyric poetry.1 Ventura was born sometime between 1288 and 1292 and died in the great plague year of 1348.2 He had an active career in communal administration from as early as 1312 and in 1340 he assumed the position of notaio dettatore in the chancery. Except for the short interlude of the signoria of Walter of Brienne (1342-1343), Ventura retained the position of chancellor until his death in 1348 when the Signoria immediately transfered the office to his son, the notary Niccolò Monachi, who had been Ventura’s coadjutor since 1340.

Ventura’s poetry, written in dialogue with other Trecento lyricists, is here examined as a mode of sociability that allowed him to negotiate concerns about professional, political, and administrative unpredictability and navigate the socio-political dynamics that shaped the various fields within which he operated during the first half of the fourteenth-century.

1 This chapter benefitted greatly from my time working under Carolin Berhmann’s supervision as a pre-doctoral fellow of the project, “Nomos des Bilder: Manifestation und Ikonologie des Rechts.” 2 The most recent biography is in Dizionario biografico, s.v. “Monachi Bonaventura” (by Raffaela Zaccaria). Also see, Inglese, et al., Letteratura italiana, 1797; Dornetti, Aspetti e figure, 152-154; Corsi, Rimatori del Trecento, 61-76; and Sapegno, Poeti minori del Trecento, 23-26. 83 In fourteenth-century Florence, many of the communal administrators who staffed the administrative organization of the Republic had been educated in the notarial arts. Their education implied the internalization of certain habits, skill sets, and modes of thoughts that amounted to a professional mentality shared by all notaries. This mentality can be considered in terms of what Pierre Bourdieu calls a “bureaucratic habitus,” insofar as notary-administrators, much like modern-day bureaucrats, acted as intermediaries between governors and the governed.3 They acquired and deployed “symbolic power” and thus regulated and maintained what constituted legitimate authority through the community.4 As communal administrators, notaries implemented, oversaw, and managed the dictates of the Florentine government on an everyday basis. They wrote statute, legislation, and official acts. They kept registers containing the names of citizens eligible for political office, the monies paid into the communal debt, the public holdings of confiscated properties, the budgeting and expenditure of communal funds, etc. However, they were also involved in the legitimization of Florentine authority at the level of civic ideology. For example, the vast majority of the verses and epigrams that are known to have accompanied civic imagery in public spaces were written and commissioned by the communal administrators who operated in those spaces and observed what happened there on a daily basis.5

3 Bourdieu, “Rethinking the State;” Bourdieu, “What Makes a Social Class?” Although Bourdieu claimed not to have read Antonio Gramsci until later in his career, Bourdieu’s theories about symbolic domination evoke Gramsci’s theories about hegemony. See Bourdieu, In Other Words, 27-28. 4 For Bourdieu, “symbolic power” refers to trends of social/cultural domination which are embedded within the modes of action and structures of cognition of a given society and function to confirm its social hierarchies. 5 Morpurgo, Un affresco perduto. 84 Although notary-administrators operated within what Bourdieu refers to as the “field of power,” they also retained the habitus of other social fields of which they were members.6 This is an important feature of the administrative mentality in Florence, for it allowed notary- administrators to deploy the language of legitimacy more effectively across many different fields of Florentine society. That is, an ability to speak the languages of different social fields enabled administrators to successfully communicate across the boundaries of the fields of

Florentine society the legitimacy of Florentine authority.

The formation of a general notarial habitus, or even a general notarial mentality, may be said to have begun during a notary’s education in the notarial arts. After his matriculation, a notary might then dedicate his career, or a part of his career, to the concerns of a private

Florentine company or bank, or even to the administrative and judicial concerns of a single guild.7 Another might spend much of his career engaged in drafting and keeping records of the contracts, bills of sale, testaments, etc. of individual members of his neighbourhood or community.8 Thus, notaries might move from one field of activity into another, or even work in two different fields of activity simultaneously. In all of these cases, notaries shared a set of dispositions in so far as they were all notaries. Active at all levels of Florentine society, notaries also acquired the languages and dispositions of the fields in which they were employed.9

Notary-administrators effected the legitimization of Florentine authority as much as they were themselves shaped in their role as administrators by the socio-political dynamics of that

6 For Bourdieu, habitus is acquired through interaction with other agents within single or, more often than not, multiple social or cultural fields. 7 As, for example, ser Bartolo di Neri. See Sergio Tognetti, “Ser Bartolo di Neri da Ruffiano, Giovanni Villani, e il fallimento della compagnia perugini” in Tribunali di mercanti, 1-27. 8 For example, Biagio Boccadibue. See De Angelis, et al., Biagio Boccadibue. 9 As for example, ser Matteo di Biliotto. See the edition of one of his registers, Soffici, Ser Matteo and Soffici and Sznura, Ser Matteo. 85 authority. Ultimately, experience and action within different fields determined the way in which bureaucrats acquired and deployed symbolic power in service to the forms of authority in

Florence. For example, much of Ventura Monachi’s poetic production at different points in his life treats themes that show him dealing in the idioms and concepts drawn as much from different fields as his own. His poetry also shows him contributing to the making of a civic ideology through the use of language he subsumed while working in other fields. A sonnet of his that was painted in a public space will be given ample consideration toward the end of this chapter. His lyric poetry, moreover, constituted a highly stylized mode of sociability that demonstrates how this particular notary and chancellor engaged with friends, fellow citizens, and foreigners. In this chapter, I examine Ventura’s poetry as an expression of his habitus, revealing important aspects of how he understood his own social/cultural role, first as a recently matriculated notary, then as a communal administrator, and finally, during his term as a chancellor.

Much of Ventura’s poetry expresses an abiding concern with impermanence in all of its many forms: unpredictability, instability, risk, chance, fortune, the unknown, etc. We have already seen in earlier chapters the institutitional dynamics of impermanence, in particular the tensions between permanence and impermance within the chancery. Ventura’s sonnets demonstrate how the act of writing poetry became a means of negotiating the unpredicatibility of his field, his place of work, and his society. In his youth, as we will see, Ventura treated the prospect of impermanence with apprehension. As a notary-administrator employed by the popular government of 1343-1348 in one of the most permanent, senior offices of the commune however, he would deploy the language of impermanence as a stabilizing force that legitimized the guild-republican ideology of the regime.

86 Civic Poetry as Mode of Sociability

In scholarship Ventura has been considered primarily for his status as a minor poet of the

Trecento, especially as a writer influenced by the tre corone (Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio).10

Such an approach has occasionally been supplemented by an interest in the stylistic, rhetorical, and linguistic modifications he made to the epistolary practices of the chancery.11 Until very recently, the only complete critical edition of his lyrical oeuvre and of his vernacular chancery letters remained a 1903 edizione di nozze by Adolfo Mabellini.12 Since that edition, Ventura’s lyrical compositions (all of which are sonnets, some of them sonnet-exchanges) have generally been considered stylistically unsophisticated, earning him limited praise as a minor poet within the Italian lyric tradition.13 In her 2017 edition of the sonnets, however, Selene Maria Vatteroni argues for a greater scholarly appreciation of Ventura’s corpus and, in particular, for critical appreciation of his decisive role in early Trecento coteries involved in the production of vernacular love lyric.14

For example, Ventura’s love sonnets indicate that he and Francesco Petrarca (1304-

1374) were aware of one another’s lyric production and, indeed, were influenced by one another as they responded to and echoed each other in verse. Ventura’s appreciation of Petrarca is

10 Especially, Sapegno, Poeti minori del Trecento, 23-26 and Corsi, Rimatori del Trecento, 61-76. 11 On his chancery style, see Ronald Witt, Coluccio Salutati, 29. 12 Mabellini, Sonetti editi. 13 As Giuseppe Corsi writes, “few verses are actually his and there are only a few love sonnets; his sonnets of correspondence are more numerous: but it can be said that none raise themselves above even a respectable mediocrity” [poche sono le rime veramente sue e pochi i sonetti amorosi; più numerosi i sonetti di corrispondenza: ma si può dire che nessuno si levi al di sopra di una decorosa mediocrità] in Rimatori del Trecento, 62. 14 Vatteroni, Ventura Monachi. 87 visible in his sonnet, Come Atteon si fé subito servo which was likely written in response to

Petrarca’s treatment of the figure Acteon in Canzoniere 23: Nel dolce tempo de la prima etade.15

Vatteroni maintains that Ventura directly addresses the younger poet in his lines, “Di ritornar in uom modo non veggio: / come, saggio messer, voi ne richeggio” (I cannot see a way to return to human form: and so I ask you, wise sir, how to do so).16 Furthermore, Vatteroni sees echoes of

Ventura’s Come Atteon in select sonnets of Petrarca’s Canzoniere, all datable to after Ventura’s death in 1348: for example, Ventura’s phrase “ond’io son fatto fera” (where I have become a wild animal) is repurposed in Petrarca’s “et son fatt’una fera” (and I have become a wild animal) in Canzoniere 287, on the death of Senuccio del Bene; and in Petrarca’s “ond’io son fatto un animal silvestro” (where I have become a wild animal) in Canzoniere 306, on the death of Laura. Ventura, who probably became acquainted with Petrarca through their mutual friend

Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375), was one of the first poets to respond to Petrarca’s lyric poetry and was thus partly responsible for the early popularity of Petrarchan verse.17

The evidence in his lyric poetry that he was highly aware of other poets demonstrates

Ventura’s active engagement in the highly sociable mode of vernacular lyric production. In the early fourteenth-century Florentine mode of civic poetry, sonnets were never mere expressions of individual creativity. Poetry was written with specific social motivations and circulated among specific communities of readers often with specific individual addressees in mind.

Allusions to the verses of another poet were not coincidence or formulaic nor were they considered illicitly appropriated. Rather, they were open invitations for other poets to respond

15 For a translation of Ventura’s sonnet, see Appendix II, 14. 16 “I cannot see a way to return to human form: [and so] I ask you, wise sir, how to do so.” For the poem and its translation, see Appendix II. Also, Vatteroni, “Eine Episode.” 17 Vatteroni, Ventura Monachi, 4-10. On Ventura’s friendship with Giovanni Boccaccio, Branca, Giovanni Boccaccio, 64, 79, 96. However, Branca does not clarify the nature of this friendship. 88 and contribute to a tradition of poetic dialogues. Versifiers could assume that their poems would circulate among friends and perhaps even more widely. They added their compositions to the repertoire of Florentine poetry, a repertoire that was also anthologized on an ad hoc basis in personalized miscellanies and manuscript collections. Florentine poets were aware that their poems were a part of a wider civic dialogue that found form in the poetic mode. Often, poets chose to echo in their own lyric production the verses of other poets and they did so purposefully with the knowledge that their own verse would be read in conjunction with and often in response to the poem being cited. The intrinsic dialogism of this kind of verse, well described by Claudio Giunta, is explicit in the common practice of sonnet exchanges where one poet-interlocutor, addressing a sonnet to another, would expect to receive a lyric response from the recipient.18 In these and other ways, civic poetry was a sociable exercise in which communities of readers and writers with a common set of social values sought to strengthen their social networks and engage in acts of cultural negotiation and accumulation of cultural capital that would help them to establish legitimacy both as poets and as citizens active in other fields of society.

The reception and interpretation of poetry written in this dialogical context was unstable and unpredictable, something about which the poet Dante Alighieri was highly suspicious and indeed, contemptuous.19 The basic dialogism of this mode of sociability invited a mixture of

18 Giunta, Versi a un destinatario. 19 Especially in Dante, De vulgari eloquentia 1, 13: “After this, we come to the Tuscans, who, made senseless by their own aberration, seem to lay claim to the honour of possessing an illustrious vernacular … Think of Guittone d’Arezzo, who never set himself to vernacularize in a way worthy of court, think of Bonagiunta the Lucchese, Gallo of Pisa, Mino Mocato the Sienese, or Brunetto (Latini) the Florentine, all of whose poetry, if there were space to examine it, would be found in great part not ‘courtly’ but ‘municipal.’” (Post hec veniamus ad Tuscos, qui, propter amentiam suam infroniti, titulum sibi vulgaris illustris arrogare videntur … puta Guittonem aretinum, qui nunquam se ad curiale vulgare 89 consent and dissent, and responses were often playfully dissenting and purposefully undermining. In this way, verse communities functioned as sociable venues for Florentines to participate in dialogues regarding current affairs. We might see the arena of civic poetry functioning in much the same way as did, for example, the politically-charged, practiced space of the Piazza della Signoria.20 If the piazza was a physical site where consensus and dissent could be in dialogue, a “place where the normative structures of social ordering were legitimated and contested,” the practice of municipal poetry was a cultural “space” for the fashioning and refashioning of symbolic meaning and social power.21

As agents engaged in the creation and recreation of the socio-political order around them, fourteenth-century Florentines had many different mediums available to them to participate in that ordering. These might include rituals like armaggerie (chivalric tournaments), the public swearing in of foreign officials, or the processions held every two months for incoming priori. Or, Florentines could put pen to paper, effectively engaged in processes of social ordering and political dialogue. Some wrote ricordi, or ricordanze, family books that passed from father to son and carried a degree of legal value. Others wrote unauthorized, civic chronicles recording their impressions of the events around them. Others wrote verse, presenting public and private concerns within a traditional repertoire of idioms, rhythms, and forms. The accumulation and projection of symbolic power within these and other practices of sociability were an integral part of Florentine civic life. By these means, citizens could engage with one

direxit, Bonagiuntam lucensem, Gallum pisanum, Minum Mocatum senensem, Brunettum florentinum: quorum dicta, si rimari vacaverit, non curialia, sed municipalia tantum invenientur.) See Ascoli, Dante and the Making and Steinberg, Accounting for Dante. 20 On its “practiced space” see Stephen J. Milner, “The Florentine Piazza della Signoria as Practiced Place” in Crum and Paoletti, Renaissance Florence: 83-103. 21 Quoted at idem., 103. 90 another to establish legitimacy within the social fields to which they themselves belonged or within which their associative groups operated. Such techniques of sociability in Florence also registered many of the tensions at play in the larger socio-political sphere.

The Career of a Notary - Administrator

Ventura Monachi was born sometime in the last decades of the thirteenth century. Nothing certain is known about his parents, his family background, or his childhood years.22 Decades after Ventura’s death in 1375, an accuser came forward alleging that Ventura had been the son of a member of the high-ranking Ghibelline family from the Valdarno, the Ubertini.23 However, given the frequency at which Florentines and their families during the 1360s and 1370s were accused of being Ghibellines, the assertion that the Monachi were members of the Ghibelline

Ubertini family ought to be considered only tentatively. The first extant record of Ventura’s matriculation at the Arte dei giudici e notai comes in 1316 but, it was in fact a re-

22 In Ventura’s matriculation record, the phrase “olim filius Monachi” indicates that his father was named Monaco. Under the entry “Monachi, Bonaventura” in the Dizionario biografico, Raffaela Zaccaria maintains that Monaco was also a notary, but I have not been able to find any evidence to corroborate this. 23 This accusation is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Four below. Carlo Sebregondi in the twentieth century found a record of the notarial investiture of a Monaco d’Ildebrandino degli Ubertini in February 1289 at the parish of San Giorgio in Montalbino just outside of Florence. Another possible Monaco might be the illegitimate son of Guglielmo degli Ubertini, bishop of Arezzo and leader of the Ghibelline forces at the battle of Campaldino in 1289. This Monaco was in Florence until at least 1303, when he was exiled, and his name registered in the Libro del Chiodo as a Ghibelline. Nevertheless, it is perhaps best to err on the side of caution regarding the origins of the Monachi family, especially considering the fact that the patronymic “Monachi,” as Demetrio Marzi points out, was really quite diffuse in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; see Marzi, La Cancelleria, 81 f. 2. 91 matriculation.24 He must have been working as a notary since at least April 1312 when he was notaio della gabella dei contratti (Notary of the duty on contracts), an office that required both investiture as a notary and matriculation in the guild.25 If, in 1312, Ventura had already reached the age of enrolment in the Arte dei giudici e notai – twenty – then he may have been born around 1292.26

As a young notary in the office of the Gabella dei contratti in 1312, Ventura was responsible for keeping track of the duties paid on bills of sale of moveable and immoveable property, as well as duties paid on contracts of usufruct and exchange, testaments, dowries, etc.

His presence in communal administration at what seems to have been a relatively early point in his career as a notary suggests an acknowledged proficiency in notarial and administrative functions. There is no documentation detailing Ventura’s life and career between 1316 and

24 ASF, AGN, 6, 35v. “I, Bonaventura, the son of Monaco and Florentine notary public according to the form of the provision of the lords consul of said Guild, subscribe myself to this new matriculation list and I copy down my usual sign; in the one thousand three hundred sixteenth year from the reincarnation of the Lord, in the fourteenth indiction, on the twenty-first day of June.” (Et ego Bonaventura, olim filius Monachi, notarius publicus florentinus, huic nove matricule, exsequens formam provisionis dominorum Consulum dicte Artis, me subscripsi, et signum meum apposui consuetum, sub anno Domini ab incarnatione millesimo trecentesimo sextodecimo, indictione xiiij, die vigesimo primo iunii). There are two more extant matriculation records for Ventura: ASF, AGN, 6, 31r (1338) and Marzi records another matriculation in 1340 in ASF, AGN, 21, 7v. The latter register, though restored, is badly water-damaged and the relevant pages are now completely faded. Incidentally, Marzi also records that Ventura was consigliere of the Arte dei giudici e notai in 1338 however this information was also contained in the same badly damaged register and is no longer visible. See Marzi, La Cancelleria, 79 f. 5. 25 ASF, Dip., 1312 apr. 28. In Florence, a notary had to be registered with the Guild before he could begin officially acting as a notary in his own right, so Ventura must have matriculated in or sometime before 1312. 26 Some Florentine notaries received special dispensation to matriculate in the guild at seventeen or eighteen. Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft, 34. Thus, it is possible Ventura was born as late as 1295. 92 1326. During those ten years, he may well have continued his service as a sometime communal administrator or, given his frequent trips abroa. Although official documentation is lacking for these trips, his sonnets serve as witnesses of time spent in Pisa and Venice, suggesting that he may have been employed while abroad under commercial auspices, perhaps for a Florentine company or bank. It is not until a document dated December 1326 that we again find evidence of his work in the commune of Florence as an elected official in service to the signoria of

Charles, Duke of Calabria. He was employed under the duke as notaio degli esattori delle prestanze, imposizioni, e gabelle (Notary of the collectors of forced loans, taxes, and duties), where he was responsible for drafting all the documentation and registering all the activities of the official collectors who oversaw forced levies imposed during Charles’ regime.27

In terms of the trajectory of his administrative career, Ventura’s earliest offices fell within fiscal administration. In the 1330s, however, he was frequently called on to represent

Florence in various official capacities abroad.28 Ventura’s first known diplomatic mission on behalf of the commune came in July 1328, when he was sent on a mission to the Venetian doge.29 Over the next decade (1329-1340), he spent much of his time away from Florence, serving as ambassador in cities throughout the Italian peninsula, particularly in the north. His experiences away from the city negotiating with other communes would have taught him how to effectively communicate Florentine authority within foreign political arenas, practical experience that would serve him well when, as chancellor of Florence, his missives would represent the sovereignty of Florence, asserting the city’s legitimacy beyond its own walls.

27 ASF, Rif., provv., 23, 36v (Dec. 1326). 28 His son Niccolò, as we will see, followed much this same career trajectory: an initiation in fiscal administration followed by numerous ambassadorial/syndical appointments and finally, the chancellorship. 29 ASF, Lib. fab., 13, 130v (July 1328). 93 Other embassies on which Ventura was sent on behalf of the commune include: Avignon in

April 1333;30 the cities of Santa Croce and Castelfranco di Sotto in January 1334 as notary of the Approvatori e correttori degli statuti e ordinamenti (Endorsers and Correctors of the

Statutes and Ordinances);31 in December 1335 and April 1336, again to Pisa;32 in 1338, to

Venice to negotiate an alliance;33 and many other embassies.34 Given the frequency of his appointments, Ventura clearly demonstrated a degree of proficiency as a spokesman and ambassador of Florence.

A number of his trips abroad yielded compelling lyrical compositions. For example, in

1332, Ventura spent several months in Ferrara while he helped to negotiate Florentine participation in the Lombard League, an alliance between King Robert of Anjou, the Este, the

Scaligeri, the Visconti, and others, who had joined together to resist John of Bohemia’s invasion of Northern Italy. 35 This experience occasioned three laudatory sonnets to two major figures of the 1332 Lombard League: one sonnet addressed to Mastino della Scala and another addressed to King Robert.36 A second sonnet written for King Robert in the same exhortative spirit of

30 ASF, Cap., reg. 39, 73v (Apr. 1333); Provv., reg., 26, 85v (Apr. 1333). Also see Demetrio Marzi, Lettere dettate in volgare da ser Ventura Monachi come Cancelliere della Repubblica Fiorentina, 1340- 1348 (Florence: Cellini, 1894), 10. He was gone for 53 days (longer than originally planned) and upon his return, he went before the ordinary councils to ask for recompense proportional to the time he was away. ASF, Rif., provv., 26, 85v (Feb. 1333/34). 31 ASF, Cap., reg., 39, 114v (Jan. 1333/4). 32 ASF, Cap., reg., 39, 117v (Feb. 1333/4), 136v (June 1334), 221r (Dec. 1334), 239v (Apr. 1335). 33 ASF, Lib. fab., 17, 30v (July 1338). 34 For a complete list of his missions abroad, see Dizionario biografico, s.v. “Monachi Bonaventura” 35 Pisa: ASF, Cap., reg. 39, 22v-23r (Apr. 1332); 28v (May 1332); 38v (July 1332). Ferrara: ASF, Cap., reg. 39, 43r (Aug. 1332); 50r (Oct. 1332); 53v (Nov. 1332); 57v (Dec. 1332), 66r (Feb. 1332/3). 36 See Appendix II: 8, Ben à Giove con voi partito il regno; 9, Re di Ierusalem e Sicilia; 10, Voluto à ripara la ca’ Selvatica. 94 alliance denounces the Genovese Salvaghi for their revolt against the Angevin king in 1335. His experience abroad as well as in administrative offices at home gave him the necessary credentials to become in 1340 the city’s chancellor, an official charged, among other things, with drafting eloquent and persuasive letters to other city-states on behalf of the Signoria.

Even while acting as a functionary on embassies to foreign cities, Ventura was also involved in the city’s own administrative organization. In 1330, from August to October,

Ventura served as notaio dei priori, placing him for the first time in the halls of the executive branch at the Palazzo della Signoria and in the offices of the chancery.37 In 1336, Ventura was elected gonfaloniere di compagnia (that is, one of the sedici gonfalonieri) for Porta San Piero, thereby becoming a member of, and not simply a notary serving in, one of the Tre maggiori offices.38 In 1339, he was elected one of the dodici buonuomini and in 1342, he was again elected as one of the sedici gonfalonieri di compagnia.39 This latter appointment came during his chancellorship, which was unusual given the fact that the chancellor traditionally had no political mandate and could not technically follow the regular cursum honorum of political offices.40 Situated in the spaces where executive deliberation took place, as notaio dei priori, gonfaloniere, and buonuomino, and, after 1340, Chancellor, Ventura was given a direct view of the workings of the executive. He would go on to serve more terms on each of the two colleges,

37 ASF, Priorista, 52v (Oct. 1330). Also Marzi, La Cancelleria, 488. 38 ASF, Priorista, 70v (Aug.-Nov. 1336, Porta San Piero). 39 ASF, Lib. fab., 17, 163r (Oct. 1339, Porta San Piero); ASF, Priorosta, 86v (April–Jul. 1342, Porta San Piero). 40 The only other time in the chancery’s history when the chancellor took on political appointments was in the early fifteenth when the Signoria granted Leonardo Bruni permission to hold political office. See Chapter One above, 18-19. Robert Black describes the political careers of chancellors Ventura Monachi and Leonardo Bruni as the effects of political instability and constitutional experimentation. Black, Benedetto Accolti, 128-129. 95 some terms coinciding with his chancellorship. All were positions that placed him at the heart of executive administration on the third floor of the Palazzo della Signoria.

In September 1340, after matriculating in the Arte dei giudici e notai again, he succeeded

Chello Baldovini as notaio dettatore.41 While chancellor, Ventura became even more imbricated in the activities of the executive. He spent his working days in the chancery office located on the third floor of the Palazzo della Signoria. For the majority of the republican period, the chancellor and the notaio delle riformagioni shared an office that was located at the heart of the daily activities of the executive officials of the commune.

Figure 3.1: Palazzo della Signoria, Layout of Third Floor

Bell tower

Udienza

Antecamera (Sala dei gigli)

(Until circa 1500s) N

*Floorplan adapted from Spilner, “Giovanni di Lapi Ghini.”

41 See f. 1 for the record of matriculation. ASF, Lib. fab., 19, 76r (Sept. 1340), and at 192r (May 1341) Ventura is given a higher salary than Chellus Baldovini. Niccolò records his father’s entry into office in his ricordanze, 74r: “Nel MCCCXL dì 17 di settembre, essendo Maso Uccellini de’ priori, fu creato ser Ventura Monachi cancelliere del Comune di Firenze nel qual conturno fino nel nel [sic] quarant’otto di giugno, nel qual tempo morì. Io, Niccolo di ser Ventura predicto, stecti seco nel decto ufizio et più anni.” He chose one of his eldest sons, Niccolò Monachi, then about twenty-five years old and also a notary, as his official coadjutor. 96 When the priori and their notaio left their living quarters in the south-eastern area of the palace to begin their day of hearing petitions, deliberation, and ratification, they had to pass through the workspace of the chancellor and the notaio delle riformagioni. From their living quarters, the primary work and gathering spaces of the priori, their private udienza (audience chamber) and their antecamera lay just beyond the offices of the chancery.42 Thus, the acting executive officials of the commune and their auxiliary workforce of chancery officials were always near at hand. While as chancellor he was never required to live full time in the palazzo as were the priori, the notaio dei priori, and the gonfaloniere di giustizia, Ventura nevertheless remained in close proximity to them, whether it was at the heart of the Florentine executive administration on the third of floor of the palazzo or just around the corner from the palazzo in his home in Via

Vinegia just one hundred metres away (see Figure 4.4).

After 1340, Ventura continued to take on administrative assignments outside of the chancery and performed these duties concurrently. In January 1342, he and seven other procurators (the otto procuratori) were involved in offering lordship over the city of Lucca to

Robert of Anjou.43 In March 1342, he was elected gonfaloniere di compagnia for the gonfalone

42 According to Giovanni Cambi, the narrow wing (not pictured above), today known as the Cancelleria and which looks down onto the Via dei Gondi and the rooftops of the Mercanzia, was not built until 1511 when the priori decided to build a separate capella, which until that point had been located within their udienza. Today, the capella dei priori is encountered where, for the majority of the republican period, the chancellor and the notaio delle riformagioni sat and copied official documents. Cambi’s description suggest that the area was not, prior to 1511, the enclosed space it is today. He writes, “and they made [the capella] outside the exit that went between the chambers of the signori, namely, where you exit the udienza to go to their living quarters, on the right were the necessaries (toilets?) and on the left, the chancery” (… e feciolla dal’uscio, che andava tralle camere de’ Signori, che come s’usciva dell’udienza per andare alle chamere, a mano ripta erono i necessari, e a mano manca era la Cancelleria della lettere…). Cambi, Istorie, 275-276. 43 ASF, Lib. fab., 21, 48r and 50r (Jan. 1341/2). During the 1330s and early 1340s, Florence had been engaged in a campaign to exert territorial control over Lucca which, in 1335, had fallen into 97 of Porta San Piero beginning in April and, in 1344, he was one of the dodici buonuomini.44 Even as his presence in the chancery office located amidst the administrative buzz of the third floor of the palazzo kept him close to the Florentine executive magistrates, his positions within the Tre maggiori ensured he was well-placed to directly observe them.

The highly disruptive signoria of Walter of Brienne (the vicar of Charles, duke of

Calabria and the son of Robert I) lasted only eleven months from September 1342 to August

1343. At the beginning of his signoria, Walter of Brienne dismissed all existing members of the republican administration in order to retain his own administrative workforce. In spite of this,

Ventura and his son Niccolò appear to have remained in the palazzo as coadjutors and counselors.45 Within months however, the duke had made enemies of the very members of the oligarchy that had installed him as signore. Looking elsewhere to build up his support base,

Walter of Brienne turned to the mass of disenfranchised, day labourers to whom the guild community had denied the rights of political participation. Many scholars have since looked to the decision to allow wool workers of the Arte della lana to form their own guild in 1343 as the germ of the momentous Ciompi revolt in 1378.46 Following the duke’s short incumbency, the republican administration was restored and Ventura was officially re-instated as chancellor of

Mastino della Scala’s hands. In 1341, after Florence offered to purchase Lucca from Mastino, the Pisans laid seige to the city, concerned a Florentine-controlled Lucca would threaten Pisan independence. In an effort to convince both Robert of Anjou and the Pope to incentivize the Pisans to abandon their seige, Florence granted lordship over Lucca to the former. Ventura, as one of the otto procuratori, was directly involved in this effort. See Appendix II, 9, a poem which may have been written on this occasion. 44 Gonfaloniere: ASF, Priorista, 86v (Apr.–Jul. 1342, Porta San Piero); ASF, Lib. fab., 21, 63v (Mar. 1342); Dodici buonuomini: ASF, Tratte, 593, 9r ([Jun.] 1344). 45 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 77-78. 46 For example, Najemy, A History of Florence, 137 and 157. See Chapter Four below. 98 the Republic in August 1343. That same month, when the duke formally renounced his signory,

Ventura was one of two notaries who wrote up the act.47

In January 1344, Ventura became notaio degli ufficiali della torre (Notary of the officials of the Tower) located at the Palazzo del Podestà and later that same year, in July, he became one of the soprastanti delle Stinche (Overseers of the Stinche, the city’s prison) for the quarter of Santa Croce.48 The final date for which there is documentation regarding Ventura’s activities in administration outside the chancery is February 1346 when he was elected notaio dei capitani di Orsanmichele (Notary of the Captains of Orsanmichele).49 Records of acts between January 1346 and May 1347 attest that he was actively performing his official duties as chancellor up until his death.50

Niccolò notes in his ricordanze that Ventura died of plague on 18 June 1348 and was interred the following day in the cloister of the basilica of Santa Croce within which, at the foot of the Peruzzi Chapel, a family tabernacle was later installed.51 Today, the family tomb slab marking Ventura’s death is still mostly legible. Located in the southern transept at the foot of the stairs leading up to the Peruzzi Chapel and the hallway to the sacristy, the epitaph reads:

“Here is the tomb of ser Ventura Monachi and his heirs, who was chancellor of the favoured

47 ASF, Cap., reg., 22, 121r-123r (1 August 1343). The other notary was Folco di Antonio Bonsignori. 48 Ufficio della Torre: ASF, Cap., reg. 16, 222v (Jan. 1344). 49 ASF, Tratte 742, 4r (Feb. 1345/6). 50 ASF, Tratte 742, 54v (Jan. 1345/6, Captain of the People: Angelo dei Marchioni da Monte Santa Maria), 55r (Feb. 1345/6, “Office of the commune”: ser Francesco di Ubertino da Padova); 66r (Apr. 1346, “Office of the commune”: ser Giovanni di ser Pietro da Cascia); 72r (Nov. 1346, Appellate judge: Domenico de Posulis da Cremona), 72v (Dec. 1346, Executor of Ordinances: Landuccio di ser Landi Becchi da Cugubio); 77r (Feb. 1346/7, “Office of the commune:” ser Riccius Lapi da Civita Catelli); 83r (May 1347, podestà: Domenico Ermanni di Guido da Sextimo). 51 See Chapter Four. 99 Florentine people. He died when the month of June had moved through thirteen hundred and forty-eight years of the Lord” [Hic ser Venture Monachi heredumque suorum est tumulus populique cancellarius [almi florentini obiit] domini cum iunius annos terdecies centum atque octo quadraginta moveret.]52

F i g u r e 3 . 2 : Th e M o n a c h i T om b S l a b , Santa Croce

Photo credit: L. Faibisoff

Ventura’s testament, if still extant, has not been located.53 In his ricordanze, however

Niccolò does report some of its contents. Upon his death, Ventura owned a number of city properties and parcels of land in the countryside. The main family home was in Via Vinegia in

52 It is not possible to decipher this part of the epitaph due to considerable wear as visible in the photograph above. However, sepoltuari beginning in the sixteenth century record what is no longer visible to us today. For transcriptions of this epitaph from all known sepoltuari, see Scholssman Pines, “The Tomb Slabs of Santa Croce,” 327-330. 53 A search through the records of testators deceased in 1348 who bequeathed money to the Opera del Duomo for the construction of the cathedral yielded no results for the name of the notary who penned the testament of Ventura Monachi. 100 the parish of San Remigio just behind the Palazzo della Signoria, where Niccolò continued to live after his father’s death. It is unclear when Ventura purchased this home, but Niccolò writes that his father originally agreed to a sale price of 200 gold florins with Buonaccorso di

Giovanni Caperozoli.54 By 1359 the price of the house had apparently risen in value by another

145 gold florins.55 Niccolò’s ricordanze mentions other immovable properties belonging to

Ventura, including: a home in Via dei Scarpentieri (a segment of the street now known as the

Via Pietrapiana in the parish of San Pier Maggiore); another home in Via Caffagiuoli (today the

Via degli Alfani) also in San Pier Maggiore;56 land in Castelvecchio di Cascia, a city to the southeast of Florence in the Valdarno; land in the hills just south of the city in Arcetri; and land in Le Corti, also in the Valdarno near Rignano sull’Arno. Ventura’s land holdings in the lower

Valdarno, the epicentre of Ghibelline strength in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century, and Niccolò’s later expansion of those holdings in the same areas may perhaps substantiate the

54 Ricordanze, 1v, 5r. 55 Ricordanze, 5r. “It is known that ser Ventura Monachi, of the parish of San Regmifio, purchased a home located in Via de Vinegia, in the aforementioned parish, from Bonacorso di Giovanni Caperozoli for a certain price, certified by the hand of a public notary. Later, in the year 1359 in the month of June, the same Bonacorso acknowledged the increase in the price of said home,by 145 gold florins (145 flor aur.), certified by the hand of the notary ser Bartoli Nevaldini from Barberino, of which, I, Niccolò, paid ninety gold florins and the rest Bartomeo paid in my hand” ) Notum est quod ser Ventura Monachi, populi San Remixii, emit domum positum in via de Vinegia, in dicto popolo, a Bonaccurso Iohannis Caperozoli pro certo pretio, carta manu publici notarii. Postea, anno domini MCCCLVIIIJ de mensis julii, ispe Bonaccursus confessus fuit pro augmento pretij dicte domus, flor. aur. centum quadraginta quinque, flor. CXLV aur., manu ser Bartoli Nevaldini de Barberino notarii, de quibus ego, Niccolaus, solvi fl. nonaginta aur. et reliquos solvit Bartolomeus con manus meus). Judging from the ricordanze, it seems as though Ventura had arranged to pay off the price of the house in small sums over time. The particulars of this agreement are not clear however, and the original price of the home was clearly not protected from subsequent increases in property value. In any case, Niccolò and his brother Bartolomeo immediately paid off the 145 florins. 56 I thank Daniel Jamison for helping me locate this street. 101 claims of Niccolò’s enemies that the Monachi were originally from areas boasting Ghibelline allegiances.

The origins of Francesca, Ventura’s wife when he died in 1348, are unknown. Further, it is not clear if she brought any social status to the family. She had been married once before to a certain Francesco Mannovelli, with whom she had had a daughter, Ghinga.57 A number of

Ventura’s children died in the 1348 plague. I am inclined to believe that not all of these children were the products of Ventura’s marriage to Francesca, given that Niccolò refers to Francesca as

“uxor dicti ser Venture” and not “mater mea.”58 Those that survived the 1348 Plague were:

Niccolò, Francesco, Filippo, Bartolomeo, Margherita, and Paola (see Figure 3.3).

Of these children, Francesco, Filippo, and Paola were ordained. Margherita was married to Niccolò di Consiglio Ughi, a rittagliatore and member of the Arte di Por Santa Maria (the silk guild). One of Niccolò’s brothers, Bartolomeo, was not ordained. As a member of the Arte della lana he was apparently active in Florentine politics.59 He served as priore for Santa Croce in 1366, then as one of the dodici buonuomini in 1367, and he was a gonfaloniere di compagnia in 1368. From 1368 to at least 1372, he was drawn for offices in the Tre maggiori on three separate occasions but did not serve, likely because he was absent from the city. In 1372, he was once again a buonuomo and in 1373 as priore. He was married to Cionella, the daughter of

57 I am uncertain as to the identity of Francesco Mannovelli, but he may well have been Aretine. There is reference to a Mannovelli family in ser Gorello’s poem about events in Arezzo from 1310 to 1384. See Muratori, “Gorelli, aretini notarii” in Rerum italicarum scriptores 15, 807-888. 58 “aliis qui dicto anno immediate post ipsum decesserunt” and later, “Item quia domina Francischa, uxor dicti ser Ventura …” Ricordanze, 5r. 59 ASF, Manoscritti, 540, (no folio numers). 25 August 1358, Porta San Piero: “Bartolomeus ser Venture Monachi, popolo San Remigii.” Niccolò Monachi also matriculated in the Arte della lana in 1359, ASF, Manoscritti, 540 (no folio numbers). 102 the successful wool merchant, Corsino di Ugolino Corsini. Cionella survived Bartolomeo, who died in 1379.60

Figure 3.3: The M onachi Family

Francesco Monachi has generated some scholarly interest by virtue of the fact that he exchanged letters and was friendly with Francesco Petrarca. Sometime before December 1348 and after studying theology at the University of Paris, Francesco had moved to Croara near

Bologna to become the abbot at the monastery of Santa Cecilia. He has been identified as the anonymous correspondent of Petrarca whom, in September 1352, the poet refers to as the

“abbas Corvarie Bononiensis” (Abbot of Croara near Bologna). 61 Petrarca wrote to the abbot

60 Ricordanze, 31v. 61 See Piana, “Identificato un anonimo” who provides diplomatic editions of documents regarding Francesco Monachi: ASF, Sig., miss. I canc., 9, 25v and ASF, Sig., miss. I Canc., 10, 135r. At a later 103 with great esteem: “It is hard to express how happily it is that I hear that you, such a man, understand the sweetness of my compositions.”62 Apparently, the abbot had written to express his great desire to see Petrarca’s epic poem Africa, on which he had been working from as early as 1338, made public. Presumably, Francesco was in possession of some parts of the poem. As

Ventura’s son, Francesco’s correspondence with the poet laureate might be considered to build upon the earlier lyric companionship between Ventura and Petrarca. Writing back, Petrarca insisted that Francesco must “have patience” and, indeed, the Africa was not officially published until 1397, more than twenty years after Petrarca’s death.63 Francesco’s whereabouts immediately following this correspondence will be of interest again in Chapter Four.

Ventura’s activities in Florentine politics and administration have not received the same attention or criticism as have those of his son Niccolò’s, but Ventura had just as much at stake in politics and administration. Lacking the same kind of archival documentation for Ventura’s socio-political engagement as is available for Niccolò’s, Ventura’s sonnets provide indirect evidence about his career and the ways in which he related to his field and society. Ventura’s poetry may be considered an expression of how he understood his relationship to his society and his professional field. The sonnets offer glimpses of Ventura’s relationship to his society at different points in his career as he sought through this mode of sociability to negotiate some of

point, Francesco is referred to as possessing both a bachelor’s and master’s degree in theology though, it is not clear when and where he received the master’s degree. The letters exchanged between Francesco Monachi and Francesco Petrarca are in Le Familiari III, 93-94. 62 “Non facile dictu est quam lete audiam te, talem virum, eam rerum mearum sentire dulcedinem.” In Francesco Petrarca, Le Familiari, v. 3, Vittorio Rossi, ed. (Florence: Sansoni, 1926), 93. 63 “In reliquis ergo omnibus ut libet; in hoc uno patientia opus est tua.” Petrarca’s letter is dated February 1352 and, after Father Celestino Piana discovered three records documenting Francesco Monachi’s presence as abbot at the monastery of Croara between 1350 and 1352, Niccolò’s brother was unequivocably identified as the anonymous correspondent. Piana, “Identificato un anonimo,” esp. 352- 53. 104 its more problematic features. For example, the structural tensions we saw at work between permanence and impermanence within the institution of the chancery are given voice in

Ventura’s poetry, where we find an abiding concern with impermanence in all its different forms. From notary, to communal administrator, and finally chancellor, these sonnets demonstrate the extent to which Ventura was personally invested in the symbolic frameworks that animated broader Florentine dialogues about instability. More specifically, Ventura’s sonnets provide evidence that illustrates how administrative actors in fourteenth-century

Florence generated the normative language that legitimized Florentine authority and voiced a political ideology that promoted Florentine republicanism over foreign tyranny.

Abr oad

Early in his notarial career and sometime before 1320, Ventura Monachi went to Venice.

Although the reasons for his travel are unknown, evidence that he was there before 1320 rests on his involvement in a tenzone, or sonnet exchange, with two friends back in Florence:

“Cecco,” possibly Cecco d’Ascoli (1257-1327) and Giovanni Lambertucci dei Frescobaldi,

(1280-1320).64 The terminus ante quem for the tenzone is based on the death of one of his

64 Given the inclusion of Tu vien da longi con rima balbatica in manuscripts containing the Acerba, Cecco d’Ascoli has been treated as Ventura’s likely correspondent. Vatteroni is skeptical about this attribution as she maintains the poems were written in the summer of 1328, when archival documentation attests Ventura had been sent to Venice on behalf of the Florentine commune. Cecco d’Ascoli was executed in 1327 however. Thus, Vatteroni also calls into question the poem’s attribution. However, the sonnet exchange could not have been written after 1320, when a notarial document attests that Giovanni di Lambertucci Frescobaldi had already died. See Santorre Debenedetti, “Lambertuccio Frescobaldi poeta e banchiere fiorentino del secolo XIII” in Miscellanea di studi critici pubblicati in onore di Guido Mazzoni (Florence, 1907), 22-24. Thus, at the risk of stylistic proof to the contrary, I consider “Cecco” to have been Cecco d’Ascoli. Also see, Daniele Piccini “Di un sonetto trecentesco su 105 correspondents, Giovanni Lambertucci, sometime between 1318 and 1320. The editor of the most recent edition of Ventura’s sonnets, maintains that the Venetian tenzone was composed in

1328 when we know Ventura went back to Venice on an embassy from Florence. However,

Ventura’s most recent biographer, Raffaella Zaccaria, dates the Venetian tenzone to sometime before 1320.65 Clearly, the dating of this tenzone is a point of some disagreement in scholarship.

Since it has a bearing on out understanding of the mode of sociability at play in the tenzone, the question merits some attention here.

Giovanni Lambertucci dei Frescobaldi was the third son of Lambertuccio Frescobaldi and Adimaringa di Orlandino di Spinello Ruffoli, who were married in May 1271. In 1291,

Lambertuccio – the older brother of Giovanni “Chiocciola” Frescobaldi, the branch director of the so-called “Frescobaldi bianchi” in England – had been asked to serve as podestà in Padua.

Around the same time, he began consolidating Frescobaldi company affairs throughout the

Veneto region, opening warehouses in Padua and Verona, two sister banks in Venice and

Treviso, and a factory in Belluno.66 The birth of Lambertuccio’s son, usually called “Giovanni

Lambertucci” to distinguish him from his uncle, is estimated to have been around 1280, making

Ventura and Giovanni roughly the same age.67 Although there is no evidence that Giovanni

Lambertucci participated actively in the family business, there is indication in his sonnet

Venezia per più destinatari: un caso singolare di corrispondenza in versi” in Bertazzoli, et al., Studi, 621- 636, 625. Following this correspondence and immediately before Cecco’s death, he and Ventura were administrative colleagues employed simultaneously in the Duke of Calabria’s fiscal administration. Cecco had come to Florence with the Duke as his “fiscus et familiare.” Maria Grazia Del Fuoco, “Il processo a Cecco d’Ascoli: Appunti intorno al cancelliere di Carlo di Calabria” in Rigon, Cecco d’Ascoli, 217-237. 65 Dizionario biografico, s.v. “Frescobaldi Giovanni” (Raffaella Zaccaria). Vatteroni, Ventura Monachi, 159. maintains Ventura wrote this tenzone with Giovanni during the documented trip of 1328. 66 Dizionario biografico, s.v. “Frescobaldi Lambertuccio” (Fabio De Propris.) 67 Dizionario biografico, s.v. “Frescobaldi Giovanni” (Raffaella Zaccaria). 106 exchange with Ventura that he was knowledgeable of and somehow involved in commercial transactions. The date of Giovanni’s death is a subject of some confusion because the chronicler

Donato Velluti (1313-1370) attests that “[...] the son of said messer Lambertuccio, [...] died at an age of more than fifty years in the 1340s.”68 Despite Velluti’s claim, two notarial documents, one redacted in 1318 and the other in 1320, serve as definitive evidence that Giovanni died at some point within those two years.69 Thus, the tenzone must also have been written before

1320.70

It seems perfectly plausible that Ventura visited Venice before the documented embassy on behalf of the commune in 1328. Given his notarial education, Ventura would have been a likely candidate for employment in the offices of a Florentine company or bank, possibly even the Frescobaldi bank opened in Venice by Giovanni Lambertucci’s father.71 This sonnet

68 “[...] il quale fu figliuolo del detto messer Lambertuccio. Il quale fu di comune statura, buono trovatore e sonettieri, e di forti rime; bello e grande sonatore di chitarra e leuto e viuola; [...] Morì d’età di più di cinquanta anni, già è degli anni da quaranta; e simile, dopo lui, la detta monna Gemma, nella detta età.” Velluti, La cronica domestica, 95-96. 69 In March 1318, the notary Andrea di Nerino drafted on behalf of Francesco dei Sassolini a six- month loan to Giovanni and his brother Taddeo of forty florins. The loan was repaid 14 November 1318. ASF, Not. ante., 448, 27r and 41v. Then, in January 1320, the notary Tano di Puccio documented the boundaries of properties bequeathed to Giovanni’s heirs; according to the document, Giovanni was already deceased. ASF, Not. ante., 20546, 81v. See Debenedetti, “Lambertuccio Frescobaldi,” 22-24, et passim. 70 Among those who corroborate that the sonnets must have been written before 1320 are: Dizionario biografico, s. v. “Frescobaldi Giovanni” (Raffaella Zaccaria); Corsi, Rimatori del Trecento, 64; and Sapegno Poeti Minori del Trecento, 25. 71 By the fourteenth century a notary’s presence ceased to be obligatory in the majority of commercial banking transactions, as the fides or, fiducia between individual merchant-bankers began to render the publica fides of notaries dispensable; see, for example, Melis, Industria e commercio, 18-19. Nevertheless, notaries were known to be employed by Florentine companies in locations abroad. As Barbara Bombi has demonstrated, in Avignon and especially during the first few decades of the 107 exchange provides a glimpse at a relatively early stage in his career of how Ventura understood and related to uncertainty, for the theme of the Venetian tenzone hinges on impermanence and many ideas related to it, specifically the strangeness of foreign cities and the uncertainty of trying to live and do business there.

Stylistically, the sonnets that make up the Venetian correspondence are typical specimens of the genre of the tenzone as practiced in the Trecento. They are amusing, written in a satiric tone, and deal with questions of love and custom. At the level of sociability, they assert

Florentine superiority and civic pride while simultaneously revealing Florentine anxieties about dissimilarities between themselves and the foreigners with whom they regularly came into contact at home and while abroad. While Ventura is abroad, he and his coterie identify the superior qualities of Florence and the Florentines over Venice and the Venetians.72 In so doing, the coterie betrays a general apprehension with the unfamiliar and with having to do business under unpredictable conditions.

The circulation of such verse strengthened Florentine camaraderie through the mutual appreciation and sociable consideration of commercial uncertainties abroad. Advice for

Florentines about how to weather misfortune and do business with foreigners can be found elsewhere in verse. For example, Giovanni Lambertucci’s uncle, Giovanni Frescobaldi, penned

fourteenth century, many Florentine notaries left behind the violent factionalism between the Neri and the Bianchi in search of employment abroad. Diversifying their activities, many found work in the foreign branches of Florentine companies; see Barbara Bombi, “The ‘Avignon Captivity’ as a Means of Success: The Circle of the Frescobaldi” in Brilli, et al., Images and Words in Exile, 271-288. Also, see Boccaccio, Decameron 1.1, the tale of the Florentine ser Cepparello who travels to Burgundy on business. 72 In Vatteroni, Ventura Monachi, 159, the editor regards this tenzone as one of the oldest surviving examples of anti-Venetian vituperium in verse. 108 Ricordo per chi passa in Inghilterra, a sonnet offering advice to anyone who might be passing through England on how to do business so as not to suffer misfortune:

Ricordo per chi passa in Inghilterra: Advice for someone going to England: vestir basso color, esser umile, Dress in dreary colours and be humble, grosso in aspetto e in fatti sottile: Seem unpolished but in actuality be astute. male sia a l’Inglese se t’atterra. Woe to the Englishman who molests you.

Fuggi le cure e chi pur ti fa guerra: Avoid peril and whoever would fight you, spendi con cuor e non ti mostrare vile: Spend money willingly and don’t appear shabby. pagar al giorno, a riscuoter gentile, Pay day-by-day; be polite while collecting debts mostrando che bisogno ti sotterra: pointing out that necessity compels you. non far più inchiesta ch’abbi fondamento: Don’t conduct more inspections than needs be. compera a tempo se ti metta bene, Buy early if it is profitable to you. né ti impicciar con uomini di corte. Don’t have dealings with men of court.

Osserva di chi può ’l comandamento. Observe the command of persons in power. Con tua nazione unirti t’appartiene; Set about to ally yourself with your countrymen e far per tempo ben serrar le porte. And lock your door early at night.73

The advice here suggests that when abroad, legitimacy and success in business were keyed to an individual’s ability to adapt to his situation. Indeed, the success of the Frescobaldi family in fourteenth-century England (where in addition to their services as private bankers to the king, they had tax farms with fixed tenures) came not from operating as a single company, but rather

73 The sonnet appears in Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Redi 184, 205v and is edited in Peruzzi, Storia del commercio, 153 and Sapori, La compagnia dei Frescobaldi, 34. It has also been suggested that the sonnet belongs to a Giovanni Frescobaldi living in the fifteenth century who wrote the tenzoni with maestro Lazzaro da Padova and with Ottavante Barducci, which appear next to “Ricordo per chi passa in Inghilterra” in the Laurenziana manuscript; see Anselmi, et al., La memoria dei mercatores, 178. 109 from forming an informal consortium with other companies that functioned through a complex system of arrangements with outsiders, requiring an ability to be flexible and informal.74 Arising out of a specifically mercantile society that dealt daily with the setbacks and successes of risk and exposure to chance, these themes of prudent adaptability were diffuse across Florentine socio-cultural contexts. As we will see explicitly in the oeuvre of Ventura Monachi, they threaded their way through the youthful, jovial compositions of his coterie poetry as well as through the more solemn, lyric observations and admonitory verse of an experienced communal administrator.

For the Venetian tenzone he initiated, Ventura sent the same sonnetto ritornellato, albeit with different incipits, to two different friends in Florence: Giovanni Lambertucci Frescobaldi and the other to Cecco d’Ascoli. Ventura’s sonnet generated three replies from Giovanni and one from Cecco. The sonnet exchange appears to have circulated among all three men since in his final response Giovanni responds explicitly to Cecco’s response. Ventura’s sonnet to

Giovanni reads:

Giovanni, i’ son condotto in terra acquatica Giovanni, I have been sent into an aquatic land e vivo parte in acqua comme bivero, and I live like a beaver partly in water chiara né dolce, non come de Tivero, neither clear nor sweet like that of the Tiber Ma nel viso, nel gusto è assai salvatica; but rather savage to see and to taste.

E son fra gente di sì nova pratica I am among people with such strange practices e tengon modo sì dagl’altri scevero and who have habits so different from others ch’ogni costume altrui gli par dilivero that all the customs of others to them seem alien dal lor come gl’Armin da la gramatica. from their own, more than the Armenians with Latin.

E ciascun pone ‘l suo parere in cronica Every man chronicles his own judgment E tante son le legge quante capita: and there are as many laws as they happen to formulate:

74 Goldthwaite, “Italian Bankers.” 110 ànno per nulla lo ‘Nforzato e ‘l Codico. the Inforzato and the Codex mean nothing.

Guadagnasi con lor niente o modico; One can’t earn anything or even a little from them; chi traffica co lloro e non scapita whoever does business with them without suffering Pò dir ch’à più virtù che la bretonica. damages can say that he has more virtue than betony.

Se de conforto a me non porgi regola If you don’t send me guidance to give me strength Starocci lieto come tordo in pegola. I will be as happy here as a bird in captivity.

An identical sonnet was sent to Cecco d’Ascoli, although the name of the addressee occasioned a different incipit: Cecco, io son congiunto in terr’acquatica.

Sent into this strange, watery city, Ventura finds himself at a loss as to how to do business with Venetians. The waters surrounding the islands of the city are bitter and uncultivated – a far cry from the civilizing sweetness of the Roman Tiber. Their customs are so outlandish that the Venetians cannot understand the customs of others. Records lack reliability as everyone is free to write down his own version of events. The Roman legal tradition and its authoritative texts are not recognized; and whoever succeeds in doing business with the

Venetians without suffering unanticipated financial costs can consider himself worthy of merit.

Likening himself to a bird in cage, Ventura finds himself trapped and vulnerable in an unfamiliar city where the norms of social comportment are unpredictable and contrary to what he, as a Florentine, considers normal.

Water symbolism and imagery play important roles in this sonnet exchange. In particular, the dichotomy between sweet and bitter water implies the cultural difference between

Florence with its adherence to Roman tradition and its nourishing norms of time-honoured custom, and Venice with the unpredictability and mutability of its fluctuating traditions and obscure customs. Even the metre and rhyme indicate the disorientation of the Florentine poet amongst the variable nature of the Venetians. Trecento poets frequently used a form of the 111 sixteen-line sonetto ritornellato (refrain sonnet) where the fourteen lines of a standard sonnet

(divided into an 8-line octet and a 6-line sestet) are rounded off with a rhyming couplet.75

However, Ventura’s sonnet deviates from traditional patterns, both in rhyme and metre. All of

Ventura’s verses have twelve syllables (duodecasyllables) rather than the usual eleven-syllable lines (hendecasyllables) found in Italian sonnets. Also, the rhyme scheme of Ventura’s sestet –

C-D-E-E-D-C, known as rime retrogradate (demoted rhyme) runs counter to more traditional rhyme scheme patterns (i.e., C-D-C-D-C-D or C-D-E-C-D-E). Further, all of the rhymes are formed around accents on the penultimate syllable (rime sdrucciole, “slipping rhymes”).76 Such features convey a sense of the absurd, chaotic, and even undulating circumstances in which

Ventura finds himself as he asks his friends back home for their guidance.77

Giovanni’s first response (at least, according to the order in which they appear in the manuscripts), follows Ventura’s sdrucciola rhyme scheme. He provides the requested advice and, redeploys Ventura’s thematics of the foreign (“terra acquatica;” “salvatica;” “nova pratica;”

“modo sì dagl’altri scevero;” “ogni costume par dilivero”) through symbolic allusion to the figure of Fortune.

Poi che Fortuna v’è tanto lunatica Since Fortune acted so unpredictably with you che v’à condotto con fortun’al pevero that she led you by chance into such a mess,78 tra quella gente ove non à persevero amongst people who have no consistency,

75 Beltrami, La metrica italiana; Biadene, “Morfologia del sonetto.” 76 Many of Ventura’s sonnets employ the rime sdrucciola. 77 I thank William Robins for pointing this out to me. 78 For this line, Vatteroni translates “pevero” as “pepper” and suggests the translation, “and led you with money to the place where pepper is traded,” thus giving Ventura’s stay in Venice some ulterior purpose. I tend, however, to prefer the translation of “pevero” as “pesto” (as per Vocabolario della Crusca), a kind of relish or condiment composed of an assortment of ingredients, which to my mind, well describes the socio-cultural situation in which Ventura finds himself – a jumble, or mishmash. 112 modo né legge, ma usanza ebratica, no custom, and no law, except Hebrew customs, ordine dono a voi non di Damatica, I give you a directive, not like that of Damietta,79 ma di que’ savi che dell’acqua bevvero, but that of those wise men who drink the water onde consorti fur di que’ che livero and thus become the companions of others whose tegnono ‘l capo della mente erratica. minds have been freed from wandering thoughts.

Perciò vestite voi di simil tonica, Thus, dress yourself in garments like theirs, ché tra civette un pappagal mal abita, since a parrot is out of place among owls, ovver tra donne un gran maestro lodico. as a great logician is out of place among women.

Ventura i’ so che ‘l bel costume arnonico Ventura, I know the lovely custom of the Arno t’è più in piacer (ma per gustare a natica!): (the enjoyment of rumps!) pleases you more. si vive al dolce, e ben lo sa Veronico. Here one lives sweetly, as Veronico well knows.

Non siate del tornar qua tanto in fregola, Yet, don’t be so eager to return here che voi falliste il ben seguir la stegola! such that you will fail to follow a true course.

Ma quando ritornate a vedere Fiesole Once you return to see Fiesole, lasciate ogni costume d’acqua di esole. leave behind every manner of island waters.

Taking his cue from Ventura’s initial sonnet, Giovanni connects Venetian waters and islands to a general lack of civility and sees Venetian customs as strange and unpredictable as the goddess

Fortune who sent him there.80 Recalling the waters of the Lethe in Virgil’s Aeneid and in

Dante’s Purgatorio, Giovanni gives Ventura advice worthy of the savi, who drink water in order

79 Damietta (Damatica is given as a toponymic variant to fit the rime sdrucciola) was the site of multiple ruinous defeats of Crusaders in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Variants abound for this word however. Mabellini provides “domatica,” that is, “I provide you with a rule that is not dogmatic” However, “damatica” might also be considered a neomorphism of “dama” (again adapted to fit the verse) and thus, “I provide you with a rule, not for women.” 80 Giovanni’s linking of Fortune and water is relatively unusual considering the fact that most early fourteenth-century depictions of the goddess portray her with a wheel. 113 to be freed of memories of their mortal sins.81 While he is in Venice, Giovanni advises Ventura to forget, for a time, the superior social and cultural traditions he knows and prefers, teasing him about his alleged sexual preferences. Only after he returns to Florence, Giovanni says, can

Ventura put behind him the foreign part he must play in order to be effective in his business there.

In Giovanni’s second response, the message remains much the same and deploys the same water imagery (including reference to the river Lethe) and the same associations of water with changeful Fortune. Throughout Giovanni mines the double-sense of the word Ventura, both the name of his friend and a synonym for Fortune.

I’ veggio, ser Ventura, la matricola I see, ser Ventura, the register che vi convien tener con l’uom venetico, you must keep in order to live with the Venetians, a ciò che non facciate come Letico so that you don’t behave like someone on the Lethe82 che sempre affonda giù la suo navicola: who is always capsizing his ship. dimenticar convienvi ogni particola, You should forget every particular;

81 In Aeneid 6, Aeneas learns that spirits gathered around the river Lethe in the underworld are the spirits who will become Aeneas’ descendants. When Dante arrives in the Garden of Eden (Purgatorio 28-33) he comes upon two rivers, the Lethe and the Eunoè (this latter, a creation of Dante’s). The virtuous drink first from the Lethe in order to remove “all memory of sin,” and then from the Eunoè to have the memory of their good deeds in life strengthened. Mabellini, Sonetti editi, 41-44 instead reads the line “Ma di que’ savi che dell’acqua bevvero” as referring to ancient sages who did not drink wine but only water as a practice of abstemiousness. In avoiding drunkenness, they evaded disturbances of the mind and succeeded in keeping their minds clear. 82 Variants for “Letico” also abound. Vatteroni provides “come l’etico” and glosses it according to two senses: one recalling Inferno XXX 29-31 (“faceva lui tener le labbra aperte / che come l’etico fa, che per la sete / l’un verso ‘l mento e l’altro in su rinverte”) and another referring more generally to a man who lives according to ethical principles, and thus, a man who can live in an amoral place like Venice without degrading his own sense of morals. I prefer Mabellini’s reading, “Letico,” as it echoes the water/nautical metaphors both in the succeeding line and from Giovanni’s previous sonnet. 114 e’ be’ costumi di che siete medico as for the lovely customs of which you are a master, lasciargli ad altri, et far come farnetico, leave them to others and act like a mad man si chè con lor viviate alla baicola. so that you might live like them: alla veneziana.

Donar cannate di pennute allodole, Give them skewers of feathered woodlarks,83 per voi sia fatto allor più ch’a Vergilio and there will be more laurels for you than for Virgil e nella fe’ più a te ch’ a fra Gilio. and more trust for you than for brother Giles.84

Così facendo ‘cquisteren navilio Doing thus, we will acquire a consignment di tal valor che, pur pensando, godole of such value that, just thinking on it, I delight queste parole, che di prova io dole. about these words that I have given you in advice.

I’ ò perdute vostre rime acquatiche, I have lost your aquatic rhymes sì cch’al sonecto i’ ò mutate maniche. and changed the sleeves of the sonnet.

While this sonnet replicates the pattern of 12-syllable verses with rime sdrucciole as found in Ventura’s initial poem, it does not, as Giovanni acknowledges in the final couplet, follow the original rhyme scheme. At the level of form, this “changing of the sonnet’s sleeves” provides an analogy to Giovanni’s advice that Ventura abandon his usual habits and Florentine conventions. Again here, Giovanni insists that only by temporarily adopting the customs of the foreign city will Ventura, as an outsider, succeed in ingratiating himself within the foreign space in which he finds himself. Giovanni mentions the matricola Ventura must keep. The matricola was the tax paid by Florentines for permission to exercise their professions in the city. Upon receipt of payment, names were marked in the public register of those “matriculating” in the

83 I.e. “shower them with flattery” 84 Again here, there are numerous variants. The sense seems to be that Ventura must praise the Venetians in order to gain their admiration and respect. Fra Gilio might be the logician and “doctor fundatissimus” Giles of Rome (1243-1316), a reference to the “gran maestro lodico” who is out of place amongst women in Giovanni’s first sonnet. Vatteroni, Ventura Monachi, 173 also suggests Giles of Assisi (1190-1262), one of the first followers of Saint Francis of Assisi. 115 guild. By metonymy, matricola could also refer more generally to a way of thinking or general mode of operating.85 Giovanni insists that in order to get by in Venice Ventura must forget every entry and behave without recourse to either written memory or known custom, that is, forgo specific customs of social ordering (matriculation in a guild), specific written instruments

(the registers recording the payment of the tax to practice a profession), and any specific

Florentine way of thought. For Florentines, socio-political norms and Florentine customs were based on bonds of corporation and formal association with like-minded Florentines performing the same professional activities. As Giovanni suggests, the Florentine matricola will not help

Ventura to succeed in Venice where socio-political customs differ significantly. If he is to ingratiate himself with the Venetians, Ventura must act with flexibility and informality.

Giovanni councils him to act crazed (frenetico), like the Venetians (advice that runs counter to the recommendations offered in his uncle’s sonnet that one should be prudent in dealings with foreigners and meticulous with one’s accounts in order to minimize exposure to risk in Ricordo a chi passa in Inghilterra). According to Giovanni Lambertucci, when dealing with the Venetians, it is prudent to act imprudently. A similar irony marks Giovanni’s references to the Lethe. He explains that he offers his advice so that Ventura will not “behave like someone on the Lethe who is always capsizing his ship.” In neither Virgil nor Dante do souls sail the waters of the Lethe. However, this idea does appear in the third book of the widely-read school text the Elegia de diversitate fortunae et philosophiae consolatione written by the Florentine

Arrigo da Settimello toward the end of the twelfth century and translated into the Florentine vernacular in the fourteenth century. In the Elegia, the poet afflicted by Fortune is admonished by Lady Philosophy for his self-pity and lack of mental composure. Philosophy says to him:

85 “Matricola” was in use already by the thirteenth century as a synonym to mean a way of thought. See Tesoro della Lingua Italiana delle Origini, s.v. matricola § 3. 116 “Your common sense has fled, your intellect wanders, and your mind sails on the waters of the

Lethe” (Sensus abit tuus et tuus intellectus oberrat, / et tua letheis mens peregrinat aquis).86 In the vernacular version, the Latin “et tua letheis mens peregrinat aquis” has been translated as “la mente navica per l’acque di Lete.”87 Giovanni’s pairing of letico and navicola neatly echoes the vernacularized version of this passage where the Lethe is linked to the loss of self-composure that comes from subjection to Fortune, which can induce the mind to drift heedlessly in forgetfulness. The rhyme words “venetico,” “letico,” “farnetico” (which parallel the rhymes of the first sonnet albeit in a changed gender: “lunatica,” “ebratica,” “erratica”) punctuate the ends of verses, stressing the poets’ association between madness/strangeness/variability and

Venice/Lethean waters, an association that ultimately ties the city of Venice to the goddess

Fortune.

Cecco d’Ascoli’s response to Ventura’s sonnet suggests that he penned it after having already seen Giovanni’s I’ veggio, ser Ventura, la matricola (and perhaps also Poi che Fortuna v’è tanto lunatica). Giovanni’s third response, Ventura, i’ sento di quella panatica, seems to have been written in response to Cecco so I will discuss it after looking first at Cecco’s sonnet.88

Cecco writes:

Tu vien da longi con rima balbatica, You send your sorrowful rhymes from far away, la più ch’io creda audir quanto ch’io vìvero, the most sorrowful I think I will ever know ma, si venissi qua do’ nase ‘l Tevero, but, if you came here to where the Tiber is born,89

86 Fossati, Elegia, 48. 87 Manni, Arrighetto, 59. 88 Giovanni’s third response is contained in Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, 433 while, Cecco’s response is extant in only two witnesses: San Giustino, Archivio Bufalini, sezione I, busta 2ter, fasc. 6b (mid-14th century) and Trier, Stadtbibliothek, 2285/2226 (fifteenth century). 89 Monte Fumaiolo, about 100 kilometers east of Florence, is the site of the origin of the Tiber. 117 te basterebbe, o da scola socratica. or the socratic school,90 you would cease [such sorrow].

Se stai fra gente ch’asembri lunatica, If you are amongst people that seem crazy, legger te converrà sì fatto livero you should read a book made such that che tu possi notar quel ch’io te scrìvero, you can note what I am about to write you, se vertù vòi seguire d’adamatica. if you want to acquire the virtue of a diamond.

Non star fra lor con vista melenconica, Do not be melancholic while amongst them. usa cautela e spesso la recapita, Use caution over and over again. e sapite mustrar franco e rodico; Know when to act like a Frank or a Rhodian. e va’ su, con’ bisogna, dritt’o chiodico: Continue as needed, straight or vacillating: capitarai, con’ quei che bene acapita, you will succeed asai più chiar che la pietra sardonica. more surely than sardonyx.

A me la tua parola è stretta regola, To me, your word is a strict rule, e tu però la mia non tener begola. thus, don’t consider mine to be silliness.

Cecco’s response introduces an air of sobriety in sharp contrast to Giovanni’s more ludic advice. The older poet tells Ventura to read a book (“livero”) written such that he can take note of Cecco’s advice. This “livero” may be an implicit echo of Giovanni’s envisioned “matricola”

(“la matricola/che vi convien tener con l’uom venetico”) which will allow Ventura to live amongst the Venetians (Giovanni will directly allude to Cecco’s “livero” in his third response below). If Ventura desires the resilience to stay amongst the Venetians – the “virtue of a diamond” is the figural equivalent of the cardinal virtue of fortitude – he must not wallow in his unhappiness nor take up Venetian customs. Rather he must retain his own customs, always be

90 Like the enigmatic reference to the origin of the Tiber, the reference to the scuola socratica is puzzling; perhaps a comic allusion to the deviant sexual practices Giovanni had referred to. See Daniele Piccini, “Di un sonetto trecentesco su Venezia per più destinatari: un caso singolare di corrispondenza in versi” in Bertazzoli, et al., Studi, 621-636, 635. 118 sensible, and act honestly (“franco,” like a Frank) or cunningly (“rodico,” like a Rhodian) as needed. If he does this, he will be sure to operate there with a strength of character more certain than sardonyx (a variety of chalcedony associated from antiquity with courage and stability).

Unlike Giovanni’s “sleeve-changing” (“mutate maniche”), Cecco’s advice adheres metrically to

Ventura’s own “regola,” exemplifying the resolution that Ventura must possess while in Venice.

As Cecco’s response was written in reference to Giovanni’s second response, Giovanni’s final response seems to have been written in reference to Cecco’s:91

Ventura, i’ sento di quella panatica Ventura, I taste something of that ration che s’usa in quella terra ov’è il ginzivero, which is used in the land where there is ginger, che t’è più aspra che spin di ginivero, [the land] which to you bitterer than juniper thorns, sì è la vita lor strana et erratica; so strange and erratic is their way of life.

Però sie certo che gente lunatica Thus, it is true that capricious people vuol senno più che non insegna ‘l livero, want more sense than any book can teach, dove ogni vizio v’è privato e livero where every vice is both private and unchecked e sol pur a virtù fa sua venatica. and only virtue is continously hunted.

E’ ti bisogna astener come ’n tonica And you must abstain as does the friar in his cassock fa ‘l frate che la propria vita palpita, so that his body trembles, che nol fa avaro, liberal né prodico. which makes him seem not stingy, extravagant, or lavish.

Ma argomenta sempre come lodico, Always make logical arguments, et tal sermone tra lor sì ricapita; and such arguments from them will be reciprocated. s’altro t’è detto, gli è sentenza erronea. If another has told you differently, it was erroneous.

La vita, che tenere dèi ben vègola: The life which you ought to keep, I see it well.

91 Vatteroni is of the opinion that references to books (in particular, “livero” and “matricola”) in all of these sonnets refer back to the juridical texts Ventura cited in his original sonnet: the Codex and the Inforzato; see Vatteoni, Ventura Monachi, 175. I consider these books and documents to be associated with textual culture more broadly. 119 quella saprai quand’i’ sarò poi tègo là. This you will know when I am there with you.

Returning to the original rhyme-scheme and metre, Giovanni offers advice with a significantly different tone than that of his first two sonnets. He now earnestly offers counsel that, unlike

Cecco’s “livero,” cannot be found in a book. Ventura should not indulge in the vices and excesses of this capricious society since the Venetians are so riddled with vice and caprice that they set the virtues to flight. The only way to succeed in Venice is to abstain from vice and profligacy “like a friar in his habit” and always speak rationally. Ventura must act like a religious ascetic, a model of virtue and clarity, and speak only as a great logician would. Any other advice that Ventura may have received – namely, Cecco’s advice – is erroneous.

Judging from the extant manuscript witnesses, Ventura’s sonnet Giovanni, io son condocto in terr’acquatica and two of Giovanni’s responses – Poi che Fortuna v’è tanto lunatica and I’ veggio, ser Ventura, la matricola – enjoyed wide circulation.92 By contrast,

Ventura’s sonnet to Cecco (Cecco, io so congiunto in terr’acquatica), Cecco’s response (Tu vien da longi con rima balbatica), and Giovanni’s third response (Ventura ‘i sento di quella panatica), likely written in light of Cecco’s, did not circulate nearly as widely.93 Together the sonnets constituted the lyric application of the practice of sociability within a restricted coterie of three men. However, the sonnets discussed themes that had relevance within larger sociable contexts of Florence, and the original coterie expanded to a larger textual community to include other readers and those who would copy and share the poems as models of sociability. The

92 Ventura’s sonnet to Giovanni is extant in ten different manuscripts, of which seven contain all three sonnets together. 93 Giovanni’s third response is extant in only one manuscript while Ventura’s sonnet to Cecco and the latter’s response are extent in only two manuscripts (the first eight verses of the Cecco’s response are extent in a third manuscript). 120 sonnets were read and copied across a relatively diffuse Florentine textual community which was able to participate by way of these poems in the dialogic consideration of the differences between foreigner and Florentine and of how Florentines abroad might best comport themselves in order to gain the necessary legitimacy within unfamiliar social contexts. The Venetian sonnet exchange is an example of how a specific mode of Florentine sociability could foster a sense of civic association and pride by setting up dichotomies between Florentineness and foreignness – familiar/strange, consistent/erratic, honest/unscrupulous, etc.

The sociable practice of advising how to negotiate unpredictability in a foreign city allowed Florentines to air and occasionally disagree about how best to operate within a foreign society and be commercially/socially successful abroad. Ventura’s reference to the specific

Venetian habits that stand out as uncanny to a Florentine – the fact that every Venetian writes chronicles (“ciascun pone ‘l suo parere in cronica”), the abbundance of Venetian legislation

(“tante son le legge quante capita”), and the disregard for the seminal texts of Roman law

(“ànno per nulla lo ‘Nforzato e ‘l Codico”) – within the cultures of Florentine textuality make

Florentine traditions seem normative by comparison. Giovanni and Cecco echo this narrative about Florentine written culture through their thematic refrains reiterating the “matricola” and the “livero.” In these sonnets, the language of books, registers, chronicles, and the law establish the idea that Florentine textual and civic practices are normative and do so within the very written and sociable cultures that were responsible for the copying and circulation of these sonnets.

While these sonnets can be understood as a form of cultural capital within the textual communities where they circulated, they can also be understood as contributing to forms of social and economic capital. Deploying some of the same symbolic language current in the field of commerce – ships, risk, sea-faring, Fortune, etc. – this tenzone is an example of a familiar written genre within mercantile society, namely, texts of commercial advice, as when an 121 experienced individual, usually an elder, offers advice to his associates or heirs about how to negotiate securities, gain stability, and legitimize the business activities of a company at home and/or abroad. We have already seen another fourteenth-century example of this type of advice in verse form in Ricordo per chi passa in Inghilterra. Such advice also appeared in prose letters or memoranda in libri di ricordi (ricordanze) and libri di conto where merchants might record guidance for their heirs or partners on how to deal with contingency and chance.94 By establishing important social dynamics between a young man and his older relatives or patrons, such advice served as a means of ensuring the future fortunes of a company or family enterprise.

The language of the tenzone suggests a similar dynamic at work in the relationship between

Ventura (at the time, around twenty years of age), Giovanni (around thirty), and Cecco (around sixty).

Giovanni’s suggestions that he will soon be with Ventura in Venice suggests some kind of (perhaps family) interest in Ventura’s business there. In the second sonnet, the final tercet reads:

Così facendo ‘cquisteren navilio Doing thus, we will acquire a consignment di tal valor che, pur pensando, godole of such value, that just thinking on it, I delight queste parole, che di prova io dole. about these words that I have given you in advice.

The first-person plural, “we will acquire a consignment” (literally, “we will buy ships”), implicitly evokes Giovanni’s future presence there, when, after Ventura’s prescribed conduct, they will together “acquire such value,” that is to say, enjoy a financial return. The second reference to Giovanni’s future presence in Venice, in his third sonnet, is more explicit: “La vita,

94 Branca, Mercanti scrittori and Christian Bec, “Borghesi e/o umanisti” in Cultura e società, 105- 184. Bec also provides transcriptions of letters on Fortune written to partners and acquaintances. Also see Doren, “Fortuna im Mittelalter,” Patch, The Goddess Fortuna, and Giuliano Procacci, “La fortuna nella realtà politica e sociale del primo Cinquecento” in Belfagor VI (1951): 407-421. 122 che tenere dèi ben vègola: / quella saprai quand’i’ sarò poi tègo là.” Giovanni well knows how to act in such a situation and Ventura will know it too once Giovanni is there with him. These sonnets describe how best to garner the social capital needed to be commercially successful in a foreign place and gain the desired economic capital against a general backdrop of the unknown.

The focus on writing and the making of texts within Florentine contexts as legitimizing activities is coupled with a focus (most explicitly in Giovanni’s responses) on the symbolic imagery of Fortune as a force of the unknown.

In a highly commercial society like that of Florence, the concept of Fortune was diffuse and, in fact, often difficult to distinguish from other concepts associated with mercantile transactions that carried similar meanings. There was a conglomeration of concepts associated with the unpredictable (sors, periculum, risicum, etc.), often used in commercial transactions to describe something that could be quantified in economic terms.95 How to engage in trade and commerce successfully while also away from home and amongst foreigners was a major concern for the commercially-minded Florentines who managed risk by dividing and distributing it among many. Commercial practices were unpredictable at home, and even more so when, far from home, Florentines had to negotiate large commercial transactions with people whose manners, customs, and language were completely foreign.

The Venetian tenzone was initiated by a youthful Ventura employed to act abroad in an unspecified commercial capacity. Again, at the risk of being overly speculative, I maintain these sonnets were written before 1320 and Ventura’s documented presence there in 1328. As a young notary initiating the tenzone, Ventura’s lyric language is informed by his notarial education and his place within that field of activity: chronicles, legislation, and law codices all fall within the realm of traditional notarial activities. He seeks advice from a coeval (the son of major

95 Ceccarelli, Il gioco e il peccato. 123 commercial family) and from an elder (a famous poet, professor of medicine and astrology, and a retainer of the Angevin crown). In this sociable exercise, the first respondent uses commercially-inspired language (namely, the figure of Fortune) to prescribe successful comportment when facing the unknown, while the second insists on the function of textuality

(“legger te converrà sì fatto livero / che tu possi notar quel ch’io te scrìvero”) as an edificatory mechanism. While they harness different vocabularies as products of their own individual ways of reflecting on the world around them, both Giovanni and Cecco offer advice about how to weather insecurity and secure one’s own legitimacy under unfamiliar circumstances. The unknown/foreign, the feeling of impermanence, the need to legitimize, and questions of authority would remain important aspects of Ventura’s career as he continued to express such themes in his later lyric poetry as a communal administrator and finally as chancellor of the

Florentine Republic. As he grew older and moved into different fields of activity, namely the fields of administration and politics, Ventura’s sonnets continued to offer insight into how he specifically related to the impermanence he perceived in his field and society around him. More generally, his lyric poetry offers evidence of how a senior communal administrator in Florence, the chancellor, understood his relationship as a permanent member of the administration within an impermanent bureaucracy.

Within the Administrative Organisation

By 1328 Ventura began to be regularly employed by the commune of Florence both as a functionary within its administrative organization and as a representative of the commune to destinations throughout the Italian peninsula. During this middle part of his career then, Ventura operated within administrative and political fields. The sonnets that he wrote during this period 124 of his life reiterate many of the same themes of instability, but Ventura’s attitude toward such themes appears to have developed from that of the young, apprehensive notary sent abroad.

Many of the sonnets datable to these years are clearly inspired by his participation in events within administration and politics and serve as expressions of his relationship to those fields. His concern with socio-political events outside Florence was certainly one result of the time he spent abroad as a communal representative. Thematic oppositions between what is foreign and what is Florentine, what is unknown and what is known, thread their way through

Ventura’s poetry, suggesting the great degree to which, as a notary-administrator and political agent of Florence, he internalized the question of how to negotiate the unknown. For example, years before his chancellorship Ventura penned sonnets in honour of King Robert I of Naples and Mastino II della Scala. These may be dated to around 1332 when, as a representative of the commune, Ventura was sent to Ferrara to confirm Florence’s alliance with the signori in the north, including the Scaligieri and the Estensi, and the Angevin King of Naples, Robert I, to resist the advance of King John of Bohemia into Italy.96 As highly stylized paeans to the qualities of two foreign rulers, these sonnets in some ways prefigure the kind of stylized missives that Ventura would later be charged with composing as chancellor of the Republic.97

His many missions as ambassador or consul outside of Florence would have provided Ventura

96 See Appendix II, especially: VIII (Ben à Giove con voi partito ‘l regno); IX (Re di Ierusalem e di Sicilia); and X (Voluto à riparar la ca’ Selvatica). 97 Witt maintains that Ventura’s occasional use of the vernacular in the chancery missives destined primarily for internal consumption (that is, Florentine ambassadors and consuls abroad), represents a definitive reform in the epistolary style of the chancery. Ventura also introduced some rhetorical and stylistic changes, including epigrams, commonplaces, and quotations from the Bible and the Church Fathers, and sometimes employing a more complex and crafted syntax. Niccolò Monachi tended with even more regularity than his father to use the vernacular, even in letters destined for foreign powers. See Witt, Coluccio Salutati, 14 f. 27, 15, 29. 125 with a practical sense of how to operate within the parameters of foreign courts and governments where he had been tasked with asserting the commune’s sovereign authority.

Further, the thematic opposition between outsider and insider in these sonnets reveals an interesting feature of Ventura’s thought throughout his career regarding his place and function as an administrator, demarcating Ventura’s recurrent concern regarding the socio-political boundaries of his own society in relation to others. Such a preoccupation demonstrates the extent to which he internalized questions of the unknown. As chancellor, when he would be responsible for the presentation of the sovereignty of Florence, his relationship to the question of the unknown apparently became more complex.

While he was directly involved in the commune’s external affairs with foreign powers, early in his chancellorship he also became concerned with internal uncertainties, in particular the ceding of emergency powers to a balìa of twenty men (Venti) followed shortly by the uncertainty of a single, foreign ruler granted extraordinary powers. Between 1336 and 1342, a convergence of events prompted the oligarchic ruling group to cede emergency powers from the

Signoria. These years saw high degrees of socio-political polarization and imbalance as a convergence of political and military crises drastically weakened the economy: the war with

Mastino della Scala from 1336 to 1338; the 1339 Bardi and Peruzzi banking crisis; the 1341 purchase of Lucca and the subsequent war with Pisa. The buckling influence of the Signoria prompted the councils headed by an oligarchic ruling group to cede emergency powers to a council of twenty prominent citizens who were given full authority over war, taxation, and foreign policy. The rule of the so-called Venti lasted for one year, during which time its members were not held accountable for its actions through sindication. Giovanni Villani describes it as sheer “confusion and danger for the commune,” refusing to list the names of the twenty men whose actions, he writes, are mentioned only as “a warning to later generations of 126 Florentines about handing emergency powers over to fellow citizens for long periods of time.”98

Not long after a defeat in battle with Pisa in 1341, the withdrawal of papal investments from

Florentine companies and the subsequent loss of Florentine banking credibility throughout

Europe prompted the ruling class to install a foreign signore, Walter of Brienne, in place of the

Venti. Eventually, the duke suspended regular electoral procedures altogether and, after declaring himself signore for life, appointed his own priori to hold office under his rule.99

Ventura’s sonnet Ben son di pietra s’io non ramarico was likely written during the Duke’s signoria, sometime between September 1342 and July 1343. The sonnet displays a wistfulness for the stability of the past.

Ben son di pietra s’io non mi ramarico Well I would be made of stone if I didn’t lament, o s’io credo che ‘l mondo sia durabile, and if I believed the world will endure, fede veggendo si confusa e labile seeing that faith is so confused and weak a chi più ne dovrebbe essere carico; in those who ought to be full [with faith]. veggio parlare un linguaggio barbarico And I hear a barbaric language spoken, iscuro, colorato, e variable; obscure, coloured, and variable; l’opere del figliuol di Manastabile I see actions worthy of Jugurtha o di qual crudo fu il più privarico. or of whatever pitiless man who was a greater cheat.

Saggio non si ripùta sanza fraude, One isn’t considered wise unless he can delude, e chi ben sa mentir sanz’arrossarne, and whoever knows how to lie without blushing a quel par esser più degno di laude. considers himself worthier of praise.

98 Villani, Croniche storiche 1, CXXX. “[…] e durò il loro uficio per termine d’uno anno, non possendo essere sindacati di cosa che facessono. La qual cosa fu confusione e pericolo del nostro comune, come si mostererà appresso per i loro processi. I nomi dei detti venti non gli registreremo in questa, imperciocchè non sono degni di memoria di loro virtù o buone operazioni per lo nostro comune fatte per loro, ma del contrario, come per innanzi per le loro operazioni si farà menzione e si potrà vedere, acciocchè i nostri successori si guardino di dare le grandi balìe a’ nostri cittadini per lunghi tempi.” 99 Villani, Nuova Cronica, XIII, iii. 127

Ma per voler mangiar dell’altrui carne But despite the desire to eat the flesh of his prey, non sempre il lupo sua rapina gaude, the wolf does not always enjoy his bounty; e punto vidi chi toccava l’arne. and I have seen the one who steals the hives get stung.

Al consiglio di Dio talor s’impetra But, one can implore the judgement of God che ‘l colpo senta chi gita la pietra. that he who threw the rock, feels the punishment.

Ventura is not so hard as stone as to refrain from lamenting his city’s imbalanced state: in

Florence, faith has become confused and labile; speech has become embellished and variable in order to conceal meaning; those who govern are pitiless cheats and tyrants; and only shameless equivocators are considered wise. As a criticism of the corruption of religious, political, and civic values in Florence, this may be considered a lament for bygone days when people did what they said they would do and lived within the parameters of what was reasonable and virtuous.

Yet, this sonnet also references a particular period in Florence’s political history. The

“linguaggio barbarico” Ventura hears could allude to the foreign (“barbaro”) language of the non-native Walter of Brienne, who had made himself signore of Florence for life in September

1342.100 Ventura writes that in Florence he witnesses deeds similar to those of the brutal

Numidian king, Jugurth. He was not the only Florentine who described the duke’s rule as cruel.

For example, Giovanni Villani (1276-1348) writes:

“We Florentines have an old and enlightened saying: that Florence doesn’t move

until every part of her aches […] The duke had not reigned three months before

almost as many citizens as we spoke about before had grown displeased with his

signoria on account of his unjust and wicked actions.”101

100 As suggested by Vatteroni, Ventura Monachi, 223. 101 “E’ si dice fra noi Fiorentini uno antico e material proverbio, cioè: Firenze non si muove, se tutta non si duole. E bene che ‘l proverbio sia di grosse parole e rima, per isperienza s’è trovato di vera 128 Villani goes on to explain that all members of Florentine society – the “grandi e possenti popolani,” the “mediani,” and the “artefici” – objected to the duke’s authority: “nearly every citizen opposed the duke because of his evil deeds.”102 Both in Villani’s account and in

Ventura’s sonnet, the duke’s reign in Florence is deemed to be despotic. Indeed, within ten months, Brienne felt the reversal of his fortunes when he was expelled from the city on 26 July

1343, a day which became a civic holiday.103 Where Ventura implores divine Providence (“al consiglio di Dio talor s’impetra”) that whoever lies or steals feel the reversal of his fortunes

(“che ’l colpo senta chi gita la pietra”), Villani also notes that God ordains that evil men come to cruel ends as, for example, in the case of Brienne’s key advisor, Guglielmo d’Ascesi. The so- called “conservatore delle tirannie del duca” (Conservator of the tyrannies of the duke) was made to watch as his eighteen-year-old son was hung from the ravelin of the Palazzo della

Signoria and violently put to death; Guglielmo shortly followed in like manner. For Villani, this was a matter of furious vendetta (“furiosa vendetta”), as the people, with a bestial fury and great hostility, consumed pieces of the dismembered bodies of Guglielmo and his son, “cruda e cotta:”

“This was the end of a traitor and persecutor of the people of Florence. And let it

be known that he who is cruel must be given a cruel death, dixit Domino” (Cotale

sentenzia, e viene a caso della nostra presente matera; che a certo il duca non ebbe regnato III mesi, que quasi a’ più di cittadini non dispiacesse nella sua signoria per li suoi inniqui e malvagi processi, come detto avemo adietro […]” In Villani, Nuova Cronica, XIII, xvi, 1-9. 102 “quasi tutti i cittadini erano commossi contro a lui per le sue ree opere.” In Villani, Nuova Cronica, XIII, xvi, 88-89. 103 “[…] per la qual grazia s’ordinò per lo Comune che la festa di santa Anna si guardasse come pasqua sempre in Firenze […]” in Villani, Nuova Cronica, XIII, xvii, 305-309. 129 fu la fine del traditore e persecutore del popolo di Firenze. E nota che chi è

crudele crudelemente dee morire, disit Domino).104

The chronicler describes the violence of requital and emphasizing how citizens appropriate extra-judicial power to mete out retributive justice for the tyranny they suffered. Ventura’s sonnet, as a reminder that everything comes full circle, explains the providential mechanism by which this happens – whoever steals from beehives will feel the sting and whoever casts the first stone will be judged. In both texts, the idea of providential requital through the mechanism of retributive justice, or lex talionis, is present. The will of God ensures that power is stripped from those who misuse it and that punishment is rendered in a way commensurate with the crime.

Ventura would return to these ideas of civic justice and virtuous rule when, officially re- instated as chancellor on 1 September 1343 and in direct response to the duke’s tyranny, he wrote his most famous sonnet, Se la Fortuna t’hà fatto signore. In it, he admonishes all

Florentines chosen to hold executive power to exercise their power virtuously; while the duke is not mentioned directly, his despotic behaviour provides the context for Ventura’s articulation of this stabilizing ideal of Florentine republicanism: in a republic power is not vested in a single man, but rather rotates through the hands of many men of the city’s guild community. In Se la

Fortuna, Ventura explicitly aligns the continual rotation of priori with the ongoing revolutions of Fortune’s wheel. We saw how, in his youth, Ventura had had cause to consider the figure of

Fortune within Florentine mercantile contexts. Now, within the highly visible context of

104 “[…] e pinsollo fuori dell’antiporto del palagio in mano dell’arrabbiato popolo […] in presenza del padre per più suo dolore, il suo figliuolo pinto fuori inanzi il tagliarono e smembrarono a minuti pezzi; e ciò fatto pinsono fuori il conservadore e feciono il somigliante, e chi ne portava un pezzo sulla lancia e chi in sulla spada per tutta la città; ed ebbevi de’ si crudeli, e con furia bestiale e tanto animosa, che mangiaro delle loro carni cruda e cotta. Cotale fu la fine del traditore e persecutore del popolo di Firenze. E nota che chi è crudele crudelemente dee morire, disit Domino. E fatta la detta furiosa vendetta molto s’aquetò e contentò la rabbia del popolo.” In Villani, Nuova Cronica, XIII, xvii, 230-448. 130 executive governance in Florence, Ventura invokes this ultimate figure of risk and change as the functional mechanism that renders retributive justice for civic malfeasance. Here, the ultimate force of changeability is what underpins the stability and continuity of a republican commune.

For tuna a nd Ius tiz ia

Se la Fortuna t’à fatto signore If Fortune has made you signore, dispensa e guarda ciò che vuol misura; dispense and consider what measure requires. non esser del cader sanza paura Do not be without fear of falling quando fermezza credi aver maggiore. when you think you have greater stability.

E non sperar che sia sofferitore Don’t hope that someone will tolerate s’alcuno offendi contro a dirittura: your injustice if you do him wrong. chi dello stato più si rassicura He who feels more certain of his status talor pruova cadendo più dolore. will find himself falling into greater pain.

Non riguarda Fortuna chi nè quali, Fortune doesn’t care who you are; sempre come le par volge la rota she always turns her wheel as it seems to her, E non ti dice guarti quando cali. and she won’t say “Watch out!” when you fall.

Oh tu che reggi, una parola nota: Oh you, who are ruling, take note of one thing: non essere ignorante quando sali. don’t be reckless when you are on the rise. Quant’ella n’à lasciati entro la mota! How many men has she left in the mud!

Ventura’s sonnet was likely painted on the wall of the hall of the priori sometime after the expulsion of the Duke of Athens and before Ventura’s death in 1348, although the precise date of its execution and its exact location is hard to pin down.105 We have already seen

105 The sonnet is extant in forty-four different manuscripts, six of which specify it was located in “the hall” of the priori: 1) Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 40.49: “ser uentura monachi nella sala de priori”; 2) Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Magliabechiano VII.624: “ser uentura 131 Ventura’s summation of the duke and his actions while signore and the interim of the duke’s term was certainly disruptive, both politically and socially. His fiscal reform policies did not alleviate the city’s corrosive fiscal issues, and his political decisions emboldened the mass of disenfranchised labourers to whom he had granted the rights of corporatisation and political participation which the guild community had always denied them.106

With the Signoria re-instated in September 1343, the new priori presided over reforms leading to a popular government that would endure from 1343 until 1348. This new regime adhered to the principles of corporatism: the guild community was frequently consulted on matters of policy and the terms of its electoral reforms granted eligibility for executive office to a large number of persons even of modest social rank from all twenty-one guilds. Even if, in reality the major guilds continued to hold a majority of the seats of high political office, the

monachi nella sala dei ppriori”; 3) Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Palatino Panciatichiano 6: “sonetto che e jn nella sala de signori di firenze”; 4) Florence, Biblioteca Ricciardiana, 1094: “ser uentura monachi nella sala de priori”; 5) Lucca, Biblioteca Statale, 1486: “Sonetto di ser Ventura Monachi nella sala de’ priori”; and 6) Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, V.E.40: “Infrascriptos versus vide supra ianuam sale palatii dominorum ciuitatis florentie.” Cf. Vatteroni, Ventura Monachi, 211. The sonnet is variously attributed in a number of manuscripts to several different poets including, Antonio Pucci, Bindo Bonichi, Dante Alighieri, and Coluccio Salutati. 106 Upon the duke’s expulsion the city the city was divided between at least four main socio- political groups: first, the magnate families who had been seeking ever since 1293 to recover the rights to elective office they had lost in the Ordinamenti di giustizia; second, the oligarchic popolani, or those members of the upper ranks of the guild community who advocated for a consensus-based political model and did not always support the imposition of corporatist modes at the level of communal government; third, the popolo, or those belonging to the rank-and-file of the major guilds whose influence could tip the scale in the struggle between the adherents of corporatism and consensus in political life; and fourthly, the lower class, day labourers and professionals who sought guild status and the right to inclusion in the city’s political apparatus. See, Najemy, Corporatism and Consensus, 129- 152. 132 minor guilds were now granted a relatively sizable share of the commune’s executive office and for nearly five years, the commune’s electoral mechanisms reflected the basic corporate model of government. Ventura’s sonnet was on display at the heart of executive governance on the third floor of the Palazzo della Signoria and it was a public affirmation of these corporatist ideals.

The sonnet responds directly to the disruptive situation of 1342-1343, when first emergency powers were invested in a board of twenty oligarchs and then vested in the single person of a foreigner who had made himself signore for life. With his first-hand knowledge of the uncertainties involved in the Republic’s relinquishing of emergency powers, Ventura composed Se la Fortuna in a context of social reorganization and political re-construction.

Ventura reminds incumbent priori that they have become signori by chance: “la Fortuna t’ha fatto signore;” and they must act according to the responsibilities of this station, never disregarding its impermanent nature. The authority of the commune derived, like the rotary motion of the wheel of Fortune, from the rotational distribution of communal authority among many signori, or priori. However, Fortune here plays a role beyond simply ensuring the distribution of authority. She is also the mechanism by which malfeasance is punished. She ensures that all priori operated in accordance with the four cardinal, or political virtues.

Although previous scholarship has not suggested it, there is an explicit relationship in this sonnet between Fortune and the four cardinal virtues (also called, the civic, or political virtues): Temperance, Prudence, Justice, and Fortitude.107 Fortune here acts as the arbiter ensuring that the civic virtues are exercised by office holders, in particular, those within the

107 This relationship between fortuna and virtus in its later, humanist contexts has received much scholarly attention and boasts an extremely vast bibliography. See, for example, Hankins, “Machiavelli, Civic Humanism,” 102. 133 Signoria. Addressing the individual priori, Ventura first recommends Temperance by one of her familiar names when he writes, “Dispensa et guarda quel che vuol misura.” “Misura” was another name for “Temperanza” as in Brunetto Latini’s Tesoretto (c. 1260) where, while at the court of the Virtues, the poet reads an inscription above the lady Temperance which recounts that men will often call her measure.108 Ventura also recommends Justice by one of her names

(“dirittura”), saying no priore should hope that Florentines will suffer his want of this virtue:

“Non sperar che sia sofferitore s’alcuno offendi contro a dirittura” [Don’t hope anyone to suffer your offenses against justice]. Fortitude is invoked in Ventura’s injunction not to be without fear of falling from Fortune’s graces: “Non esser del cader sanza paura, quando fermeza credi aver maggior” [Don’t be without fear of falling when you think you have greater stability]. In the

Aristotelian schema, an excess of Fortitude inspires a lack of fear and leads to over-confidence and brash behaviour.109 Whosever arrogantly feels overly secure in his authority, Ventura insists, will find himself following into greater pain: “chi dello stato più si rassicura talor pruova cadendo più dolore.” Prudence features in the poem in the notion that excessive Fortitude can be tempered through knowledge (Prudence) of how the wheel works. Ventura warns the priori that they must not be ignorant while they are on the rise: “Tu, che reggi, una parola nota: non esser ignorante quando sali” [You who rule, take note of one thing: don’t be ignorant when you are on the rise]. The prudent application of authority is necessary as Fortune does not care who you are and she will not warn you when you are about to fall (“Non riguarda Fortuna chi nè quali […] E non ti dice ‘Guarti!’ quando cali”). In this sonnet, Fortune, the ultimate symbol of impermanence and the unknown, acts as the guarantor of political equilibrium. She provides

108 Tesoretto, vv. 1284-1286. “Here sits Temperance, who people often are accustomed to calling measure” (Qui stae la temperanza/ Cui la gente talora / Suole chiamare misura). 109 In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, chapter 7, he describes how a man who has excess fortitude is reckless and a man lacking fortitude is a coward. 134 security from tyrants by ensuring that all men who serve as priori operate under the balanced ethical program of the political virtues.

Ventura’s illustration of Fortune is in some ways at variance from the way she appears in most philosophical and literary contexts of the Middle Ages where, as the handmaid of divine

Providence, Fortune was considered to be inscrutable, but not unpredictable: whatever she elevated, she eventually brought back down.110 For Arrigo da Settimello, Fortune is the

“overseer of all things” (generalis yconoma rerum) while for Dante, she is God’s “general administrator” (general ministra) in charge of alternating the allocation of worldly goods to different people over time (“che permutasse a tempo li ben vani di gente in gente”).111 Giovanni

Boccaccio calls her the “horrible monster and administrator of all mortal affairs (horridum monstrum illud, rerum ministra mortalium.)112 The mechanics of the circulations of Fortune’s wheel are beyond human reason and control and they are responsible for the dispensation of the will of God, but Fortune herself does not necessarily figure as a force that ensures virtuous behaviour, as in Ventura’s sonnet.113

In fourteenth-century pictorial representations, Fortune was generally represented by or figured alongside a wheel. Accordingly, most scholars have assumed that an image of Fortune’s wheel accompanied Ventura’s sonnet on the wall of the Sala dei gigli in the Palazzo della

110 See Simone Marchesi, “Boccaccio on Fortune (De casibus virorum illustrium)” in Kirkham, et al., Boccaccio, 245-254. 111 Fossati, Elegia, 181. “Nil tua propria, minas, generalis yconoma rerum curo, sed in cathedra glorior ipsa mea.” Also, Dante, Inferno VII, 79-81. “[…] ordinò general ministra e duce che permutasse a tempo li ben vani di gente in gente e d’uno un altro sangue, oltre la difension di senni umani.” 112 “[…] horridum monstrum illud, rerum ministra mortalium Fortuna [...]” in Boccaccio, De casibus virorum illustrium. 113 See Cioffari, Fortune in Dante’s Commentators and Cioffari, “The Function of Fortune.” 135 Signoria.114 Her appearance in the hall of the priori however, functions according to a logic different from existing representations of Fortune. While she may ultimately be acting in service to divine Providence, Ventura links Fortune more specifically to the exercise of civic virtue. In her civic guise, Fortune becomes the non-discriminatory judge of the virtuous or unvirtuous behaviour of the priori. Her verdicts, ultimately serving collective justice, ensure the sovereignty of the commune. Associated with retributive action as a civic phenomenon, Fortune is portrayed as a mechanism of communal justice. In this respect, the sonnet was likely accompanied by an image not only of Fortune, but also of the four Cardinal Virtues. In civic art from the fourteenth century the representation of the Virtues was very common in Florentine places of governance: they surround a massive representation of Lucius Junius Brutus (painted around 1343) at the palazzo of the Arte della lana, and they appear as winged angels in the symbolic representation of Florence’s civic institutions on the vaulted ceiling of the Palazzo del proconsolo (painted around 1366). It is not difficult to imagine then, especially given that

Ventura’s sonnet evokes them, that the Virtues appeared also in Florence’s primary space of executive governance, the Palazzo della Signoria.

114 See Figure 3.1, above. From as early as Medin, “Ballata della fortuna;” Flamini, La lirica toscana, 509-511 and 514-521; and Li Gotti, “Il Saviozzo, il Sacchetti.” More recently, Miranda, “I sonetti sulla Fortuna;” Guglielmo Gorni, “Tra rettori e capitani trecenteschi: due canzoni da attribuire a Antonio da Ferrara” in Bertoni, Miscellanea, 365-376; Maria Monica Donato, “Gli eroi romani tra storia ed ‘exemplum:’ I primi cicli umanistici di Uomini Famosi” in Settis, Memoria: 97-152; Maria Monica Donato, “Hercules and David,” 91; Maria Monica Donato, “Testi, contesti, immagini politici nel tardo medioevo: esempi toscani. In margine a una discussion sul “Buon governo,” in Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 19 (1993): 305-341; Rubinstein, The Palazzo Vecchio; and Maria Monica Donato, “Immagini e iscrizioni nell’’arte politica’ fra Tre e Quattrocento” in Ciociola, ‘Visibile parlare,’ 341-396. On the iconography of Fortune, see Aby Warburg “Francesco Sassettis letzwillige Verfügung,” in Gesammelte Schriften I (Leipzig: Teubner, 1932), 89-126 as well as “panel 48” of Warburg’s “Mnemosyne Atlas,” published online through Cornell University: . 136 I do not know of other public images from fourteenth century Florence in which Fortune is explicitly represented within a political context.115 However, Giovanni Boccaccio does reference the appearance of Fortune on Florentine walls in his De casibus virorum illustrium, describing her in a judicial guise: 116

Since the understanding of the mortal mind is unable to penetrate the depths of our

operations, you deem Fortune to be inexorable, heedless, and blind – and thus you paint

me [Fortune] on the walls of public buildings (Eo quod in profundum consiliorum

nostrorum mentium mortalium penetrare non possit acumen, inexorabilem inconsultam

cecamque, uti parietibus impingitis, arbitramini Fortunam fore).

Fortune notes that people consider her to be unmoved by entreaty (“inexorabilem”) and blind

(“cecam”), attributes typically associate with Iustizia.117 Furthermore, Fortune speaks of her operations as a result of her “consiliorum,” a process of judicial reasoning. Ventura’s Fortune is similarly tied to the execution of civic justice at the level of high government where she operates not only as the overseer but also the enforcer of a specific ethic.

As a theme, civic justice appears in a number of texts that describe the expulsion of the

Duke of Athens as directly connected to communal will. As we saw earlier in Villani’s account of the duke’s expulsion, Florentine citizens come together to take back authority from the Duke

(“quasi tutti i cittadini per erano commossi contro a lui per le sue ree opera”) and they

115 While she may not figure directly, Fortune’s wheel echoes implicitly in the unusual, circular representation of Orcagna’s Cacciata del Duca d’Atene, and the circular representation of the institutions of Florence on the vaulted ceiling of the Palazzo del Proconsolo, or even the stone slab in the middle of the Mercato nuovo figuring a wheel of the Carroccio, the so-called pietra dello scandalo (today’s pietra is a nineteenth century remake). 116 Boccaccio, De casibus virorum illustrium. The translation is my own. 117 The iconography of Fortune and Justice regularly blended together: the two are often pictured blindfolded, they are both associated with imagery conveying balance (a wheel, an orb, scales), etc. 137 collectively punish the abusers of Florentine authority. This same communal imperative is visible also in the Cacciata del Duca d’Atene, a well-known fourteenth-century fresco originally located in the Stinche and often attributed to Andrea Orcagna (c. 1308-1368), where the armed citizens of Florence kneel en masse in front of Saint Anne. She sits near the Palazzo della

Signoria, and the dethroned duke, driven by an angel heading the group of armed citizens, slinks away, his broken regalia scattered at his feet. As a pittura infamante, Orcagna’s fresco is a form of public didacticism that transmits a specific lesson about Florentine authority.118

The same sense of collective agency was incorporated also into a sirventese written on the occasion of the Duke’s expulsion. It was penned by Antonio Pucci (1310-1388) who, at the time, was the bell-ringer at the Palazzo del Podestà. Written in the voice of the duke, Pucci’s poem reinforces the collective imperative of the Florentines, as can be seen in these verses:119

Così mi credett’ esser trionfando Thus, I believed myself to have triumphed Re di Toscana. King of Tuscany! Facendo di Firenze mia fontana, Making Florence my fountain, Mandato avea per mia donna sovrana. I sent for my sovereign wife. Ma come la speranza mia fu vana, But, how my hopes were in vain, Lettor nota. Oh reader, take note. Chè, sendo per montare in su la rota, Since, while I was climbing up the wheel El popol fiorentin mi die’ per gota;120 the Florentine people slapped me in the face, Ond’io rimasi, lasso ne la mota, so I remain, alas, in the mud, Ispodestato. Stripped of my power.

118 On the juridical function of pittura infamante, see Edgerton, “Icons of Justice.” 119 “Come fu cacciato di Firenze il Duca d’Atene e lamento che fe’” in Medin and Frati, Lamenti storici, 23-35. 120 Gote are the cheeks on either side of person’s face. Thus, the phrase dare per gota means to slap someone’s face. I have translated this phrase rather roughly in order to emphasize the role of the wheel of Fortune in the phrase. 138 Here, the people of Florence bring about communal justice by taking it into their own hands to bring the duke’s tyranny to an end. The mechanism by which they are portrayed as having done so is the wheel of Fortune. The duke laments that just as he was climbing the wheel, the

Florentine people collectively slapped him back down again. Stripped of his power, he now remains in the mud at the bottom of the wheel. Pucci’s evocative image of a tyrant left in the mud at the bottom of Fortune’s wheel – “lasso ne la mota” – resonates verbally with the final verse of Ventura’s sonnet on display in the hall of the priori – “lasciati entro la mota.” This shared image, as well as the shared rhyme of “mota” with an imperative “nota” and the iconographic image of Fortune’s “rota,” demonstrate a close and intentional relationship between Pucci’s sirventese and Ventura’s sonnet, providing further support for associating

Ventura’s sonnet not only with the immediate aftermath of the duke’s expulsion, but also with the explicit theme of the triumph of collective rule. Fortune judges whether whoever fleetingly holds executive authority adheres to the four Virtues. Under her watchful gaze, any signore acting out of concert with the Virtues will find himself in the mud at the bottom of her wheel.

Fortune, in Ventura’s sonnet as in Pucci’s sirventese, is evoked in particular civic contexts as an iconographic symbol of how collective forms of rule can stave off tyranny.

Ventura’s sonnet however might be said to go a step further by legitimizing Florence’s electoral framework – short-term, rotational office-holding – by linking the office of the priori to providential design as executed by God’s magistrate, Fortune. Ventura explicitly forewarns all incumbent and future priori about the high personal risks involved in excessive, immoral, and despotic behaviour. These texts can be seen to have functioned as symbolic power deployed in the aftermath of a failed attempt at despotic authority.

Although previous scholarship locates Ventura’s poem above the entry of what is now the Sala dei gigli, I propose instead that it was painted on the wall above the doorway of the 139 adjacent, internal chamber of the priori, their Udienza.121 The Udienza, was a space occupied exclusively by the priori and could be accessed by outsiders only by invitation. As a poem intended for the priori, this would have been a likelier setting for Se la Fortuna than the ritualized space of the larger, antechamber (today known as the Sala dei gigli) where all manner of men, Florentine and foreign, could have been found waiting for audience with the priori.

Furthermore, the subsequent program of civic art and verse found on the wall of the Udienza is thematically consistent with Ventura’s poem and its assertion about the importance of civic justice for the rotating executives form whom the udienza constituted a daily workspace.

All the known civic art on the wall of the Udienza of the priori during the republican period reveals the persistent presence of civic Justice, further supporting my suggestion that

Ventura’s sonnet appeared in the Udienza, not in Sala dei gigli. Today, Benedetto da Maiano’s statue of Justice sits in sculpted form atop the architrave the marble doorway (designed by the same) that connects the Udienza and the Sala dei gigli. Engraved behind her is the phrase from the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom: “Diligite iustitiam qui iudicatis terram” (Love justice, you who judge the earth).122 It has been there since at least 1469 when, as part of a

121 Again, see Figure 3.1. Maria Monica Donato maintains that Ventura’s sonnet was on display in the Sala dei gigli, hypothesizing about the location of the sonnet and its corresponding image based on rubrics found in manuscript witnesses, where the location of the sonnet is referred to as in the “sala” of the priors; see Donato, “Immagini e iscrizioni nell’arte ‘Politica’ fra Tre e Quattrocento” in Ciociola, ‘Visibile parlare,’ 341-396, esp. 382-386. Also see Donato, “Hercules and David.” Rubinstein similarly contends that the “sala” to which manuscripts refer about the location of the Fortune sonnet was the Sala dei gigli; see Rubinstein, “Classical Themes,” 32-33, n. 29. However, all of the halls, or sale, on the third floor of the Palazzo della Signoria in fact belonged to the priori; thus, the manuscript evidence that the sonnet was “in the hall of the priori” is not at all precise. 122 The Book of Wisdom 1, 1; English translation is from the Douay-Rheims Bible. Also, in Paradiso 18, the souls in the heaven of Jupiter spell out the letters of this verse against the sky for Dante to read. 140 reconstruction and redecoration program of the halls of the priori, Benedetto da Maiano, his brother Giuliano, and il Francione were commissioned to work on the decoration of the reconstructed wall between the chamber and ante-chamber of the priori.123 Looking up daily at the statue of Justice in the Udienza, the men invested with the executive offices of the Republic after 1469 were reminded of their juridical imperative as the city’s highest political officials.

The new wall that the da Maiano brothers and il Francione were commissioned to decorate had been reconstructed from an older wall that had divided these two rooms from at least the early fourteenth century.124 We learn from Franco Sacchetti’s autograph collection of poetry that the old wall bore an image of the “Incredulity of Thomas” accompanied by verses that he had written in 1384 entreating the priori to seek out, believe in, and adhere to Justice.125

Questi sono certi versi che Franco fece per porre sopra la porta dentro l’audienza de’ Signori, dove

san Tomaso mette la mano ne la piaga di Cristo; e questi primi tre sono quelli, che vi sono a piede.

[These are certain verses that Franco made to put over the door inside the udienza of the Signori,

where Saint Thomas places his hand in the wound of Christ; and these first three are those that are at

his feet.]

Toccate il vero com’io e crederete Touch the Truth as I do and believe

ne la somma Iustizia in tre persone, in the highest Justice in three persons,

che sempre essalta ognun fa ragione. which always dignifies whoever does right.

La mano al vero e gli occhi al sommo cielo, One hand on truth and eyes to the highest heavens,

la lingua intera ed ogni vostro effetto a righteous mouth and every one of your senses

raguardi al ben comune sanza diffetto. look to the ben comune unfailingly.

123 Rubinstein, “Classical Themes,” 32-33. 124 Also, Rubinstein, “Classical Themes,” 32-33. 125 Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Ashburnham 576, 52v. 141 Cercate il vero Iustizia conseguendo, Seek out Truth by following Justice,

al ben comune la mente intera e franca with the mind, whole and candid, on ben comune

perch’ogni regno sanza questo manca. because every government without this is wanting.

The sonnet’s presence in the Udienza directly links Christian Truth to Florentine civic Justice, locating Justice in the Trinity (“Iustizia in tre persone”) and Truth in Justice (“Cercate il vero,

Iustizia conseguendo”). It is the duty of the priori to put their mind, “intera e franca,” to the common good. Leaders must do this because every realm without “ben comune” fails (“perché ogni regno sanza questo manca”).

Sacchetti’s 1384 sonnet likely replaced Ventura Monachi’s earlier text and image with its message about civic justice and virtuous behaviour. The chronological trajectory of the wall’s decoration – Ventura’s Fortune sonnet (1343), Sacchetti’s Saint Thomas sonnet (1385), and finally the statue of Justice accompanied by the exhortation from the Book of Wisdom (1469) – establishes a continuous theme on display in this space, a theme that revolved around the iconographic representation of Justice. Interestingly, at the beginning of the ducal regime in

1532, the Udienza was one of the first major rooms in the Palazzo della signoria to be redecorated and the only aspects preserved from the republican decorative cycle were the elaborately carved wooden ceiling and Benedetto da Maiano’s marble Justice. Thus, as we experience it today, the republican message of the room, though muted, is still present as the marble Justice looms silently over the doorway leading from the Udienza out to the Sala dei gigli.126

126 Sarah Blake McHam, “Structuring Communal History Through Repeated Metaphors of Rule” in Crum and Paoletti, Renaissance Florence, 104-137. 142 Engaged in a public discourse about proper behaviour within the field of communal administration, Ventura contributed to the creation of a Florentine republican ideology that despotic or villainous behaviour was not condoned in Florence. Rather, it would ultimately be held accountable by communal Justice and collective will, allegorized by Ventura in the figure of Fortune. Painted on the walls of public spaces, these programs of civic art and text would have had a regular effect on the daily activities and sociability of the administrative and political actors of Florentine governance. As Salamone Morpurgo suggests, it was primarily administrative actors who were responsible for designing these decorative programs.127 Through the display of instructional texts about behaviour deemed proper in governance, administrators contributed to processes that fashioned and communicated the normative vocabularies of

Florentine authority.

Most historians concur that in Florence, from the late thirteenth century, the underlying form of authority was oligarchic throughout the republican period. Occasionally, brief surges in popular political sentiment interrupted oligarchic hegemony, forcing the ruling class to re- fashion a common-sense ideology that could win over the consensus of all subordinate groups.128 That is, while popular pressure for political change may have resulted only in the

127 Morpurgo, Un affresco perduto. 128 Among those who advocate strongly for the oligarchical interpretation, Bertelli, Il potere oligarchico and Ottakar, Il comune di Firenze. There have been some important reconfigurations of the traditional oligarchical interpretation, especially Vallerani, “Le città e le sue istituzioni.” The hegemonic stability of any ruling class rests on its successful appropriation and redeployment of an ideology, or language, that legitimizes the authority of the ruling class, and the fashioning of a normative language is essential to this process. Hegemony and the process of gaining the consent of social groups are described by Antonio Gramsci in his “Alcuni temi della quistione meridionale” where he writes in reference to a hegemony of the proletariat which could only be achieved, he says, “nella misura in cui riesce a creare un sistema di alleanze di classi […] ciò che significa, in Italia, nei reali rapporti di classe esistenti in Italia, nella misura in cui riesce a ottenere il consenso delle larghe masse contadine.” Thus, hegemony 143 replacement of one elite by another, it nevertheless forced the oligarchy to learn how to gain and retain the consensus of the popolo through the appropriation and redeployment of popular ideologies.129 In Bourdieu’s terms, this process amounts to the projection of symbolic power throughout the hierarchical order of a society, and, as Bourdieu notes, often that symbolic projection is performed by bureaucratic actors from within the administrative organization.

We might consider Ventura’s poem as one such ideological projection. As an administrator involved in processes of legitimization that reinforced the specific form of

Florentine authority he served, Ventura offered language to be put on display in the space of governance and to function as an ideological bulwark that shored up the authority of that regime. His sonnet does so first by re-enforcing a commonly held belief about Florentine government visible in contemporaneous prose, civic art, and poetry following the expulsion of

Walter of Brienne: in Florence, authority is exercised collectively by the citizens. Second, it redeploys that belief in a space that saw the rapid turnover of executive citizen magistrates who, especially after October 1343, came from a remarkably broad socio-political base – the result of a serious attempt to recast the city’s political structure in the old corporate view of the

“Republic” as embodied in the full, twenty-one guild community. As changeable as the political system of the city was, Fortune was an appropriate representation of corporate ideals. Her unbiased mutability allowed her to ensure the nonpartisan and inclusive allocation of executive and legislative power. In Ventura’s poem in particular, Fortune plays a juridical role as she evaluates the actions of the men who rule and raises or lowers them accordingly. The constant rotation of her wheel ensures the balance of authority and, and her watchful eye roots out

happens through the creation of system of union across the classes to the extent that the hegemonic class succeeds at winning over or gaining the consent of those classes. See Gramsci, Alcuni temi. 129 John Najemy, “The Dialogue of Power in Florentine Politics,” in Molho, et al., City States in Classical Antiquity, 269-288, 275. 144 despotism and immoral behaviour. Thus, for Ventura, the figure of Fortune offered a specific symbolic vocabulary that contributed to a common-sense ideology that, articulated in this poem on behalf of Florentine authority in the wake of the expulsion of the Duke of Athens, legitimized the particular regime that took control in 1343.

Ventura’s poem likely remained on the wall of the Udienza until it was replaced by

Sacchetti’s sonnet in 1384, two years after the fall of what is considered the final popular government (1378-1382). Subsequent constitutional and electoral reform further concentrated power in the hands of a few restricted families and throughout the early 1380s the oligarchy finally succeeded in establishing a hegemony that would remain stable until well into the 1450s.

Sacchetti’s sonnet, like Ventura’s, was a mechanism of legitimization for the regime under which he served. As in Ventura’s sonnet, civic Justice is tied to the divine. However, unlike

Ventura, Sacchetti now addresses all priori, using the plural “you” and minimizes the original emphasis on individual virtue as a pre-emptive against communal judgement. The new sonnet on display after 1384 boasts a generalized exhortation to all priori to always consider the bene comune by seeking out divine Truth in Justice and encourages all priori to carry out their functions passively. This sonnet’s insistence that the communal good and civic Justice are generated through collective consensus is a precise example of the ideology of consensus upheld by the regime that came to power in 1382. Although it minimized the individualized language of

Ventura’s sonnet, Sacchetti also redeployed the central theme of the sonnet which preceded his on the wall of the Udienza, communal justice. The later Book of Wisdom quote and Benedetto da Maiano’s Iustizia similarly generalized the collective imperative of guild republicanism, thereby basing the dynamics of Florentine authority on measured consensus.

This chapter has examined Ventura Monachi’s career and how he understood and dealt with unpredictability generally by means of the vernacular lyric he penned as expressions of his 145 understanding of his own professional field and Florentine society more broadly. In the sonnets analyzed here, and indeed throughout his poetic oeuvre, Ventura expressed an abiding concern with impermanence in all its various forms: instability, insecurity, fortune, the unknown, etc.

While such language derived from philosophical, Boethian constructs and mercantile paradigms of risk, it also, for Ventura, was connected to discourses about communal government. By means of his lyric poetry, Ventura was able to grapple with the forces of uncertainty throughout his career, first as a young notary employed abroad in the service of a Florentine company and then as a frequent ambassador and official of various communal offices. Finally, as chancellor, when Ventura returned to the theme, it was uncertainty itself which he cast as a formative force guiding the structures of Florentine government. 146

CHAPTER FOUR

Niccolò Monachi

So far, this dissertation has presented a structural examination of the office of the chancery as the capstone in the administrative organization of the Florentine Republic. It has also considered how the highly stylized and publicized reflections on a sense of impermanence penned throughout his career by one chancellor and notary-administrator, Ventura Monachi, gave form to the concerns that shaped the ways in which administrators related to their offices in an age of pre-modern administration. This final chapter presents a second biographically-based consideration of a fourteenth-century notary-administrator by considering the life and career of

Niccolò di Ventura Monachi, who assumed the office of chancellor after his father’s death in

1348. It attempts to better understand the relationship between Niccolò’s lived experience as an administrator and his unique position within the institutional structure of the chancery.

There are more archival documents testifying to Niccolò’s life and career than to his father’s and these are supplemented by two other forms of extant evidence that provide important insights into his various social roles. The first of these is Niccolò’s own personal record book, or book of ricordanze. As discussed previously, in this age of what I have called

“impermanent bureaucracy,” Florence’s administrative workforces did not clearly distinguish 147 between communal and individual interests. Thus, his compilation of notices about matters of private and familial interest provide a unique opportunity to consider the kinds of pressures, both work-related and otherwise, that exerted themselves upon Niccolò as a Florentine working within the commune’s administrative organization. As the subjective record-keeper of these ricordanze, Niccolò’s notices are complemented by a second, supplementary body of evidence of contemporary chronicles in which Niccolò is the object of historical record-keeping by others. These chronicles take note of Niccolò’s involvement in matters of public and political interest, in particular his denunciation by the Parte Guelfa as a Ghibelline and his exile in 1382.

When combined with archival documentation, these supplementary bodies of evidence help us to understand how the position of chancellor within the institution of the chancery (and also how the chancellor as an individual) was exposed to the political factionalism that characterized

Florence in the 1360s, 1370s, and 1380s.

Accordingly, this chapter is divided into two distinct parts. The first part is thematically organized and draws on evidence in the ricordanze and related archival sources to examine the pressures exerted upon Niccolò by his administrative office-holding, his family situation, and his private finances. The second part is presented chronologically and draws on archival and chronicle records to understand the socio-political circumstances surrounding Niccolò’s vulnerability to political denunciations and the incumbent executive’s failure to renew his chancellorship, as well as his explicit political role while an ex-chancellor and his eventual exile from Florence.

Despite the abundance of archival documentation regarding Niccolò, he has received no serious biographical consideration other than Demetrio Marzi’s short treatment in 1910.1 Marzi

1 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 94-105. Niccolò has been omitted from the Dizionario biografico degli italiani, appearing only briefly under the entry “Monachi Ventura.” 148 speculated about Niccolò’s political fall from grace, writing: “He was likely hurt by taking too much part in political struggles, mixing himself up in the parties.”2 This speculation has been repeated as more or less an established fact by later scholars, such as Robert Black, who speaks of Niccolò having paid the price for being a chancery official who “engaged in politics behind the scenes.”3 Marzi also speculated about how to interpret Niccolò’s interest in holding several offices: “Perhaps Niccolò was more zealous, more interested, more greedy than others.”4 This interpretation regarding his avarice has been picked up by later historians as a simple truth about

Niccolò’s character. Most notably, Ronald Witt sets up Niccolò as the unscrupulous foil to his immediate successor, Coluccio Salutati.5

This chapter presents the evidence for Niccolò’s life in more detail than Marzi’s brief treatment and, in doing so, offers a more richly contextualized account of the private and public concerns that shaped his career. It also offers a corrective to the simplified picture of Niccolò to be found in so much current scholarship. In this, my work builds upon Gene Brucker’s discussion of the most intense phase in the fourteenth-century conflict of political ideologies between guild corporatism and elitism beginning in the 1360s and reaching its climax with the

Ciompi revolt in 1378.6 I will suggest that the Parte Guelfa’s denunciation of Niccolò in 1366 derived from a situation of intense factionalism in which Niccolò, as a non-elite member of the

2 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 104. “È verisimile facesse male a prender troppa parte alle lotte politiche mischiandosi nei partiti.” 3 Black, Benedetto Accolti, 132. 4 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 96. “Forse Niccolò fu più operoso, più interessato, più avaro di molti altri.” This suspicion can be traced even earlier to Novati, Epistolario I, 29 f. 1, where Niccolò is described as “much inferior to his father with respect to his intelligence and character” (riuscì molto inferior al padre per ingegno e per indole). 5 Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, 119-120, 143, 148. 6 Brucker, The Civic World, 40-46. 149 guild community placed in a highly visible position within Florentine government, became ensnared. In other words, the 1366 denunciation and Niccolò’s subsequent misfortunes do not necessarily imply that Niccolò was himself particularly partisan in fulfilling his duties as chancellor. Rather, his experiences tell us a lot about the political conflict between what John

Najemy calls “corporatism” and “consensus” taking place in the second half of the fourteenth century; in particular, it shows that the position of chancellor was not insulated from socio- political forces. Contemporary suggestions that Niccolò was avaricious or acted in ways unbecoming of a chancellor, as we will see, seem to have been politically or ideologically motivated – part of the elitist justification for replacing him in the chancery with Coluccio

Salutati.

Niccolò Monachi became a notary in 1335, served as his father’s coadjutor in the chancery from 1340, and was his successor as chancellor from 1348 until 1375.7 While the archival record surrounding the life of his father is limited, details regarding Niccolò’s life and career are abundant. His name is attached to literally thousands of documents in the archive, thereby attesting to his presence in the fulfillment of his administrative duties not only as chancellor, but also as an appointed official of many other administrative offices. He played a major role in the administration of the Arte dei giudici e notai throughout his life and appeared regularly in the administration of the city’s treasury and of the Parte Guelfa. While he was heavily invested in the field of communal administration, he was also active in the field of commerce. His ricordanze suggest that after 1366 he was heavily invested in business ventures abroad and, before that, in 1356, he had secured a second matriculation in the Arte della lana

7 On 9 September 1336, Niccolò received his notarial investiture from Bartalotto del conte Brandaligi dei Venerosi. See the note in Bonaini, Statuti III, 845. 150 (Wool guild).8 The ricordanze reveal a man equally concerned with his public offices, his family affairs, and his business transactions. The chronicles and related documents show a man whose inclinations were aligned not so much with Ghibelline sympathies as with an ideology of guild republicanism, as would have been common for a Florentine of his class and station. The desire of the oligarchic faction to control more of the commune’s decision-making apparatus made Niccolò a target. These details will be examined fully below in the second half of this chapter. This first half focuses now on Niccolò’s ricordanze for what it tells us about the concerns that shaped his private and family life and that gave form to his social and political realities.

The Ri cor danz e of Niccolò Monachi

Niccolò’s book of ricordanze supplies considerable information regarding the financial state of the family and its social connections, as well as a great deal of information regarding his career as a member for thirty-five years of the senior-most department in communal administration. Where the previous chapter treated Ventura’s lyric compositions as expressions of his habitus, this final chapter similarly analyzes Niccolò’s book of ricordanze while also, where possible, sounding his own expressions off other relevant archival documents. As a mode of sociability, the ricordanze reveal some of the ways in which Niccolò understood his place within communal administration and, more generally, how he understood his own place within

Florentine society.

The manuscript now catalogued as Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Carte Strozziane, serie seconda, 2 has been recognized as Niccolò’s “libro di ricordanze” since at least the beginning of

8 ASF, Manoscritti, 540 (unpaginated). 151 the eighteenth century.9 It is rather extraordinary that this document has never been edited.

Accordingly, I am currently completing an edition of the ricordanze for publication. Demetrio

Marzi included an overview of the register in his 1910 study of the chancery, but since then the document has received no further systematic treatment beyond some piecemeal examination.10 It remains an untapped resource that provides important data regarding two Florentines whose long-term presence in the Florentine chancery amounted to the kind of political careerism and family dynasticism that Florentines otherwise attempted to regulate through the rapid rotation of communal offices. The Monachi themselves were of relatively recent ancestry and clearly did not enjoy the same kind of social and political influence as did members of the oligarchy or even upper-class members of the popolo. Who then were the Monachi and how did they understand their long-term role in communal administration? How did they build the kinds of social and political connections that carried them to the forefront of social conflict and political tension in Trecento Florence? These are questions that Niccolò’s book of ricordanze allows us to explore as it reveals how Niccolò sought to secure a stable position in the socio-political world around him and how the dynamics of instability and impermanence contributed to the formation of his understanding of his role as a communal administrator.

Niccolò’s book of ricordanze contains information about how Niccolò considered his place in society and in government as he navigated the volatile dynamics of communal life. The register is a conglomeration of business and private accounts, containing records of business

9 Manni, Cronaca, xx. Also see Brucker, Florentine Politics, 207 f. 54 and 316 f. 74; P. J. Jones, “Florentine Families,” 192; Marzi, La Cancelleria, 94-105; Baccini, “Aneddoto biografico.” 10 Marzi, La Cancelleria, 94-105. One folio of the ricordanze detailing the marriage and death of Niccolò’s daughter Agnola receives some attention in Chabod, La dette des familles, 56, 225-226. Also, the bastardello, which was bound at some point to the reverse of the ricordanze and which contains a register of Niccolò’s communal offices as well as his salaries, was afforded some attention by Witt in Hercules at the Crossroads, 122. 152 endeavours, contracts, land holdings, rents, marriages, deaths, attempts by others to defame him, and even a chronicle about municipal and foreign events, particularly the events surrounding the return of the Papacy from Avignon in 1377. Many of these ricordi have been copied from an earlier, no longer extant, miscellany containing these ricordi.

In this notebook, I, Niccolò di ser Ventura Monachi, notary and Florentine citizen,

will write all of my deeds and transactions, some of which have been copied from

another notebook in which I had written the below-mentioned things and other

business.11

The information contained in the ricordanze was taken in large part “from another notebook”

(de alio quaterno) into which he had previously recorded these data in addition to “other business” (alia negotia). Based on internal features of the existing register, I judge that he began the extant version no earlier than 1366, copying ricordi from a prior notebook and subsequently adding to this new compendium at regular intervals, although not according to any uniform procedure.12 Given the political tensions of the 1360s, which will be discussed in more detail later, Niccolò may well have felt the need to consolidate all his ricordi into one place. The consolidation of material may have also been intended for the benefit of his sons, at least one of

11 Ricordanze, 1r. “In isto quaterno, ego, Niccolaus ser Venture Monachi, notarius et civis Florentinus, scribam propria facta mea et negotia, sumpta in partem de alio quaterno in quo scripseram infrascripta et alia mea negotia.” 12 There is no chronological or thematic rule that Niccolò followed in copying ricordi. Only the bastardello, which was not originally a part of the ricordanze, follows any semblance of a chronological sequence. Thus, it is difficult to judge, based only on a cursory reading, when Niccolò might have begun the ricordanze. However, a complete transcription of the ricordanze reveals that the majority of the ricordi relate to affairs after 1366, while those ricordi predating 1366 pertain to the death and final bequests of Ventura Monachi as well as his purchases of a home in Via Vinegia. This leads me to believe that it was only after 1366 that Niccolò began to amass in this single notebook his own financial dealings as head of family, careful to write his father’s dealings among the first ricordi. 153 whom began copying information into the ricordanze in his own hand from as early as 1372 until as late as 1382.13

Ninety-seven paper folios form six booklets, all of which are sewn into a limp parchment binding. Many of the folios are empty. Linguistically, the book is a jumble of Latin and Florentine dialect: sometimes entire sections are written in Florentine, sometimes in Latin; often both languages are used interchangeably even within the same entry. The first five of these booklets (A-E) – whose pages measure 30 x 23 centimetres – are entirely dedicated to

Niccolò’s private accounts and holdings. The final booklet (F) is in the narrow form of a bastardello (30 x 12 cm) and may have been started prior to 1366.14 I judge that the bastardello was not originally bound to the first five booklets largely on account of its separate incipit and the fact that final page of booklet E is extremely worn, as if it had travelled for some time without a cover or even the presence of the bastardello to provide it some protection (Figure

4.2). In the bastardello, Niccolò recorded information about his public offices and the salaries he drew from them, as will be discussed in more detail below.

13 The more mercantesca-type hands of at least one but possibly both his sons (Ventura and Antonio) appear next to Niccolò’s own cancelleresca hand, in particular for entries after Niccolò’s exile from Florence in 1380: ricordanze, [13bis] (1372); 30v (1381); 32r (1376); 32v (1380-81); 33r (1381); 38v (1375-81); 41r (1381); 72r (1380-84); 72v (1379). Also, at 54r, the hand of Lorenzo di Guglielmo, detto “Riccio” (1374-80). 14 A bastardello is a form of notarial register typically used in public administration to take notes on diverse subjects in a single, non-homogenous series, hence the name. 154

F i g u r e 4 . 1 : Booklet E and the Bastardello , r ic o r d a n z e , 7 3 v- 74r

The genre of private ricordanze in Florence developed out of account books. Tied to the activities of merchants, ricordanze evolved out of the need to keep a permanent record of personal rights and holdings, while simultaneously allowing individuals to distinguish their personal wealth from that of their business.15 Produced in Florence in large numbers until the end of the sixteenth century, books of ricordanze were penned primarily by upper-middle class men. Over time, they became a space for the private collection of an array of different types of records: land holdings, public offices, income, debts/credits, holdings of public debt, descriptions of marriage rituals, deaths, bequests, recipes, etc. As a consequence, not all ricordanze look alike; some are more like traditional account books while others contain records more personal in nature.

15 Ciappelli, Memory, Family, and Self. 155 In the majority of cases, there were deep-seated social rationales behind the practice of keeping books of ricordanze. They generally served as memory aids for their keepers and users.

However, ricordanze could also carry legal force. In a society where the written word could mean the difference between a lost right and the security of its survival, the ricordanze offered a sense of stability in written form. Writers of ricordanze could use their books as proof regarding their claims and rights and those of their families, for example, at the tribunals of the Mercanzia

(the Merchant Court). As pre-emptive insurance against commercial instability, books of ricordanze function, insofar as they are a social practice performed primarily by members of a political class knowledgeable of mercantile practice and who agreed through collective observance on the legitimacy of documented memory, as a safeguard against the risk of mercantile activities and the potential dangers arising from socio-political life in Florence.

In his book of ricordanze, Niccolò kept extensive records of his capital investments, his backing of various commercial ventures, monies paid in dowries, rents collected on city houses and contado farms, land purchases, and a list of his administrative offices is supplemented by a running annual income from those offices. Overall, these entries may be generally considered to reflect the management of his family’s private and public affairs between 1340 and 1381. His ricordanze survive as evidence of his deliberate attempt to generate a permanent testament to his and his family’s holdings and history as citizens of Florence. Unlike his father’s municipal poetry, Niccolò’s ricordanze depends on a contained practice of sociability in which the response to the inherent impermanence of social and political life in Florence is not the dialogical processes exercised by coteries of citizen poets, but rather the pre-emptive security of the private register as a purposive mode of participation in society. Unlike in Ventura’s sonnets, the tenor of sociability in this book of ricordi does not ring through in its wide circulation over time across multiple textual communities, but rather in the social force implicit in written memory. Niccolò’s ricordanze reflects the need for a mechanism that could offer a degree of 156 certainty in the form of a written record capable of balancing out the unpredictability of

Niccolò’s highly visible, inherently political position within Florentine government.

Niccolò Monachi ’s Administrative Offices

In booklet F, the once-independent bastardello, Niccolò meticulously recorded information about a number of public offices he held, the salaries he earned from those offices, his annual income for the years 1349 through 1353 and 1359 through 1371, and, finally, a list of the compatres (godparents) of his children and those children for whom he acted as compater. This final booklet begins:

In the name of the Lord God the Father, his only begotten Son the Lord Jesus

Christ, and the indivisible Trinity, amen. I, Niccolò di ser Ventura Monachi,

Florentine notary, will write below all of the offices which I will hold and the

remuneration which, God willing, I will earn from them.16

Although certainly not comprehensive, as even a cursory examination of archival documents will attest, this list provides an exceptional degree of detail about the general salaries of communal offices and how and when communal officials might divide the duties and remuneration of those offices.

As can be seen from Appendix III, which contains all the known administrative offices

Niccolò held, when salaries were divided among officials Niccolò was often careful to record the precise allotment of monies. For example, when he served as ufficiale delle Alpi in 1350 he

16 Ricordanze, 74r. “In nomine domini dei patris sueque unigeniti filii et domini Yhesu Christi et individue trinitatis, amen. Ego Niccolaus ser Venure Monachi, notarius florentinus, scribam inferius officia quibus fungar et ex eis commoda que, deo dante, percipiam.” 157 delegated his duties to one Guido di Ghito da Gangalandi and divided the remuneration of the offices equally. However, when he delegated his position as notaio dell’uscita di camera to ser

Simone Lapi, he does not specify the allotment of the 20 lire paid as salary for the position. It is also clear from Appendix III that beyond his duties as chancellor Niccolò was also regularly engaged in communal administration outside the Palazzo della Signoria. Only a small percentage of the offices that he held were located at the Palazzo della Signoria.

Tab le 4.1 : Distribution of N icc olò’s Administrative Offices b y T ype

Giudici e Executive Notai 18% 31%

Fiscal 25% Military 6% Syndics Parte Guelfa Councils 4% 10% 6%

The vast majority of his offices were located in a number of different administrative spaces across the city. Based on the list he provides in his ricordanze, we find the majority of

Niccolò’s offices located at the seat of his guild, the Arte dei giudici e notai, the Palazzo del proconsolo, where, from 1351 to 1376, he held sixteen different tenures of various offices within the guild’s administrative and executive groups.17 Just a few hundred metres down the road from the Palazzo del proconsolo at the Palazzo del podestà, he held tenure of almost as many offices in fiscal administration and in the councils and syndics located there with thirteen different offices (25% of his total tenures). He also spent a not insignificant amount of time

17 Niccolò was matriculated also in the Arte della lana, as were his brother Bartolomeo and his son, Ventura. 158 (10% of his tenures) in the Palazzo della Parte Guelfa holding five different administrative offices there from 1351 to 1369. His “military” related office were located on the lower levels of the Palazzo della Signoria. Thus, when he was not working in the offices of the chancery in the

Palazzo della Signoria, he could have been found in any of the city’s many palazzi and civic offices charged with the operations of communal governance.

By holding offices in all of these different spaces, Niccolò would have deepened his personal ties of friendship and professional affinities based on shared competencies with hundreds of fellow citizens working in administration. His extensive administrative engagement throughout the city in gathering knowledge and building interpersonal bonds provided him with buffers against potential shocks or mishaps. Furthermore, being present in all of these spaces of governance would have given Niccolò the unique opportunity to gather firsthand knowledge of political developments as they occurred on an everyday basis and perhaps even to secure forewarning of imminent disputes and disruptions that might unsettle the everyday operation of the government. This mode of ensuring some degree of stability through a kind of practical situational awareness would have been of benefit to Niccolò personally as he operated in an unstable political environment; but it would also have been of benefit to the priori with whom he came into daily contact, and thus of benefit to the commune itself.

Often in the ricordanze, Niccolò provides particulars about the formalities and functionalities of individual administrative offices, particulars that are otherwise unknown to us due to the generally informal nature of administrative offices. One such example is Niccolò’s account of the division of duties and earnings of the office of camarlingo del Estimo del contado in 1362. The episode is worth quoting in its entirety because it demonstrates the fluidity of the parameters of administrative offices as they were negotiated by the administrators themselves and by the legislative bodies that often sought to formalize the structures of administration. Niccolò writes, 159 Further, the office of Camarlingo del Estimo del contado was allocated in the

consigli opportuni to ser Giovanni di Guido da Magnale for one year. Half of this

office is mine. And yet, the aforementioned Giovanni swore his oath in the council

before the priori – that is Bartolo Biliotti and his colleagues – who did not want to

divide his part from mine.

It is not clear here why it was decided in the councils to divide the position between two different notaries but, it seems that the priori and gonfalonieri (although, it is unclear where the

Buonuomini stood here) were against the decision to have two acting notaries in the office of camarlingo del Estimo del contado. Niccolò continues:

But, my part inhibited him from having his part so, the priori called ser Giovanni,

who was in the Council, before them and they granted him my share. And he came

to me, Niccolò, and said, “Oh, ser Niccolò, wouldn’t it be better to have one office

between you and me than for one or the other of us to lose it?” I said that I felt the

same way and he said, “I would like for you to have half of it. What would you

like?” and I told him that I would like half the earnings of the said office. And he

said, “And so it will be and so I will promise you and this [my word] will serve, but

we can have a compromissum drawn up if you like.” And I said, “You are a friend

and colleague. I trust you.” Ser Giovanchino and ser Muccio were present.

The mention of a possible document legally attesting to this compromise between Niccolò and ser Giovanni suggests that notary-administrators technically had the freedom to broker their positions within communal administration. In the spirit of business, they relied on contractual negotiation between one another to define the boundaries of a communal office which, ultimately, was considered akin to a transferable source of income. As seen in Chapter One, this is one of the major ways in which the Florentine bureaucracy did not conform to Weber’s pure type of bureaucracy, which requires that under no conditions is the office “owned” by its 160 incumbent, where administrative office is an official duty, not a private activity. By contrast, as

Niccolò’s ricordanze demonstrates, notaries could understand their relationship to communal administration in terms of a business endeavour, one for which their professional vocation made them particularly well-qualified.

As the rest of Niccolò’s record of this event suggests, such freedom to negotiate the parameters of administrative offices did not always go uncontested. It could be and was called into question by other citizen-magistrates, members of administration, or even servants of the priori, as was the informal agreement struck between Niccolò and ser Giovanni.

Then I said to ser Muccio, “Go to the priori and tell them that I am happy with ser

Giovanni and ask them to divide my part from his and to make sure that this is

done.” And he did this. But Brancazio da San Frediano, sensale, said that it

wouldn’t be right if ser Giovanni’s half were to be divided from that of ser Niccolò,

something which is not allowed, for then the public good would be harmed.

(This is [the story of my] half the office, from my memory of the event; I have

written it here, as can be seen above).

Brancazio, a sensale in the Palazzo della Signoria, dissented, saying that the salary from this office must not be divided because it would not be in the common good to do so. Yet, the division was apparently made and not even the gonfalonieri, who had also dissented, could contest the division:

Then, news of this arrangement reached the gonfalonieri, of which some – and I

well know who – said that if they had known they would not have tolerated it,

asking how ser Giovanni had made me this promise. And for this reason, I was

moved to ask him for a document written in his hand. And he said, “Hey, forget

about the gonfalonieri and I will do as you like; although I would not report through

Muccio that my promise was not sealed with any written document.” We had 180 161 lire, although with difficulty. [...] Ser Giovanni di Guido da Magnale promised me

200 lire for my part of said office. And if things go well in this office, I will be that

much happier.18

The reason why the sensale and the gonfalonieri might have been opposed to the division of this office may well have been because of the fact that when Bartolo Biliotti and his companions were priori in 1362, Niccolò happened also to be serving as notaio dei priori

(Niccolò does not record here that he was serving as notaio dei priori, but he does record it in his bastardello). It is possible that the sensale and the gonfalonieri believed that, as notaio dei priori, Niccolò was too close to the executive heads of the commune to negotiate fairly over the parameters of an office that the executive heads themselves allocated. Despite the reservations

18 Ricordanze, 76v-77r. “Item fu conceduto per li consigli opportuni a ser Giovanni di ser Guido da Magnale l’uficio del camarlingato dell’extimo del contado per uno anno, il qual è mezzo mio; et così promise ser Iohanni predicto ai priori, cioè Bartolo Biliotti e compagni, i quali non voleano dividere la parte sua dalla mia, nel consiglo. E la mia impediva la sua di che avendosi, i priori chiamarono ser Iohanni, ch’era nel consiglo, et mandano lo mi[o] s’uso. Il qual venne a me Niccolò, e disse, “De’, ser Niccolò, non è meglio avere uno uficio fra voi et me che perder l’uno e l’altro?” Et io dissi che mi parea quello che lui. Et egli disse, “Io voglo che sia vostro tucto e mezo. Et come vi piace?” Et io dissi che volea la metà del guadagno del decto uficio. Et egli disse, “Et così sia et così vi prometto, et questo serverò et, se ne volete un conpromisso sul fato.” Io dissi, “Voi siete amico et compane. Di voi mi fido” – presenti ser Giovachino et ser Muccio. [77r] Allora io dissi a ser Muccio, “Andate ai priori et dite loro che io sono contento da ser Giovanni, et pregateli che divedano la sua parte da la mia et che operino sì [che si] vincha.” Et così si fece et Brancatio da San Friano, sensale, disse che [se] si dividesse la parte di ser Giovanni da quella di ser Niccolò, che non era licito, perisse il giusto per lo publico. (Questa è la metà del’uficio a memoria del facto; ò scripto qui come di sopra aparisce.) Poi venne questo in notitia de’ gonfalonieri, de’ quali alcuni disse, et ben so chi fu, che se l’avesse saputo noll’avrebbe patito, dicendo ser Iohanni come m’avea facta la promessa. Et per questo mi mossi a chiederli una scripta di sua mano. Et egli disse, “De’, lasciate uscire i gonfalonieri et farò cio che voi vorete. Bench’io non rimarcherei per Muccio facta di mia promessa sanza niuna scripta.” Ebbino da lb. CLXXX bench’a stento. [...] A mi promisse ser Iohanni Guidi da Magnale per la mia parte del decto uficio lb. CC pic. E se l’uficio varrà bene, quel più che io sarò contento.” 162 of others, Niccolò and ser Giovanni still apparently divided the proceeds of the office. Thus, even while members or servants of the government might stand in opposition to the private agreements struck between communal administrators, it seems as though there were no official avenues to objectively regulate such agreements.

Judging from Niccolò’s ricordanze, this sharing of the duties and proceeds of communal office was not irregular. Sometimes Niccolò allocated the duties of his offices to others. A glance at the “Delegates” column in Appendix III shows how many times he is known to have transferred these duties to others, dividing the duties and salaries of his offices often in indeterminate ways that are not always clarified in the ricordanze. In the case of the office of camarlingo dell’Estimo del contado however, Niccolò is careful to detail the decision to divide the proceeds came about after ser Giovanni came to Niccolò asking whether it would not be better to split the proceeds. Niccolò writes at the outset that by rights, half of this office belonged to him even when the priori swore in ser Giovanni. As the original holder of this

“property,” Niccolò had the legal right to share or transfer the rights of the office. So, ser

Giovanni approached Niccolò to negotiate the operational parameters of an office on which they both technically held a claim. Together and without the explicit participation of the Tre maggiori, Niccolò and ser Giovanni agreed – albeit through verbal agreement alone – that they would split the earnings from the office equally between themselves. Although many questions remain about the particulars of this episode, the ricordo provides a sense of the circumstances under which notary-administrators understood their relationship to an un-regularized, administrative organization that, lacking explicit regulatory directives, required notaries to be engaged in negotiating the positions they occupied within the field of administration.

Particulars like these about the negotiation of the allocation of administrative duties and salaries are not otherwise extant in official documents and make Niccolò’s ricordanze unique.

There are many examples of other ricordanze from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries in 163 which the writer consciously and meticulously recorded his various offices, attesting to the broader position of his family in Florentine society.19 Yet, such records of public office only rarely include the income from tenure, much less information about the negotiation and allocations of administrative duties. Niccolò’s ricordanze are indeed singular because he meticulously kept track of specific details about and the earnings from administrative office, clearly considering it important to do so.

The ricordanze’s detailed information about the many communal positions Niccolò held throughout his career allow us to understand the wider administrative context in which he operated, not only as chancellor but also as a notary-administrator deeply involved in the work of other administrative offices across the city. It shows Niccolò kept himself well-informed through regular tenure of a wide variety of offices and a high frequency of tenure. The book also reflects the high degree of sociability involved in pursuing, obtaining, and exercising these offices as we witness a notary-administrator in continuous negotiation with other notaries and, when necessary, executive authorities, in order to determine the structure of the administrative organization. Niccolò treated these offices much as he did the family’s financial transactions.

His mercantile business ventures, the purchase and rent of his land and immoveable properties, the forging of political allies through social alliances like marriage, his communal offices and salaries, etc. were all recorded in his book of accounts with equal care and precision. The ricordanze in fact also allow for a better understanding of just where the Monachi family was situated within the factional politics of the 1360s and 1370s and provide some otherwise unknown information attesting to the Monachi family’s social and economic standing in

19 For example, ASF, Cart. Strozz., seconda serie, 9 (Luca di Matteo da Panzano,1406-1461); 16 (Francesco di Tommaso Giovanni, 1444-1458); Cart. Strozz., quarta serie, 563 (Niccolò del Buono di Bese Bufini (1394-1406). 164 Niccolò’s lifetime. Since his socio-economic standing was one of the particular points of contention brought up in contemporary chronicles, it is important to contextualize the place of the Monachi family within Florentine society and Niccolò’s efforts to secure its status. It is to this familial context that I now turn, beginning with what we can glean about the status and background of his father and grandfather.

Niccolò Monachi and his Family

Detail from Monachi Family Tomb Slab, Santa Croce Photo credit: L. Faibisoff

In many ways, the socio-political fortunes of the Monachi family in Florentine government and society were characteristic of many other families associated with the popolo, in particular, the gente nuova. 20 For example, the family patronymic derives from Ventura’s father,

20 Above, the Monachi coat of arms as it appears on the family tomb slab in Santa Croce. The nine brass points situated around the crest are likely anchors for the three vertical monachetti, or ‘cabinhooks,’ which appear in drawn representations. 165 Monaco, whose identity is hard to confirm with any certainty, although there is some reason to believe that he had come from the Valdarno Superiore, between Florence and Arezzo.

Niccolò’s adversaries in the Parte Guelfa contend in their 1377 tamburazione that his grandfather, Monaco, had come to Florence from Castiglione Ubertini, a hamlet known for its

Ghibelline allegiances that lay about fifty kilometres to the south-east in the Aretine territories of the Valdarno. This tamburazione will be discussed in greater detail below, but suffice it to say here that in the twentieth century the genealogist Carlo Sebregondi took the denunciation at face value, suggesting Ventura’s father was to be identified with a Monaco d’Ildebrandino degli

Ubertini, whose notarial investiture ceremony took place in Montalbino just outside of Florence, in February 1289.21 This was just a few months before the Battle of Campaldino, which pitted the Guelf Florentines against the Aretine Ghibellines led by Guglielmo degli Ubertini, bishop of

Arezzo, who also, as it happens, had an illegitimate son named Monaco (this Monaco’s name is found inscribed in the Libro del Chiodo where he was condemned in 1303).22 It is certainly the case that the Monachi had links to the Valdarno: Ventura’s second wife may have been from

Arezzo, both Ventura and Niccolò acquired land throughout the valley, Paola Monachi entered a monastery there at Montevarchi, etc. However, speculations about the origins of the Monachi remain tenuous, and it is impossible to confirm that the Monachi were an offshoot of the

Ubertini. The 1377 assertion of Niccolò’s adversaries must be considered only tentatively given the fact that their specific aim was to defame Niccolò as a Ghibelline. It is likely however that

Ventura was the first of the family either to have come to Florence or to have been born in the city.

21 ASF, Racc. Sebre., 3623. 22 Pirillo and Ronzani, San Romolo a Gaville, 142. Both Monaco d’Ildebrandino degli Ubertini and Monaco di Guglielmo degli Ubertini appear in the so-called “Libro del Chiodo.” 166 According to the ricordanze, when he died, Ventura’s investments in the Monte comune

(Florence’s public debt fund) totalled 110 florins and 19 soldi.23 Although this was not a particularly sizeable share, the fact that Ventura had invested is significant. As some scholars have demonstrated, the social composition of the commune’s creditor class had begun to change around the mid-1340s as the number of even small shares belonging to non-elite “new men” of the popolo began to increase exponentially.24 With his origins in the territories of the Valdarno and his own small share in the Monte comune, Ventura may be associated with this class of up- and-coming nouveaux arrivés whose rising financial force and political influence may well have resulted in the anti-foreigner legislation in 1346 establishing that no foreigner (forensis) could hold public office.25 Although Ventura was not implicated in this legislation at the time, thirty years later in 1377, the Monachi were condemned before the esecutore degli ordinamenti di giustizia as nameless foreigners and alleged Ghibellines who could not certify their Guelf loyalties.

Niccolò was either the oldest or the second oldest of Ventura’s four surviving sons (see

Figure 3.3).26 Upon his father’s death, he became responsible for the futures of his living sisters.

For Ghinga, the daughter of Ventura’s second wife Francesca, Niccolò secured a marriage alliance with the Lanfredini, an ancient Guelf family of bankers.27 He arranged for his natural

23 Ricordanze, 5r. 24 On new men and the commune’s creditor class see Anthony Molho, “Créanciers de Florence en 1347: un aperçu statistique du quartier de Santo Spirito” in Jones, La Toscane et les Toscans, 77-93. 25 On the anti-foreigner legislation of October 1346, see Kirshner, “Ars Imitatur Naturam.” 26 Of the four surviving male children, it is clear that Francesco and Niccolò were the oldest, however I have been unable to ascertain which was the elder son. Francesco had taken orders by at least the early 1340s and moved to Paris to study, leaving Niccolò in the position of paterfamilias after Ventura’s death. 27 Ricordanze, 5r, Filippo “Rocchegiale” Lanfredini was the son of Biondo di Lanfredino. “Biondo generò Filippo, vocato Rocchegiale, quale sposò donna Ghinga, figlia di Francesco Mannovelli come si 167 sister, Margherita, to be married in February 1358/9 with a dowry of three hundred sixty florins to Niccolò di Consiglio Ughi. Not to be confused with the ancient magnate family of the same name, the Ughi were also relative new-comers to the city. Niccolò di Consiglio was a ritagliatore (cloth vendor) and member of the Arte di Por Santa Maria. Margherita had one daughter, Bartolomea, for whom Niccolò helped to secure a marriage to Michele di Lippo

Orlandi in 1370. Niccolò’s other surviving natural sister, Paola, had perhaps already taken the veil before Ventura’s death, entering the cloistered monastery at Montevarchi. Two other surviving brothers, Francesco and Filippo, were also ordained. At the time of his father’s death,

Filippo was the parish priest in San Bavello, a small town to the north-east of Florence. In 1359 he became rector of Santa Maria degli Ughi in Florence where he died in 1368. Niccolò carefully recorded in his ricordanze that Guido Ridolfi, the new rector of Santa Maria degli

Ughi after Filippo’s death, had made claims in 1372 that Niccolò had stolen things belonging to the church.28 In the ricordanze entry, Niccolò writes that Guido, “a guilty man [and] instigated by some malevolent men, falsely did these things believing he could get me to pay.”29 Niccolò’s air of suspicion is quite understandable given the several attempts, which will be discussed later, to publically smear Niccolò’s reputation, especially after 1366 following an attempt to denounce

Niccolò as a Ghibelline.

Francesco, a Valumbrosian monk, may have played an important, albeit indirect, role in

Florentine politics. In the years after his correspondence with Petrarca (see chapter 3),

vede dal suo testamento, che si conserva in Santa Maria Nuova al libro nero pagina 29 et alla Gabella dei Contratti A.16. a 111. C. 7 a 87.” In Gamurrini, Istoria genealogica IV, 274. 28 Ricordanze, 35r. 29 Ricordanze, 35r. “[...] come reo huomo, instigato da alcuni malivoli, faceva le dette cose falsamente credendomi fare rimedire.” For the legal proceedings, see the notarial register of ser Lando Fortini, ASF, Not. Ante. 11381, 107v-108r (procuratio) and 115v (compromissum). 168 Francesco Monachi moved from the monastery at Croara to Colle Val d’Elsa near Siena where he became abbot of the monastery of Santa Maria di Conèo.30 We might consider the move politically motivated given the fact that the Florentine Signoria had begun organizing

Francesco’s appointment there as early as October 1351. The Signoria wrote to the community of Colle on the 27th of the same month:

Among other things of which we are mindful to intimate to you, the most pious

father and high lord the Pope (according to his laws, as the assertion of the faithful

was set forth before us) has conveyed the monastery of Conèo to the venerable lord

Francesco, once the abbot of Corvaria, and the brother of our chancellor (my

emphasis) [...]31

The Monachi were a known entity given Ventura’s and Niccolò’s positions within

Florentine administration, and the Signoria may well have wanted to have a familiar eye keeping watch over dissent to Florentine hegemony in the region. Since the beginning of the thirteenth century, the monastery where Francesco was posted at Conèo had been a dependent of the lords of the nearby castle of Picchena who, in 1352, united with the Ardinghelli to take over the city of San Gimignano, then under Florence’s control. As Matteo Villani writes, the lords of Picchena, whose castle and territories were under the control of Florence, “neither asked for forgiveness nor made amends for this error.” In June 1353, the same month Francesco

30 However, Niccolò refers to his brother as being abbot of Conèo already in 1353, see ricordanze, 69r. 31 ASF, Sig., miss. I canc., 10, 136r. “Post alias vobis meminimus intimasse, piisimus pater et dominus summus pontifex monasterium de Coneo contulit cum iuribus ipsius, prout fidelis assertio exposuit nobis coram, venerabili viro dopno Francisco dudum Corvariensi abbati, cancellarii nostri fratri [...]” 169 arrived at his post in Conèo, Florence sent troops to Picchena to tear down its walls and castle.32

The lords of Picchena, in retaliation, turned their anger against the monastery where the brother of the chancellor had been appointed abbot. Upon receiving news of this, the Florentine

Signoria sent a strong rebuke, specifically mentioning injuries done to Francesco Monachi:

Since hearing that you burden the monastery of Conèo (where one of our dear

citizens is the abbot), by injuring its workers and families and hindering the farms,

about this we are greatly perturbed and encourage and counsel that neither for

yourselves nor for anyone else do you do things that would displease either the

abbot or his [monastic] family. For we would consider it a reproach not on him but

on us and we will show you, to the best of our abilities, how it displeases us.33

Although it is difficult to gauge Francesco’s precise political function while serving as abbot of

Conèo, the fact that the Signoria explicitly mentioned him in correspondence with the relevant parties in the region is suggestive of the significant role of Florence’s chancellor and his family when it came to matters of territorial strategy.

32 In Moutier and Dragomanni, Croniche storiche, ch. 69. “I signori del castello di Picchiena, nonostante ch’essi tenesosono in amistà col Comune di Firenze, furono principali colli Ardinghelli a commuovere lo stato di San Gimignano quando furono cacciati i Salvucci, essendo la guardia di quella terra nelle mani del Comune di Firenze; e di questo fallo non feciono scusa né amenda a’ Fiorentini; e però, del detto mese di giugno del detto anno, il Comune di Firenze mandò sue masnade co’ maestri e guastatori a Picchiena, e sanza contasto enrarono nella terra. E acciò che quello castello non fosse più cagione di fare sommuovere ad aluna ribellione San Gimignano e Colle, a dì XX del detto mese fecciono abbattere le mura e la rocca, sanza far loro altro danno.” 33 “Perché sentendo chel munistero di Coneo, del quale è abbate un nostro caro cittadino, gravate, i suoi lavoratori e famiglie ingiurando e vietando i poderi, di ciò forte ci siamo turbati, confortando e consigliando voi che nè per voi nè per altrui facciate cose, che abbia a dispiacere nè all’abate nè a sua famiglia; però che non a lui, ma a noi la ’mputeremo, e quanto fosse raggione vi mostreremo che ci dispiaccia.” ASF, Sig., miss. I canc., 11; edited by Carnesecchi, “Documenti relativi.” 170 As for Niccolò, he was married at least three times. First, in 1350 to Dianora, the daughter of Buonaccorso di Jani Alderotti. The Alderotti had a home in the same parish as that of the Monachi, the parish of San Remigio. Dianora’s brother, Francesco, was a close business associate of Niccolò’s and his name frequently appears in the ricordanze conducting business and money transactions on behalf of his brother-in-law.34 Francesco Alderotti also headed a rather successful company in Genoa; his business dealings brought him into frequent contact with Francesco Datini.35 Dianora’s other brother, Matteo, was one of Niccolò’s closest political allies in Florence and held offices in the Tre maggiori between 1363 and 1378. All three men –

Niccolò and his two brothers-in-law – were exiled in 1382. Dianora herself appears throughout the ricordanze conducting business transactions on behalf of her husband and in his description of her death in the plague year of 1373 Niccolò refers to Dianora with affection. 36

1373, on the 25th of August, that is, in the early morning preceding the feast of Saint

Bartholomew the apostle, my dear wife, mona Dianora di Bonaccorso Jani Alderotti,

died. She was my wife for more than 24 years. She was ill from Sunday to Friday,

on which day, she was buried at Sante Croce most honourably in the habit of a

pinzochera.37

34 For example, ricordanze, 5v (1373), 12r (1372), 15r-15v (1366), 18r (1374), 20r-22v (1369- 1372), 24r (1370), 24v (1372), 26r-v (1372-73), 27v (1374), 29r (1374), 30r (1375), 31v (1374 and 1379), 34r (1371), 42v (1374), 62r (1366), 63v (?), 70v (1369). 35 Very little is known about Francesco Alderotti’s companies in Florence and Genoa. For letters which Francesco Alderotti and his business associate, Lodovico Marini, exchanged with Francesco Datini, see http://datini.archiviodistato.prato.it 36 For examples of Dianora’s business dealings on Niccolò’s behalf, see ricordanze 18r, 23r, 24v, 25r, 29r, 59r, 65r, and 70v. 37 Ricordanze, 31r. “MCCCLXXIIIJ di XXV d’agosto, cioè sul matutino precedente la festa di Sancto Bartolomeo apostolo, morì la cara mia donna, mona Dianora di Bonaccorso Jani Alderotti, 171 Together, she and Niccolò had at least four children: Ventura (d.?), Antonio (d. 1439), Agnola

(d. 1373), and Lena (d. 1400). When listing Dianora’s bequests, Niccolò mentions another daughter, Gloria, whom Niccolò describes as “my girl” (mia fanciulla). Dianora left her two books: “a book of saint Mary Magdalene” (uno libro di Santa Maria Magdalena) and “a little book of penitential psalms” (uno librucciuolo di salmi penetentiali).

He was married a second time in the mid 1370s to Meute di Guidotto but, there is very little information regarding the exact identity of Meute. She appears in only two ricordi in the ricordanze, the first dated 1375 (regarding her dowry of 600 florins), and in another dated 1377.

She had died by 1382 when, in the year of his exile, Niccolò made what appears to have been a strategic marriage to Giovanna di Angelo Ardinghelli, the niece of Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici and first cousin to Cosimo de’ Medici.38 While this branch of the Medici would not become a dominant political power until 1433, its sheer financial force, shored up primarily by Giovanni, had ensured its place among the inner circle of the oligarchic elite that took control the year of

Niccolò’s exile. Whatever socio-political ties this alliance may have garnered for Niccolò is unclear because the documentary record for Niccolò’s life after his return in 1386 is sparse, however, it may well be significant that they were married in the year of Niccolò’s exile.

Niccolò and Giovanna had one daughter, Bartolomea, who was not yet of marrying age at the time of Niccolò’s death (she is described in his testament as older than seven but younger than

essendo stata mia donna anni XXIIIJ e più. Stette inferma dalla domenicha al venerdì, il qual dì, si sotterro in Santa Croce honoratissimamente con habito di pinzochera.” 38 Giovanna’s mother was Antonia dei Medici, the sister of Giovanni di Bicci dei Medici, the so- called “founder” of the Medici bank. 172 twelve in 1400) so Niccolò’s son, Ventura, saw to her tutela.39 She eventually married

Bartolomeo di Lodovico Bartoli in 1408.

Niccolò’s oldest daughter from his first marriage, Agnola, died just three weeks after her mother, Dianora, in 1373 and is described in the ricordanze as “my blessed daughter” (la benedetta mia figliuola).40 In 1371, Niccolò had arranged to have her married to Amerigo di

Bartolo Zati with an impressive dowry of 875 florins.41 The Zati were an ancient Florentine family whose residence was in the same parish as the Monachi, that of San Pier Maggiore. Just before she died, Agnola asked her husband to return 100 florins of her dowry to her father, “per sua anima futura.”

Being in bed in my house, Agnola called her husband Amerigo to her and asked

him permission to leave 100 florins for the future of her soul, which her father, ser

Niccolò di ser Ventura would distribute. Amerigo said he was happy with this.

Then, while I was returning from the palace to visit Agnola, I came upon Amerigo

and Bartolomeo di ser Ventura. Bartolomeo told me what Agnola had said to

Amerigo and what Amerigo had said in return. And I, Niccolò, asked Amerigo if

this was true and if he wanted to do this and give me 100 florins. He said yes.42

39 ASF, Not. Ante., 9729, 122r-124r. At 123r: “[...] Bartolomea eius filia legiptima et naturali maior septem annis et minor duodecim annis [...]. 40 Ric. 34v. 41 Amerigo’s testament is extant in Florence, Capitolo Metropolitano di Firenze, Archivio Storico, pergamene no. 992 / C46 (13 April 1410). 42 Ricordanze, 34v. “Essendo in casa mia su’ lecto, [Agnola] chiamò Amerigo suo marito et chieseli licentia di poter lasciar per sua anima futuro in C fior., i quali si distribuiscono per ser Niccolò di ser Ventura suo padre. Esso Amerigo disse ch’era contento. Poi venendo io, Niccolò, dal Palagio per visitare l’Agnola trovai Amerigo predicto con Bartolomeo di ser Ventura. Il qual Bartolomeo mi disse quello che l’Agnola avea detto ad Amerigho et quello che Amerigo avea risposto. Et io, Niccolò, domandai Amerigo se questo fu vero et se volea così fare et darmi i detti C fiorini. Disse di si.” 173 Isabelle Chabot who analyzed this ricordo calls Agnola’s request “audacieuse” and a

“circonstance exceptionnelle” given that 100 florins, more than 12.5% of the original dowry, was a high sum by any standard for laying a soul to rest.43 Unlike under Roman law, where a father was allowed to recover the dowry of a married daughter who died childless, in Florence the blood relative of a woman who had died childless but who was survived by her husband lost all rights of inheritance.44 However, it seems as though in the case of Agnola, who died one year after her first child, Giovanna, was born in September 1373, some concessions were made in returning at least a part of her dowry to her father. Importantly, Agnola’s request amounted to the sum of the value of her trousseau which, as Niccolò recorded in the ricordanze, was originally priced at just over 100 florins.45 Originally, some of Agnola’s things had been left in her father’s house at the time of her death, suggesting that she may have been living under her father’s roof even during her marriage. Niccolò carefully recorded all of these items in his ricordanze and communicated their value to the Zati, returning them to the Zati home. Over the course of the next few months, the requested sum was returned to Niccolò. First, some of

Agnola’s clothing and a chest together valued at 73 florins were returned to Niccolò. Later, in

January, Amerigo sent 27 gold florins to settle 100 florins.

In March 1374, Niccolò’s other daughter, Lena, received her marriage ring from

Bartolomeo di Giovanni di Bartolo Morelli. In April, Lisa del Rosso Bagnesi, Bartolomeo’s mother (his father was not living at the time) received Lena’s dowry: 820 florins. Niccolò’s

43 Isabelle Chabod, La dette des familles, 56, 225-226. In the event that a wife survived her husband, part of her dowry might be returned to her family, as did that of half of Cionella’s, the wife of Bartolomeo Monachi (ricordanze, 31v). 44 See, for example, Chabod, “Lineage strategies and the control of widows in Renaissance Florence” in Cavallo and Warner, Widowhood, 127-144, and Chabod, “La sposa in nero,”443-445. 45 Ricordanze, 34r. 174 brother-in-law Francesco Alderotti transported the sum, as he had done three years earlier for the marriage of Agnola and Amerigo. Lena bore three children: Gualberto, Giovanni, and Lisa.

In his Ricordi, Giovanni di Pagolo Morelli was most approving of his relative’s choice in a wife:

She was a savvy woman, very eloquent, and wise, and she knew how to make

anything she wanted with her hands. She read and wrote cleanly.46

According to Morrelli, Lena’s husband spent most of his time living in Forlì, perhaps away from Lena and their children. After his death, she remained a widow for some time and died in the same plague year as her father, leaving 4000 florins to her children.

Very little is known about Niccolò’s likely oldest son, Ventura. He appears not to have been a notary. Close examination of the archival record confirms that a notary who appears frequently in the archival record as “ser Ventura di ser Niccolò” was not Niccolò’s son of the same name.47 In Niccolò’s testament, it appears that toward the end of his life, Niccolò did not trust Ventura as he did his younger son. One of the final clauses of the testament stipulates that if Ventura were to sell or transfer any part of his inheritance, it would be immediately confiscated and given to Niccolò’s other son, Antonio.48 The same stipulation is not made for

46 In Morelli, Ricordi, 165-66. “[...] la figliuola di ser Niccolò di ser Ventura Monaci [sic] [...] avea nome mona Lena: fu una savia donna, molto eloquente, segace, e sapea fare colle sue mani ciò che’ella volea, leggea e scrivea pulitamente.” 47 Although a cursory glance would suggest this was Niccolò’s son, more detailed investigation into the documents of ser Ventura di Niccolò reveal that this notary was operating years before Niccolò’s son could have matriculated in the guild. Also, as we will see, the notary ser Ventura di Niccolò affixed his name to a tamburazione against Niccolò in 1377. It is unlikely that his son would be involved in the public denunciation of his father. 48 Niccolò’s testament reads: “For all his other possessions, he establishes that Ventura and Antonio, the legitimate and natural sons of this testator, are his heirs in equal measure and mutually assigns to them [his possessions], prohibiting and affirming the same Ventura from alienating, selling, or 175 Antonio.49 According to Carlo Sebregondi, Ventura matriculated in the Arte di Calimala (the cloth-merchant’s guild) guild in 1372, was an ambassador to Fucecchio in 1376, and married a woman of the Cattani da Diacetto family with whom he had one son, Guasparri.50 Antonio was born sometime around 1358 (he attests in his portata for the 1427 Catasto that he was 69 years old at the time) and was married first to Caterina di Cione Falconi and later to Antonia di

Cecchino di Bartolotto Bartolotti who appears in the 1427 portata as “mia dona.”51 The portata also lists a number of children: Filippo (17), Piero (14), Monaco (12), Ventura (4), Niccolò (3),

Orsina (18), and Caterina (2).52 Antonio’s was the only branch of the Monachi that continued until the family line eventually ended in the second-half of the sixteenth century.53

transferring possessions, or the long-term concession of the hereditary possessions of said testator, ser Niccolò; the same Ventura; if said possessions are bought, alienated, gifted, transferred, or hired out longterm at any time whatsoever, the said possessions will be likewise confiscated from the same Ventura on account of his having done the aforementioned; and he bequeaths the right of institution to Antonio, and, to the same Antonio, he wills and extends the right to rescind the bequest.” (In omnibus aliter bonis suis, sibi heredes instituit Venturam et Antonium, eius filios legiptimos et naturales dicti testatoris equis portionibus et eos ad invicem substituit, prohibens et verans dictus testator eidem Venture alienationem, venditionem, donationem, translationem et ad non modicum tempus concessionem bonorum hereditanorum dicti ser Niccholay testatoris; eidem Venture, pro ipsius obventu supradicto, quod si dicta huiusmodi bona venderentur, alienentur, transferentur aut ad non modicum tempus quoquo tempore locentur, dicta huiusmodi bona sic alienata eidem Antonio ius institutionis prolegavit et ad eundem Antonium iure a rescindi donatione voluit et mandavit.) A diplomatic transcription of Niccolò’s testament (ASF, Not. ante., 9729, 37r) can be found in Appendix IV of this dissertation. 49 However, this could also be in reference to a so-called “iure a rescindi donatione” which appears in the testament. See Appendix IV, p. 295 n. 2. 50 ASF, Racc. Sebre., 3623. 51 ASF, Catasto 72, 241v-242v. 52 Numbers in brackets are the childrens’ ages in 1427. 53 ASF, Racc. Sebre., 3623. 176 These details regarding the Monachi family are significant for several reasons. First, because books of ricordanze generally were to a large degree family records, it is important to understand details regarding Niccolò’s family situation if we are to understand the purposes and parameters of Niccolò’s own book of ricordanze. Secondly, family was in most cases the determinative context for shaping the concerns and allegiances of individual Florentines. It is clear that the forces of social formation beyond the field of administration, above all at the level of family associations and ties, played formative roles on the ways in which notary- administrators understood and practiced their offices within Florentine governance. Niccolò’s ricordanze present us a unique opportunity to make sense of such a dynamic. Finally, Niccolò’s career as chancellor was eventually affected by his socio-political position and by his association with an ideology of guild republicanism. His family’s background, as gente nuova and as administrative professionals, was a constitutive part of his political identity.

Niccolò Monachi ’s F ina nces

The ricordanze provides fascinating information regarding Niccolò Monachi’s annual income, his property holdings in Florence and in the contado, and his business ventures with the Alderotti, all of which further clarify Niccolò’s social situation over the course of his term as chancellor. Niccolò accumulated significant wealth from his work in public administration.

In the bastardello he provides his annual income for the years 1349 to 1352 and 1359 to 1382, indicating that he earned anywhere between 300 and 800 florins in annual liquid capital from communal administration alone.54 For a number of years, Niccolò broke down his salary by

54 Ricordanze, 86r-88r. During this period, the daily wage of an unskilled construction worker was 10 soldi piccioli; between 1350 and 1375, 65 to 70 soldi piccioli were the equivalent of 1 gold florin; see 177 month. For example, for the year beginning 1 September 1370 and ending 31 August 1371,

Niccolò records:

I find that, from the first of September, beyond my usual salary, I earned: for the month of September and October ______338 lire, 11 soldi November and December ______274 lire, 10 soldi January and February ______362 lire March and April ______234 lire, 3 soldi May and June ______273 lire As Notary of the Priors for March and April ______250 lire For July and August ______240 lire From various others ______38 florins My salary was 140 gold florins. I have 784 gold florins.55

Goldthwaite, Economy of Renaissance Florence, 613. At his death, the estate of Piero di Tuccio Guicciardini (d. 1370), one of the richest men in the city during this period, was valued at 58,077 florins; see Goldthwaite, Private Wealth, 111-12. 55 Ricordanze, 88r. In 1370, there were about 3.2 lire to 1 gold florin. “Dal 1370 kalende di settembre trovo che, oltre al salario consueto, ò guadagnato del mese de settembre et d’ottobre ______lb. IIJC XXXVIIJ s. XJ novembre et decembre ______lb. IJC LXXIIIJ s. X januarii et februarii ______lb. IIJC LXIJ martij et aprilis ______lb. IJC XXXIIIJ s. 3 maij et junij ______lb. IJC LXXIIJ Item per lo notariato de’ priori, di marzo et d’aprile ______lb. IJC L per luglio et agosto ______lb. CCXL Item da certi ______fl. XXXVIIJ fu, il salario, fior. CXL d’oro ò fiorini 784 d’oro” 178 Such meticulousness with regard to his accounts has led some scholars to regard Niccolò as acquisitive. 56 However, rather than a clandestine record of his greed, Niccolò’s ricordanze is an example of the Florentine propensity to keep a written account of capital, credits and debits, land purchases, and personal ricordi. The typical commercial mentality applied to the workings of communal administration and the running of government can be understood in terms of a

Florentine ideology that posited a close connection between commercial prosperity and civic virtue. 57 Niccolò was very much party to this ideological tradition.

A great deal of Niccolò’s income was invested in immoveable property from which he accumulated rents. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to gauge from the ricordanze the exact extent of this rental income. Niccolò had begun purchasing land and homes and collecting rents from them as early as 1350. The following details Niccolò’s land purchases between 1350 and

1372.

Ta b l e 4 . 2 : Niccolò Monachi ’ s Land Purchases, 1350 - 1 372

“Staia Date Seller terre” Location Price Source Oct. Nicoluccio di Puccio dei 1350 Bencivenni unspec. Santo Stefano, Le Corti 225 fl. Ric. 1r Sept. Landus Tani from Cascia and Pieve di San Pietro e Paolo a 1354 Luca, his son about 5 Cascia 73 fl. Ric. 1r Mar. Niccolao di ser Giovanni 1358 Megli about 8 [Septimo, near Pisa] 61 fl. Ric. 1v Dec. Piera, wife of Cristofano di 1359 Bargo di Michele unspec. Sant’Alessandro de Giogole 510 fl Ric. 3r Jan. Maso Mangieri and Filippo, Santo Stefano a Ugnano, 1364 his son 40 “L’Isola” 180 fl. Ric. 2r

56 Beginning perhaps with Francesco Novati who writes, “sua cupidigia di lucro ci è svelata in parte anche dalle sue inedite ricordanze [...].” Novati, Epistolario, 29-30, f. 1. 57 See especially, Jurdjevic, “Virtue, Commerce.” Jurdjevic’s article is a corrective to J. G. A. Pocock’s The Machiavellian Moment, which argued that Florentine republicans mistrusted commerce and private wealth because it was dangerous to the integrity of the republic. 179

Apr. ser Agnolo Contri “pluries San Tommaso de Ostina, 1364 (Confracci) de Ostina petias” L’ischeto 60 fl. Ric. 3v July Giovanni di ser Marco di ser Santo Stefano a Ugnano, 1364 Bono de Ugnano 19 “L’Isola” 133 fl. Ric. 1v/2r Oct. Luca and Feo di ser Jacopo Santo Stefano a Ugnano, 1365 Nelli 5 “L’Isola” 38 fl Ric. 2r Sept. Luca and Laurentio di 1366 Gabrille dei Ramaglianti unspec. Sant’Alessandro de Giogole 1100 fl Ric. 2v Nov. 1366 Piero Guicciardini a house Via Vinegia, Florence 420 fl. Ric. 2 v/3r Luisa, wife of Rosso di Santo Stefano a Ugnano, 1367 Giovanni dei Gianfigliazzi 7 “L’Isola” 22 fl. Ric. 2v Oct. two 1367 Piero di Ghino Guicciardini houses Via Vinegia, Florence 383 fl. Ric. 3v Feb. Bartolomeo di Bonaccorso di 1370 Giovanni Caperozoli a house Via Vinegia, Florence 170 fl. Ric. 3v Feb. Ric. 4v, 1372 Mariotto di Simone Orlandini unspec. Plebe de Giogoli 520 fl 26v

Between 1350 and 1365 Niccolò’s land purchases together valued 1280 florins. Parcels purchased between 1366 and 1372 cost over twice as much, at 2615 florins. Even as he began in

1366 to experience increasing political hostility, Niccolò’s financial success was clearly waxing and continued to do so until at least 1372. The majority of his land and homes had paying tenants and Niccolò kept track, albeit irregularly, of the rents they paid. Niccolò’s purchase of homes in Via Vinegia, just behind the Palazzo della Signoria, are particularly interesting. His father Ventura had purchased the family’s first house in that street from Buonaccorso di

Giovanni Caperozoli.58 Then, beginning in 1366, Niccolò began buying properties along the same street, beginning with the vault over the opening of the street from Via del Leone, which was used by his tenants primarily as a wine store. Figure 4.3 below is of the Via Vinegia as it appears today and in the 1584 Bonsignore map; in both, the vault is visible over the opening to the Via del Leone. These images demonstrate the proximity of Niccolò’s place of residence to

58 Ricordanze, 1v. Niccolò also keeps a record of renovations and decoration of this house including payment for painters as well as renovations of other properties; see ricordanze, 28r. 180 the most important centres of government, in particular the Palazzo della Signoria (the tower of which stands out against the sky over the street in the photograph) and the Palazzo del podestà just one hundred metres up the Via del Leone.

F i g u r e 4 . 2 : Via Vinegia

Photo credit: L. Faibisoff Map detail from DECIMA-map.net

Ultimately, Niccolò owned and rented out at least five different houses along the short length of

Via Vinegia.

Niccolò had also begun in 1366 to invest in business ventures with Florentine companies abroad, in particular with his brothers-in-law, the Alderotti.59 While very little is known about

Francesco Alderotti’s companies in Florence and Genoa, he was clearly one of Niccolò’s most significant business partners. Francesco frequently appears in the ricordanze conducting

59 Although, as Lawrin Armstrong has suggested, these payments could instead represent compulsory loans. 181 business and money transactions on behalf of his brother-in-law.60 Francesco’s sister, Niccolò’s first wife, Dianora also appears throughout the ricordanze conducting business transactions on behalf of her husband.61 Based on the ricordanze, the Alderotti and the Monachi maintained a close relationship even after Dianora’s death in 1374. Later, in 1382, Matteo and Francesco

Alderotti were sent into exile alongside Niccolò.

The ricordanze establish that the majority of Niccolò’s wealth was invested in business ventures. His salaries from public offices may have made it possible for him to start investing in business. Table 4.3 shows the annual income he reports from his administrative offices.

Ta b l e 4 . 3 : N i c c ol ò ’ s Annual Income from Administrative Offices

Annual Year Source remuneration Jul. 1349 – Feb. 1350 281 fl. Ric., 86r Mar. 1351 – Aug. 1352 280 fl. Ric., 86r 1 Sept. 1352 – 29 Feb. 1352 177 fl. Ric., 86r “Stati più anni ch’io non rendi conto del tempo di più anni del Ric. 86r particolar guadagno” 30 Sept. 1359 – 1 Sept. 1360 384 fl. Ric., 86r 1 Sept. 1360 – 31 Oct. 1361 340 fl. Ric. 86r 1 Sept. 1361 – 2 Sept. 1362 486 fl. Ric., 86v 1 Sept. 1362 – 1 Sept. 1363 446 fl. Ric., 86v 1 Sept. 1363 – 1 Sept. 1364 445 fl. Ric., 86v 1 Sept. 1364 – 1 Sept. 1365 525 fl. Ric., 86v 1 Sept. 1365 – 1 Sept. 1366 448 fl. Ric. 87v 1 Sept. 1366 – 1 Sept. 1367 392 fl. Ric., 87v 1 Sept. 1367 – 1 Sept. 1368 362 fl. Ric. 87v 1 Sept. 1368 – 1 Sept. 1369 502 fl. Ric., 87v 1 Sept. 1369 – 31 Aug. 1370 628 fl. Ric., 87v 1 Sept. 1370 – Aug. 1371 784 fl. Ric., 88r 1 Sept. 1371 – Aug. 1372 854 fl. Ric., 88r 1 Sept. 1372 – Aug. 1373 713 fl. Ric., 88v 1 Sept. 1373 – Aug. 1374 675 fl. Ric., 88v

60 For example, ricordanze, 5v (1373), 12r (1372), 15r-15v (1366), 18r (1374), 20r-22v (1369- 1372), 24r (1370), 24v (1372), 26r-v (1372-73), 27v (1374), 29r (1374), 30r (1375), 31v (1374 and 1379), 34r (1371), 42v (1374), 62r (1366), 63v (?), 70v (1369). 61 For example, ricordanze 18r, 23r, 24v, 25r, 29r, 59r, 65r, and 70v. 182 From 1368 to 1372, while income from public office saw a steady increase from 502 florins to

854, Niccolò also began investing in business ventures with his brothers-in-law.62 Between 1366 and 1372 Niccolò invested 4,606 florins with Francesco Alderotti. Specifics about the nature of these ventures are not provided in the ricordanze. Given that archival documentation regarding the Alderotti firm is for the most part lacking, it is hard to say just what these ventures entailed.63 The ricordanze documents how individual payments were made every month via

Niccolò’s servant, Raynaldo, to Francesco’s “student,” Simone di Giovanni di ser Duti

Maynardi. Francesco for his own part also kept track of these payments in his own book of accounts (“ut constat per librum suum”).64 Table 4.3 below shows Niccolò’s reported annual salaries alongside his annual investments in the Alderotti firm.

Ta b l e 4 . 4 : N i c c ol ò ’ s Annual Salaries vi s - à - vis His Annual Investments

Year Income Investment Source

1366 448 671 15r-15v

1369 628 118 18r

1370 784 1018 20r-21r

1371 854 1542 21r-21v

1372 713 1257 22r-22v

62 Records of his business dealings with Francesco Alderotti are at ricordanze, 15r-15v (1366), 18r (1374), 20r-22v (1369-1372); Niccolò also invested with Matteo Alderotti who began a company with the Alberti, 26r (1372). 63 The Alderotti company is mentioned in Soldani, Uomini d’affari nella Barcellona, 338. Soldani confirms the scarcity of information on this company. 64 Ricordanze, 15r. 183 In 1371, when his salary from communal administration was at its maximum and he earned 854 florins, Niccolò invested 1,542 florins. Though it is hard to gauge the rates of return that

Niccolò was earning on his investments, what is interesting is that his investments in business ventures often superseded what Niccolò earned as a communal administrator. Clearly, his salaries from communal offices, although they may have made up a large portion of his wealth, were not his sole source of income. He was simultaneously heavily invested in land and commercial ventures. His book of ricordanze provided him the space to account for his financial interests, including those deriving from communal government.

With his steadily increasing wealth, Niccolò represents a demographic of considerable importance in the late Trecento, namely bourgeois members of the guild community, many of them belonging to the gente nuova, whose burgeoning wealth underpinned their growing political influence. This financial prosperity and social power presented a threat to the entrenched oligarchy, who during these same years was shoring up its own power from its base within the Parte Guelfa. At the same time, lower-class labourers and artisans began to assert their right to organize along the lines of the existing guild community. Discord among these groups – the oligarchic elite, the republican community, and the disenfranchised labourers – created a situation of volatile factionalism and acute social tension in Florence from the 1360s to the 1380s, precisely when Niccolò was at the peak of his career as a notary-administrator and chancellor. As will be discussed in greater detail below, this was the socio-political situation that shaped Niccolò as a notary-administrator and influenced his fortunes. The marriage alliances that Niccolò secured for himself and his family connected him to the upper middle-class, commercially savvy members of the guild community like the Ughi and the Alderotti as well as to the old nobility of Florence and the politically entrenched oligarchy like the Corsini,

Ardinghelli, Medici, Zati, Morelli, Falconi, and the Cattani da Diacetto. These advantageous marriage alliances supplemented his strong political allies within the political faction associated 184 with the Ricci family that, for a long time, ensured his political survival but which ultimately ensured his political downfall.

The remainder of this chapter, building on the socio-political perspective provided by

Niccolò regarding his family in the ricordanze as outlined above, will now locate Niccolò within the wider socio-political world in which he was operating in order to better understand how Niccolò responded to the socio-political factors that were external to himself, but that ultimately determined his fortunes as a significant communal administrator.

Part Two: The Political Contexts of Niccolò ’s Career

The second part of the chapter examines how Florence’s intense political factionalism impacted Niccolò Monachi’s career. From 1366 until his exile in 1382, Niccolò was repeatedly the target of politically motivated attacks launched by the elitist, oligarchic faction of the city.

Before turning to those events, a brief account of some of the main parameters of political authority during this period in Florence is called for. A fresco painted on the vault of the

Udienza (audience hall) of the Arte dei giudici e notai provides an ideal introduction to the city’s political structure, albeit in idealized form. It is especially suitable for consideration here not only because this guild was the professional home of the city’s notary-administrators, but also because Niccolò Monachi was himself directly involved in the commissioning of the fresco.

Niccolò served as a guild consul in 1366, when he appears also as one of the “four [men] appointed to oversee the painting and decoration of the aforementioned vault of the hall, known 185 as the Apoteca.” 65 Much like his father’s involvement in the 1340s decorative program of the

Palazzo della Signoria, Niccolò, while a communal administrator, was here involved in advancing the public representation of Florence and its ideals of governance in visual, painted form.

The guild’s fresco, recently restored, is a representation of the city of Florence in the round.66 At its centre are the arms of the Parte Guelfa (the red eagle clutching a dragon), the

Commune (the lily), the People (the cross), and the united communes of Florence and Fiesole

(the red and white shield) depicted in cruciform. Between these four arms are those of the city’s four quarters and of each of the four quarters’ corresponding subdivisions of four gonfaloni.

These are in turn surrounded by concentric circles, the first displaying the arms of the twenty- one guilds and the second, though today not visible, likely portraying the patron saints of each of the guilds. Finally, the city’s buttressed walls appear encircling the city. The city, with its administrative units portrayed in annular symmetry, is flanked by the four, winged Cardinal

Virtues and Civil and Canon Law. Though it has not been suggested in previous scholarship, I argue that the guild’s vault portrays Florentine electoral mechanisms as these existed after the reforms of 1352 and which would remain in place until 1377.67

65 ASF, AGN, 748, 24v-26v (June 1366). The commission, made when Niccolò was consul at the Guild, is in ASF, AGN, 748 (15 June 1366); notice of Niccolò’s role in the decoration is in ASF, AGN, 91, 183r (9 Sept. 1366). “[...] Infrascripte sunt expense facte et fiende [...] pro laborerio et occasione laborerii facti et fiendi [...] in volta superiori domus sive apotece dicte Artis, videlicet: Domini Luygii della Torre, ser Casciotti Johannis, ser Minghi Bonamichi, et ser Niccholay ser Venture, quottuor operariorum ellectorum ad faciendum pingi et hornari dictam voltam domus sive apothece predicte [...].” For diplomatic editions of other relevant documents, see Borsook, “Jacopo di Cione and the Guild Hall.” 66 For images of the fresco, see Montano and Donato, Il cibo e la bellezza. 67 For specifics on this reform, see Najemy, Corporatism and Consensus, 166-216. 186 Following the plague year of 1348 and the subsequent fall of the popular government which lasted from 1343 to 1348, extreme socio-political polarization fomented increasingly volatile tensions among three main groups: the oligarchy based in the elitist institution of the

Parte Guelfa, the major guildsmen whose influence dominated the guild community, and the mass of disenfranchised labourers and artisans. New legislation passed in 1352 regulated how men were nominated for the executive offices of the Tre maggiori. Crucially, this reform increased the amount of political influence the Parte Guelfa wielded in electoral processes.

Whereas previously nominations for political office came from the major guilds alone, the 1352 reform stipulated that additional nominations for political office were to be brought forward by the sedici gonfalonieri and the Parte Guelfa. This reform, which established that the guilds, the gonfalonieri, and the Parte Guelfa would all contribute to the election of the Tre maggiori, is pictorially represented so that all these institutions appear as equal and balanced components of the Florentine electoral system. As the headquarters of the pronconsolo, the head magistrate of the Arte dei giudici e notai, who was also the nominal head of all the Florentine guilds, the

Palazzo del proconsolo was an appropriate place to exhibit the collective principle of the 1352 reform.

The message of unity and stability which the guildhall’s fresco symbolizes was however, only superficial; the political reality of the city was far more contentious and unpredictable.

Since the captaincy of the Parte Guelfa was filled largely by the oligarchy and supporters of the political faction rallied around the Albizzi family, the Parte quickly took on a singularly partisan character, exercising its electoral mandates with an eye to ensuring the election of faces friendly to the party’s cause and the disqualification of political opponents. In the first half of the 1360s, the largely elitist Parte began targeting up-and-coming members of the popolo as well as those members of the patriciate who sympathised with them. The capitani (the executive heads) of the Parte Guelfa published lists of ammonizioni (proscriptions) barring individual 187 Florentines who posed a threat to the interests of Albizzi-led elite faction from public office.

Reviving old ambitions to purge Florence of persons with Ghibelline sympathies, the Albizzi- led oligarchy implemented the Parte’s power of proscription as a political and ideological mechanism to permanently rid the city of its enemies among the guild community and the Ricci faction. Because the capitani of Parte Guelfa could both advance advantageous nominations for political office and proscribe their opponents from political office by publicly denouncing them as outsiders and harmful to the good of the commune, the Parte quickly became a powerful and entrenched political force. It was here where Niccolò’s most formidable enemies were concentrated.

1366: The First Proscription

In 1366, even while the Guild’s vault was being painted, the Parte Guelfa proscribed Niccolò and many others. In November, when payments were made to the painter Jacobo di Cioni for his work on the vault, Niccolò was conspicuously absent.

On the 24th of November, the aforementioned Luigi, ser Mingo di Bonamico, and

ser Casciotto di Giovanni, three of the mentioned officials (absent said ser Niccolò

di ser Ventura, their colleague in said office) [...].68

The chronicler Donato Velluti describes the event: “At the time when Uberto di Pagno degli

Albizzi was captain of the Parte alongside some others, they proscribed many citizens. They

68 ASF, AGN, 91, 183r. “Die XXIIII mensis novembris. Predicti dominus Luysius, ser Minghus Bonamichi, et ser Casciottus Johannis, tre ex dictis officialibus, absente dicto ser Niccholao ser Venture eorum collega in dicto offitio [...].” 188 wanted to proscribe ser Niccolò di ser Ventura, chancellor of the Commune, and certain others.

There was great public outcry about his, especially directed against the Albizzi.”69

Public opinion in the 1360s still remained largely unfavourable toward the elitist institution’s attempts at consolidating power, so Niccolò’s proscription would ultimately not stick. The 1366 proscription was immediately contested by Niccolò’s friends within the Ricci faction. Just a few weeks after Niccolò’s proscription, Uguiccione de’ Ricci (who would become a leader of the 1378-1382 popular regime in which Niccolò would play a role) became a priore. Soon after, the Signoria and the Consiglio del popolo agreed that the sentence which the

Parte Guelfa had pronounced on Niccolò should be immediately cancelled, citing Niccolò’s great merit, sincerity of faith and purity of soul.70 The charge against Niccolò was declared null in the Signoria, the Consiglio del popolo, and the Consiglio del comune; the capitani of the

Parte Guelfa were ordered to revoke the charge. In December, after his own guild, the Arte dei giudici e notai, had written on his behalf about the illegality of the proscription, the charge was

69 “[...] ora intervenne, che in esso tempo Uberto di Pagno degli Albizzi con certi altri era Capitano di Parte, e ammonirono più cittadini, e vollono ammonire ser Niccolò di ser Ventura, Cancelliere del Comune, e certi altri. Di che ne fu grande mormorio, e spezialmente contro gli Albizzi.” Velluti, La cronaca domestica, 247. 70 ASF, Rif., provv., 54, 72v. “The priori of the guilds and the gonfaloniere di giustizia, considering the praiseworthy merits of the well-considered man ser Niccolò di ser Ventra Monachi, notaio dei priori and formerly, the chancellor of the commune of Florence, both on account of his great merity, the sincerity of his faith, and the purity of his soul, as well as on account of the wisdom and affability of the aforementioned ser Ventura […]” (Laudabilia merita circumspecti viri ser Niccolai ser Venture Monachi notarii ad prioris et dudum cancellarii comunis Florentie, domini priories artium et vexillifer iustitie populi et comunis Florentie meditantes, et quanta diligentia, sinceritate fidei, et animi puritate tam ipse quam prudentie et affabilitatis ser Ventura predictus). 189 finally removed, the first time that the Parte Guelfa had been forced to revoke a condemnation.71

Niccolò recorded the ordeal in his ricordanze.

In 1366, on the 10th of October, when the Captains of the Parte Guelfa of Florence

were Piero dei Brancacci, Ormanno Foraboschi (son of Messer Gherardo), Simone

di Francesco Sinibaldi dei Donati, Uberto di Pagno degli Albizzi, Reccho di Guido

Guazze, and Alberto di Lapo da Castiglionchio, the said Alberto, Uberto, Ormano,

and Simone (who did as Uberto said), wanted to censure ser Niccolò, but did not

know how. And since it was clear that they had not admonished him correctly, what

they did was annulled. On the 19th of November, it came into law that that which

had been done by the authority of the Commune of Florence and of the councils

prejudiciously against the said ser Niccolò or against others in consideration of said

ser Niccolò was annulled and cancelled. And so it what done in that year on the 24th

of December by the hand of ser Giovanni di ser Piero Gucci. The power to denounce

anyone further was stripped from the four evil men, the Captains, and from their

colleagues, on the 3rd of November of the same year. 72

71 For the petition for the consilium at the Arte dei giudici e notai on the legality of Niccolò’s proscription see ASF, AGN, 91, 102v-104v (14 Dec. ‘66). For the consilium itself, ASF, AGN, 91, 125r- 127v (written by Donato dei Barbadori and Lorenzo Angeli de Castro San Giovanni). For the cancellation of the proscription in December, see ASF, Provv., reg., 54, 72v-73r. “Poi, di novembre a dì XVIIIJ, fu riformato che ciò ch’era facto per auctorità del Comune di Firenze et dei consigli opportuni, in preiudicio del decto ser Niccolò o d’altri, per contemplatione del decto ser Niccolò, s’anullasse et cancellasse. Et cosi fu facto, decto anno a dì XXIIIJ di dicembre per mano di ser Johanni di ser Piero Gucci.” Brucker, Florentine Politics, 207-208 notes that this was the first time a proscription was forcibly removed. 72 Ricordanze, 69v. “Nel 1366 dì x d’ottobre, essendo Capitani della Parte Guelfa di Firenze, Piero dei Brancacci, Ormanno Foraboschi figliolo di Messer Gherardo, Simone di Francesco Sinibaldi de 190 The six acting capitani of the Parte Guelfa at the time of the attempt in October 1366 are named: Piero dei Brancacci, Ormanno Foraboschi, Simone dei Donati, Uberto degli Albizzi,

Reccho di Guido Guazza, and Alberto da Castiglionchio. Niccolò writes that the instigators were Ormanno, Uberto, and Alberto, three staunch members of the Albizzi faction, and that together they had procured Simone’s vote. The other two capitani, Piero dei Brancacci and

Reccho di Guido Guazza, supported Niccolò and he writes that he was “eternally in their service because they did right by me.” He also notes that “Reccho was honoured by the Commune and given the Podesteria of San Gimignano because he was such an able and good person.”73

His main detractor among the capitani, Alberto da Castiglionchio “was stripped of his office as one of the ragioneri del comune, which he had had for some time.” Alberto was the

Donati, Uberto di Pagno degli Albizzi, Reccho di Guido Guazze, et Alberto di Lapo da Castiglionchio, i decti Alberto, Uberto, Ormano, et havendo il decto Uberto la voce di Simone predecto, vollono ammonire, ma non seppono, ser Niccolò. Et vedendo non l’aveanno fatto per modo che valesse, anullarono quel ch’era facto. Poi, di novembre a dì XVIIIJ, fu riformato che ciò ch’era facto per auctorità del Comune di Firenze et de’ consigli opportini, in preiudicio del decto ser Niccolò o d’altri, per contemplatione del decto ser Niccolò, s’anullasse et cancellasse. Et cosi fu facto, decto anno a dì XXIIIJ di dicembre per mano di ser Johanni di ser Piero Gucci. A’ quali quactro rei huomini capitani, fu tolta la balìa del potere più amonire et a’ loro compagni a dì III di novembre decto anno. Ataromi Piero et Reccho predecti et a loro sono, et chi di me sarà, dee essere in perpetuo obligato, benchè ragione mi faciessono. Il qual Reccho poi dal Comune fu meritato et datoli la Podesteria di San Gimignano sichome a persona valente e buona. E Alberto fu privato dell’ofcio de’ ragioneri del Comune ch’avea tenuto più tempo. [E però ch’io o fatta scriptura di chi m’offexe, ciò è di quactro de’ sei Capitani i quali, nimichevolemente, contro Dio, giustitia, e verita e per lor propria malitia et iniquità mi vuollono disfare, è convenevole e dovuto ch’io faccia memoria di chi mi servi. E generalmente i buoni et cari et originarii cittadini et Guelfi m’atarono, et in ispetialità i Ricci, cioè Uguccione e’ fratteli e’ consorti tucti, Messer Andrea de’ Bardi, Messer Iacopo Alberti, et molti altri a’ quali per debito sono obligato.]” 73 Ricordanze, 69v. “Ataromi Piero et Reccho predecti et a loro sono, et chi di me sarà, dee essere in perpetuo obligato, benchè ragione mi faciessono. Il qual Reccho poi dal Comune fu meritato et datoli la Podesteria di San Gimignano sichome a persona valente e buona.” Reccho’s podesteria is officially recorded in ASF, Provv., reg., 54, 73r. 191 older brother of the giurist Lapo da Castiglionchio – a member of the literary circle of

Petrarchan enthusiasts that included Giovanni Boccaccio, Francesco Nelli, Zanobi da Strada,

Forese Donati, Francesco Bruni and, later, a young Coluccio Salutati. 74 As a frequent officer of the Arte dei giudici e notai and consul immediately prior to Niccolò’s term as consul at the guild in June 1366, Lapo would not have been in infrequent contact with Niccolò. Lapo’s allegiances clearly lay with the elitist leadership within the Parte Guelfa. He would later lead another attempt to undermine Niccolò’s influence in government.

As for Niccolò personally, after having been proscribed by the Parte Guelfa, the detail and urgency he exercised in recording the financial particulars of his life and his service to the commune into his ricordanze is all the more understandable. As mentioned above, this register appears to have been begun no earlier than the period when he was first proscribed. With the uncertainty of acute political factionalism raging city-wide, the ricordanze provided Niccolò with the certainty of a written record attesting his family’s social and financial station in the city and his own political service to the commune as a loyal Guelf.

Beginning with Marzi, the 1366 proscription has long been understood as evidence that by the 1360s Niccolò was already heavily involved in politics and that he likely harboured anti-

Guelf sentiments. This proscription is considered a Guelf attempt to curb his overly-zealous interference in political matters.75 However, when considered in light of the wider socio- political dynamics of the 1360s, the episode more specifically shows how Niccolò’s position as chancellor on the one hand and as a member of an up-and-coming socio-political class that had

74 Mehus, Epistola, xxv. The genealogical tree generated by Mehus suggests that Alberto was the oldest of the five brothers and Lapo the second oldest. 75 Ronald Witt and Robert Black both pick up on Marzi’s suggestion. Recently, Cesareo L’Epistolario di Coluccio, 76, 161, maintains that “already by 1366, [Niccolò] had revealed himself as excessively Ghibelline” (“[…] che tuttavia fin dal 1366 si era rivelato eccessivamente filghibellino […]). 192 strong sympathies for the guild community on the other, placed him in the limelight and made him a ready target for the oligarchic faction based in the elitist Parte Guelfa.

1371- 1375: Withdrawal from the C ha nc e llor s hip

The 1366 episode was only the first of many trials in Niccolò’s career as a public administrator and chancellor. As a member of the popolo and landholder with successful business investments, Niccolò wielded economic influence and enjoyed powerful political connections, while his position in communal administration exposed him to his enemies in the

Parte Guelfa who generally sought to curb the increasing influence of the guild community.

Yet, if the chronicler Marchionne di Coppo Stefani is to be believed, Niccolò certainly did not make things easier on himself. According to Stefani, Niccolò used his position as chancellor to dog whosoever he believed had used their power unjustly. This was the case for Bonaiuto di ser

Belcaro Serragli, who became one of Niccolò’s most formidable enemies and who happened also to be a member of the leadership of the Parte Guelfa.

After Bonaiuto had been priore in 1371, a tamburazione (secret denunciation) was filed against him at the office of the esecutore degli ordinamenti di giustizia (Executor of the

Ordinances of Justice) accusing him of having been bought off while priore of the commune.

Stefani describes Bonaiuto’s influencing the 1375 decision not to renew Niccolò’s chancellorship as a result of the events in 1371.

Niccolò had been chancellor of the Priors for many years, and he was truly a loyal

man. But because [some] wanted to proscribe him, he was a great enemy of the

faction that were proscribing people. Of those who were in that faction there was

one, Bonaiuto di ser Belcaro dei Serragli, who three years previously had been Prior

and had sought to help a certain city with their taxes. It is said that they received this 193 charity because they paid Bonaiuto off. For this reason, Bonaiuto was secretly

denounced before the Executor and nearly condemned. Many rumours were born

from this, because he remained free and was not condemned. Some were for him

and others were against him. It is said that, as chancellor, Niccolò did harm to him

as much as he could and being chancellor, he was able to be a great annoyance to

him. Thus, when Bonaiuto found himself as Standard-bearer of Justice and amongst

friends for the months of March and April, they revoked Niccolò’s office.76

According to Stefani, Niccolò did everything in his power as chancellor to be a nuisance to

Bonaiuto and, in recompense, when Bonaiuto found himself in a position of power a few years later, he used his social and political influence to ensure that Niccolò was not re-appointed to the office of chancellor, which he had held for twenty-seven years. Bonaiuto Serragli’s personal ire was clearly directed at Niccolò. However, it also is clear that this dispute was a part of a broader, factional conflict in which the contending parties had long been attempting to undermine one another’s political influence. This simmering conflict seems to have already precipitated a change in the structure of the chancery already a year before Niccolò lost his position as chancellor.

76 Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 749. “[Niccolò] era stato cancelliere de’ Signori molti anni, ed era nel vero leale uomo, ma perchè volle essere ammonito, molto era nimico di questa setta che ammonieno. Di quelli di quella setta stato uno Bonaiuto di ser Belcardo de’ Serragli tre anni addietro Priore, ed avea tolti ad aiutare uno certo comune di certe gravezze; onde si disse costoro avere ricevuto il beneficio poichè al detto Bonaiuto dierono certi doni. Di che il detto Bonaiuto ne fu tamburato allo Esecutore, e quasi che condannato. Di questo nacque grande bisbiglio, perchè fu libero e non condannato; e chi in suo favore e chi contro. Dissesi: ser Niccolò cancelliere predetto avergli nociuto quanto potè, e assai noia gli potè fare, essendo cancelliere; onde, trovandosi lo detto Bonaiuto gonfaloniere di Iustizia con li suoi compagni del mese di marzo e d’aprile, lo cassarono.” 194 In February 1373/4, a provvisione came before the Signoria for the creation of a new administrative office within the chancery: the office of notaio delle tratte.77 The provvisione transferred those duties associated with the management of the electoral process, which had previously been under the purview of the notaio delle riformagioni, to a separate notarial office specifically designated for this role. The provvisione is explicit about the reason for the creation of this new office. Ser Piero di ser Grifo, feeling overworked after twenty-six years as notaio delle riformagioni, had requested a colleague to aid him, in particular, in handling the Tratte records.

From information presented by ser Piero di ser Grifo, the notary of legislation of the

Councils of the People and Commune of Florence, the lord Priors and the

Standardbearer, together with the Colleges, recognizing the increase in the amount

of documents, labour, diligence, and carefulness which burden the office of the

Riformagioni with cares, want to provide him and future scribes of the Riformagioni

with a good and tried notary, a true Guelf, whether a citizen of Florence or a

foreigner [...]”78

It is not altogether clear why ser Piero did not simply assume another assistant given the inconvenience of the creation of a new administrative office which took time and required the advancement of a petition before the Signoria. For only one year, the new office of the notaio

77 ASF, Provv., reg., 61, 238v and 249v. 78 ASF, Provv., reg., 61, 238v. “[...] ex informationibus factis per ser Petrum ser Grifi, scribam reformationum, consiliorum populi et comunis Florentie, congnoscentes multiplicationem scripturarum et laboris et diligentie et solicitudinis que cura ipsum reformationum officium subcreverunt, [...] domini priori et vexillifer simul cum collegiis [...] volent associare tam presentem quam furturos scribas reformationum [...] de uno bono et probo notario, vere guelfo, cive Florentie vel forensi, [...].” 195 delle tratte worked under the auspices of the office of the notaio delle riformagioni. Thereafter, it became a fourth chief administrator within the chancery.

The first notary to hold the office was Coluccio Salutati. As Ronald Witt observes,

Salutati’s “loyalty to the aristocratic Guelf faction which had cost him his post in Lucca also led

Florentine Guelf leaders like Lapo da Castiglionchio, whom Salutati had known for years, to view him as sympathetic to their interests.”79 It is likely that the addition of the new office of the notaio delle tratte and the subsequent installation of Salutati was part of a broad and concentrated effort on the part of Parte leadership to reduce opposition to their cause within communal government, in this case, opposition exerted by Niccolò, who was not only chancellor but also a member of the guild community and an ally of the Ricci faction. Salutati’s collusion with the oligarchy in this matter is hard even for Ronald Witt, Coluccio’s keenest advocate, to deny. Indeed, it seems that Salutati was being groomed in 1374 to take over the chancellorship from Niccolò, as in fact happened one year later when the Signoria failed to renew Niccolò as chancellor.80

Niccolò’s longtime administrative colleague ser Piero di ser Grifo, who as notaio delle riformagioni enjoyed a de facto permanent position as the head of one of the chancery’s three branches, seems to have been instrumental in displacing Niccolò from office. In the ricordanze, ser Piero appears a number of times facilitating contractual agreements on behalf of Niccolò, who further claims elsewhere in the ricordanze that ser Piero had also in 1366 refused

79 Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, 122. 80 “A keenly felt embarrassment lies concealed in [Coluccio’s] mendacious affirmation to Marsili that he had been totally ignorant of the imminent dismissal of Monachi, whose position he assumed.” Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, 419. He cites Salutati’s letter to Luigi Marsigli in 1376: “Dum pendeo, ecce, nescio quo fato, me totius rei ignarum patria tua per ruinam optimi viri ser Nicholai ser Venture ad officium cancellariatus extollit.” in Novati, Epistolario, 244. 196 remuneration for drafting the documents that cleared Niccolò’s name after the Parte’s first attempt to proscribe him.81 Clearly, ser Piero di ser Grifo had not always been an enemy of

Niccolò. However, by 1374, there had evidently been a break in their relationship, as ser Piero became both a critical actor in the process to displace Niccolò from the chancery and a principal force in a 1377 tamburazione denouncing Niccolò as a Ghibelline.82 Whatever the relationship between the two men, it is clear that ser Piero had openly allied himself with the oligarchic faction in the mid 1370s because, by 1378 he was recognized throughout the guild community as a threat and an “arch-guelf,” for in June 1378 the Ciompi burned ser Piero’s home along with those of known leaders of the Parte Guelfa such as Antonio di Niccolò Ridolfi, Carlo degli

Strozzi, Niccolò Soderini, and Filippo Corsini.83 The fates of ser Piero and Niccolò provide an example of how the factionalism which broadly destabilized Florentine politics could also even undermine the internal stability of even the permanent workforces of the chancery.

There is no specific mention in the provvisioni registers of 1375 of any deliberation over the renewal of Niccolò’s chancellorship.84 Rather, on 19 April 1375 the registers suddenly note

81 Ricordanze 2v, 3v, 4v registers that ser Piero drafted numerous bills of sale for Niccolò. On his refusal for recompensation, ricordanze, 70r. 82 Between 1366 and 1372, ser Piero drafted numerous bills of sale for Niccolò and he had also merited mention in Niccolò’s recounting of the 1366 proscription where ser Piero had refused remuneration in appreciation for drafting the legislation which absolved Niccolò. See ricordanze, 2v, 3v, 4v, 70r. 83 Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 795. On 21st of June 1378, when the Ciompi presented their demands to the Signoria, they explicitly called for the commune to bar ser Piero from all communal offices for life. ASF, Provv., reg., 67, 9r-13v. 84 I can find no evidence to corroborate Ronald Witt’s strong claim about Niccolò’s “official firing on April 15, 1375” for which he provides no reference; Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, 123. The above provision is the only official documentation of Niccolò’s removal from office proferred by Novati, Epistolario, I, 203 f. 1. Marzi corroborates Novati (Marzi, La Cancelleria, 103 f. 1) with a reference to ASF, Lib. fab., 40 (October 1371-March 1380), but I was unable to examine this register. The 197 that Niccolò had “recently” been removed from the office and on that day “ser Coluccio Pieri de

Signano” had become the new chancellor.85 The chronicler Stefani attributes Niccolò’s removal to the work of Bonaiuto di ser Belcaro Seragli, “in revenge for the damages [Niccolò] tried to do him some years ago when he was tamburato.”86 The available evidence does not suggest that the loss of Niccolò’s position in the chancery had anything to do with Niccolò’s character, as much scholarship on the matter suggests, nor with his competence. Rather, this episode clarifies how political factionalism seeped into even the highest levels of communal administration. In

Niccolò Monachi we find an example of how changeable the political realities and how stark the social consequences were for notary-administrators in the face of such political upheaval. The possibility or, perhaps, inevitability of such consequences would have had a real influence on

gonfaloniere for the March/April 1375 term was Bonaiuto di ser Belcaro Serragli, the member of the Parte’s inner leadership that held a long-time grudge against Niccolò; the priori were: Stefano del Rosso, Tommaso Brancacci, Bernardo di ser Ridolfo Pretasini, Bonsignore di Spinello Spinelli, Francesco di ser Benincasa Oddi, Giorgio di Collino Grandoni, Francesco di Neri Fioravanti, and Galeotto di Tommaso Baronci; their notaio was ser Francesco di Vanni Muzzi. See Rastrelli, Priorista II, 136; also Stefani, Cronica fiorentina, rubr. 750. 85 ASF, Provv., reg., 63, 31r: “the lords priors and the standard-bearer considering their recent removal of ser Niccolò di ser Ventura Monachi from the office of chancellor of the Florentine Commune …] and the election recently written and done in said day in the present month of April, the lords priors and standard-bearer and gonfalonieri of the people and the twelve buonuomini bestow upon ser Coluccio di Piero di Stignano, a notary from Florentine territories, the said office of chancellor for one year beginning that very day” (considerantes domini priores et vexillifer predicti remotiam nuper per eos factam de ser Niccolao ser Venture Monachi ab officio cancellariatus comunis florentie […], ac etiam electionem deinde scritam [sic] et factam die predicto presentis mensis aprilis per ipsos dominos priores et vexillifer et gonfalonieris populi et duodecim bonos viros comunis florentie dependent viro ser Coluccio Pieri de Stignano, districtus Florentie notarius, ad dictus cancellariatus officium per uno anno incipiendo ipsamet die). 86 “[…] per vendicarsi del danno che costui aveva tentato di fargli qualche anno innazi quando era stato tamburato.” Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 749. 198 men functioning as notary-administrators, as indeed it did for Niccolò who continued serving in administrative offices even after his removal from the chancery and continued to be hounded by his political opponents and personal enemies.

1376-1377: Three Denunciations and a Second Proscription

As the Parte’s zeal for proscribing Florentines adverse to its agenda intensified during the 1370s, general discontent began to foment amongst the guild community, the elite families that sympathised with it, and the working classes. This discontent finally boiled over after mass proscriptions were conducted by the Parte Guelfa between September 1377 and the spring of

1378. During these months, over ninety ranking citizens were issued warnings concerning their alleged Ghibellinism and proscribed from public office. As Marchione di Coppo Stefani wrote,

“In that year [1377], more men with high positions were proscribed than ever before.”87

Meanwhile, further tamburazioni of alleged Ghibellines flooded the office of the esecutore, asserting the intentions of many Florentines to harm the Parte or reporting angry words spoken against the Guelf cause. While many if not most of these denunciations originated from within the Parte Guelfa with the aim that the esecutore would exile (bandire) those accused of

Ghibellinism, it is also clear that not all these accusations came directly from the Parte. Political and personal vendette originating within communal institutions all over the city also inspired the secret filing of charges against colleagues and neighbours.

Niccolò and several of his closest friends and allies, including his brothers-in-law,

Matteo and Francesco Alderotti, were denounced in January 1377/8. Interestingly, Niccolò’s

87 “Ed in quest’anno furono ammoniti più uomini e di maggiore lieva, che ancora si facesse […]” Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 775. 199 proscription, as well as the three tamburazioni filed against him with the esecutore, arose not only out of the discontent of his enemies amongst the Parte’s leadership, but also out of grudges nourished against him on the part of members of his own guild, the Arte dei giudici e notai. In

1377, an old enemy, Bonaiuto Serragli, was made capitano of the Parte Guelfa. Alongside him, in various administrative offices at the Parte were two familiar faces, Lapo da Castiglionchio and Ormanno di Gherardo Foraboschi. Marchionne di Coppo Stefani noted, “these [men] were the champions of the Parte Guelfa, and truly one could say they broke Florence with their limitless enthusiasm [to proscribe people].”88

Niccolò had spent 1376, the year following his departure from the chancery, within the administration of the Arte dei giudici e notai, first as consolo and then as consigliere of the guild. Then, in July and August 1377, he served as notaio dei priori. On the 28th of January

1377/8, Niccolò was again proscribed by the Parte Guelfa and three different tamburazioni were deposited at the office of the esecutore, all of which denounced him as an enemy to the Guelfs.

These tamburazioni assert that Niccolò’s family was originally from Castiglione Ubertini, the

Aretine village and strong-hold of the Ghibelline Ubertini family. Niccolò’s denouncers assert that he had always supported and continued to support the Ghibellines located throughout the

Valdarno superiore between Florence and Arezzo and that, as chancellor, he had hired himself out to them, writing letters to Ghibellines in the Valdarno without the Signoria’s knowledge.

Additionally, they assert that Niccolò had exercised the office of notary and drew salaries from communal offices contrary to the statutes and ordinances of Florence and of the Parte Guelfa.89

88 “Questi si chiamavano i campioni della Parte Guelfa, ed in effetto furono quelli che con appetito smisurato si potè dire guastato Firenze.” Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 775. 89 ASF, Esecutore, 802bis, unpaginated. “Notificantur vobis domino Executor quod ser Nichoalus quondam ser Venture Monachi olim de Castiglioncello [sic] de Ubertinis de Aretio, publice et famosus Ghibellinus, et qui semper substentavit et substenuit Ghibellinos tam Castri Montisvarchi quam Laterine 200 Two of the three tamburazioni originated from within the notarial community. Fourteen notaries attached their names to it. At the top of the list of witnesses who signed these two tamburazioni is the name of ser Prospero di Marco Battaglieri de Monterappoli who had held a grudge against

Niccolò since at least one year prior after a dispute involving Niccolò arose within the Arte dei

Giudici e Notai. It deserves to be described at some length.90

In October 1374, Niccolò had been elected proconsolo of the Arte dei giudici e notai and on November 21st he adjudicated a case there against ser Prospero. The guild records for this case are not extant so the particulars of the case are unknown, however on January 13th ser

Prospero denounced Niccolò before the Tre maggiori for what he maintained was an unjust sentence. The provvisioni registers of the denunciation brought before the Signoria and the collegi in January 1374/5 record the original sentence Niccolò imposed on Prospero.91 Niccolò

quam Cascie et Montis Lunghi et totius Vallis Arni superioris, idem olim esset cancellarius comunis Florentie faciendo litteras et mittendo eas in dictis locis a[b]sque consilia dominorum priorum artium et vexilliferi iustitie per tempore existantium, autorando huiusmodi ghibellinos dictorum locorum et fames dictorum ghibellinorum. In dicto palatio dum esset cancellarius semper ferindus existens de anno presenti et mense julii anni proximi predicti tenere, accettare, facere, et exercere presumsat officium notariatus et servante dominorum priorum artium et vexilliferi iustitie ac etiam de anno presenti et mensis januarii, febrarii, infecit et exercuit officium notariatum defectuum stipendium communis Florentie contra formam, iura, statum, et ordinamenti communi Florentie et sacratissime Partis Guelforum [...].” 90 The notaries who appended their names to this tamburazione were: ser Prospero dei Battaglieri, ser Bernardo Cacchelli, ser Cristofano Bonucci de Montevarchi, ser Angelo Latini, ser Mano Meri, ser Martino Ceschi, ser Sengma Grinelli, ser Francesco di ser Piero Magiatore, ser Giovanni di ser Onesto de Raso, ser Gianni di ser Giovanni de Calezano, ser Bettus Giuli, ser Niccolò di ser Zanobi Paoni, ser Venudo di ser Francesco, and ser Domenico di ser Mini de Montevarchi. 91 ASF, Provv., reg., 62, 263r-264v. The priori: Stefano di Lippo, Niccolò di Nono Rinucci, Agnolo di Berto Cecchi, Giovanni di Lapo Corsi, Marco di Giotto Fantoni, Lodovico d’Adoardo degli Accialiuoli, Zanobi di Giovanni Margnolli, Miniato di Nuccio; the Gonafaloniere di giustizia was Iacopo di Dino Guidi. 201 had imposed a one hundred florin fine on ser Prospero, half of which was to be paid to the treasury of the guild and the other half to the treasury of the commune on pain of four times the fine. Ser Prospero’s name was to be erased from the matriculation records and he was to be imprisoned in the Stinche for six months. Two months after the guild ruling, in January 1374/5, the Signoria ruled in favour of ser Prospero, declaring that he “is a poor, simple, and weak man

[...] and neither can he pay the said money nor can he contest it with his adversaries through the normal process of justice on account of his own inability.”92 Niccolò’s sentence as proconsolo of the guild was annulled, but there was no explicit condemnation of Niccolò himself. Ser

Prospero evidently continued to hold a grudge nonetheless, appending his name first at the top of two separate tamburazioni filed against Niccolò primarily by his notary colleagues.

A further accusation which some of the same notaries advanced implicates Niccolò in a covert effort by Ghibellines in the Valdarno to infiltrate Guelf Florence via the Monachi family members themselves. Monaco, Niccolò’s grandfather, it is alleged, had been deliberately sent to

Florence from the fortress at Castiglione Ubertini. The tamburazione contends that Niccolò continued his grandfather’s clandestine purpose while chancellor, writing letters without the knowledge of the Priori and the gonfaloniere, sealing them with the seal of Florence, and sending them to his Ghibelline kinsmen in the Valdarno as well as to other Ghibelline cities. To the disgrace and shame of the Guelfs of Florence, it continues, Niccolò presumed to exercise the office of notary and servant of the Priori and the gonfaloniere di giustizia.93 Ser Piero di ser

Grifo, the notaio delle riformagioni, attached his name to one of these tamburazioni.

92 “[...] quia ipse ser Prosper est homo pauper, simplex, et debilis [...]. Nec posset dictam pecuniam solvere nec etiam iudicio ordinario cum suis adversariis contendere propter impossibilitatem suam.” ASF, Provv., reg., 62, 263v. 93 ASF, Esecutore, 802bis, unpaginated. “Ser Nicholaus ser Ventura quondam Monachi mittendi communis Florentie de Castaneis de Castiglioncello de Ubertinis de Aretio et comitati aretii, populi 202 While two tamburazioni originated from members of Niccolò’s own guild, a third was generated entirely by adherents of the Parte Guelfa. This tamburazione is more explicit about the origins of the family. Monaco is purported to have been found in the lists of condemned

Ghibellines that were maintained at the Palazzo della signoria. The tamburazione reads:

Niccolò is a Ghibelline by nature and by blood, that is, through Monaco who, as a

Ghibelline together with others, is written in the book of Ghibellines who were

exiled by the King, and who in the quarter of Porta San Piero is described under this

name, that is giving the name “Monachi,” which is his family name.94

In the 1268-69 lists of condemned Ghibellines compiled by Charles II’s viceroy, Malatesta dei

Veraculo, a certain Priore Monachi appears under Porta San Piero but it is unclear whether or not this is the Monachi to which the tamburazione was referring.95 Carlo Sebregondi assumed

Sancti Remicij de Florentia, publice et famose Ghibellanus, ac substentatur Ghibellinorum, et ser Nicholaus olim dum esset cancellarius communem Florentie, semper fuit substentator Ghibellinorum et quod maxime vallis Arni superiore, videlicet Montesvarechi, Castri Bertini, Laterinem, comune Civitelle, et totius viscontadi, fabricando litteras cum sigillo communis florentie asque scientia dominorum priorum artium et vexilliferi iustitie populi et communem Florentie, expellendo de ipsius locis Guelfos et vere fidei adherentes tamquam fames ghibellinorum predictorum et aliorum locorum.” Witnesses to the second tamburazione are: Giovanni di Stefano, Cristofano de Montevarchi, Giovani di Mei de Castelfranco, Niccola Panoni, Prospero di Marco, Givanni di Giovanni de Calenzano, Taddei Mei de Pagli, Bernardo di Taddei Carchelli, Giovanni di Tusio, Venudo di Franchino, Niccolao Picconi, Piero di Guidi Grifi, Bernabo di Piglio, Ventura di Niccolò.” This Ventura di Niccolò was likely not Niccolò’s son of the same name. 94 ASF, Esecutore, 802bis, unpaginated. “[...] e che el detto ser Nicholo è Ghibellino per natura e per genia, cioè Monacho, el quale, come ghibellino insieme cogli altri, è descritto in su libro de Ghibellini che furono confinati del Re, che nel quartiere di Porta San Piero descritto sotto questo nome, cioè dando Monachi, el quale è suo consorto.” 95 A facsimile is found in Klein, Libro del chiodo, 123. The so-called Libro del chiodo was produced on the authority of the capitani of the Parte Guelfa who had deliberated in 1358 that all Ghibellines that had been approved as Guelfs beginning in 1349 should not be permitted to hold political 203 the tamburazione was referring to the 1302 lists of condemned Florentine Ghibellines and White

Guelfs compiled by Charles of Valois. There, Monaco, the illegitimate son of Guglielmo degli

Ubertini, bishop of Arezzo (“Monachum, bastardum olim domini Guillelmi episcopi Aretini”) was condemned with a number of other Ubertini for their attack on a castle in the valley of the

Arno in the Florentine countryside. However, Monaco is not explicitly listed under Porta San

Piero in the 1302 lists, as the tamburazione specifies. Suffice it to say that in the lists of condemned Ghibellines, Niccolò’s denouncers found many examples of Ghibellines named

“Monaco” with whom they might associate him. Niccolò’s accumulation of administrative offices is condemned here as perfidious and hazardous to the good of the commune because

Niccolò, it is maintained, is a Ghibelline, and he championed the Ghibelline cause while in service to the commune.

We, the Executor of the Ordinances of Justice, are advised that ser Niccolò di ser

Ventura Monachi [...] has accepted, undertaken, and appropriated more and more

offices of said Commune – and especially most recently office of the Notary of the

Priors and the gonfaloniere di giustizia of the Commune, which he undertook on the

first of July of the past year 1377 – in treachery against the Guelfs and the good

condition of this land. [...] Considering that he always knew the secrets of the office

he exercised and that he was always surrounded by the deliberations and the

provisions that were made in the offices where he found himself, it is safe to say that

office in Florence. The Libro del chiodo includes the 1302 condemnations copied directly from the Capitoli registers and the 1268-69 lists of rebels produced at the time of the Signoria of Charles of Anjou. For a discussion of the production in the Trecento of the various books of condemned Ghibellines see Milani, “Appunti per una riconsiderazione.” The preferred edition of the Libro is Ricciardelli, Libro del Chiodo. 204 the Ghibellines had their own procurator against the Guelfs and that said ser Niccolò

is a Ghibelline by nature and by blood.96

If condemning the deeds of former Monachi was not enough to incriminate Niccolò as a

Ghibelline, his denouncers also condemn the angry words of Niccolò’s son against the Parte

Guelfa (the tamburazione does not specify whether it refers to Ventura or Antonio).

And ser Niccolò had one of his sons, the one who always also finds himself

slandering the Captains, arroti, and other officials of the Parte, saying that these

partegiani will harm the party and that certainly there ought to be people in these

offices that will correct these partegiani and silence them. Among other things, he

also said that ser Niccolò, his father, was eligible to be gonfaloniere di giustizia of

the people of this land, and that [when that happened] he would certainly find a way

to silence a brigata of these arciguelfi. And in this way the father and the son

slandered all day long.97

96 ASF, Esecutore, 802bis, unpaginated. “Notificasi e tamburasi a noi, Messer ll’asiguitore degli ordinamenti della giustizia del popolo et Comune di Firenze, che ser Nicholo di ser Ventura Monachi, el quale è publice e notorio Ghibellino, e sospetto alla Parte Guelfa e al popolo e al pacifico regimento di questa terra, à accettati e giurati et apropritati più e più offiti del detto comuni et maximamente ora l’ultima volta l’ufficio del notariato de Signori Priori et Gonfaloniere di Giustitia del detto Comune, el quale giurò el primo dì di luglio proximo passato anno MCCCLXXVII in preiuditio de’ Guelfi ed el buono stato di questa terra […] E ch’el detto ser Nicholo, Ghibellino predetto, fu et essercita uffici di notai, la quale cosa quando preiuditio al buono stato e alla Parte Guelfa, no lla potete conprendere. Considerato che egli selo senpre si truova sapere i segreti dello ufficio che essercita però che scrive e appresso allui rimangono ttutte deliberationi e provigioni ch’essi fanno negli’uffici ch’essi truova, e così si può dire che i Ghibellini abino uno loro procuratore contro a Guelfi, e che el detto ser Nicholo è Ghibellino per natura e per genia [...]” 97 ASF, Esecutore, 802bis, unpaginated. “E ch’el detto ser Nicholo à uno suo figliuolo, el quale sempre anche si truova sparlla contro a’ capitani, e arroti, e quatro, e altri uffitiali della Parte, dicendo che questi partegiani guascano questa Parte e che per certo possono essere agli uffici persone i quali correggiarano questi partegiani e portarli a sedere. E fra ll’altre cose, dice che ser Nicholo suo padre è 205 Given the supposed wrath of Niccolò and his son against certain arciguelfi within the Parte

Guelfa, the denouncers insist that if Niccolò were to find himself in such a position of power

(i.e., as gonfaloniere di giustizia), that he would do much more damage to Florence than he had already done when sending unauthorized letters into Ghibelline territories. Finally, they ask the esecutore to condemn Niccolò as a Ghibelline and to proceed against him according to the statutes and legislation of the city.98 The list of witnesses to this tamburazione is long and populated entirely by members of the Albizzi faction and the pro-papal elite.99 Proscribing

Niccolò from political office was not sufficient; the Albizzi faction sought Niccolò’s immediate exile. Members of this faction would have to wait another four years for Niccolò’s condemnation and exile.

Tamburazioni against many others (for example, those written against Niccolò’s brother- in-law, Matteo Alderotti100) provide many of the same grounds for condemnation: the exercise of pluralism. Florentine denouncers continuously betray a concern bordering on fanaticism regarding the accumulation of public offices. In the majority of the denunciations I examined in the esecutore fonds, these denouncers mention pluralism most commonly when highlighting the danger of Ghibellines, who represent a threat to the Guelf stability of the commune.

rinborsato gonfaloniere di giustizia del popolo di questa terra e che per certo egli si ritroverà anchora a mettere a sedere una brigata di questi arciguelfi et cosi el padre al figluolo sparllano tutto dì.” 98 ASF, Esecutore, 802bis, unpaginated. “E che peggio ciò potebono se potessero ritrovandosi potere. E per tanto si domanda a noi, misser ll’asiguitore predetto, che condamiate el dicto ser Nicholo Ghibellino e ssospetto alla Parte, e che contro allui procediate secondo che siete tenuto, e dovete per lla forma di qualunche statuto, ordine, e riformagione del Comune di Firenze che dictio per ll’ano.” 99 Some names include: Antonio di Niccolò di Cioni, Uberto Ridolfi, Giovanni dei Rossi, Jacopo Aldobrandini, Francesco Falcone, Donato Acciaioli, Stoldo Altoviti, Andrea Salviati, Maso degli Albizzi, Alberto degli Albizzi, Milglioro di Nieri Guadagni, Jacobo di Bartolo dei Medici, and Attamano Brunelleschi. 100 ASF, Esecutore, 802bis, 142r, 208v-209r, 262v-263r. 206 By the 1370s Niccolò had been operating within the field of administration for over three decades. On the one hand, the personal animosity which some notary-administrators harboured against Niccolò, as evidenced in these esecutore records, suggests that socially motivated tensions outside the field necessarily contributed to the experiences of actors within the field of communal administration. On the other hand, Niccolò had clearly established himself by this point as a friend to the guild community and allied with its sympathisers amongst the oligarchy, namely among the Ricci faction. While his removal in 1375 was part of a broader oligarchic

(primarily Albizzi) initiative to establish more of a foothold at the heart of the Florentine executive via communal administration, Niccolò continued to serve within communal administration until 1377 when he was denounced a second time by the Parte Guelfa and by three tamburazioni initiated against him by his enemies in the Parte Guelfa as well as by select colleagues at the Arte dei giudici e notai. This was a turning point in Niccolò’s career as a notary-administrator: he discontinued operating in administrative offices and instead took up a more political role. These circumstances add another dimension to Niccolò’s understanding of his socio-political role as he proffered political advice at one of the most important political fora in the city, the Consulte e Pratiche.

1378-1382: Niccolò in the Cons ul te

Public outrage at the Parte’s overly zealous denunciation of middle-class citizens and growing discontent among the disenfranchised working class bolstered already ballooning populist sentiments throughout the city. In the wake of the political turmoil of the Ciompi revolt in summer 1378, the guild community established a political regime that would remain in power until 1382 and which was closely based on the principles of corporatism. For four years, the priorate was dominated by minor guildsmen and non-elite major guildsmen as well as some elite 207 supporters of the popular movement, including Giorgio Scali and Jacopo di Tommaso Strozzi.

Although he is not regularly identified as a key member of this experiment in guild republicanism, Niccolò was a conspicuous presence in the Consulte offering political opinions throughout the period of the 1378-1382 popular regime, sometimes in support of the elite leaders of the regime like Giorgio Scali and Jacopo Strozzi, other times in support of the advocates of the minor guilds like Bartolomeo “Scatizza.” Niccolò was also implicated when these leaders were later overturned and sentenced to death at the court of the podestà and was among the few who escaped with the lesser sentence of exile.

It is worth explaining in some detail the historical circumstances surrounding Niccolò’s political experiences during these years as it helps to further clarify his socio-political position after he began his more political role. In May 1378, Salvestro di Alamanno de’ Medici, was named gonfaloniere di giustizia.101 From the early 1370s, he and a number of other individuals from elite families – Tommaso degli Strozzi, Andrea de’ Bardi, and Benedetto di Nerozzo

Alberti – had begun turning away from the pro-papal oligarchy operating out of the institution of the Parte Guelfa and rallying behind the guild community in support of its corporatist political aims. This political movement sympathised in particular with the artisans of the lower guilds and the disenfranchised labourers of the wool industry, advocating on behalf of an overtaxed populace for fiscal reform and criticizing the aggressive policies championed by the

Albizzi. Salvestro’s decisions during his term as gonfaloniere di giustizia in the summer of 1378 in many ways fanned the flames of a radical popular movement which come to be known as the

“Ciompi revolt” and had its roots in the 1342/43 Signoria of Walter of Brienne. He presented a proposal before the Signoria, calling first for the re-promulgation of the Ordinamenti di

101 For an alternative view to the narrative I present here, see Gene Brucker, “The Ciompi Revolution” in Rubinstein, ed. Florentine Studies, 314-356. 208 giustizia (a symbolic move which recalled earlier communal initiatives to curb the influence of magnates and the patrician class within politics) and second, for the extension of the rights of association to the minor guilds of artisans and labourers. A few days later, with no response from the Signoria and frustration brewing within the lower guilds, crowds of labourers composed primarily of the unorganized cloth workers of Florence, the Ciompi, streamed through the streets burning the houses of known oligarchs, among which were those of the Parte Guelfa leadership.102 Spurred by the threat of further violence, the consigli approved the conferral of extraordinary powers on a committee (balìa) led by Salvestro de’ Medici. 103 Alongside one consolo from each of the twenty-one guilds, he declared the Parte leaders who had been at the centre of the 1377 proscription effort to be rebels, magnates, or supermagnates. Among those condemned were some of Niccolò’s staunchest enemies within the Parte; for example, Lapo da

Castiglionchio (declared a rebel), Bartolo di Giovanni Simmonetti (exiled), and Simone di

Bindo Altoviti (supermagnate) – all had appeared in the tamburazioni against Niccolò and/or were directly involved in his prior proscription.104 For the second time in less than a decade,

Niccolò’s proscription was cancelled.

The Ciompi regime lasted only forty days but one of its most important acts was to dismantle the influence of the Parte Guelfa. The Tre maggiori were given the authority to veto any proscriptions devised by the Parte Guelfa; all elections within the Parte were annulled and

102 The houses of at least two of Niccolò’s enemies, Lapo da Castiglionchio and ser Piero di ser Grifo, were among those destroyed. Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 795. 103 ASF, Provv., reg., 66, 51v-53r. A great deal has been written on the Ciompi rebellion, including: Rodolico, I Ciompi; Di Leva, Il tumulto dei ciompi; Stella, La révolte des Ciompi; Rubinstein, “After the ‘tumulto dei Ciompi’”; Screpanti, “La politica dei Ciompi.” 104 Those who appended their names to the 1377 tamburazione againt Niccolò were from merchant or patrician families associated with the Albizzi faction: Cioni, Ridolfi, Bigliotti, Rossi, Aldinbrandini, Acciaiuoli, Altoviti, Simmonetti, Alessandri, Salviati, Albizzi, Medici, Brunelleschi, etc. 209 the guild consuls were given the authority to directly elect the Parte’s capitani; the consoli of all twenty-one guilds were given back their key roles in communal and guild elections; and all previous communal administrators were removed from office and replaced, except for the chancellor (Coluccio Salutati) and the notaio delle riformagioni (ser Viviano di Neri Viviani).105

The immediate successor to the short-lived Ciompi regime was a government primarily headed by elite and non-elite supporters of the popular movement led by Salvestro de’ Medici as it put into practice the basic corporatist principles of guild republicanism.106

Through cooperation and concession, the guild-sympathetic patrician leaders of this new popular regime (like, Giorgio Scali and Tommaso Strozzi) and the leaders of the lesser guilds

(like Jacopo di Bartolomeo Amati, “Scatizza”) worked to smooth over the socio-political turmoil that had dominated the 1360s and 1370s. Importantly, the government maintained an open, more amenable stance toward the gente nuova and actively sought to soothe anxieties about Ghibelline foment. Nevertheless, the new regime was never fully able to gain broad-based consent. It was constantly plagued by widespread fear of conspiracies and subversive plots, some of which were probably well-founded considering the discontent of the elite that had been disenfranchised by their newly-imposed magnate status. The most aggressive members of the

Parte Guelfa who had been exiled by this new regime soon allied themselves to other elite families who, although still resident in the city, nevertheless found themselves politically restricted by stringent policies put in place by the new regime.

105 Fossati, Il tumulto dei Ciompi, 346-76. 106 The episode of the Ciompi revolt was much more complex than as I have presented here. The bibliography on the Ciompi is quite large. A good point of reference is Stella, La révolte des Ciompi. The violence of the Ciompi revolt left its mark on the cultural memory of the city and ultimately instilled a fear and mistrust of the working classes that had far-reaching consequences even into the next century; see Najemy, History of Florence, 176-181. 210 Between 1378 and 1382 however, artisans, retailers, and craftsmen were given roles in the Consulte, an important political venue where matters concerning prospective legislation and statute could be aired and debated before arriving at the councils for final approval.107 Although the Consulte were largely dominated by members of the old elite families who had allied themselves with the popular movement in the summer of 1378 (Salvestro de’ Medici,

Uguccione Ricci, Bernardo Velluti, etc.), in this period members of the lower guilds exercised their influence in the legislative councils where, according to Marchionne di Coppo Stefani, “so great was the force of the artisans that in the councils, they won every deliberation they wanted to win.”108

Niccolò was well acquainted with the political venue of the Consulte e Pratiche. From as early as 1353 he had acted there in the capacity of a communal administrator, copying the minutes of its meetings.109 In 1378 however, for Niccolò, no longer an administrator, the

Consulte became an opportunity for political participation that had otherwise been closed to him as chancellor, and he frequently offered opinions before members of the Consulte. Between

September 1378 and December 1381 he appeared often in the Consulte meetings where he frequently supported the suggestions of the elite leaders of the regime like Salvestro de’ Medici and Tommaso Strozzi, especially when it came to foreign policy.110 At the same time however,

107 Before new legislation was passed on to the legislative councils for approval, the Signoria consulted committees formed of councilors and representatives of the guilds, the so-called “boni homines,” of “savi.” The fonds “Consulte e pratiche” constitute the minutes of the meetings of these committees and are extent only for meetings after 1343. 108 “Ma tanto era la forza degli artefici, che in ogni cosa di diliberazione vinceano ne’ consigli ciò che volieno, che la vinsero.” Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 877. 109 Klein, Scritture e governo, 115-126. 110 ASF, Consulte, 16, 26r (Sept. ‘78), 35r (Oct. ‘78); 17, 17v (June ‘79), 64v (Aug. ‘79), 69r (Aug. ‘79); 18, 52v (Dec. ‘79), 63r (Jan. ‘79/80), 81v (Mar. ‘79/80), 91v (Mar. ‘79/80) , 104r (6 Apr. ‘80), 109r 211 when it came to fiscal matters, one of the most frequently debated topics, Niccolò was torn between the interests of the elite leadership and those of the members of the lower guilds and the working classes, often attempting to walk a thin line between them.

One of the most significant fiscal reforms between 1378 and 1382 was the suspension of the city’s funded debt, the Monte. As Marchionne di Coppo Stefani noted, the repayment of creditor’s interest on the Monte had become financially untenable.111 In July, a petition came before the councils to suspend the payment of interest to creditors of the Monte and to return their capital to them within twelve years.112 This radical measure, although eagerly supported in the councils by representatives of the minor guilds, naturally received extensive debate, given the interest of countless major and minor guildsmen who held investments, some even as little as 50 or 60 florins.113 A repudiation, or even the reduction, of interest was not immediately desirable even for the guild community, much less for the members of the elite and upper merchant classes who were heavily invested in the Monte.

In the Consulte in October 1378, Niccolò voiced his concerns about the dangers to the regime if it were to drop interest rates, asserting that the regime ought to make good on the interest payments to its citizen creditors: “they ought to heed the faith of the commune with respect to the Monte and it should seem that the citizens of the commune stand firm.”114 Others

(20 Apr. ‘80), 119r (May ‘80); 19, 14r (July ‘80), 45v (Sept. ‘80); 20, 8r (July ‘81), 64v (18 Oct. ‘81), 68r (19 Oct. ‘81), 92r/v (Dec. ‘81). 111 Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 883. On fiscal reform during this period, and the debates in the Consulte and the councils, see especially Rodolico, Democrazia fiorentina and Brucker, Civic World, 59-59. 112 Rodolico, Democrazia fiorentina, 270-277. 113 Rodolico, Democrazia fiorentina, 270-277, 277-279, and for the text of the law, 280-281. 114 “Et quod fides comunis observent in facto montis et videatur quod cives Comune substant et quod minuere interesse ac quia si videt utile tollatur tertia partes interesse et illas comparsas minuantur monte.” ASF, Consulte 16, 35r (Oct. 1378). Also see Rodolico, Democrazia fiorentina, 272-273. 212 voiced similar convictions, warning the commune not to break promises and violate the public faith with respect to the Monte. At the same time, however, the city’s treasury was being quickly consumed by the rising costs of a military force and many in the Consulte, including Niccolò, acknowledged that the city could no longer afford to pay the current rate of interest to Monte creditors. Niccolò suggested “that if it is useful to decrease interest, one-third of the interest should be removed and that which is saved [should be used] to decrease the monte” (that is, to retire obligations).115 It was only in December that an amended measure was finally approved: the interest rate of all Monte shares was reduced to 5% and all financial obligations were to be retired over a period of several years.

Another major fiscal concern in the Consulte and councils during this period was the elimination of interest-bearing loans (prestanze). In their place, the Estimo, a direct tax traditionally imposed on the countryside alone, replaced the prestanze in the city in an effort to relieve the tax burden on the poor and the working classes. Originally conceived by the Ciompi as a non-interest-bearing form of direct taxation, the Estimo received intense debate. When, a commission of forty-eight assessors completed a draft of a schedule in the summer of 1379, the draft was immediately met with demands for reform, especially from the lower guildsmen and labourers. Early on Niccolò insisted on reform, echoing the objections of these lower guildsmen.

In the Consulte in August 1379, Niccolò insisted that the Estimo had to be corrected “so that those who were not rich should be relieved of its burden.”116 After the first levies were imposed however, some wealthier citizens accustomed to a system of forced-loans repaid at interest wanted their Estimo payments to be recognized as liens on the treasury that would be repaid at a

115 “[…] at quia si videt utile tollatur tertia partes interesse et illa convertatus in minime de monte.” ASF, Consulte, 16, 35r. 116 “[...] et quod Comune exgravet sic de gentibus non riciis [sic].” ASF, Consulte, 17, 64v. 213 later date. In the Consulte in March 1380, Niccolò threw his hat in with these men advocating for the consideration of Estimo payments as liens: “[Estimo payments] should be considered as loans that bring money to the city.”117 The measure failed three times in the councils but the state of the city’s treasury was such that by autumn of 1380 even the staunchest champion of the working classes in the Consulte, the cloth-shearer Jacopo di Bartolomeo Amati (“Scatizza”), had to agree that an interest-bearing Estimo was necessary for the regime’s survival. A reform was finally approved in December that the Estimo would carry a 5% rate of interest after five years.118

It is important to note that Niccolò adapted to accommodate his new, non-administrative role as a politically-active Florentine citizen. His unique position as an ex-chancellor of the commune, knowledgeable about every aspect of the commune’s administrative organization, gave him a unique perspective on how to carefully negotiate the boundaries between often conflicting interests – sometimes advocating for those of the elite members of the upper guilds and sometimes for those of the non-elite, lower guilds – while still evidently mindful of the broader city-wide realities of insolvency and the threat of magnate insurrection. As a tendency learned over years of operating within the mutable boundaries of the commune’s administrative organization, his skill at negotiating the instability of socio-political interests ultimately saved him when the 1378-1382 popular regime toppled and its leaders were executed.

117 ASF, Consulte, 18, 91v. In the same month, Niccolò supported Bernardo Velluti’s suggestion on the creation of an office that would pay Monte creditors with the immoveable properties confiscated from rebels (ASF, Consulte, 18, 45v). See Rodolico, Democrazia fiorentina, 276. 118 Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 884. “[...] e che per infino a 5 anni non si potesse nullo interesso dare: ma da’ 5 anni indietro si desse quello interesso che si diliberasse per gli Priori e Collegi ed uno per Capitudine. Lo quale interesso non eccedesse le quantità di 5 per 100 l’anno; e ciò fu fatto contra gli ordini dello estimo; perocchè le legge dello estimo fu, che non si rendesse nè interesse nè capitale.” 214 1382: The Scatizza Affair and Niccolò ’s Ex ile

The 1378-1382 regime fell after the trial and execution of Iacopo “Scatizza” and his champions, Giorgio Scali and Tomaso Strozzi. It was during the so-called “Scatizza conspiracy” that Niccolò, as an ally of these leaders of the popular regime, was incrimated and exiled from

Florence for six years. It is necessary again to provide some historical background to understand how Niccolò was involved.

Under the 1378-1382 regime, the Florentine patricians had been virtually alienated from the government. Many soon left to join the leaders of the Parte Guelfa whom the Ciompi government had exiled in 1378. Supposed conspiracies and authentic plots weakened the regime’s legitimacy and exposed its weaknesses. For example, in December 1379 the English mercenary John Hawkwood, who had connections and spies in the Florentine expatriate community, wrote a letter to the Signoria claiming that he had information regarding a plot to overthrow the government and, for the price of 12,000 florins, he informed the regime of a number of prominent citizens and contingents of exiles who had allegedly paid mercenaries to help them take back the city.119 The government was swift to punish the conspirators – six aristocrats were executed, forty were declared magnates, and thirty-nine were banned from political office.120 Counselors in the Consulte urged authorities to confiscate the properties of those responsible for the December plot. Giorgio Scali advised (and Tommaso Strozzi seconded) on the 9th of December that mercy should be shown to rebels who obey, but that all the goods and properties of the rebels who do not obey should be immediately confiscated.121

119 Caferro, John Hawkwood, 217-218. The letter is in ASF, Sig., miss. I canc., 18, fol. 16v. 120 Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 829-830, 843; also, Gherardi, “Diario d’anonimo,” 207-481, 406. 121 ASF, Consulte, 18, 52v. Tomaso Strozzi and Paolo Malefici later suggested that the wives and children of rebels should be exiled and their doweries seized while Bernardo Velluti proposed that the 215 The reactionary advice of men in the Consulte demonstrates the genuine fear of insurrection from within and of the convictions of expatriates and the disgruntled elite.122

Giovanni Morelli wrote that in response to such fears Tommaso Strozzi and Giorgio Scali “had many dogs – that is, spies – who were everywhere in Florence, either to make arrests and to watch day and night. Here you can neither gather to have dinner nor speak without being denounced before the Eight [on security].”123 Morelli singles out one of these “dogs,” “Iscatiza.”

This was the same Jacopo di Bartolomeo Amati “Scatizza” who had been a stalwart advocate for the lower guilds in the Consulte during the same years when Niccolò was active there.

Things came to a head when, in December 1381, Scatizza denounced Giovanni Cambi, one of the sedici gonfalonieri, before the Signoria for plotting to overthrow the government.124 He denounced him a second time on the 7th of January for having hosted an unlawful congregation of dissenters in his home, including the chancellor, Coluccio Salutati.125 An anonymous chronicler describes what happened immediately following Scatizza’s accusation.

Our Priors immediately sent word to the home of Giovanni Cambi ordering him to

come before them. [The messenger] going to him found that Giovanni had at his

home certain foreigners who had killed and butchered his pigs. Giovanni Cambi

said [to the Priors], ‘Lords, what do you command?’ And our Priors told Giovanni

likenesses of rebels ought to be painted on the walls of the Palazzo della Parte Guelfa to dissuade future malefactors. ASF, Consulte, 18, 95v/r, 117v. 122 For an alternate view, Brucker, Civic World, 57. 123 Morelli, Ricordi, 325. “Aveano molti cani, cioè ispioni, che sempre erano per Firenze, o per pigliare o per ispiare di dì e di notte. Qui non si poteva né convitare persona né usare punto, che tu eri abominato agli Otto.” 124 On the Scatizza affair and the ensuing formation of the oligarchic government, see Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 901-905 and Gherardi, “Diario d’anonimo.” 125 Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 901. 216 Cambi [and Giovanni Cambi replied] ‘My lords, I beg you that you seek out the

truth of these insinuations because it is likely that he who shames me thus did these

things.’ When our Captain [Messer Obizzo degli Aldilosi da Imola] heard of this,

he sent men to take Scatizza. And when our Captain had taken him, our Priors and

the Guilds told the Captain that he had to release Scatizza. To this, Messer Obizzo

degli Alidosi da Imola [the Captain] threw his baton on the ground and said to our

Priors, “From the moment you don’t want to see justice done, I have no desire to

be here.’ Then the sixteen guilds were at the Palace of our Priors, at 2 o’clock at

night, and in the name of the Captain, they had [Scatizza] arrested again. And that

night, the Captain was in the Palace of our Priors and consequently he said to his

subordinate to hand him [Scatizza] over to him. And thus it was done.126

Under torture, Scatizza confessed to conspiring with Giorgio Scali, Tommaso Strozzi,

Simone di Biagio, and Feo di Piero to take control of government. In an effort to save him,

Giorgio Scali and Feo di Piero led a group of armed supporters to the Palazzo del podestà to

126 Gherardi, “Diario d'anonimo,” 433. “Onde i nostri Signori, subito mandarono a casa di Giovanni Cambi che venisse dinanzi da loro. Onde andando pe’ lui, egli aveva in casa sua cierti foresi ch’avieno menati e morti suoi porci. Onde Giovanni Cambi disse: Signori, che comandate voi che io faccia? E’ nostri Signori dissono a Giovanni Cambi: Signori miei, i’vi priego che di questi fatti voi cierchiate la verità, e chi m’à fatta questa vergognia, converrà ne sia fatta a lui. Onde sentendo il nostro Capitano questo fatto no’vero, sì mandò a pigliare questo Iscatizza. Onde avendo il nostro Capitano presolo, i nostri Signiori e l’Arte, sì feciono al Capitano del Popolo che’l dovesse lasciare quello Scatizza. Onde messer Obizzo degli Alidosi da Imola sì gittò la bacchetta in terra, e disse a’ nostri Signori: Da poi che vo’ volete che no’si faccia giustizia, i’non ci voglio istare. Onde le XVI Arte furono in Palagio di nostri Signiori, di 2 ore di notte, e per podere ch'el Capitano avesse, eglino lo riavrebbono. E in quella sera, il Capitano era in Palagio di nostri Signori, e per forza disse il Capitano al suo collaterale che gliel dissono, e così fu fatto.” 217 demand Scatizza’s release.127 As the registers of the trial attest, in a show of unequivocable support for the popular regime, the septuagenarian Niccolò Monachi was among Scatizza’s supporters. He may well have understood that the fate of the popular regime lay in that of its main leaders. That he chose a side in this instance is a real demonstration of his personal support for a regime based on a resolute guild community fully incorporated within the political fabric of the city.

As punishment for this insurrection against the capitano del popolo, Giorgio Scali was arrested and beheaded, his body left unadorned, as Stefani recounts, in the courtyard of the

Palazzo del podestà for over 20 hours.128 John Hawkwood, who had originally been employed by the regime to defend the city against Florence’s conspiratorial expatriates, turned now to the disgruntled elite that stood behind the capitano. After Hawkwood’s army made a show of its force by riding through the city, the priori and the colleges reconfirmed the capitano, Obizzo degli Aldilosi da Imola, for another six months.

[...] on the 16th of said month, in the morning, John Hawkwood came armed with

many soldiers and the seven Captains of the guilds to the piazza of our Priors and

they professed their loyalty to our Priors and to their colleges.129

127 The relevant documents are, ASF, Capitano, 1392, 69r-70r, 75r-75v, 77r-78v and ASF, Capitano, 1396, 32r-32v, ASF, Capitano, 1427, 45r-47r, and ASF, Podestà, 3053, 131r. Niccolò’s name appears in Capitano 1392 at 77v and Capitano 1427 at 45r. 128 Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 901. 129 “Onde messer Giovanni Aguto con la giente d’arme andarono per tutta la terra a modo di fare la mostra, e balestrieri Gienovesi, e in quel tanto, rimasono i balestrieri in Palagio di nostri Signiori co’loro Collegi; e allotta i nostri Signiori e loro Collegi sì raffermarono il nostro Capitano per tutto il tempo, con quella balìa ch’ebbe messer Cante de’ Gabriegli quando fu nostro Capitano (Fu riconfermato per alti sei mesi).” In Gherardi, “Diario d’anonimo.” 218 In the months that followed, the ranking members of the popular regime were tried at the courts of the capitano and of the podestà, implicated in the armed attack on the palace of the capitano, and either sentenced to death, exile, monetary fine, or excused: Giorgio Scali, Donato del Ricco,

Feo di Piero, Simone di Biagio, and his son were executed; Tommaso di Marco Strozzi and

Iacopo “Scatizza” were exiled, as were Salvestro de’ Medici, Matteo di Bonaccurso Alderotti,

Niccolò Monachi, and at least a ninety others.130

Niccolò was condemned on 13 February 1382, exiled from the city, and ordered to stay at a distance of fifty miles from the city for six years. Beyond the capitano registers, there is no evidence that Niccolò was ever actually directly involved in the Scatizza affair.131 However, it is clear that the ordeal was a catalyst that helped the oligarchy to regain control of government and that the subsequent sentencing of key members of the previous popular government signalled the new government’s purging of the old guard. Niccolò’s association with the popular government ultimately spelled the end of his activities in communal politics and administration, but he had proven his ability to weather political turmoil even despite the execution and exile of some of his closest friends and political allies.

As Stefani and the “Anonimo” relay, after the execution and exile of the 1378-1382 regime leaders “the land raced to the Parte Guelfa” and a new oligarchic government was

130 For a list of exiled, see Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 910. The Anonimo recounts that “Oggi, a’dì XX detto mese, la mattina, Messer Obizzo nostro Capitano fecie loro mozzare la testa, e fu mozza loro un sul muro del cortile del Capitano; e fuvvi un grande rumore. E la mattina, sì si levò per tutta Firenze un grande rumore gridando: ‘Viva la Parte Guelfa,’ e bastò parecchie die. E fecionsi molti cavalieri novegli.” “Today, on the 20th of January, Messer Obizzo, our Captain, ordered their [Donato del Ricco and Feo di Piero] execution on the wall of the Captain’s courtyard; and there was a great commotion. And in the morning, a great commotion rose up throughout all of Florence proclaiming, ‘Long live the Parte Guelfa!’ and it lasted several days. And they made many new knights.” 131 See a contrasting opinion in Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, 143. 219 formed that would last until at least 1432.132 In the year of his exile, Niccolò married into one of the elite families of the new regime’s inner circle, the Ardinghelli, again showing his innate ability to weather even the most personally incriminating political turmoil.133 Niccolò’s third wife, Giovanna di Angelo Ardinghelli was also the niece of Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici, whose financial and business acumen earned him the respect and frequent solicitation of the new oligarchic regime.

Sometime in 1388, having served his term of exile, Niccolò asked for permission to return to Florence. The jurists Giovanni de’ Ricci and Rosso Andreozzi Orlandi, two savi, wrote on his behalf maintaining that he ought to be permitted to return without having his name recorded in the Libri maleabbiatorum (“registers of rebels”).134 Between 1388 and 1400 the only further documentation that reveals Niccolò’s activities in Florence is his testament, drafted on the 11th of March 1399 by ser Giovanni Ugholini di Gaddello da Pulciano.135 In it, he details bequests to his wife Giovanna and their daughter, Bartolomea. Further bequests were made also to Niccolò’s daughter Lena, who died of plague shortly after her father in 1400, and to Niccolò’s

132 “la terra corsa a Parte Guelfa;” Stefani, Cronica, rubr. 902. 133 The Ardinghelli were associated with the inner circle of the oligarchic regime; see Najemy, A History, 184. 134 ASF, Pareri 2, 83r/v. “[…] quia causa propter quam dictus ser Niccholaus extitit condemnatus et de qua fit mentio in condemnationem predictam, si bene spiciatur, non est de illis pro quibus, et seu quarum occasionem et seu aliqua causarum, secundam formam statutum et reformationis comunis Florentie, [...] vel pro descriptio habeatur et seu scribere possit vel debeat in dicto libro maleabiatorum ut clare presens ex inspectionem stati de materia loquenti.” 135 I thank Lawrin Armstrong for his advice on how to locate a testament. In the Opera del Duomo tax records I was able to find the name of the notary that drafted Niccolò’s testament (ser Giovanni Ugholini di Gaddello da Pulciano (ASF, Not. Ante. 21445, c. 51r). Happily, I discovered that several of ser Giovanni’s notarial registers are extant and one of them, in fact, contains Niccolò’s testament: ASF, Not. ante., 9729, 35v-37v. A transcription of Niccolò’s testament is in Appendix IV. 220 son, Antonio.136 Niccolò died on 8 August, 1400.137 His sons, Ventura and Antonio, survived him but they do not appear to have led the same life at the forefront of politics and administration as their father had.

136 Notice of Lena’s death is in Morelli, Ricordi, 165-66. 137 ASF, Grascia, morti, 187. 221

EPILOGUE

Sometime before his arrival in Florence in 1374, Coluccio sent a letter to Niccolò

Monachi. About ten years Niccolò’s junior, Coluccio addresses Niccolò as a dear friend and eloquent man (“Eloquenti viro Nicolao ser Venture de Florentia amico carissimo et optimo”).

Coluccio’s stated purpose in sending the letter is to ask Niccolò to clarify a point in Valerius

Maximus.1

Indeed, in the chapter concerning happiness, where he [Valerius Maximus] gathers

together the many gifts of Fortune bestowed on Quintus Metellus, he seems to want the

daily inevitability (even until the very last day of life) of transitory things (which, forgetful

of himself, he himself denies ought to be judged good) to be judged the apex of the happy

life. This is something that inspires not a little misgiving in me. Indeed, with such a man

[Valerius Maximus] as an authority, many mortals might plausibly complain against the

highest God, commander of all things, who has conferred upon one man what will not be

found distributed to any other man among thousands of men through many ages.

[...]

1 The text is Valerius Maximus, Factorum et dictorum, 7.1.1. 222 Thus far, I have not heard of anyone whom Fortune indulges with constant favour. For if

these things are goods, then such a man more than any other mortal would deserve great

envy. Truly then, I am in great disagreement. I can neither believe that such a man has

attained a happy life, however much the great authority of such a man urges it, nor do I

judge those things to be good that often happen to wicked men and that, when they have

been acquired, do not bring about a better man. In such a way, he who is otherwise

considered the most eloquent author of mankind, values heaven less than the happiness of

Metellus.2

If Niccolò ever penned a response to Coluccio’s letter, it is no longer extant, nor is there any other apparent correspondence between the two men, which leaves the letter’s purpose curiously one-sided and non-specific. In his edition of the Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, Francesco

Novati proposes the date of the letter: June 1366. 3 Although the letter itself is undated in the epistolarium, because the letter appears between letters dated 8 June 1366 and 20 June 1366,

Novati tentatively offers that same month as its possible date. Assuming that Coluccio did write

2 Novati, Epistolario, 29. “Etenim capitulo de felicitate, dum ille in Q. Metellum plurima fortune munera congerit, velle videtur horum caducorum, que ipsemet sui immemor negat bona existimari debere, continuatam diuturnitatem usque ad ultimam vite diem apicem beate vite censeri, qua in re non parvum michi scrupulum iniecit. Siquidem cum tanto auctore videantur plurimi mortalium de illo summo omnium rerum duce Deo posse verisimiliter conqueri, qui uni contulerit quod inter hominum milia nulli reperiatur per tot secula contributum. [...] Ego adhuc nullum audivi cum quo fortuna constanti indulgentia luserit. Itaque si hec bona sunt illum inter tot mortalium meruisse magna de invidia foret. Verum ego longe dissentio, nec illum beatam vitam attigisse crediderim, quanvis maxima tanti viri auctoritas urgeat, nec illa ipsa bona arbitror que sepe malis obvenant et adepta non efficiant meliorem. Atqui ille etiam celum felicitati Metelli postponit, qui per cetera elegantissimus mortalitatis auctor habetur. [...]” 3 Francesco Novati dates the letter to 1366 in Novati, Epistolario I, 29, however it is apparently undated in manuscript witnesses. On Novati’s dating criteria see Novati, “Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati,” 64-88. 223 this letter to Niccolò sometime in June 1366, he would have penned the letter from Stignano

(where he had been in residence and working in private practice from at the least mid-1363) as he was preparing to move in late June 1366 to Vellano to assume the office of communal secretary there, a position in the Florentine contado with some similarities to that of the

Florentine chancellor. The fact that Niccolò was a correspondent of Coluccio’s is not necessarily surprising since they shared a profession and since we know that his father, Ventura, and his brother, Francesco, were also involved in humanist coteries.4

Book 7 of the Factorum and dictorum finds Valerius Maximus, having already considered examples of ill-fortune, turning to the subject of good fortune.5 His first example is

Quintus Metellus, who was granted good fortune from the first day of his life to the last. He had noble parents, a virtuous wife, many imperial posts, victories in battles, three sons and three daughters, riches, etc. Coluccio is at odds with the portrayal of Valerius Maximus and is insistent of two points in particular: first, that Fortune never granted a happy life (“beata vita”) to any single man through perpetual indulgence (“incessante indulgentia”); and second, that the acquisition of many offices or favours (“plurima munera”) by a single man does not necessarily bring out the best in that man, for he does not, as a consequence, become a better man; nor does it help those around him who will, as a consequence, tend to collectively envy the sole fortunate man.

4 See Chapter Three; Niccolò’s brother, Francesco, was a correspondent of Francesco Petrarca. 5 We have discussed how a number of the examples of changeable Fortune can be continuously reported [as having been] of little of favour, […] “Volubilis fortunae conplura exempla retulimus constanter propitiae pauca narrari possunt. Quo patet eam adversas res cupido animo infligere, secundas parco tribuere. Eadem ubi malignitatis oblivisci sibi imperavit, non solum plurima ac maxima, sed etiam perpetua bona congerit.” See Valerius Maximus, Factorum et dictorum, 7.1.init. 224 Considering the many offices Niccolò held, we might consider Coluccio’s disagreement with Valerius Maximus as a veiled criticism of his soon-to-be predecessor in the chancery.

Given Coluccio’s use of the word “munera” (munus, pl. munera, the primary meaning of which is an “office,” “service,” or “civic duty”), he might well be criticising, in an indirect way, the many communal offices that Niccolò held while chancellor. This criticism of Niccolò’s pluralism, which is similar to that found later in the 1377 tamburazioni against him, is implied by Novati and Marzi, and has also been advanced in twentieth- and twenty-first century scholarship as indicative of Niccolò’s moral deficiency – a deficiency that such scholars tend to see as present in all fourteenth-century notary-administrators and one which Coluccio’s singular ethic of civil service would correct. While some scholars have traced the idea of impersonal government in Florence to the last half of the fourteenth century, others have tied the idea more specifically to Coluccio’s career in Florence.6 In this respect, it makes some sense to read in

Coluccio’s letter a veiled criticism of Niccolò’s office-holding.

However, it is also the case that nowhere in the letter does Coluccio decry the practice of holding numerous public offices on moral grounds or as running counter to a more “impersonal” government. At stake in this letter is whether or not unbalanced favour in a single individual is socially beneficial, a point that, in fact, invites us to read the word “munus” according also to its

6 On impersonal government: Brucker, Florentine Politics, 95. For Coluccio’s role: Petrucci, Il protocolo, 974 where he writes: “It cannot not denied that Salutati, with his eloquent appeal to Romanism and the patriotism of the Romans, with his identification of freedom and law, with his practice and continuity of office, and with the prestige of his own person, knew how to embody such aspirations, giving an important contribution as ideal as it was practical to the affirmation of a more modern public consciousness” (Non si può negare che il Salutati col suo richiamo eloquente al civismo e patriottismo dei Romani, con la sua identificazione di libertà e legge, con la sua lunga pratica e continuità della carica, col prestigio stesso della sua persona, abbia Saputo impersonare tali aspirazioni, dando all’affermazione di una più moderna coscienza pubblica un contributo important così ideale come pratico). 225 secondary meaning of a “service,” “favour,” or “gift.” Here “plurima munera” are what Fortune imparts (dum ille in Q. Metellum plurima Fortune munera congerit). Coluccio argues that

Fortune never favoured any man the way Valerius Maximus claims she favoured Quintus

Metellus for if she had, it would have led to the collective jealousy of all men (“tot mortalium”).

Coluccio insists that no single man can attain a virtuous/happy life (“beata vita”) by independently reaping rewards and benefits. According to Coluccio, discord within the social body is partly the result of the disproportionate allotment of offices/favours in the hands of one man. If Fortune were to bestow too many favours on a single mortal, other mortals would blame

God alone. “[...] many mortals might plausibly complain about God, commander of all things”

(“plurimi mortalium de illo summo omnium rerum duce Deo posse verisimiliter conqueri”).

In his letter to Niccolò (as well as in his later treatise on Fortune De fato et fortuna,

1396-1399), Coluccio insists that Fortune’s jurisdiction remains squarely within the realm of

Providence which, he maintains in the letter to Niccolò, would never allow for the unequal distribution of deserts among men.7 Thus, it seems to Coluccio that Valerius Maximus incorrectly places earthly happiness before divine will – “ille etiam celum felicitati Metelli postponi.” Any man who values the happiness of “munera” over the dictates of heaven works against the divine order. For Coluccio, the allocation of “munera,” the purview of divine

Providence, must not be excessively unbalanced, because in establishing concord the divine imperative ensures that no man should greatly envy another. The implication seems to be that all men must work together in concord toward the uniform good of the collective, not receiving special treatment.

7 This mirrors the role given Fortune in traditional philosophical and literary texts. See, Cioffari, “Fortune in Dante’s Commentators” and Cioffari, “The Function of Fortune.” 226 If we read this letter in light of the appearance around this time of the idea of

“impersonal” government and in light of the administrative responsibilities that Coluccio in

Vellano shared with Niccolò in Florence, Coluccio’s letter seems to suggest what communal administration should be. His veiled criticisms of Niccolò’s munera could be a larger criticism about communal administration as it was then practiced. Coluccio’s vision of Fortune in this letter is a far cry from the one that appeared on the wall of the Palazzo della Signoria after the expulsion of the tyrant Walter of Brienne in 1343. Niccolò’s father, Ventura, while portraying

Fortune as the handmaid of Providence, suggested that she was also the final judge of the actions of the members of the universitas civium who wield power through temporary office- holding. Fortune keeps the guild republic’s government in balance by ensuring the consistent, rotational allocation of the commune’s offices. Her rotations may be inscrutable, and she may bestow favours disproportionately, but it is not her task to ensure that all equally serve. Rather, she admonishes those who serve to do so in accordance with the four cardinal virtues. Ventura’s poem reflects an earlier form of “private” (that is, not “impersonal”) government in which both politics and administration were guided by the dynamics of class antagonism and private association.

In the civic humanist vision of republicanism, office-holding was slowly disentangled from personal business venture. It gradually became sometime more along the lines of a public service. As real power concentrated around select families of the oligarchy, the boundaries of politics and administration were reimagined. We might consider Coluccio’s letter to Niccolò a contribution to this re-imagining. Riffing on familiar Boethian and mercantile constructs of

Fortune, Coluccio here puts forward a vision of the goddess different from that of the earlier vision that appeared in the Florentine Palazzo della Signoria. As we saw in the latter, Fortune was the primary figure that ensured the collective interests of many diverse groups through the implementation of a shared, flexible authority. For Coluccio she is secondary to divine 227 Providence, which ensures that all men, equally and uniformly, act together for the good

(“beata”) life.

As many scholars have persuasively shown, the age of civic humanism coincided with the rationalizing efforts that legitimized the tenuous authority of what was swiftly becoming the

Florentine “State.”8 Beginning with Coluccio, classically-minded humanist administrators brought their learning to the institution of the chancery and shaped it into the centralizing force that aided in the formation of the Florentine State. Other scholars have examined how these processes of legitimization functioned to neutralize internal political dissent; that is, how the discourse of civic humanism appropriated and re-deployed the old guild republican discourses, especially those regarding universal political participation.9 The ideology of civic humanism made it possible to conceal the fact that effective power in the commune was in the hands of a restricted oligarchy. Where the old guild republicans had understood the commune to function as a society of separate even if not always compatible interests, the civic humanists shifted this dynamic of efficient civic disagreement to emphasize civic concord and uniformity.

In some ways, Coluccio’s letter neatly sets up this ideological shift that occurred toward the end of the fourteenth century as attitudes regarding political participation changed. In particular, it treats this shift with respect to “munera,” or, more specifically, the holding of communal office. Here we see the differences between older and newer ideas of government as reflections of the differences between corporatist ideals about a guild republic and the civic humanist ideologies in service to oligarchic hegemony. In his letter to Niccolò, Coluccio importantly re-deploys the language of guild republicanism. The community remains as an

8 Most recently Lazzarini, “Records, Politics, and Diplomacy: Secretaries and Chanceries in Renaissance Italy (1350–c. 1520)” in Dover, Secretaries and Statecraft, 16-36. 9 John Najemy, “Civic humanism and Florentine Politics,” in Hankins, Renaissance Civic Humanism, 75-104. 228 abstract entity composed of a plurality of individuals, but inconsistency and the absence of consensus is socially destructive and subversive.

The rationalisation of the Florentine communal administration into a bureaucratic apparatus entailed not only the refashioning of its institutions, but also the implementation of a new set of beliefs to which administrative workforces could consent. By re-deploying the language of guild republicanism in a specific way, civic humanists may be seen not only to have helped to legitimize the authority of the oligarchs but also to have reshaped the boundaries of communal administration by applying new ideas about what constitutes proper service to the commune.10

At the beginning of this dissertation, I argued that modern scholarship on the Florentine chancery continues to be influenced by the way humanist chancellors in particular conceived of and characterized their positions within the administrative complex of the city of Florence. The portrayal of the chancery by later historians and scholars is in many ways reflective of how humanist chancellors were conscious of and actively re-shaped the parameters of an older, business-oriented and impermanent administrative workforce. There is also a tendency to regard the last two decades of the fourteenth century as the beginning of the rationalizing attempts that would bring discipline and efficacy to the chancery.11 However, this has had the adverse effect of misunderstanding the legitimacy of the modes and functions of the institution prior to 1375, a

10 In particular, see John Najemy, “Civic humanism and Florentine Politics,” in Hankins, Renaissance Civic Humanism, 75-104. 11 Most recently Lazzarini, “Records, Politics, and Diplomacy: Secretaries and Chanceries in Renaissance Italy (1350–c. 1520)” in Dover, Secretaries and Statecraft, 16-36. Also see the biographies of the humanist chancellors, for example: Brown, Bartolomeo Scala; Black, Benedetto Accolti. 229 period during which, as this dissertation has shown, forces of impermanence and unpredictability effected both the functioning of Florentine administration as well as the lived experiences of the men who worked within Florence’s institutions of governance.

In particular, one of the major concerns that has emerged over the course of this study of the Florentine chancery has to do with tensions between stability and instability, permanence and impermanence, in the general functioning of communal administration. As we have seen, such tensions were broadly reflective of the negotiation of authority between conflicting political parties, and were formative in terms of the development of the parameters of communal administration. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the administrative workforce had to have the flexibility to adapt to the mercurial realities of Florentine society, government, and administration. Despite the intrinsic instability of the Florentine polity, Florentines preferred that the majority of their political and administrative offices were subject to regular turn-over in order to ensure that no single person or family could monopolize power. Moreover, Florentines took it for granted that the work of notary-administrators within government was part and parcel of their role as private practitioners. Most notary-administrators were highly impermanent while a select few, like Niccolò Monachi, who served the government in a more permanent capacity but nevertheless found himself extremely vulnerable to factionalism. For the majority of notary- administrators during this period, communal administration remained a matter of business. The realities of the business of communal administration in the period before the beginning of oligarchic hegemony in Florence constitute an important chapter in the history of pre-modern

European bureaucracy, a chapter that is only starting to be written. 231

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Printed Primary Sources

Alessandro Gherardi, ed. “Diario d’anonimo fiorentino, dall’anno 1358 al 1389.” Documenti

di Storia Italiana, VI (1876): 207-481.

Brunetto Latini. Il Tesoretto. Marcello Ciccuto, ed. Milan: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 1985.

Buonaccorso Pitti. Cronaca. Domenico Maria Manni, ed. Florence, 1720.

Dante Alighieri. La Divina Commedia. Natalino Sapegno, ed. Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1968.

–––––. De vulgari eloquentia. Claudio Marazzini, ed. Milan: Mondadori, 1998.

–––––. Rime. Gianfranco Contini, ed. Turin: Einaudi, 1965.

Donato Velluti. La cronica domestica. Isidoro del Longo and Guglielmo Volpi, eds. Florence:

Sansoni, 1914.

Francesco Petrarca. Le familiari. 4 vols. Vittorio Rossi, ed. Florence: Sansoni, 1926. 232 Giovanni Boccaccio. De casibus virorum illustrium, Pier Giorgio Ricci and Vittorio Zaccaria,

eds. in Tutte le opere, vol. IX, Vittore Branca, ed. Milan: Mondadori, 1983.

–––––. Il ninfale d’Ameto. Amadeo Quaglio, ed. in Tutte le opere, vol. II, Vittore Branca, ed.

Milano: Mondadori, 1964.

Giovanni Cambi. Istorie in Delizie degli eruditi toscani, vol. XX. Ildefonso di San Luigi, ed.

Florence: Gaetano Cambiagi, 1770.

Giovanni di Pagolo Morelli. Ricordi. Vittore Branca, ed. Florence: Le Monnier, 1956.

Giovanni Villani. Nuova Cronica. 3 vols. Giuseppe Porta, ed. Parma: Ugo Guanda, 1991.

______. Croniche storiche di Giovanni, Matteo, e Filippo Villani. Ignazio Moutier and

Francesco Gherardi Dragomanni, eds. Milan: Borroni e Scotti, 1848.

Modesto Rastrelli. Priorista fiorentino istorico pubblicato e illustrato. Florence: G. Tofani,

1783.

Marchionne di Coppo Stefani. “Cronaca Fiorentina” in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, XXX.

Niccolo Rodolico, ed. Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1903.

Rolandinus de Passageriis. Summa totius artis notariae. 1546. Reprint, Bologna: Forni, 1977.

Valerius Maximus. Factorum et dictorum memorabilium. Karl Friedrich Kempf, ed. Leipzig:

Teubner, 1888.

Secondary Sources Cited

233 Acidini Luchinat, Cristina. Grottesche: Le volte dipinte nella Galleria degli Uffizi. Florence:

Giunti, 1999.

Acidini Luchinat, Cristina and Mario Scalini, eds. Splendore dei Medici: Firenze e l’Europa.

Florence: Franco Cantini Editore, 1999.

Anselmi, Gian Mario, Luisa Avellini, and Fulvio Pezzarossa, eds. La ‘memoria’ dei

mercatores: tendenze ideologiche, ricordanze, artigianato in versi nella Firenze del

Quattrocento. Bologna: Patron, 1988.

Armstrong, Lawrin and Julius Kirshner, eds. The Politics of Law in Late Medieval and

Renaissance Italy: Essays in Honour of Lauro Martines. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press, 2011.

Ascoli, Albert Russel. Dante and the Making of a Modern Author. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2000. d’Avray, David L. Rationalities in History: A Weberian Essay in Comparison. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Baccini, Giuseppe. “Aneddoto biografico di ser Niccolò di ser Ventura Monachi, Cancelliere del

Comune di Firenze.” Zibaldone 12, 1 (1888): 177-180.

Banti, Ottavio. Review of Florentine Politics and Society, 1343-1378, by Gene Brucker. Annali

della Fondazione Italiana per la Storia Amministrativa 2 (1965): 719-721.

–––––. “Per la storia della Cancelleria del Comune di Pisa nei secoli XII e XIII” in Bullettino

dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano, 73 (1961): 141-

162.

Barlucchi, Andrea. “Formazione e gavetta di un notaio casantinese: ser Pietro di ser Grifo da

Pratovecchio, cittadino senese.” Il notariato in Casentino nel Medioevo. Cultura,

prassi, carriere. Andrea Barlucchi, ed. Florence: Associazione di studi storici Elio Conti,

2016. 95-124. 234 Bec, Christian. Cultura e società a Firenze nell’età della Rinascenza. Paris: Mouton, 1967.

Becker, Marvin. Florence in Transition. 2 vols. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,

1968.

–––––. “Florentine Popular Government (1343-1348).” Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society 106, 4 (1962): 360-383.

Beltrami, Pietro. La metrica italiana. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2004.

Bertazzoli, Raffaella, Fabio Forner, Paolo Pellegrini, and Corrado Viola, eds. Studi per Gian

Paolo Marchi. Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2011.

Bertelli, Sergio. Il potere oligarchico nello stato-città medievale. Florence: La Nuova Italia,

1978.

Bertoni, Giulio, ed. Miscellanea di studi in onore di Vittore Branca, III. Firenze: Leo S.

Olschki, 1983.

Biadene, Leandro. “Morfologia del sonetto nei secoli XIII-XIV.” Studi di filologia romanza 4,

1: 1-234.

Black, Robert. “The Political Thought of the Florentine chancellors.” The Historical Journal 29,

4 (1986): 991-1003.

–––––. Benedetto Accolti and the Florentine Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1985.

Bonaini, Francecso ed. Statuti inediti della città di Pisa dal XII al XIV secolo. 3 vols. Florence:

G. P. Vieusseux, 1857.

Borsook, Eve. “Jacopo di Cione and the Guild Hall of the Judges and Notaries in Florence.” The

Burlington Magazine 124 (1982): 86-88.

Bourdieu, Pierre. “Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field.”

Sociological Theory 12, 1 (1994): 1-18. 235 –––––. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Randal Johnson, ed.

New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

–––––. In Other Words: Essays Toward a Reflexive Sociology. Matthew Adamson, trans.

Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990.

–––––. “The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field,” Richard Terdiman,

trans. The Hastings Law Journal 38 (1987): 805-853.

–––––. “What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical Existence of Groups,”

Loic Wacquant and David Young, trans. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 32 (1987): 1-17.

Braddick, Michael J. State Formation in Early Modern England, c. 1550-1700. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Branca, Vittore. Giovanni Boccaccio: Profilo biografico. Florence: Sansoni, 1977.

–––––. Mercanti scrittori: Ricordi nella Firenze tra Medioevo e Rinascimento. Milan: Rusconi,

1986

Brilli, Elisa, Laura Fenelli, and Gerhard Wolf, eds. Images and Words in Exile: Avignon and

Italy in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century. Tavernuzze: SISMEL, Edizioni del

Galluzzo, 2015.

Brown, Alison. Bartolomeo Scala, 1430-1497, chancellor of Florence. The Humanist as

Bureaucrat. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.

Brucker, Gene. “Bureaucracy and Social Welfare in the Renaissance: A Florentine Case Study.”

Journal of Modern History 55 (1983): 1-21.

–––––. The Civic World of Early Renaissance Florence. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1977.

–––––. Florentine Politics and Society, 1343-1378. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1962. 236 Burr Litchfield, R. The Emergence of a Bureaucracy: The Florentine Patricians, 1530-1790.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Caferro, William. John Hawkwood an English Mercenary in Fourteenth-Century Italy.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Caggese, Romolo, Giuliano Pinto, Francesco Salvestrini, and Andrea Zorzi eds., Statuti della

Repubblica Fiorentina, 2 vols., new ed. Florence: Leo S. Olschki. 1999.

Calleri, Santi. L’Arte dei Giudici e Notai di Firenze nell’età comunale e nel suo Statuto del

1344. Milan: Giuffrè, 1966.

Capitani, Ovidio, Raul Manselli, Giovanni Cherubini, Antonio Ivan Pini, and Giorgio Chittolini,

eds. Comuni e signorie: Istituzioni, società, e lotta per l’egemonia. Turin: UTET,

1981.

Cardini, Roberto and Paolo Viti, eds. Coluccio Salutati e Firenze: ideologia e formazione dello

Stato. Florence: M. Piagliai, 2008.

Carnesecchi, Carlo. “Documenti relativi al castello di Picchena.” Miscellanea storica della

Valdelsa 2, 3 (1894): 180-242.

Cavallo, Sandra and Lynda Warner, eds. Widowhood in Medieval and Early Modern Europe.

London and New York: Routledge, 1999.

Ceccarelli, Giovanni. Il gioco e il peccato: Economia e rischio nel tardo Medioevo. Bologna: Il

Mulino, 2003.

Cesareo, Alessandro. L’Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati ed il Carteggio con Francesco Petrarca

come esempio di Latino umanistico: Una ricerca filologico-letteraria. PhD thesis,

Universidad autonoma de Madrid, 2014.

Chabod, Isabelle. La dette des familles: Femmes lignage et patrimoine à Florence aux XIVe et

XVe siècles. Rome: École française de Rome, 2011. 237 –––––. “‘La sposa in nero:’ La ritualizazione del lutto delle vedove fiorentine (secoli XIV-

XV).” Quaderni storici 29, 86 (1994): 421-462.

Chittolini, Giorgio. “L’onore dell’officiale.” Quaderni milanesi 17-18 (1989): 3-53.

Chittolini, Giorgio, Anthony Molho, and Pierangelo Schiera, eds. Origini dello Stato: Processi

di formazione statale in Italia fra medioevo ed età moderna. Bologna: Il Mulino,

1994.

Ciappelli, Giovanni. Memory, Family, and Self: Tuscan Family Books and Other European

Egodocuments (14th–18th Century). Susan Amanda George, trans. Leiden: Brill,

2014.

Ciocciola, Claudio ed. ‘Visibile parlare:’ Le scritture esposte nei volgari italiani dal Medioevo

al Rinascimento. Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1997.

Cioffari, Vincenzo. “The Function of Fortune in Dante, Boccaccio, and Machiavelli.” Italica 24,

1 (1947): 1-13.

–––––. Fortune in Dante’s Fourteenth-Century Commentators. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press, 1944.

Connell, William J. and Andrea Zorzi. Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Corsi, Giuseppe. Rimatori del Trecento. Turin: Unione tipografico editrice torinese, 1969.

Crum, Roger J. and John T. Paoletti, eds. Renaissance Florence: A Social History. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Davidsohn, Robert. Storia di Firenze. 8 vols. Florence: Sansoni, 1965.

Day, W. R. Jr. “The Population of Florence before the Black Death: Survey and Synthesis.”

Journal of Medieval History 28 (2002): 93-129.

De Angelis, Laura, Elisabetta Gigli, and Franek Sznura, eds. Biagio Boccadibue (1298-1314).

Pisa: Giardini, 1978. 238 Debenedetti, Santorre. “Lambertuccio Frescobaldi poeta e banchiere fiorentino del secolo XIII.”

Miscellanea di studi critici pubblicati in onore di Guido Mazzoni. Florence, 1907. 22-

24.

De Robertis, Teresa and Giancarlo Savino, eds. Tra libri e carte: Studi in onore di Luciana

Mosiici. Florence: Cesati, 1998.

De Rosa, Daniela. Coluccio Salutati: il cancelliere e il pensatore politico. Florence: La Nuova

Italia, 1980.

Di Leva, Giuseppe. Il tumulto dei Ciompi: Firenze 1378. Verona: Bertani, 1972.

Donato, Maria Monica. “Testi, contesti, immagini politici nel tardo medioevo: esempi toscani.

In margine a una discussion sul ‘Buon governo.’” Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-

germanico in Trento 19 (1993): 305-341.

–––––. “Hercules and David in the Early Decoration of the Palazzo Vecchio: Manuscript

Evidence.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 54 (1991): 83-98.

Doren, Alfred. “Fortuna im Mittelalter und in der Renaissance,” in Vorträge der Bibliotek

Warburg I (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1922-1923): 71-144.

Dornetti, Vittorio. Aspetti e figure della poesia minore trecentesca. Padua: Piccin, 1984.

Dover, Paul M. Secretaries and Statecraft in the Early Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2016.

Edgerton, Samuel Y. “Icons of Justice.” Past and Present 89, 1 (1980): 23-38.

Flamini, Francesco. La lirica toscana del Rinascimento anteriore ai tempi di Lorenzo il

Magnifico. Pisa: Nistri, 1891.

Fossati, Carlo. Il tumulto dei Ciompi. Florence, 1875.

Fossati, Clara ed. Arrigo da Settimello: Elegia. Tavernuzze: SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzzo,

2011. 239 Frick, Carole Collier. Dressing Renaissance Florence: Families, Fortunes, and Fine Clothing.

Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Gamberini, Andrea and Isabella Lazzarini, eds. The Italian Renaissance State. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Gamurrini, Eugenio. Istoria genealogica delle famiglie nobili toscani. Florence: Francesco

Onofri, 1668-79.

Garin, Eugenio. La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano. Florence: Sansoni, 1961.

Gensini, Sergio, ed. La Toscana nel secolo XIV: caratteri di una civiltà regionale. Pisa: Centro

di studi sulla civiltà del tardo medioevo, 1988.

Gerth, H. H. and C. Wright Mills, eds. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1958.

Giunta, Claudio. Versi a un destinatario: saggio sulla poesia italiana del Medioevo. Bologna: Il

Mulino, 2002.

Gramsci, Antonio. Alcuni temi della quistione meridionale. Gerardo Pastore, ed. Anzi: Erreci,

2014.

Grossi, Paolo. “Un diritto senza stato (la nozione di autonomia come fondamento della

costituzione giuridica medievale).” Quaderni fiorentini per la storia del pensiero

giuridico moderno 25 (1997): 267-284.

Goldthwaite, Richard A. The Economy of Renaissance Florence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 2009.

–––––. “Italian Bankers in Medieval England.” Journal of European Economic History 2, 3

(1973): 763-771.

–––––. Private Wealth in Renaissance Florence: A Study of Four Families. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1968. 240 Guidi, Andrea. “The Florentine Archives in Transition: Government, Warfare, and

Communication (1289–1530 ca.).” European History Quarterly 46, 3 (2016): 458-

479.

Guidi, Guidubaldo. Il governo della città-repubblica di Firenze del primo Quattrocento.

Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1981.

Hankins, James. “Machiavelli, Civic Humanism, and the Humanist Politics of Virtue.” Italian

Culture 32, 2 (2014): 98-109.

–––––, ed. Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2000.

Inglese, Giorgio, Luigi Trenti, Paolo Procaccioli, eds. Letteratura Italiana, gli autori:

Dizionario bio-biografico e indici. Turin: Einaudi, 1990-1991.

Jones, Phillip J., ed. La Toscane et les Toscans autour de la Renaissance, cadres de vie, société,

croyances: Mélanges offerts à Charles-M. de la Roncière. Aix-en-Provence:

Université de Provence, 1999.

–––––. “Florentine Families and Florentine Diaries in the Fourteenth Century.” Papers of the

British School at Rome 24 (1956): 183-205.

Jurdjevic, Mark. “Virtue, Commerce, and the Enduring Florentine Republican Moment:

Reintegrating Italy into the Atlantic Republican Debate.” Journal of the History of

Ideas, 62/4 (2001): 731-743.

Kirkham, Victoria, Michael Sherberg, and Janet Levarie Smarr, eds. Boccaccio: A Critical

Guide to the Complete Works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.

Kirshner, Julius. “Ars Imitatur Naturam: A Consilium of Baldus on Naturalization in Florence.”

Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5 (1974): 289-301.

Klein, Francesca. Scritture e governo dello stato a Firenze nel Rinascimento: Cancellieri,

ufficiali, archivi. Florence: Edifir, 2013. 241 _____. “Costruzione dello stato e costruzione di archivio: ordinamenti delle scritture

della Repubblica fiorentina a metà Quattrocento.” Reti Medievali 9 (2008): 1-31.

–––––, ed. Il libro del chiodo: Riproduzione in facsimile. Florence: Polistampa, 2004.

Lazzarini, Isabella. “Le pouvoir de l’écriture: Les chancelleries urbaines et la formation des

États territoriaux en Italie (XIVe–XVe siècles).” Histoire Urbaine 35 (2012). 31-49.

–––––. “Scritture dello spazio e linguaggi del territorio nell’Italia tre-quattrocentesca: Prime

riflessioni sulle fonti pubbliche tardomedievali,” in Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico

Italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano 113 (2011): 137-208.

Levi, Ezio. “Adriano de’ Rossi.” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 55 (1910): 201-

265.

Li Gotti, Ettore. “Il Saviozzo, il Sacchetti, e una disputa poetica sulla fortuna.” Leonardo, 16

(1947): 73-87.

Mabellini, Adolfo. Sonetti editi ed inediti di Ser Ventura Monachi. Turin-Rome: Paravia, 1903.

Maccioni, Elena and Sergio Tognetti, eds. in Tribunali di mercanti e giustizia medievale nel

tardo Medioevo. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2016.

Manni, Domenico Maria, ed. Arrighetto, ovvero trattato contro all’avversità della Fortuna di

Arrigo di Settimello, new ed. Prato: Guasti, 1841.

Manni, Paola M. “Ricerche sui tratti fonetici e morfologici del fiorentino quattrocentesco.”

Studi di grammatica italiana 8 (1979): 115-171.

Martines, Lauro. Power and Imagination: City-States in Renaissance Italy. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1988.

–––––. Lawyers and Statecraft in Renaissance Florence. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1968.

–––––. The Social World of the Florentine Humanists, 1390-1460. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1963. 242 Marzi, Demetrio. La Cancelleria della Repubblica Fiorentina. Rocca S. Casciano: Licinio

Cappelli, 1910.

–––––. Lettere dettate in volgare da ser Ventura Monachi come Cancelliere della Repubblica

Fiorentina, 1340-1348. Florence: Cellini, 1894.

Medin, Antonio. “Ballata della fortuna.” Propugnatore 2, 1 (1889): 101-144.

Medin, Antonio and Ludovico Frati, eds. Lamenti storici dei secc. XIV, XV e XVI. Bologna:

Commissione per i testi di lingua, 1969.

Mehus, Lorenzo. Epistola o sia ragionamento di Messer Lapo da Castiglionchio. Bologna:

Corciolani e Eredi Colli a S. Tommaso d’Aquino, 1753.

Melis, Federigo. Industria e commercio nella Toscana medievale. Bruno Dini, ed. Florence: Le

Monnier, 1989.

Milani, Giuliano “Appunti per una riconsiderazione del bando di Dante.” Bollettino di

italianistica: Rivista di critica, storia letteraria, filologia e linguistica, n. s. 8, 2

(2011): 42-70.

Miranda, Elsa. “I sonetti sulla Fortuna nella cod. Casanatense 1808” in Cultura neolatina 30, 1-

(1970): 88-116.

Molho, Anthony, Kurt Raaflaub, and Julia Emplen, eds. City States in Classical Antiquity and

Modern Italy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.

Montano, Umberto and Maria Monica Donato. Il cibo e la bellezza: Un ciclo di affreschi, il

volto di Dante, e una grande cucina. Florence: Giunti, 2015.

Morpurgo, Salamone. Un affresco perduto di Giotto nel Palazzo del podestà. Florence: G.

Carneschi, 1897.

Mosiici, Luciana. “Note sul più antico protocollo notarile del territorio fiorentino e su altri

registri di imbreviature del secolo XIII” in Il notariato nella civiltà toscana. Mario

Montorzi, ed. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale del Notariato, 1985. 171-238. 243 Muratori, Luigi Antonio, ed. “Gorelli, aretini notarii: Poema italice scriptum de rebus gestis in

civitate Aretina ab anno MCCCX usque ad annum MCCCLXXXIV,” in Rerum

italicarum scriptores 15 (1729): 807-888.

Najemy, John. A History of Florence: 1200-1575. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

–––––. “The Dialogue of Power in Florentine Politics,” in City States in Classical Antiquity and

Modern Italy. Anthony Molho, Kurt Raaflaub, Julia Emplen, eds. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press, 1991. 269-288.

–––––. Corporatism and Consensus in Florentine Electoral Politics, 1280-1400. Chapel Hill,

N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1982.

–––––. “Guild Republicanism in Trecento Florence: The Successes and Ultimate Failure of

Corporate Politics.” The American Historical Review 84, 1 (1979): 53-71.

Novati, Francesco. Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, 4 vols. Rome: Forzani 1891.

–––––. “Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati” in Bullettino di istituto storico italiano 4 (1888).

Ottokar, Nicola. Il comune di Firenze alla fine del Dugento. 1926. Reprint, Turin: Einaudi,

1962.

Panciatichi, Lorenzo. “Pensieri per la pittura della galleria degli Uffizi” in Scritti Vari di

Lorenzo

Panciatichi. Cesare Guasti, ed. Florence: Guasti, 1856. 147-160.

Panella, Antonio. “Le origini dell’Archivio notarile di Firenze.” Archivio Storico Italiano s. 7,

(1934): 57-92.

Patch, Howard Rollan. The Goddess Fortuna in Mediaeval Literature. Cambridge, Mass.:

Cambridge University Press, 1927.

Peruzzi, Simone Luigi. Storia del commercio e dei banchieri di Firenze dal 1200 al 1345.

Florence: M. Cellini, 1868. 244 Petrucci, Armando. Coluccio Salutati. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1972.

Piana, Celestino. “Identificato un anonimo corrispondente del Petrarca: l’‘Abbas Corvarie

Bononiensis.’” Italia medioevale e umanistica 20 (1977): 351–365.

Pirillo, Paolo and Mauro Ronzani, eds. San Romolo a Gaville: Storie di una pieve in età

medievale. Rome: Viella, 2005.

Procacci, Giuliano. “La fortuna nella realtà politica e sociale del primo Cinquecento.” Belfagor

VI (1951): 407-421.

Ricciardelli, Fabrizio, ed. Il libro del Chiodo. Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo,

1998.

Rigon, Antonio ed. Cecco d’Ascoli: Cultura, Scienza, e Politica nell’Italia del Trecento. Rome:

Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, 2007.

Robinson, William I. Promoting Polyarchy: Globalisation, U.S. Intervention, and Hegemony

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Rodolico, Niccolò. I Ciompi: una pagina di storia del proletariato operaio. Florence: Sansoni,

1945.

–––––. Democrazia fiorentina nel suo tramonto, 1378-1382. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1905.

Rubinstein, Nicolai. The Palazzo Vecchio, 1298-1532: Government, Architecture, and Imagery

in the Civic Palace of the Florentine Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

–––––. “Classical Themes in the Decoration of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence” in Journal of

Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 50 (1987): 29-43.

–––––. “The Political Regime in Florence after the ‘tumulto dei Ciompi.’” Journal of Italian

History 2 (1979): 405-419.

–––––. The Government of Florence Under the Medici. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.

Salvemini, Gaetano. Magnati e popolani in Firenze dal 1280 al 1295. Florence: Carnesecchi e

figli, 1899. 245 Sapegno, Natalino, ed. Poeti minori del Trecento. Milan: Ricciardi, 1952.

Sapori, Armando. La compagnia dei Frescobaldi in Inghilterra. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1947.

Scalfati, Silio P.P. Un formulario notarile fiorentino della metà del Dugento. Florence: Edifir,

1997.

Scholssman Pines, Doralynn. “The Tomb Slabs of Santa Croce: A New ‘Sepoltuario.’” Ph.D.

thesis, Columbia University, 1985.

Screpanti, Ernesto. “La politica dei Ciompi: petizioni, riforme, e progetti dei rivoluzionari

fiorentini del 1378.” Archivio storico italiano, 165 (2007): 3-56.

Scott, Tom. The City-State in Europe, 1000-1600: Hinterland, Territory, Region. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2012.

Settis, Salvatore ed. Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana. 3 volumes. Turin: Einaudi, 1985.

Soffici, Manilla, ed. Ser Matteo di Biliotto da Fiesole: Imbreviature. II registro (anni 1300-

1314). Tavernuzze: SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2016.

Soffici, Manila and Franek Sznura, eds. Ser Matteo di Biliotto da Fiesole: Imbreviature. I

registro (anni 1294-1296). Tavernuzze: SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2002.

Soldani, Maria Elisa. Uomini d’affari e mercanti toscani nella Barcellona del Quattrocento.

Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientìficas, 2011.

Spilner, Paula. “Giovanni di Lapo Ghini and a Magnificent New Addition to the Palazzo

Vecchio, Florence.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 52, 4 (1993):

453-465.

Steinberg, Justin. Accounting for Dante: Urban Readers and Writers in Late Medieval Italy.

Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.

Stella, Alessandro. La révolte des Ciompi: les hommes, le travail. Paris: École des hautes études

en sciences sociales, 1993. 246 Tanzini, Lorenzo, ed. Statuti e legislazione a Firenze dal 1355 al 1415: Lo statuto cittadino del

1409. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004.

Vallerani, Massimo. “Le città e le sue istituzioni. Ceti dirigenti, oligarchia, e politica nella

medievistica italiana del Novecento.” Annali dell’Istituto Storico Italo-Germanico

in Trento 20 (1994): 165-230.

Vatteroni, Selene Maria, ed. Ventura Monachi: Sonetti. Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2017.

–––––. “Eine Episode der frühesten Rezeption der ‘Metamorphosen-Kanzone’ (Rvf 23).”

Romanisch-Germanische Monatsschrift 65, 4 (2015): 425-437.

Vezzosi, Patrizia. Dalle grottesche al fantasy: Le grottesche nel Corridoio di Levante della

Galleria degli Uffizi. Florence: Alinea, 2010.

Vigueur, Jean-Claude Maire. “Révolution documentaire et révolution scripturaire: Le cas de

L’Italie médiévale.” Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 153 (1995): 177-85.

Wallace, David. Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Lineages and Associational Forms in England

and Italy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997.

Warburg, Aby. “Francesco Sassettis letzwillige Verfügung” in Gesammelte Schriften I. Leipzig:

Teubner, 1932. 127-158.

Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, eds. Berkeley: University

of California Press, 1978.

Witt, Ronald G. Hercules at the Crossroads: The Life, Works, and Thought of Coluccio Salutati.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1983.

–––––. Coluccio Saltutati and his Public Letters. Geneva: Droz, 1976.

Zorzi, Andrea. “Giusdicenti e operatori di giustizia nello stato territoriale fiorentino del XV

secolo.” Ricerche storiche 19 (1989): 517-552.

–––––. “I fiorentini e gli uffici pubblici” nel primo Quattrocento.” Quaderni Storici 66 (1987):

725-751. 247 Zorzi, Andrea and Piero Gualtieri. “Pratiche politiche, scritture documentarie, e costruzione

identitaria della comunità cittadina: L’esempio di Firenze in età comunale (secoli

XII–XIV).” Scrineum 6 (2009): 1-9. 248

A P P E N D I X I

______

The notai dei priori , 1282-1532

The data in this appendix are examined in Chapter 2 of this dissertation. The appendix comprises all the data pertaining to the tenureships of the office of notaio dei priori as found in Demetrio Marzi, La Cancelleria della Repubblica fiorentina, 483-513. Marzi compiled this information primarily from the archival fonds, “Priorista di Palazzo,” found in the Archivio di Stato di Firenze. He supplemented the information found there with a number of sources, including (for up to 1343) the lists of notai dei priori in Stefani, Cronaca fiorentina and (for up to 1432) in Rastrelli, Priorista fiorentino. Since Marzi’s notai are listed by year and often replicated, his appendix can be unwieldy for users looking for specific notaries. Thus, I here provide an alphabetical list generated from my database of all notai dei priori and their tenures for the period from 1282 to 1532.

Notary Provenance Tenureship(s) years

1 Agnolus magistri Nuti Medici 1317-18 Agnolus ser Dominici ser Iohannis 2 Simonis 1416

3 Albertus Donnini Luce 1445, 1452

4 Albertus ser Alberti Guidonis ser Rucchi 1429, 1445, 1464

5 Albertus ser Tommasi Masi 1441

6 Albizus Tosi Signa 1318-19, 1321-22

7 Aldobrandus ser Albizi 1334-35 249

8 Alexander ser Charoli Petri Becti Fiorenzuola 1519, 1523

9 Alexander domini Ugolini 1374

10 Alexander Luce Panzano 1435, 1444

11 Alexander Raynaldi Braccesi 1474 Alexander ser Ricciardi ser Benedicti 12 Dini de Ciardis 1504

13 Alexander domini Cari 1319-20, 1340-41, 1346

14 Alexius ser Baronis Signa 1328-29

15 Alexus Mattei Pelli 1440, 1445, 1454 Alfonsus ser Bartholomei Antonij ser 16 Bartoli de Corsis 1509

17 Alibrandinus Uguiccionis Campi 1300-01

18 Alone Gucci Alonis 1300-01

19 Altomannus Iohannis Nardi 1442

20 Amantius ser Nicolai Berti Martini 1477

21 Amerigus Anastasij Vespucci 1434, 1470

22 Amideus ser Guidonis domini Tomasij 1432, 1441

23 Anastasius ser Amerigi Vespucci 1455, 1459

24 Andreas Christofori Antonij Nacchianti 1477

25 Andreas Donati 1342-43

26 Andreas Francisci Pieri de Cayanis 1517, 1530

27 Andreas ser Angeli Pieri Thommasi Terranuova 1462

28 Andreas ser Benis Puccini 1390

29 Andreas ser Guidonis Iacobi Guidi 1448

30 Andreas ser Guidonis 1372

31 Andreas ser Iohannis ser Andree Mini 1471, 1500

32 Andreas Iohannis Andree Soldi 1490

33 Andreas ser Masi Capalle 1345

34 Andreas ser Philippi Sapiti 1292-93, 1295-96, 1296-97, 1298-99

35 Andreas Romuli Laurentij Filippi 1495

36 Andreas Romuli Laurentij de Filiromulis 1522 250

37 Andreas Nerini 1344

38 Andreas Petri Gaville 1344

39 Angelus ser Alexandri Angeli Cascese 1510 Angelus ser Antonij ser Baptistae de 40 Bartholomeis 1505

41 Angelus Cinozi Iohannis Cini 1447, 1467

42 Angelus Francisci ser Ambrosij Angeni 1498

43 Angelus domini Nerij 1362

44 Angelus Latini 1389, 1409

45 Angelus Pieri Tommasij 1448 Angelus ser Iohannis ser Laurentij ser 46 Angeli Bandini 1461, 1471, 1476, 1479, 1482

47 Angiolerius Dini Carreggia 1319-20

48 Antonius Adami Gratie 1463

49 Antonius Aringhieri Iacobi 1428, 1436

50 Antonius Bandini (Baldini) Trosce 1423, 1432

51 Antonius Christofori Antonij Salvini 1467

52 Antonius Christofori Vitolino 1480

53 Antonius Cionis Vannozi Signa 1394

54 Antonius domini Coluccij Salutati 1425, 1446, 1456

55 Antonius domini Montini 1403, 1411

56 Antonius Dominici Dantis Ughi 1463

57 Antonius Donati Fedi 1489

58 Antonius Fatij Montevarchi 1409

59 Antonius Francisci Gangalandi 1384, 1399, 1408

60 Antonius Iohannis Carisdonij 1447, 1452

61 Antonius Iohannis Cortesi 1470, 1474, 1478

62 Antonius Iohannis della Valle 1509

63 Antonius Laurentij 1394

64 Antonius magistri Bartoli Gangalandi 1380

65 Antonius Marchionis Malagonelle 1403, 1427 251

66 Antonius Marci Antonij de Lippis 1494, 1498

67 Antonius Marci Francisci Nini 1436, 1446

68 Antonius Mariani Nicholai Muzi 1452

69 Antonius Micaelis Arrigi 1390

70 Antonius Nicolai ser Antonij Rovai 1485

71 Antonius Parentis Antonij Parentis 1504

72 Antonius Pieri Antonij Panzano 1457, 1463

73 Antonius Pieri Antonij Bettinis 1483, 1497, 1501

74 Antonius ser Petri ser Bernabae del Serra 1518

75 Antonius Salamonis Francisci 1465

76 Antonius Sancti Laterina 1402 Antonius ser Anastasij ser Amerigi de 77 Vespuccis 1492, 1495

78 Antonius ser Andree Angeli Machalli 1485 Antonius ser Baptiste Antonij 79 Bartholomei 1459

80 Antonius ser Chelli ser Iacobi 1380, 1383, 1404

81 Antonius ser Francisci Octaviani Arezzo 1511, 1524

82 Antonius ser Francisci Fighino 1511, 1525 Antonius ser Francisci ser Iacobi de 83 Albinis Pratovecchio 1521, 1530

84 Antonius ser Leonardis Pugij 1437

85 Antonius ser Luce Francisci 1433, 1440, 1447

86 Antonius ser Mariani Bartoli Checchi 1451, 1470

87 Antonius ser Michaelis Ricavo 1419, 1422

88 Antonius ser Micaelis Antonij Santa Croce 1507

89 Antonius ser Nicholai Catignano 1472 Antonius ser Nicholai Christofori de 90 Ferrinis 1486, 1496, 1511, 1528

91 Antonius ser Stefani Antonij de Danellis Albagnano 1519

92 Antonius ser Vencetij Fortini 1430

93 Antonius Ugolini della Casa 1407 252

94 Antonius magistri Petri della Gramatica 1382, 1391

95 Antonius Pieri ser Chelli 1400, 1407, 1410

96 Arnoldus Arrighi 1287-88, 1290-91

97 Arrighus Gani 1309-10, 1341-42

98 Arrigus Guidonis 1386

99 Azzolinus Contuccij 1342-43

100 Baldassar Alberti Simonis Bondoni 1493

101 Baldese Ambrosij Baldesis 1443

102 Baldovinus Dominici Baldovini 1460 Baldus ser Michaelis ser Nerij ser 103 Mercovaldi 1455

104 Baldus Montespertuli 1290-91

105 Baldus Brandagle 1355, 1378

106 Bandinus Lapi 1344, 1353

107 Baptistas Iacobi Antonij de Nachiantibus 1471, 1476

108 Barna Antonij Durelli 1397

109 Barone Aliotti Signa 1298-99

110 Barone Francisci Thommasi del Cerna 1461 Bartolomeo di maestro Lorenzo di 111 Francesco Marchi 1475

112 Bartolomeus Antonij Iohannis Nuti 1466, 1472 Bartolomeus Antonij ser Bartoli 113 (Bartolomei) Corsi 1464, 1472 Bartolomeus Antonij Bartolomei Pauli 114 de Meis 1500, 1505, 1525

115 Bartolomeus Bambi Ciai 1447

116 Bartolomeus Benedicti Capitaney 1327-28

117 Bartolomeus Cecchi Marcialla 1398, 1415

118 Bartolomeus Dominici de Leonibus 1526 Bartolomeus Ioannis ser Vincentij de 119 Fortinis 1479

120 Bartolomeus Iohannis Dini Laterina 1421, 1429, 1439 253

121 Bartolomeus Iohannis Victorij del Rosso 1512, 1522

122 Bartolomeus Iuliani Pieri de Gerinis 1508, 1522

123 Bartolomeus Lapi del Forese 1359

Castel 124 Bartolomeus magistri Alamanni Fiorentino 1330-31

125 Bartolomeus magistri Mattei Radda 1435

126 Bartolomeus Emiliani Dominici de Deis 1489, 1497

127 Bartolomeus Nerij Masini Orlandi 1458 Bartolomeus ser Dominici ser 128 Bartolomei Radda 1508, 1513, 1528

129 Bartolomeus ser Dominici Silvestri 1424, 1432, 1438 Bartolomeus ser Gabrielis Francisci de 130 Leonibus 1472 Bartolomeus ser Guiglielmi Antonij 131 Taddei de Zeffis 1487, 1499, 1503

132 Bartolomeus ser Ioannis Zenobij Gini 1483

133 Bartolomeus ser Masi Nelli 1387, 1404, 1412

134 Bartolomeus ser Simonis Berti 1440, 1454, 1458, 1468

135 Bartolomeus ser Vincentij de Fortinis 1497 Bartolomeus Pieri ser Bartolomei de 136 Cavallonibus 1520, 1524

137 Bartolomeus ser Bonaiuti Rignana 1357, 1375

138 Bartolus Bernardi 1304-05

139 Bartolus Iunctini Vico 1346

140 Bartolus Nerij Roffiano 1345, 1350, 1362, 1371

141 Bartolus Nevaldini 1349

142 Bartolus ser Donati Giannini 1417, 1431, 1438

143 Bartolus Signorini 1393, 1402

144 Bartolus ser Chermonterij 1348, 1351, 1354, 1358

145 Bastianus Antonij Zenobij ser Foresis 1460

146 Bastianus ser Caroli Petri Betti Fiorenzuola 1509, 1513, 1523

147 Bastianus Cennis Aiuti de Cennis 1505 254

148 Bastianus ser Niccolai de Guidonibus Pistoia 1512

149 Batista Niccholai delle Bertuccie 1418

150 Belcarus Bonaiuti 1320-21

151 Bellincione domini Deodati Cacciafuori 1295-96, 1305-06

152 Bencivenni Ugolini 1286-87

153 Bene Bruni Vespignano 1318-19

154 Benedetto di Dino di Nardo Ciardi 1464

156 Benedictus Andree Gini 1501

157 Benedictus Angeli Staggia 1462

158 Benedictus Mattei Antonij Zerini 1475, 1483, 1497, 1517, 1525 Benedictus Mathei Bartholi de 159 Ghalighariis 1517

160 Benedictus Nicolai Antonij de Pandolfis 1514

161 Benedictus ser Iohannis de Pagninis 1476

162 Benedictus ser Iohannis Pagnini 1459

163 Benedictus ser Landi Fortini 1381, 1402, 1406

164 Benedictus ser Laurentij Francisci 1433

165 Benedictus Tempi Castel Fiorentino 1358

166 Benedictusser Iohannis Ciay 1354, 1358, 1368, 1375

167 Benedictus ser Martini (magistri) 1315-16, 1318-19

168 Benincasa Ciuti San Donnino 1332-33

1284-85, 1286-87, 1286-87, 1289-90, 169 Benincasa Oddi Altomena 1291-92, 1293-94

170 Benincasa Struffaldi 1283-84

171 Benoccus (Benozius) Pieri 1355, 1361, 1368

172 Benvenutus Olivieri Sexto 1289-90 Bernabas ser Pieri ser Bernaba Antonii 173 del Serra 1491, 1510

San Donato in 174 Bernardus Bencivennis Pocis 1323-24 Bernardus Dominici Nicolai ser 175 Vermigli 1489, 1514, 1525 255

176 Bernardus Eugenij de Fieschis 1511 Bernardus Iohannis Bernardi de 177 Horlandis 1465

178 Bernardus Iontini 1348

179 Bernardus Laurentij Ioannis de Cortesis 1491

180 Bernardus Lippi Pieri de Brandis 1479

181 Bernardus Lucae Andreae Simonis 1477, 1480

182 Bernardus Pacini Luciano 1309-10

183 Bernardus ser Benincase 1309-10 Bernardus ser Iohannis ser Gherardi de 184 Allegris 1485, 1496, 1507

185 Bernardus ser Taddei Carchelli 1372, 1385

186 Bernardus Pieri Iuliani de Fiammingis San Miniato 1522

187 Bernardus Neldi 1310-11, 1313-14

188 Bertaldus Pandolfini Signa 1304-05

189 Bertus Antonij Berti Tigliamochi 1439

190 Bertus ser Dini Petrognano 1337-38

191 Bettus Geppi 1319-20

San Giovanni 192 Bettus magistri Iohannis Valdarno 1411

193 Bindellus Doris Certaldo 1449

194 Bindus Angeli Staggia 1449

195 Bindus Cambi 1287-88, 1294-95, 1297-98

196 Bindus Cardi 1400, 1411

197 Bindus Cionis Passignano 1347

198 Bindus Lodovici ser Bindi Cassi 1443, 1452

199 Bindus Martini Pagnana 1287-88, 1306-07

200 Bindus ser Guicciardi Magnoli 1297-98

201 Bindus ser Iohannis ser Bindi Cardi 1454

202 Bindus ser Nigij Calenzano 1404

203 Bindus ser Spiglie 1374 256

204 Bindus Vannis Empoli 1345

205 Blasius Iohannis Fighino 1438

206 Blaxius Bernabucci Mazzocchi 1389

207 Bonaccorri Gerij Ginestreto 1302-03, 1305-06, 1338-39

208 Bonacosa Compagni 1311-12, 1327-28 Bonacursius ser Dominici Buonacursij 210 de Buonachursiis 1509, 1522

211 Bonacursus Gherardi 1301-02 Bonacursus Leonardi ser Bonacorsi de 212 Bonacursiis 1469, 1499, 1502, 1508

213 Bonacursus Pieri Bonacursi 1427

214 Bonacursus Tuccij 1333-34

215 Bonaffede Boncompagni Certignano 1297-98, 1305-06

216 Bonaguida Bartholomei Bindi 1421, 1431, 1434

217 Bonaiutus Benucij 1367

1282-83, 1283-84, 1285-86, 1287-88, 218 Bonaiutus Galgani 1290-91, 1293-94, 1301-02 Bonaventura Leonardi Bonaventure 219 Francisci 1501

220 Bonaventura ser Zelli 1379, 1384

221 Bonavere Rossi 1303-04

222 Bonchristianus ser Simonis 1325-26

223 Bondonus Cambii 1300-01

224 Bonifacius domini Colucij Salutati 1418

225 Boninsegna ser Manetti 1339-40

226 Bonsegnore Hostigiani 1292-93, 1299-1300, 1303-04

1288-89, 1292-93, 1293-94, 1295-96, 227 Bonus Gianni Ugnano 1302-03

228 Bonus Orlandini 1333-34

229 Brunellescus Lippi 1400

230 Brunus Orlandi 1324-25 257

Cambius Niccolai magistri Cambij de 231 Salviatis 1387, 1407, 1415, 1419, 1430

Castel 232 CambiusMichaelis Fiorentino 1308-09, 1316-17, 1324-25, 1330-31

233 Cante magistri Bonaventure 1344

234 Carolus Iohannis Pieri de Meleto 1492, 1497

235 Casciottus Iohannis Casciotti 1351, 1357, 1361, 1367, 1371, 1374

236 Castellus magistri Raynuccij 1325-26, 1337-38

237 Cecchus Guccij Pontorme 1328-29

238 Cenni Ugolini del Chericho 1290-91

1289-90, 1292-93, 1295-96, 1296-97, 239 Chellus Uberti Baldovini 1299-1300, 1301-02

240 Chermonterius ser Bartoli Chermonterij 1372, 1381, 1396 Chiarissimus Thomasij Bartholomei 241 Fiaschi 1473

242 Cianus Nerij Bocaccij 1317-18

243 Cione Baldovini 1282-83, 1288-89

244 Cione domini Raynerij Bondonis 1326-27, 1329-30

245 Cisti Lapi Vespuccii 1312-13

246 Ciuccius Nerii Ciuccii 1307-08

247 Clarozus Varrazzano 1331-32 Clemens Iacobi ser Iohannis de 248 Bernardis 1493

249 Clemens Iohannis Laurentij Belosi 1469

250 Clemens ser Angeli Petri Terranuova 1474

251 Coczus Pieri Trebbio 1319-20

252 Coluccius Pieri Coluccij 1406

253 Cristofanus Angeli Cerrini Montevarchi 1393

254 Cristofanus Nicolai Pagnozi 1415, 1424

255 Cristofanus Bindi de Bodi Boniti 1379 Cristoforus ser Pieri ser Mariani de 256 Cecchis 1486, 1503, 1506, 1523 258

Cristoforus ser Pieri Iohannis Pieri de 257 Feis 1513 Cristoforus Taddei Iacobi de 258 Nachiantibus 1508

259 Datus Cacciafuori 1285-86

260 Davanzatus Iacobi Davanzati 1426

261 Dietifeci ser Micchelis Gangalandi 1336-37, 1349, 1353, 1361, 1365

262 Dietisalvi Bonini Poggio 1335-36

263 Dinus Cole Francisci 1449

264 Dinus Manetti 1306-07

265 Dinus ser Scarfagni Prato 1387, 1405

266 Dionisius Bindi Calenzano 1336-37

San Donato in 267 Dionisius sive Nigiusser Iohannis Tuccij Pocis 1366, 1373, 1384, 1401

268 Dominicus Amidei Francisci 1435

269 Dominicus Arrigi ser Pieri Mucini 1423, 1426 Dominicus Bonaccursij Dominici de 270 Bonaccursis 1482

271 Dominicus Francisci Pauli Catignano 1453, 1465 Dominicus ser Bartholomei magistri 272 Mattei Radda 1466, 1493

273 Dominicus ser Betti 1356

274 Dominicus ser Francisci ser Dominici Catignano 1524, 1530

275 Dominicus ser Iacobi Certaldo 1352

276 Dominicus ser Iohannis de Guiducciis 1493

277 Dominicus ser Iohannis Simonis 1393 Dominicus ser Mathei ser Baptistae de 278 Bocciantibus 1517

279 Dominicus ser Mini Montevarchi 1368

280 Dominicus ser Salvi Gai 1388

281 Dominicus Thomasij Mostardi 1417

282 Dominicus Allegri 1365, 1376 259

283 Dominicus ser Benincase 1361, 1364 ,1371

284 Dominicus Silvestri 1364, 1378, 1387, 1406

285 Donatus Iannini (Giannini) 1410, 1423

286 Donosdeus Dati 1285-86, 1290-91

287 Duti Maghinardi 1302-03, 1308-09

288 Falcone Falconis de Falconibus 1367, 1377

289 Falconerius Francisci Cennamella 1406

Castel 290 Fatius (Fazius) Ghontij (Gonzi) Fiorentino 1309-10, 1311-12, 1315-16

291 Federicus Palmerii iudicis Quarantola 1294-95

292 Ferrantinus Niccholai Montecatini 1428

293 Feus Bindi 1386

294 Feus Lapi Rayneri 1304-05, 1316-17

295 Filippus Andree Antonij de Redditis 1488, 1500

296 Filippus Cristofani Leonardi 1417, 1419, 1439

297 Filippus Iohannis domini Iacobi 1470

298 Filippus ser Andree Nerini 1373

299 Filippus ser Benedicti 1357

300 Filippus ser Bernardi Signa 1360

301 Filippus ser Francisci ser Iacobi Albini Prato Vecchio 1518

302 Filippus ser Laurentij Luciano 1400, 1413, 1420

303 Filippus ser Michaelis Poggibonsi 1431

304 Filippus ser Pieri Mucini 1383

305 Filippus Tani Bonatti 1302-03

306 Filippus Dominici Simonis del Morello 1514

307 Filippus Pierantonij Dorathei de Fiorellis 1518

308 Filippus Contuccij Pupiglano 1334-35, 1339-40, 1342-43

309 Filippus Iacobi Villamagna 1298-99

310 Filippus Mattey Durantis 1351 1360

311 Filippus Nerini 1311-12, 1317-18 260

312 Forese Pieri 1365

313 Franciscus ser Dini 1467, 1479

314 Franciscus Antonij Duccij de Duccis 1529

315 Franciscus Anthonij Francisci 1425, 1433

316 Franciscus Benedicti Iohannis Peri 1459, 1464

317 Franciscus Bruni 1353

318 Franciscus Cioli 1367

319 Franciscus Fortis Certaldo 1283-84, 1288-89

320 Franciscus Hieronimi ser Pieri Ruggeri 1473

321 Franciscus Laini Cerne 1433

322 Franciscus Marci Pieri de Sassolis 1494

323 Franciscus Pieri Iacomini 1420 Franciscus ser Bartholomei ser Gabrielis 324 de Leonibus 1503, 1507

325 Franciscus ser Beneditti Dini Ciardi 1478, 1485, 1505 Franciscus ser Bernardi ser Iohannis de 326 Allegris 1521, 1526

327 Franciscus ser Dini de Fortinis 1481, 1495, 1498

328 Franciscus ser Dominici Francisci Catignano 1478, 1483, 1498

329 Franciscus ser Iacobi ser Antonij Romena 1476, 1484

330 Franciscus ser Iannis Antica 1365

331 Franciscus ser Iohannis Signa 1348

332 Franciscus ser Iohannis Ciai 1378, 1385 Franciscus ser Iohannis ser Lapi 333 Bonamichi 1330-31, 1348

334 Franciscus ser Iunte Spigliati 1313-14

335 Franciscus ser Landi Fortini 1389

336 Franciscus ser Luce Francisci 1416

337 Franciscus ser Marci Thomasij Romena 1486

338 Franciscus ser Nerij 1356

339 Franciscus ser Nicolai Berti Martini 1475 261

340 Franciscus ser Rossi 1353

341 Franciscus ser Thomasi ser Francisci 1417

342 Franciscus Sinibaldide Cantafantis 1463

343 Franciscus Vermigli Caccialupi 1327-28, 1330-31 Franciscus Vivaldi Francisci Contis de 344 Vivaldis 1486

Castel 345 Franciscus Lapi Fiorentino 1343, 1347, 1374

346 Franciscus magistri Pieri Nuccij 1363, 1370, 1381, 1386

347 Franciscus Nuccij 1313-14, 1316-17

348 Franciscus Masini 1352, 1367, 1371, 1379

349 Franciscusser Iohannis Aviati 1363, 1382

350 Franciscus ser Iohannis Rignana 1335-36, 1353

351 Franciscus ser Pini Signa 1326-27, 1339-40, 1347

352 Franciscus Vannis Muzi 1359, 1362, 1369, 1375, 1379

353 Francsicus ser Iacobi Prato Vecchio 1490

354 Francsicus Dolcis Sommaia 1321-22

355 Francsicus ser Palmerij 1326-27, 1353, 1361

356 Fredi Bindi Panzano 1307-08

357 Gabriel Francisci Lioni 1462, 1466

358 Gabriel ser Niccolai Antonij Folchi 1482, 1490

359 Gabriel ser Niccolai Francisci Linari 1412, 1418

360 Gerardus Gerij Risalitis 1302-03, 1313-14, 1352

361 Geri Andree 1308-09, 1312-13

362 Gerius Ghini Rabatta 1338-39

363 Gerius Simonis Monte Rinaldi 1408

364 Gherardinus Andree Montelupo 1409

365 Gherardus Iohannis Ariagi 1457

366 Gherardus Iohannis del Ciriegia 1464

367 Gherardus Leonardi Gherardini 1442, 1446, 1454 262

368 Gherardus Pauli Tignano 1339-40

369 Gherardus Prioris de Gherardinis 1530

370 Gherardus Risaliti 1352

371 Gherardus Septis Certaldo 1323-24

372 Gherardus ser Arigi Vico 1337-38

373 Gherardus ser Ricciardi Pieri 1436

374 Ghibertus ser Alexandri domini Cari 1351, 1359, 1365

375 Ghinus Pinuccii Signa 1307-08

376 Gilius ser Guidonis Empoli 1342-43

377 Ginus Benedicti Pimpi 1445

378 Ginus ser Iohannis Calenzano 1348, 1373

379 Giorgius ser Sanctis Albagnano 1501, 1510

380 Giovanni di Corrado Salutati 1406

381 Giulianus Iacobi Pieri del Maza 1432, 1452

382 Giuntinus Spigliati Burnetti 1288-89, 1301-02

San Giovanni 383 Gorus ser Grifi Valdarno 1358, 1369, 1377

384 Granaiuolus Tonis Granaiolo 1320-21

385 Grazino d'Antonio di Grazino Grazini 1486

386 Gregorius ser Francisci ser Baldi 1366, 1388

387 Grisus Iohannis Cristofori Griseli 1461, 1472, 1484

388 Gualtierus ser Laurentij Diacceto 1455

389 Guardinus Andree ser Pieri 1412, 1422

390 Guaschus Nardi Guasconis 1310-11, 1315-16

391 Guasparre ser Francisci Masini 1395

392 Guccius Francisci Andree 1378, 1383

393 Guccius Boninsegne Rignana 1346

394 Guido domini Tommasi ser Guidonis 1392, 1412

395 Guido Gilij 1332-33

396 Guido Lippi Septimo 1312-13 263

397 Guido Pieri Chiaruccij 1389

398 Guido Rossi San Casciano 1310-11

399 Guido ser Benis Varrazzano 1320-21, 1338-39

400 Guido ser Grifi 1374

401 Guido Corsini 1342-43, 1347

402 Guido ser Rucchi Rondinaia 1363, 1368

1283-84, 1284-85, 1285-86, 1286-87, 403 Iacobinus Bonacorsi 1286-87, 1291-92

404 Iacobus Ambrosij Meringhi 1362, 1366, 1375, 1386

405 Iacobus Bartholomei Bottegari 1469 Iacobus Bartholomei Iohannis de 406 Camerottis 1488

407 Iacobus Bartolomei 1391

408 Iacobus Bonaiuti Landi 1422, 1428, 1434

409 Iacobus Brosij (Bruogi) Lapi 1397, 1406, 1413

410 Iacobus Dominici Iacobi Pietri del Maza 1474, 1484, 1496, 1499, 1502, 1506

411 Iacobus Dominici Vinci 1440

412 Iacobus Fei Scolai Ridolfi 1428, 1430, 1439

413 Iacobus Fei 1377

414 Iacobus Francisci Mini 1441

415 Iacobus Grazini Iacobi Grazini 1483

416 Iacobus Iacobi Certaldo 1326-27

417 Iacobus magistri Salvi 1312-13, 1329-30

418 Iacobus magistri Tommasini 1444

419 Iacobus Nelli 1348

420 Iacobus Pagni Vespignano 1357

421 Iacobus ser Antonij Iacobi Romena 1432, 1450

422 Iacobus ser Bertoldi 1364, 1373

423 Iacobus ser Filippi Luciano 1444

424 Iacobus ser Francisci Toschanelli 1420, 1424 264

425 Iacobus ser Lapi Benci 1334-35

426 Iacobus ser Michaelis Beninchase 1479 Iacobus ser Michaelis Guasparis de 427 Ducciis Pistoia 1518, 1525, 1529

428 Iacobus ser Stefani ser Naddi 1449, 1456

429 Iacobus ser Ventisti 1301-02

430 Iacobus ser Zenobij Paonis 1376, 1386

431 Iacobus Silvestri 1429

432 Iacobus Vannis Signa 1328-29

433 Iacobus Venture Linari 1394

434 Iacobus Benintendi della Casa 1373, 1384

435 Iacobus Cecchi 1333-34, 1348, 1354

436 Iacobus Gherardi Gualberti 1347, 1350

437 Iacobus ser Bencivenni Dandi 1302-03, 1308-09, 1315-16 Ieronimus Antonij Michaelis de 438 Pasqualinis 1475

439 Ieronimus Bartholomei Pauli de Meis 1491

440 Ieronimus ser Grisi Iohannis de Grisellis 1497, 1515 Ieronimus ser Pieri ser Mariani de 441 Cechis 1504

442 Iohanbaptista Albizi Luce ser Albizi 1499

443 Iohannes Andree Linari 1398

444 Iohannes Antonij Iohannis Carisdonis 1490, 1496, 1516

445 Iohannes Attavantis Vincentij 1483 Iohannes Baptista ser Andreae ser 446 Angeli Terranuova 1506 Iohannes Baptista Michael Angeli Contis 447 de Vivaldis 1532

448 Iohannes Bencini Albizi 1390

449 Iohannes Bernardi Pieri Gangalandi 1404

450 Iohannes Blaxij Monterappoli 1398, 1414, 1421

451 Iohannes Bonaiuti 1426 265

452 Iohannes Bonaveris Pieri Andree 1471

453 Iohannes Cambini 1376

454 Iohannes Ciai 1318-19

455 Iohannes de Siminettis 1291-92, 1305-06

456 Iohannes Dini Peri 1446

457 Iohannes Dini Montevarchi 1315-16

458 Iohannes domini Berardi 1306-07

459 Iohannes domini Boninsegne Rignana 1321-22, 1324-35 Iohannes Dominici ser Thommasi 460 Carondini 1468, 1473, 1502

461 Iohannes Donati Magnolini 1435 Iohannes Francisci Guidonis del 462 Saracino 1486

463 Iohannes Francisci Nerij Cecchi 1453, 1455 Iohannes Franciscus Bernardi 464 Bartholomei de Cinninis 1487

465 Iohannes Gasparis ser Iohannis Mattei Montevarchi 1487, 1520

466 Iohannes Gherardi Legri 1468

467 Iohannes Gini Calenzano 1316-17 Iohannes Gualbertus ser Antonij de 468 Salomonibus 1518

469 Iohannes Gualbertus Benedicti de Pieris 1490

470 Iohannes Guiduccij Montevarchi 1427, 1436

471 Iohannes Iacobi Migliorelli 1465

472 Iohannes Iacobi Pieri de Miglorellis 1475

473 Iohannes Iacopi de Canaccis 1423 Iohannes Iuliani Iohannis de 474 Tigliamochis 1520

475 Iohannes Lagi Villamagna 1352

476 Iohannes Lapini Brunetti 1385

477 Iohannes Lazzari Laurentij Fiorini 1474

478 Iohannes Lippi Iohannis 1395 266

479 Iohannes Luce Martini 1417

480 Iohannes magistri Mattei Radda 1438

481 Iohannes Masij Francisci 1489

482 Iohannes Megli 1331-32

483 Iohannes Michaelis de Marchiis 1515

San Giovanni 484 Iohannes Neppi Valdarno 1354

Castel Franco 485 Iohannes Nerij di Sopra 1391, 1409

486 Iohannes Niccolai 1380

487 Iohannes Paganelli 1345

488 Iohannes Petri Stia 1467

1323-24, 1329-30, 1333-34, 1339-40, 489 Iohannes Pizzini Pontorme 1373

490 Iohannes Raynaldi Sandri de Bracciesis 1491

491 Iohannes ser Andree Petrini 1388 Iohannes ser Andree ser Iohannis ser 492 Andree de Mini 1519, 1527

493 Iohannes ser Andree ser Iohannis Mini 1438, 1459

494 Iohannes Baptistas Bartholomei Andree 1494

495 Iohannes ser Benedicti 1303-04

496 Iohannes ser Bindi Cardi 1434, 1440

497 Iohannes ser Francisci Monte Lungo 1415 Iohannes ser Francisci ser Angeli de 498 Lapuciis 1515 Iohannes ser Gherardi Leonardi 499 Gherardini 1473, 1484, 1495, 1505

500 Iohannes ser Guardini Andree 1437

501 Iohannes ser Iacobi Salvetti 1440

502 Iohannes ser Iuliani de Durazzinis 1531

503 Iohannes ser Lapi Bonacursi 1303-04

504 Iohannes ser Lapi Sexto 1340-41 267

505 Iohannes ser Laurentij ser Giannini 1425 1431

506 Iohannes ser Lodovici Bertini 1462

507 Iohannes ser Lodovici Filippi Giannuzzi 1460, 1469, 1479, 1482

508 Iohannes ser Marci Tommasij Romena 1477

509 Iohannes ser Mathei Iohannis Falgano 1487

510 Iohannes ser Mathei ser Gualterij 1407

511 Iohannes ser Nigij 1341-42

512 Iohannes ser Pauli Laurentij Pauli 1480

513 Iohannes ser Petri ser Bernabae del Serra 1508 Iohannes ser Silvani Iohannis Silvani 514 Fruosini 1482, 1489, 1503, 1516

515 Iohannes ser Spigliati Filicaria 1308-09

516 Iohannes Simonis 1371

517 Iohannes Stefani Tosi Monterappoli 1388

518 Iohannes Symonis Marci 1422

519 Iohannes Zenobij ser Iohannis Gini 1461

1310-11, 1314-15, 1317-18, 1318-19, 520 Iohannes Finuccij 1324-25

521 Iohannes Guidonis Magnale 1351 1366

1295-96, 1299-130, 1308-09, 1314- 522 Iohannes Iacopi Signa 15

1327-28, 1331-32, 1336-37, 1342-43, 523 Iohannes ser Benvenuti Sexto 1344

524 Iohannes ser Cursi 1370

1307-08, 1311-12, 1314-15, 1321-22, 525 Iohannes ser Lapi Bonamichi 1322-23, 1332-33 Iohannes Maria Filippi Iohannis de 526 Angenis 1529 Iulianus ser Bonacursi Leonardi de 527 Bonacursis 1506, 1509, 1513

528 Iulianus Cosmi Casini 1466, 1479, 1481

529 Iulianus ser Dominici Iuliani Ripa 1494, 1500, 1508 268

530 Iulianus Francisci Bardini 1455

531 Iulianus Iacobi Pieri del Maza 1437, 1446

Gambassi 532 Iulianus Iacobi (Terme) 1390

533 Iulianus Iohannis Antonij de Valle 1511

534 Iulianus Iohannis Lanfredini 1456

535 Iulianus ser Petri Antonij Vinci 1515

536 Iuncta (Iunta) Francisci 1399, 1403, 1409, 1419

537 Iuntinus ser Ihoannis Pagnana 1313-12

538 Iustinus Iusti 1381

539 Landus ser Laurentij ser Landi 1439

540 Lapo Pacini Paterno 1343

541 Lapus Bartoli Sexto 1291-92, 1295-96

542 Lapus Cinghietti 1285-86, 1291-92, 1294-95

543 Lapus Mazzei 1383

544 Lapus Pieri Certaldo 1392, 1408

545 Lapus ser Alberti Amizzini 1298-99

San Marco al 546 Lapus ser Meglioris Mugnone 1292-93

547 Lapus Simonis Linari 1321-22

548 Lapus Simonis Rasoio 1405

549 Lapus Gini Paterno 1343, 1360

550 Lapus Spine Calenzano 1316-17, 1321-22

551 Laurentius Andreae Iohannis de Ciolis 1526 Laurentius Bardi ser Gherardini de 552 Gherardinis 1526

553 Laurentius Francisci Andree 1409, 1425

554 Laurentius Francisci Micaelis 1437, 1443, 1453

555 Laurentius Francisci Empoli 1415

556 Laurentius Iacobi Andreae de Violis 1522, 1524 269

557 Laurentius Marci Bartholi de Goteschis 1531

558 Laurentius Mattei Pieri Vannelli 1492, 1510

559 Laurentius Pauli ser Guidonis Gilij 1430

560 Laurentius ser Antonij Pieri de Tuccis 1488 Laurentius ser Francisci ser Benedicti de 561 Cardis 1519, 1523, 1527

562 Laurentius ser Giannini 1428

563 Laurentius ser Iohannis Buti Paganico 1402, 1411

564 Laurentius ser Landi 1382

565 Laurentius Vivaldi Angeli 1524

566 Laurentiusser Tani Luciano 1369, 1381, 1394

567 Leonardus Iohannis Leonardi Colle 1488

568 Leonardus ser Filippi Cristofani 1448

569 Leonardus ser Iohannis Andree Monte 1389, 1411 Leonardus ser Pieri ser Mariani de 570 Cecchis 1520, 1526

571 Leonardus Pieri alterius Pieri Mazi 1491

572 Leonardus ser Stefani de Mercantia 1410

573 Lippus ser Cambij Vinci 1329-30, 1336-37

Santa Maria in 574 Lippusser Dini Pianeta 1315-16, 1340-41 Lippus (Filippus/Lapus) ser Ioannis 575 Bonamichi 1317-18, 1322-23, 1363

576 Locterius domini Rinaldi Barberino 1309-10

577 Lodovicus Antonij Folchi 1458 Lodovicus Antonij del Rosso ser 578 Bandella 1443

579 Lodovicus Berthini magistri Iacobi 1421, 1429

580 Lodovicus Filippi Iohannis Giannuzzi 1458

581 Lodovicus Francisci della Casa 1414, 1437

582 Lodovicus Francisci Vannis 1403, 1417

583 Lodovicus Iohannis Doffi 1369 270

584 Lodovicus Niccolai 1392

585 Lodovicus ser Angeli Pieri Thomasi 1460

586 Lodovicus ser Bindi Lodovici Casi 1468 Lodovicus ser Cristofori Iohannis de 587 Menchis 1494, 1502

588 Lottus Guidi Capraia 1338-39

589 Lottus Puccij 1332-33

590 Lottus ser Francisci ser Thommasi Masi 1457

591 Lottus Gonzi Casaglia 1338-39, 1343, 1348

592 Loysius ser Michaelis Guidi 1458

593 Loysius Symonis Guiduccij 1419, 1422

594 Lucas Bamboccij 1378, 1390

595 Lucas Francisci della Mercatantia 1383, 1401, 1422

596 Lucas Ruggerij Taddei de Carucciis 1514

597 Luigius Nicoli Severigij 1356

598 Maffeus (Feus) Lapi Raynerii 1300-01, 1301-02, 1304-05, 1316-17

599 Maggius ser Nepi 1346

600 Mainardus Francisci Vinci 1442

601 Manettus Cambij Pontorme 1333-34

602 Manfredi ser Paniccie 1346

603 Mannus Antonij Iohannis 1454

604 Mannus Banchi 1324-25

605 Mannus Dominici de Avellano 1393

606 Mannus Rainerij Iohannis Manni 1488, 1503, 1506, 1512, 1516

607 Mannus Talenti Sexto 1294-95, 1297-98 Marchion ser Marchionis Bertini 608 (Ubertini) Donati 1453, 1456

609 Marchion Bertini Donati 1404 Marcus Antonius Bartholi Dominici del 610 Cartolaio 1532 Marcus Antonius Nicolai Guidonis de 611 Adimaribus 1504 271

1282-83, 1283-84, 1284-85, 1285-86, 612 Marcus Consilii 1291-92, 1293-94, 1294-95

613 Marcus Lipi Vinci 1351

614 Marcus ser Boni Ugnano 1329-30, 1335-36, 1341-42

615 Marianus Bartoli Cecchi 1432 Marianus ser Christofori ser Pieri ser 616 Mariani de Cecchis 1519

617 Mariottus Antonij Andree Tazzi 1460

618 Mariottus ser Iohannis Bencini 1431, 1448, 1451, 1457

619 Marsoppinus Signa 1293-94

620 Martinus Gangalandi 1349

621 Martinus Tancredi Tignano 1350, 1356

622 Masus Lagij 1313-14

623 Masus ser Luche Campi 1335-36

Castel 624 Mathius Petri Fiorentino 1380

625 Mathius Taccij Iohannis 1424

626 Matteus Becchi 1340-41

627 Matteus Beliotti 1297-98, 1299-1300, 1303-04

628 Matteus Dominici Mattei Sofferoni 1435

629 Matteus Gherardi 1364

630 Matteus Ioannis Blasij Falgano 1477

631 Matteus Iuliani Mathei 1413, 1430

632 Matteus Martini San Geuntino 1445, 1450, 1453

633 Matteus Pieri Guerruccij 1450, 1457, 1467

634 Matteus ser Iohannis ser Mathei Falgano 1520, 1524

635 Matteus ser Mei Lioncini 1388

636 Matteus ser Niccholai Mazetti 1416

637 Matteus Signorelli 1331-32

638 Matteus Teste Girolami 1413, 1432

639 Matteus Vannis Lonciano 1339-40 272

640 Matteus Guiducci 1344

641 Matteus Guidi 1323-24, 1337-38

642 Mattias ser Dominici Francisci Catignano 1529

643 Michael Angeli Oddi 1380

644 Michael Buoni Nicchole de Schiattesis 1460, 1467

645 Michael Cionis 1379, 1382

646 Michael Docti 1367

647 Michael Iacobi Benincase 1468

648 Michael Antonij Petri 1490, 1496

649 Michael ser Antonij Ricavo 1381

650 Michael ser Fatij Monte Lungo 1396

651 Michael ser Iacobi Rabatta 1380 Michael ser Michaelis ser Francisci 652 Grifoni 1474, 1488

653 Michael Bardelle 1377, 1382

654 Michael Vestri Contaudini 1352, 1357, 1376

655 Michele Boschi 1334-35, 1341-42

656 Michele Iannis Cristiani 1335-36, 1348

657 Michele ser Bonacorsi Lastra 1322-23

658 Michele ser Cambi 1345

659 Michele ser Fazio Montelupo 1402

Castel 660 Michele ser Francisci Fiorentino 1325-26

661 Michele Boschi 1334-35, 1341-42

Gangalandi (S. 662 Michele ser Dietifecti Martino a) 1332-33, 1340-41

663 Michele ser Tegne 1358, 1363

664 Mingus Bonamichi da Cappello 1333-34, 1361, 1364

665 Minus ser Dominici de Montevarchi 1393, 1401

666 Minus ser Grifi 1360

667 Monte Iohannis ser Montis 1446, 1463 273

668 Monte ser Bartoli Chermonterij 1381, 1397, 1405

669 Montes Bonaventure Francisci 1469

670 Naddus Ioannis de Deis 1479

671 Naddus ser Macthei Lonciano 1405

672 Naddus ser Nepi 1396

673 Nardus Firenzis Sangallini 1312-13

Castel 674 Nardus Cay Fiorentino 1327-28, 1329-30, 1337-38, 1346

675 Nastasius ser Iacobi Pucci 1401

676 Nellus Iordani 1311-12

677 Nellus ser Pieri Nelli 1397, 1405

678 Nellus Ghetti 1349, 1359 Nerius ser Bartholomei Nerij de 679 Orlandis 1491, 1502

680 Nerius Chelli Monterappoli 1342-43, 1355, 1357

681 Niccola Mangerij 1436, 1444, 1456

682 Niccolaus Andree Iohannnis del Capa 1462

683 Niccolaus Antonij Folchi 1458, 1466 Niccolaus ser Antonij Nicolai ser 684 Antonij de Rovais 1503

685 Niccolaus Berti Martini 1447

686 Niccolaus Cristofari Honofrij de Ferrinis 1476

687 Niccolaus Diedi Nicolai Diedi 1439, 1451

688 Niccolaus Dorathei Andree de Fiorellis 1487

689 Niccolaus Francisci Niccolai Andree 1444, 1450

690 Niccolaus Francisci Montevarchi 1386

691 Niccolaus Francisci Linari 1398, 1407

692 Niccolaus Guidonis Pistoia 1500

693 Niccolaus Guidotti del Campana 1481

694 Niccolaus Iohannis Giani 1324

695 Niccolaus Iunte Rosonis 1389 274

696 Niccolaus Manecti 1376

697 Niccolaus Michaelis Fei Dini 1448

Niccolaus Niccolai domini Nelli de San 698 Nellis Gimignano 1521, 1528

699 Niccolaus Pardi Antonij Pardi 1455, 1466

700 Niccolaus Pauli Montevarchi 1418

701 Niccolaus Pieri Bartoli de Ligis 1512

702 Niccolaus Pieri Bernardi 1461, 1465, 1470

703 Niccolaus Pieri Octavanti 1414, 1428 Niccolaus ser Antonij Parentis Antonij 704 Parentis 1521

705 Niccolaus ser Antonij ser Bandini Romena 1459, 1495

706 Niccolaus ser Ciuti Cecchi 1377 Niccolaus ser Francisci ser Benedicti de 707 Ciardis 1510

708 Niccolaus ser Guidonis ser Bonaiuti 1383

Castel 709 Niccolaus ser Iunte Fiorentino 1337-38

710 Niccolaus ser Pieri Mazzetti 1392

711 Niccolaus ser Verdiani Arrighi 1414, 1427, 1429

712 Niccolaus Silvestri Salamonis 1516, 1526

713 Niccolaus Simonis de Biffolis 1420

714 Niccolaus Tinucij 1419

715 Niccolaus Valentini Nicholai Valentini 1462

716 Niccolaus Perozzi 1397

717 Niccolaus ser Pieri Guccij Sirigati 1390, 1400

718 Niccolaus ser Serragli 1370, 1376

719 Niccolaus ser Venture Monachi 1343, 1350, 1362, 1371, 1377

720 Niccolaus ser Zenobij Paonis 1358, 1365, 1374

721 Nofrius Nofri Iacobi Nerozzij 1388

722 Nofrius ser Nepi 1396 275

723 Nofrius ser Pauli Nemmi 1396, 1403, 1408

724 Nofrius ser Pieri ser Grifi 1410

725 Nofrius Zenobij de Biffolis 1396

726 Octavianus ser Bartholomei Iuliani Ripa 1498, 1501

727 Oddus ser Benincase Altomena 1296-97

728 Orlandinus Nini Beliotti 1298-99

729 Orlandus Iohannis 1401, 1416

730 Paces Bambelli Pacis 1514

731 Parigius Rustici Signa 1283-84

732 Paulus Antonij Bartolomei Pauli de Meis 1502, 1506

733 Paulus Cini Iacobi Cini 1434, 1436, 1441

734 Paulus Laurentij Benivieni 1442 Paulus Laurentij Christofani de 735 Benivienis 1478

736 Paulus Laurentij Pauli 1447, 1451, 1471

737 Paulus Lippi Brozzi 1411

738 Paulus Nemmi Mugello 1356, 1369

739 Paulus Pieri Bartolomei 1414

740 Paulus Salvi Radda 1395

741 Paulus ser Arrigi Fighino 1387

742 Paulus ser Francisci ser Dominici Catignano 1528

743 Paulus ser Francisci magistri Petri 1395, 1407, 1416

744 Paulus ser Guidonis ser Grifi 1391, 1426

745 Paulus ser Henrici domini Pauli 1403 Paulus ser Iohannis ser Pauli de 746 Dieciaiutis 1507 Paulus ser Simonis Pauli ser Guidonis 747 Gilij 1448, 1472

748 Paulus Volte Benis Puccij 1442

749 Petraccholus ser Parenzi 1300-01 Petrus Antonius Petri ser Petri de 750 Laurentiis 1509 276

San Giovanni in 751 Petrus Roggerij Valdarno 1394 Petrus Lodovici Andreae de Gemariis, 752 alias dell'Orafo 1531 Petrus Franciscus ser Macharij Andreae 753 de Machallis 1513

754 Petrus ser Francisci Dominici de Sinis 1517, 1521, 1527 Petrus ser Dominici Bonaccursij de 755 Bonaccursiis 1515

756 Petrus Maria ser Francisci Lotti San Miniato 1528

757 Petrus Tomasius Pierantonij de Chardis 1530

758 Pierozius Cerbini Bartholomei Cerbini 1470, 1484

759 Pierus Antonij Laurentij 1443, 1458

760 Pierus Antonij Pieri Migliorotti 1443

761 Pierus Antonij ser Pieri Vinci 1485

762 Pierus Baldi 1336-37 Pierus Bernardi Bartholomei de 763 Cenininis 1473, 1481

764 Pierus Berti Filicaria 1437

765 Pierus Caroli del Viva 1465

766 Pierus Cini 1370

767 Pierus Francisci del Besso 1492

768 Pierus Francisci Calcagni 1425

769 Pierus Guccij Muscini 1349, 1359

770 Pierus Iacobi Migliorelli 1445, 1451

771 Pierus Ioannis Pieri Meleto 1499, 1504

772 Pierus Laurentij Castellaccio 1433

773 Pierus Lippi Puccetti 1415

774 Pierus Maestrini Petri de Maestrinis 1478

775 Pierus Ottinelli Signa 1320-21, 1322-23

776 Pierus Puccij 1354

777 Pierus Ruggierij San Giovanni 1408, 1414 277

Valdarno

778 Pierus ser Andree Campi 1487

779 Pierus ser Bernabe Antonij del Sera 1471

780 Pierus ser Bettini Villanuova 1398

781 Pierus ser Bonacursi Pieri Bonacursij 1441 Pierus ser Dominici Bonaccursij de 782 Bonaccursiis 1527

Gangalandi (S. 783 Pierus ser Fini Martino a) 1340-41

784 Pierus ser Guidonis Michaelis 1413

785 Pierus ser Guidonis ser Grifi 1392

786 Pierus ser Lodovici Doffi degli Statuti 1399, 1420, 1424, 1433

787 Pierus ser Maconis 1328-29

788 Pierus ser Mariani Bartoli Cecchi 1453, 1485

789 Pierus ser Michaelis Guidi 1431

790 Pierus ser Pauli Gratiani 1434

791 Pierus ser Simonis Berti 1418, 1430

792 Pierus ser Tommasi ser Francisci 1399

793 Pierus Venture Monte Mori 1326-27

794 Pierus Mazzetti 1350, 1362, 1366, 1372

795 Pierus Nelli Corsi 1355, 1360, 1368, 1385

796 Pierus ser Buoni Ugnano 1304-05, 1306-07, 1311-12, 1314-15

797 Pierus ser Stefani Casciani 1367, 1375, 1385

798 Piglialarme Pacini 1330-31, 1343

799 Pinus Biechi Signa 1296-97, 1297-98

800 Puccinus ser Lapi Puccini 1354

801 Puccius Venture Monte Mori 1310-11, 1326-27

802 Rafael ser Antonij Nicolai de Rovais 1505 Rafael Antonij magistri Petri de Puteo 803 Toscanelli 1523

804 Rafael Miniatis Mathiae de Baldesiis 1531 278

805 Rainerius ser Melioris Manecti Masini 1517

806 Rainerius Tholomey 1290-91, 1298-99, 1300-01

807 Raynaldus Naccij Cepparello 1323-24

808 Raynerius Salvi Vincio 1296-97, 1299-1300

809 Renaldus Uberti Baldovini 1314-15, 1318-19, 1335-40

810 Ricchus Dominici Francisci Spinelli 1427, 1444

811 Ricchus Pegolotti 1307-08

812 Ricciardus Bernardi Riccardini 1392

813 Ricciardus Cini 1366

Castel Franco 814 Ricciardus Pieri di Sopra 1395, 1410, 1416

815 Ricciardus ser Beneditti Dini Ciardi 1476

Gangalandi (S. 816 Ridolfinus Tuccii Martino a) 1306-07

817 Ridulfus Filippi de Pretasinis 1299-1300

1284-85, 1288-89, 1289-90, 1296-97, 818 Rinaldus Iacobi Signa 1305-06

819 Ristorus Bencivennis 1330-31

820 Ristorus ser Iacobi Fighino 1384 Robertus Antonij de Milianis de 821 Anglario 1516

822 Robertus Antonij ser Donati ser Iacobi 1463

823 Robertus Finuccij 1385 Robertus ser Francisci ser Niccolai de 824 Martinis 1513, 1519, 1527, 1531

825 Roggerius ser Guillielmi Bernardi 1288-89

826 Roggerius Soderini 1282-83

827 Roma Bartoli 1396

828 Romeus Locterij 1301-02

829 Romulus ser Guidonis ser Salvi 1450, 1474

830 Romulus ser Tricoli 1328-29 1347 279

831 Rossus Francisci Iohannis del Rosso 1518

832 Ruccus ser Iohannis Rondinaia 1338-39

1306-07, 1310-11, 1314-15, 1335-36, 833 Rusticus Moranduccij Bondonis 1341-42

834 Sacchusser Dati Carrara 1304-05

835 Salvi Gai 1370

836 Salvi Dini 1323-24, 1336-37

Castel Franco 837 Sancti Iohannis di Sopra 1398

838 Santi Bruni 1352, 1359

Castel 839 Scharlattus Benvenuti Fiorentino 1309-10

840 Scoctus ser Benincase Altomena 1316-17

841 Scolaus (Scolaius) Andree Guccij 1400, 1412, 1421

842 Sebastianus ser Caroli Pieri Fiorenzuola 1527

843 Sebastianus ser Niccolai Guidonis Pistoia 1520, 1530

844 Silvanus Iohannis Fruosini ser Marini 1468

845 Silvester ser Thomasi ser Silvestri 1416, 1425

846 Simon Berti Dini 1426

847 Simon Dini Simonis Doni Ponte a Sieve 1493 Simon Gratini (Grazini) Iacobi Gratini 848 (Grazini) Stagia 1461, 1475

849 Simon Guidalocti 1286-87

850 Simon Lapi Campi 1341-42, 1349, 1355

851 Simon Pieri Bartholomei de Biuttis 1499, 1507, 1512

852 Simon Poggini Iacobi Poggini 1482

853 Simon Taddei Cerreto 1355

854 Solettus Filippi Nicholai Fei 1454, 1463

855 Spigliatus Dini 1326-27

856 Stefanus Antonij Pacis de Calandrinis 1493, 1511

857 Stefanus Antonij Pacis de Bambelbellis 1515 280

858 Stefanus Casciani 1332-33

859 Stefanus Filippi ser Stefani Manieri 1469, 1480

860 Stefanus Iohannis 1325-26

861 Stefanus Michaelis Martelli 1397, 1421, 1423

862 Stefanus Raynerij Foresis 1397, 1399, 1420 Stefanus ser Bernardi Dominici de 863 Vermiglis 1529

864 Stefanus ser Naddi ser Nepi 1413, 1429

865 Stefanus ser Niccolai Poggibonzi 1391, 1410

866 Stefanus Toschanelli 1304-05

867 Taddeus Lapi 1356

868 Taddeus ser Bernardi Carchelli 1405

869 Tancredus ser Bencivenni 1292-93, 1293-94, 1294-95

870 Tanus Nardi de Guasconibus 1312-13, 1340-41, 1345

871 Tedaldus Orlandini Rustichelli 1287-88, 1287-88

872 Teghiaius Ughi de Altovitis 1378

873 Ticcius Ciani 1319-20

874 Tinellus ser Bonasere 1370

875 Tinus ser Attaviani (Ottaviani) 1364, 1379

876 Tommas Aldobrandi 1375 Tommas Baronis ser Bartholomei 877 Mormorai 1480, 1484, 1496, 1500, 1507

878 Tommas Dominici Carondini 1438 Tommas ser Bartholomei Nerij de 879 Orlandis 1481 Tommas Pieri Iohannis Dominici 880 dell'Ossaio 1494, 1504, 1508 Tommas ser Rafaelis ser Antonij de 881 Rovariis 1531

882 Tommasus Lamberti Signa 1331-32, 1350, 1360, 1364

883 Tommasus Redditi 1378, 1382

884 Tommasus Iacobi Gilij Schiattesi 1402, 1412, 1426

885 Tommasus Mattei Grazini Grazini 1489 281

Tommasus ser Dominici Thommasi 886 Moscardi 1449

887 Tommasus ser Francisci Masij 1387 Tommasus ser Iohannis Baptiste Albizi 888 de Seralibizis 1516

889 Tommasus ser Iohannis Masij Francisci 1492

890 Tommasus ser Iuliani Iacobis del Maza 1477, 1498

891 Tommasus ser Luce Francisci 1427

892 Tommasus ser Pieri Angeli Cionis 1435, 1452

893 Tommasus ser Silvestri ser Bernardi 1394

894 Tommasus Buccij Certaldo 1320-21, 1322-23

895 Ubertus Martini Berti 1441, 1451

896 Ubertus Carrara 1289-90

897 Ugolinus Peruzzi 1395, 1406, 1418

898 Ugolinus ser Contis 1334-35

899 Ugolinus ser Guccij Ortignano 1450, 1456

900 Ugolinus Villanuova 1368 Ugolinus magistri Pauli Verij Ugolini 901 Verij 1495, 1501, 1523

1303-04, 1305-06, 1307-08, 1326-27, 902 Uguiccione domini Raynerij Bondonis 1329-30, 1334-35

903 Vannes Stafani Vannis Sambuca 1384, 1404

904 Ventura Monachi 1330-31

905 Verdianus Arrighi 1372, 1391

906 Verdianus ser Donati ser Iacobi San Miniato 1442

907 Vermiglius ser Franchini 1369

908 Vincentius ser Dini de Fortinis 1399

909 Vivaldus Contis Vivaldis 1492 Zacharias Antonij Iohannis de 910 Minnoribus 1529

911 Zenobius Datti Gangalandi 1393, 1406

912 Zenobius Niccolai del Monte 1408 282

913 Zenobius Iacobi ser Antonij de Salvettis 1512, 1521, 1528

914 Zenobius ser Ioannis Bernardi 1473, 1481

915 Zenobius Pacis Zenobij Pacis 1525

916 Zenobius ser Pauli Pieri Bartolomei 1449, 1457

917 Zenobius ser Bartoli Pozzolatico 1325-26, 1328-29, 1331-32

918 Zucherus Iunte 1319-20

283

A P P E N D I X I I ______

The Sonnets of Ventura Monachi : A Translation

A note on translations: In preparing the translations of the sonnets of Ventura Monachi, I have benefited from the notes accompanying the two complete editions of the sonnets: 1) Selene Vatteroni, ed. Ventura Monachi: Sonetti. Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2017. 2) Adolfo Mabellini, ed. Sonetti editi ed inediti di Ser Ventura Monachi. Turin- Rome: Paravia, 1903. I have also consulted the notes accompanying the selection of eight sonnets included in the Rimatori del Trecento, ed. Giusppe Corsi (Turin: UTET, 1969), and in the editions and interpretations of individual poems listed on pp. 66-72 of Vatteroni’s edition. Vatteroni’s edition also provides complete descriptions of the fifty-seven known manuscript witnesses to Ventura’s sonnets.

The text reproduced for reference at the foot of the pages below is Vatteroni’s, which is now considered the standard edition. Apart from making substantive changes to the majority of the sonnets in Mabellini’s edition, Vatteroni confirms Ventura’s participation in a fifth tenzone, unattested by Mabellini (translated as 4 and 4a, below) and first edited in Giovanni Fabris, Il codice udinese Ottelio di antiche rime volgari (Cividal del Friuli: Fratelli Stagni, 1911), 75-76. When and where my translations do not conform to Vatteroni’s note, I note divergences either within my translations with an asterisk (*) or within the lemmata at the bottom of the page.

The order and numbering of the sonnets found here does not conform to that of Vatteroni who, insofar as possible, provides a chronological arrangement. In some cases, I remain doubtful about the reliability of chronological conjectures so, I have opted instead to group the sonnets thematically (as does Mabellini, but I advance different themes), frontloading the tenzoni and the sonnets on political matters in order to emphasize both the sociability of Ventura’s oeuvre and his active engagement with political affairs, the two main concerns treated in Chapter Three above.

This appendix also includes translations of all the sonnets of Ventura’s interlocutors in poetic exchanges; these poems are indicated by italics. The names of the respondents (which appear in square brackets when the exact identity of the poet is questionable) are provided in headings to the translations. Additional headings appear before the translations of certain sonnets in order to aid the reader in situating the circumstances of the sonnets’ composition. 284

Tenzoni 1 Giovanni, i’ son condotto in terra acquatica 285 1a Poi che fortuna v’è tanta lunatica 286 1b I’ veggio, ser Ventura, la matricola 287 1c Tu vien da longi con rima balbatica 288 1d Ventura, i’ sento di quella panatica 289 2 Due forsette, ser Ventura, bionde 290 2a S’tu ssè giocoso, e me doglia confonde 291 3 Quando vi state, ser Ventura Monachi 292 3a Amico, ben mi duol se tu t’intronachi 293 4 Quanto più l’arco de l’ingegno torco 294 4a Piloso assai più che leone od orco 295 5 Nel campo spazïoso della mente 296 5a La bella questïon che novamente 297 5b Vostra responsïon saggia ed onesta 298 5c Udir vostro sonar sì m’è gran festa 299 5d Or sento dipartir la nebbia scura 300 5e Io sto como colui che, grande altura 301 5f Io vedo ben che ’l domandare spesso 302 5g A poco a poco, mirando me stesso 303 5h Benché degli altri s’ametta la scusa 304 5i Sottilmente se sforza vostra musa 305 Political sonnets 6 Ben son di pietra s’io non mi ramarico 306 7 Egli è sì spenta la virtù d’Ipolito 307 8 Ben à Giove con voi partito ‘l regno 308 9 Re di Ierusalem e di Sicilia 309 10 Voluta à riparar la ca’ Selvatica 310 11 Se la Fortuna t’à fatto Signore 311 Love sonnets 12 Colui ch’andò inn inferno per la moglie 312 13 Chi vuol veder una solenne festa 313 14 Come Atteon si fé subito servo 314 15 Veggendo pur che l’arco di Cupido 315 16 Di novo gli occhi miei, per accidente 316 17 Poi che Pietate in tutto m’abbandona 317

285

1 In Venice: Giovanni, I have been sent into an aquatic land and I live like a beaver partly in water neither clear nor sweet like that of the Tiber but rather savage to see and to taste. 5 I am among people with such strange practices and who have habits so different from others that all the customs of others to them seem alien from their own, more than the Armenians with Latin. Every man chronicles his own judgement 10 and there are as many as they happen to formulate: the Inforzato and the Codex mean nothing. One can’t earn anything or even a little from them; Whoever does business with them without suffering damages can say that he has more virtue than betony. 15 If you don’t send me guidance to give me strength I will as happy here as a bird in captivity. ______

1 Giovanni, i’ son condotto in terra acquatica E ciascun mette suo parer in cronica, e vivo parte in acqua come bevero, 10 e tante son le leggi quante capita: chiara né dolce, non come di Tevero, ànno per nulla lo ’Nforzato e ’l Codico. ma nel viso e nel gusto assai salvatica; Guadagnasi con lor nïente o modico; 5 e son tra gente di sì nuova pratica, chi traffica con loro e non ne scapita e tengon modo sì dagl’altri scevero, può dir ch’à più virtù che lla brettonica. ch’ogni costume altrui gli par dilivero dal lor più che ll’Ermin dalla gramatica. 15 Se di conforto a me non porgi regola starocci lieto come tordo in pegola. ______

1 Giovanni: the incipit of the sonnet addressed to Cecco varies – Cecco, io so congiunto in terr’acquatico 14 la bretonica: betonica, “betony” was considered a cure all; see Boccaccio, Il ninfale d’Ameto, 44, “bettonica, piena di molte virtù” 11 lo ’Nforzato e ’l Codico: the “Digestum infortiatum” and the “Codex Justinianus,” respectively, were parts of the Corpus iuris civilis

286

1a Giovanni Lambertucci dei Frescobaldi: Since Fortune acted so unpredictably with you that she led you by chance into such a mess amongst people who have no consistency, no custom, and no law, except Hebrew customs 5 I give you a directive, not like that of Damietta, but that of those wise men who drink the water and then become the companions of others whose minds have been freed from wandering thoughts. Thus, dress yourself in garments like theirs, 10 since a parrot is out of place among owls, as a great teacher of logic is out of place among women. Ventura, I know that the lovely customs of the Arno (the enjoyment of rumps!) pleases you more. Here one lives sweetly, as Veronico well knows. 15 Yet, don’t be so eager to return here such that you will fail to follow a true course. Once you return to see Fiesole, then you can leave behind every manner of island waters. ______

1 Poi che Fortuna v’è tanto lunatica 10 chè tra civette un pappagal mal abita, che v’à condotto con fortun’al pevero, over tra donne un gran maestro lodico. tra quella gente ove non à persevero modo né legge, ma usanza ebratica, Ventura, i’ so che ‘l bel costume arnonico t’è più in piacer (ma per gustare a natica!): 5 ordine dono a voi non di Damatica, si vive al dolce, e ben lo sa Veronico. ma di que’ savi che dell’acqua bevvero, onde consorti fûr di que’ che livero 15 Non siate del tornar qua tanto in fregola, tengono ’l capo della mente eratica. che voi falliste il ben seguir la stegola!

Perciò vestite voi di simil tonica, Ma quando ritornate a vedere Fiesole lasciate ogni costume d’acqua di esole. ______2 pevero: pesto, a relish composed of an assortment of ingredients thus, “led you by chance into such a mess (or a jumble or mishmash); Vatteroni suggests “and led you with money to the place where pepper is traded” 5 Damatica: Damietta (as per Vatteroni, where Damatica is given as a toponymic variant to fit the verse), the site of multiple ruinous defeats of Crusaders in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries; variants include: domatica (as per Mabellini) that is, “I provide you with a rule that is not dogmatic” and damatica, perhaps a neomorphism of “dama” (again adapted to fit the verse) and thus, “I provide you with a rule, not for women.” 6-8 que’ savi … mente eratica: literally, “those wise men who drink water, and as a consequence are companions of those who keep their heads free of any mental instability” 13 ma per gustare: following Vatteroni who reads “per” with a causal value 287

1b Giovanni Lambertucci dei Frescobaldi: I see, ser Ventura, the register you must keep in order to live with the Venetians, so that you don’t behave like someone on the Lethe* who is always capsizing his ship. You should forget every particular; as for the lovely customs of which you are a master, leave them to others and act like a mad man so that you might live like them: alla veneziana. Give them skewers of feathered woodlarks, and there will be more laurels for you than for Virgil and more trust for you than for brother Giles. Doing thus, we will acquire a consignment of such value that, just thinking on it, I delight about these words that I have given you in advice. I have lost your aquatic rhymes and changed the sleeves of this sonnet. ______

1 I’ veggio, ser Ventura, la matricola Donar cannate di pennute allodole che vi convien tener con l’uom venetico, 10 per voi sia fatto a llor più ch’a Vergilio, a ciò che non facciate come l’etico, e nella fé’ più a te ch’a fra Gilio. che sempre affonda giù la suo navicola: Così facendo ’cquisteren navilio 5 dimenticar convienvi ogni particola, di tal valor che, pur pensando, godole e’ be’ costumi di che siete medico queste parole, che di pruova io dòle. lasciargli ad altri, e far come farnetico, sì chè con lor viviate alla baìcola. 15 Io ò perdute vostre rime acquatiche, sì cch’al sonecto i’ ò mutate maniche. ______3 l’etico: my translation diverges from Vatteroni to read “Letico,” a Lethean, or someone on the Lethe, a neat parallel for Giovanni’s nautical theme throughout, however, variants abound; Vatteroni suggests instead that “come l’etico” recalls Inferno XXX, 29-31 (“faceva lui tener le labbra aperte / che come l’etico fa, che per la sete / l’un verso ‘l mento e l’altro in su rinverte”) or refers to a man who lives ethically 9 Donar cannate: i.e., “shower them with flattery” 11 fra Gilio: possibly the logician Giles of Rome (1243-1316) 12 acquisteren: the first person plural desinence in -n[o] instead of -mo was a common morpheme in thirteenth- and fourteenth- century Florentine; see Manni, "Ricerche sui tratti fonetici e morfologici del fiorentino quattrocentesco" in Studi di grammatica italiana 8 (1979): 115-171, 161 ~ navilio: a ship, or a “shipload” 288

1c [Cecco d’Ascoli] You send your sorrowful rhymes from far away, the most sorrowful I think I will ever know but, if you came here to where the Tiber is born, or the socratic school, you would cease [such sorrowful rhyming]. If you are amongst people that seem crazy, you should read a book made such that you can note there what I am about to write you, if you want to acquire the virtue of a diamond. Do not be melancholic while amongst them. Use caution over and over again. Know when to act like a Frank or a Rhodian. Continue as needed, straight or vacillating. You will succeed more surely than sardonyx. To me, your word is a strict rule, thus, don't consider mine to be silliness. ______

1 Tu vien da longi con rima balbatica, Non star fra lor con vista melenconica, la più ch'io creda audir quanto ch'io vìvero, 10 usa cautela e spesso la recapita, ma, si venissi qua do' nase 'l Tevero, e sapite mustrar franco e rodico; te basterebbe, o da scola socratica. e va' su, con' bisogna, dritt'o chiodico: 5 Se stai fra gente ch'asembri lunatica, capitarai, con' quei che bene acapita, legger te converrà sì fatto livero asai più chiar che la pietra sardonica. che tu possi notar quel ch'io te scrìvero, se vertù vòi seguire d'adamatica. 15 A me la tua parola è stretta regola, e tu però la mia non tener begola. ______3 si venissi: my translation follows Vatteroni’s punctuation which reads the second person singular, “if you were to come here (from Venice),” but a possible alternative is “s’i’ venissi,” for the first person singular, “if I came here where” ~ nase ’l Tevero: Monte Fumaiolo, about 100 kilometers east of Florence, is the site of the origin of the Tiber; Cecco d’Ascoli was in Florence from 1327 as Charles of Calabria’s “fiscus et familiare” 4 scuola socratica: the meaning of this phrase in uncertain and Vatteroni cites Daniele Piccini “Di un sonetto trecentesco su Venezia per più destinatari: un caso singolare di corrispondenza in versi” in Bertazzoli, et al., Studi, 621-636, 635 where Piccini suggests a comic allusion to the deviant sexual practices Giovanni references

289

1d Giovanni Lambertucci dei Frescobaldi: Ventura, I taste something of that ration which is used in the land where there is ginger, [the land] which to you is more bitter than the thorns of a juniper, so strange and erratic is their way of life. Thus, it is true that capricious people want more sense than any book can teach, where every vice is private and ungoverned and only virtue is continually hunted. And you must abstain as does the friar in his cassock, so that his body trembles, which makes him not stingy, extravagant, or lavish; always make logical arguments, and such arguments from them will be reciprocated. If another has told you differently, he has made an erroneous teaching. The life which your ought to keep, I see it well. This you will know when I am there with you. ______

1 Ventura, i’ sento di quella panatica E’ ti bisogna astener come ’n tonica che s’usa in quella terra ov’è ’l ginzivero, 10 fa ’l frate, che la propria vita palpita, che t’è più aspra che spin di ginivero, che nol fa avaro, liberal né prodico; sì è la vita lor strana ed erratica; ma argomenta sempre come lodico, 5 però sie certo che gente lunatica e tal sermone tra lor sì ricapita: vuol senno più che non insegna ’l Livero, s’altro t’è detto, gli è sentenza erronica. dove ogni vizio v’è privato e livero e sol pur a virtù fa sua venatica. 15 La vita che tenere dèi ben vègola: quella saprai quand’i’ sarò poi tègo là. ______6 Livero: possibly a reference to the “livero” Cecco provides Ventura in 1c above 7 livero: = “libero” in reference to whatsoever/whosoever is free and not subject to anyone or anything else; an alternative sense could be with reference to something which is open or exposed to the civic public 9 la propria vita: Vatteroni, provides a different interpretation of these lines, suggesting they are about clerical greed; she identifies by metonymy the word vita with “food” (as in Paradiso 6, 141 where vita is associated with food, mendicano sua vita a frusto a frusto), and “food” with “money.” Thus, Giovanni counsels Ventura to act like the friar: outwardly seemingly free of vice but all the while feeling his hidden bag of money or food under his tunic; Vatteroni also suggests a possible allusion to genitalia 12 ma argumenta: my translation follows Vatteroni’s punctuation, which indicates she reads the imperative “speak!” here, but “argumenta” could be referring still to the “frate” who “speaks” 290

2 In Pisa: [Giovanni Lambertucci dei Frescobaldi] Two little peasant girls, ser Ventura, blonde beautiful, gay, and delightful come mushrooming with me in the forest. When one sings, the other responds to her, showing they have good reasons why such sweet song flow from them. With their garlands of little green fronds and their skirts tied up to their waists, calling out to me at intervals about a mushroom, “Look! There is one!” each of them, at my request, hides herself amongst the thickets in that part where the mushrooms are more beautiful. This is the way I spend my life, and I desire no other silver or gold as long as their faces don’t wrinkle, since, with a needle that isn’t a wasp’s, has pierced my heart for each of them. I well know that such a rich treasure doesn’t bother you in Pisa since every woman there wrinkles quickly from drink. ______

1 Due forsette, ser Ventura, bionde, fra quelle macchie fonde, belle gaie gioconde, in quella parte dove ’l più bel v’è. meco fugando vegnon per le selve; l’una cantando, l’altra le risponde, Così in questa vita mi dimoro, 5 mostrando ch’aggian donde, né altro argento od oro sì dolce canto da lor si divelve. 15 non chero, finché lor viso non crespa: altr’ago che di vespa Con lor ghirlande di verdette fronde, alzate a le ritonde, punto m’à a morte il cor d’amendue loro! dicendomi del fungo talor “Ve’ ’l, ve’!”, Così ricco tesoro 10 ciascuna a mia richesta si nasconde so ben che in Pisa voi non avespa, 20 ch’ogni femmina v’è per lo ber cispa.

______

3 fungare: hapax, but the meaning is clear 16 ago: Cupid’s arrow? 17 d’amendue loro: ‘per entrambe’ 19 avespa: hapax, a parasynthesis of ‘vespa,’ which Vatteroni understands as “pungere d’amore, far innamorare” 291

2a Ventura: Although you are joyous, pain disturbs me as pouring from my eyes my tears could fill a basin thinking about where I was and how now am somewhere else and how I find myself under the roofs of the wild and cunning foxes. Oh, it is true that there are many Sismondi women with rouged faces available to comfort anyone who comes to them. But they are yellow moles and wrathful with their billowing cloaks, from whom no greeting ever proceeds. It is not surprising then that I weep, because inside I struggle such that I already have wrinkly skin and if it doesn’t unwrinkle in the company of women and with Love under the blissful laurel where my spirit has so often been restored, my life is worth less than a medlar. ______

1 S’tu ssè gioioso, e me doglia confonde, con lor mantelli a onde, ch’agli occhi mi rifonde che mai da llor salute non si svelve. sì cch’empierei di lagrime una pelve, pensando donde fui, or son d’altronde, Non dèi maraviglia dunque s’i’ proro, 5 e sto sotto le gronde perché dentro lavoro delle volpine sotrattose belve. 15 in modo ch’i’ ò già la buccia crespa; e se non si discrespa Oh, egli è ver che ci à molte Sismonde con facce rubiconde con donn’e con Amore faccendo coro per contentar chi ‘n ver’ loro si ‘nvelve; sotto il beato alloro 10 ma talpe sonci gialle e iraconde, ove mia vita sovente rinfresca, mia vita è da pregiar men d’una nespa. ______

6 volpine: Pisans are likend to foxes also in Purgatorio XIV 53, “volpi sì piene di frode” 12 salute: the stilnovistic ‘salute’ to parallel the ‘dolce canto’ of the ‘due forsette,’ as Vatteroni suggests 19 mia vita … rinfresca: the line’s overtly sexual undertones well parallel those from above 292

3 [Giovanni Lambertucci dei Frescobaldi]: While you stand, ser Ventura Monachi, amongst the painted frescoes, with people who always attach themselves to pleasure, I am here to transplant mountainous vines in Breton lands which place a heavy tax on my purse. And never can I get [my music] to sound: the notes of the Teutons and other songs that bring me joy, I don’t know how even to try; and, as my church choir, I have only the tedious churls who transplant my olive-trees in their fields. Oh, how often they put my mind into various disturbances. It is true that they eat marjoram in order that others may better suffer their breath, which they have belched out upon me with the garlicky stench that their mouths pour out and [of] which only God knows the truth; and if you want to speak, you must plug your nose. ______1 Quando vi state, ser Ventura Monachi, duri villan’ rintonachi tra li depinti intonachi che per li campi mie ulive traspongono.

con gente ch’al piacer sempre s’apongono, Oh, quanto me dispongono e io sto a far traspor magliuoi montonachi la mente spesso a turbazion diversa! 5 nelli terren bretonichi, 15 Ver è che mangian persa che grieve imposta alla mia borsa pongono. perch’altri possa mèi soffrir lor alito;

E già mai nulla per me si sonachi: ch’e’ m’ànno già sì ‘nfràlito note di teutonichi col puz’aglioso che lor bocca versa, né altri suon’ che diletto mi pongano che solo Dio el ver sa: 10 provar non so, ed ò per mie calonichi 20 e se vòi dir, val te turar el grugno-no. ______2 depinti intonachi: possibly a reference to the painted halls of government in which Ventura spent his time as a notary-administrator 4 magliuoi montonachi: “mountains cuttings” of vines where “montonachi” is a neomorphism from the root word “monte” made to fit the rhyme 6 pongono.: this is technically not a complete sentence but, I have translated according to Vatteroni’s punctuation 7 E già mai: i.e., he is so unhappy, he doesn’t know how even to produce the music he likes best (see sonnet 12 where Ventura writes to a musician- friend, possibly Giovanni Lambertucci) 293

3a Ventura: Friend, truly it gives me pain that you are deafened among such cruel tribulations, which, (like a lark [continuously pecking] at clods [of earth]) keep recurring as a result of drinking and eating rustic foods or other unappealing concoctions which servants place before someone fasting. Do you like so much to hear the verses of hoes that you would set aside your instruments to converse with those who milk goats? Why make yourself a canon of such a parish? Why are your thoughts so distorted that you would submit yourself to such a life? The vine will produce only one barrel of wine at a time, even if the sun gives it all its heat. Neither will that which pours out oil Be refilled with the juice extracted from only one plant. And, even if it were so, I would not consider you risen to great heights, but rather [I would think that] your virtue was hidden and thrown away. For God’s sake, banish these ideas that subject you to this! ______1 Amico, ben mi duol se tu t’intronachi Perché son tanto erronichi tra màrteri fellonichi, i tuo’ pinsier’, ch’a tal vita ti spongono? che come aloda in zolla se ripongono per bere e per condir cibi camponichi Farrà ‘l magliuol un cugno-no 5 o altri ma’rentronichi, per volta, benché ‘l sol li dia la fersa; che inanzi a chi digiuna e servi pongono. 15 né quei ch’olio riversa fie pien di succo d’una pianta sciàlito:

Piaceti sì udir versi marronichi, E, se ciò fusse, sàlito che stromenti non stonachi alto non te terre’, ma pur somersa per conversar con quei che capre mungono? in te vertud’ e spersa. 10 Deh, perché di tal pieve ti ‘ncalonichi? 20 Per Dio, fuggi’ pinsier’ ch’a ciò ti spongono! ______2 màrteri: literally martyrs so, by metonymy, “tribulations” but, Vatteroni glosses “martèri fellonichi” are “gente lamentosa e inaffidabile” 4-5 se ripongono per: because of my translation of “martèri” above, my translation of these lines also differs from Vatteroni’s whose “martèri” glossed as “gente lamentosa” are like larks squatting amongst the clods of earth in order to eat frugal foods 10 ti ‘ncalonichi: this line prompts Vatteroni to argue that Ventura’s correspondent is a priest and thus, not identifiable with Giovanni Lambertucci; I see no reason, however, not to consider this line figuratively 294

4 Ventura to ser Matteo: The more I sharpen my intellect, the more I find that compassion doesn’t alleviate the woes of love, unless a man puts on wings to escape, of which I am plucked clean as a mouse. So much do I raise and lower myself as per her will with sweet prayers – she cares so much for me! – desire for the beautiful pleasure that obsesses me is making me a pig (as Circe did). And if I should want to return to the form of a man (deciding to turn away from the beautiful desire to which all must commit, as I have done), I wish that I could be transformed, in the Val de Chio, into a plant that renders bitter fruit ([such that] my fruit would only be good for pigs) in order that I will never recognize what I once was.

______

1 Quanto più l’arco de l’ingegno torco, E s’io volesse poi tornar in omo, più trovo al mal d’amor pietà non vale, 10 pensandomi voltar nel bel disio se non ch’uom per fugir si ponga l’ale, in che si doveria, come io, far spromo, di che son io spenato come sorco. s’io fusse traformato in Val de Chio 5 Tanto col suo voler mi lievo e corco, in pianta che menasse acerbo pomo, con dolci prieghi, si di me gli ‘ncale, che sol di porzi fusse il frutto mio, voglia del bel piacer di che m’assale, come Circe solìa, mi facia porco. 15 senza trovar di me che fusse mio.

______

Ventura a ser Matteo: this rubric appears in the sole manuscript witness to the tenzone (Udine, Biblioteca Comunale Vincenzo Joppi, 10, 175v-r)

4 spenato: “dis-penato,” to be plucked of feathers 5 suo voler: Vatteroni suggests “suo” refers to Love, but I read this as the lady of Ventura’s desire which, I think, clarifies the next lines 6 ‘ncale: from “calere,” here used ironically, means “to tend to” or “care for” 8 facia: = faceva; the syntax in this quatrain is confusing but, the best sense seems to be rendered by an imperfect finial verb (by attraction with solìa) and not the conditional “faccia” which Vatteroni suggests 11 far spromo: a neomorfism which Vatteroni suggests derives from the verb “promere,” meaning to bring forth; the -s prefix could have either a privative or an intensifying value (as I have chosen to translate it here) 12 Val di Chio: or the Valle di Chio is a valley located south of Arezzo and east of Castiglion Fiorentino; 295

4a Ser Matteo: I see you, much more furry that a lion or an ogre, made fragile only by thinking about love, even though I find you, in your speech, her loyal servant – according to how I understand it. And I assure you, in the name of her for whom I torment myself And who breaks my wings and arrow, that I have compassion for your hard pain; but I can’t show you what I have in my heart. And if knew in exactly which house she lives, she who goes about oblivious to you in a manner that even I scratch and tear at myself for your sake, I would go and entreat her, in the name of God (even if she lives further than Como) to understand your miserable state. But, if this isn’t enough, I would leave her to God. ______

Piloso assai più che leone od orco, E s’io sapesse propriamente in domo sol per pensar d’amor vi vegio frale, 10 dove abita costei, che v’à in oblio bench’io vi trovo, in vostro dir, leale in guisa che per voi mi grafio e schiomo, servo di quella, secondo m’acorco. i’ verei a pregarla, in fé di Dio, 5 E giurovi per quella cui m’inforco s’el’abitasse ancor di là da Como, e che mi tarpa la pene e lo strale, che cogitasse a vostro stato rio. ch’ i’ ò compassion del vostro duro male, ma i’ non posso mostrar ciò ch’i’ò nel cor-co. 15 Se non giovasse, lassarei’ la a Dio ______

1-4 Piloso … m’acorco: with the sense “I see that you, who are usually so thick-skinned, have been laid low by love; at the same time, you claim to be your beloved’s devoted servant, so far as I can make out from your words” 296

5 Ventura on “Sight”: In the vast field of my mind, standing before the divine appearance, I saw a noble human subject debate with powerful Nature, saying to her: “O, my wise mistress, since you want to form me perfectly imbued with the virtues which give delight to a living and perceptive soul, you gave me Sight. But – as everyone knows – the qualities of your beautiful works descend so sweetly through these the eyes to the heart that, thanks to them, Reason fails; and so, reason often deplores the act of seeing through which it is affected by untamed passions.” ______

1 Nel campo spazïoso della mente, festimi el viso. Ma – ognun comprende – stando davanti al divino aspetto 10 la qualità de le tue opre belle vidi l’umano nobile suggetto sì dolcemente con esse discende contender con la Natura possente, al cor, che la ragion manca per elle, 5 dicendoli: “Maestra mia saccente, e spesso l’atto del veder riprende, volendo tu formarme ben perfetto per cui ’l sente la passion revelle. de le vertute che porgon diletto a l’anima che drento vive e sente,

______

This tenzone includes ten sonnets which address each of the five senses in pairs: one sense is treated first by Ventura and then by ser Gaudio (his unidentified interlocutor), and so forth. The tenzone is extant in only one manuscript witness dating from the sixteenth century (Vatican City, Biblioteca Vaticana, Vaticano latino 4823).

1 mente: might also be translated as memory 297

5a Ser Gaudio’s response: The interesting question which recently you have posed to me with great intellect will not, because of my deficiency, have a response that is well founded nor that is sufficient; but in as much as my knowledge allows me, I will speak about the eyes and what they see, thanks to which the human heart is injured and tempted because of the poison of the ancient serpent. Great Nature, who shines in and of herself, adorns our body with the five senses and made Sight reach out as far as possible only in order to contemplate the good, the sun, and the stars: and if she turns to other things, she offends Reason, protecting neither herself nor her sisters. ______

1 La bella questïon che novamente L’alta Natura che da sé risplende m’avete messa del grande intelletto 10 ornò de’ cinque sensi nostra pelle, risposta non arà dal mio difetto e feo ch ’l viso più largo si stende che vaglia né che sia sufficiente; sol che mirasse el ben, lo sol, le stelle: 5 ma quanto ch ’l saver a me consente, s’ad altro volta, la ragion offende, dirò de l’occhi e de lo loro obietto, non difendendo sé né suo sorelle. dal qual s’offende e tenta l’uman petto per lo venen de l’antico serpente. ______

Responsio ser Gaudio: the rubric which names Ventura’s interlocutor, the unidentified ser Gaudio

14 sorelle: literally, “the other senses”

298

5b Ventura on “Hearing”: Your response, wise and honest, has clarified every one of my doubts, but it happens to me, as it does to a greedy man who, the more he is enriched, the more he desires to have. I can well see that if it weren’t for the guarantee that this valuable sense of Sight gives to the mind, man would be ignorant of the Creator, nor would he see the ornate spectacle of the sky. But why not make equal that other sense which you [Nature] have tucked away, the organ of Hearing, to serve as nests for small animals? He who couldn’t hear the sound of the tongue would certainly avoid many evils; and so, I ask you, how is Hearing good? ______

1 Vostra responsïon saggia ed onesta Ma perché non far l’altre parti equali Del mio dubbiare m’à renduto chiaro, 10 ove piantasti l’organo del suono, ma el m’avene como a l’omo avaro, per spelunche di piccioli animali? quanto più arricca più d’aver molesta. Chi della lingua non udisse el tuono, 5 Io vedo ben, se non fusse la presta cessariano per certo molti mali: che fa la mente questo senso caro, però domando a che l’udire è bono. del Criatore serïa l’omo ignaro né vederia del ciel l’ornata vesta.

______

9 l’altre parti: presumably referring specifically to the ears in line 10 9-11 Ma … animali: the verb forms change from second person to third in order to address Nature 13 cessariano … mali: evils are the subject of the verb so, literally, “For whosever couldn’t hear …, certainly many evils would cease”

299

5c Ser Gaudio’s response: To hear you speak brings me great joy and the more I hear from you, the more I learn. Yet, after feeling such sweetness I become sad and embittered thinking that I am unable to meet your capability. This is not food for my mind where subtle foods have never entered. But, you must forgive me if I speak contrary to what your question asks. Words are like arrows to the ear and they can produce either good or evil with their sounds, so that some are elated by them while with others are brought low. Ears have the duty of hearing the praise of God and of learning the enough wisdom that they will know how to acquire the eternal gift. ______

1 Udir vostro sonar sì m’è gran festa Son le parole de l’audito strali e quanto v’odo più, tanto più imparo; 10 e portan male e ben con loro tuono, ma tristo torno e, di dolce, amaro sì che altri per lor scende e altri sale; pensando ch’io non basto a vostra gesta. per udir Dio laudar l’ufficio òno 5 Non è, questo, morsel della mia testa, l’orecchie, e per imparar scienzie tali ove cibi suttil’ mai non intraro; che sappiano aquistar l’eterno dono. però m’è perdonato se’l contraro dicesse a quel che cerca vostra inchiesta. ______

300

5d Ventura on “Taste”: Now I feel the dark fog, which has kept the eyes of my mind covered, lifting, thanks to the lessons I have learned from your serene and pure reason. But, why has Nature created the sense of Taste? Just look how dangerous it is to many: thousands and thousands lie buried by this sense without mentioning the original sin, which is the harshest [sin]. How cruelly did the first man taste and how damaging was the sweetness of the forbidden apple that he wanted to try! Man, created happy, placed at the highest heights! It was because of Taste that he fell such that his descendants still weep at the burden. ______

1 Or sento dipartir la nebbia scura Co’ mal crudel gustò lo primo omo, che tenìa l’occhi de la mente involti, 10 e quanto fu dannosa la dolcezza, per l’argomenti ch’io aggio raccolti ché provar volse ’l devetato pomo. da la vostra ragion serena e pura. Fatto filice, posto in suma altezza, 5 Ma perché fare el gusto la Natura? per lo gustar diede sì facto tomo, E vede quanto è periglioso a molti, ch’ancor li suoi ne piangon de gravezza. che mille e mille ne iaccion soppolti senza la prima colpa, ch’è più dura. ______

7-8 che … dura: the sense here is a bit confusing so, my translation follows Vatteroni’s suggestion that “iaccion” is the conditional expressed in the indicative and “ne” is a pleonasm

301

5e Ser Gaudio’s response: I am like one who, gazing up to the great heights, am dazzled and see multiple images for each single object because my spirits are weakened by too much difficulty and excessive concentration. You have broken every one of my (intellectual) armaments Which I am barely able to wield anyway, you well know, you who listen to me. Since you have already blocked my thoughts, I can only pray to God: “Help your creation!” Taste was necessary to sustain the other senses, as knowing bitterness through pleasure, in order to perfect the sensibilities of man. If the first transgressor through his absentmindedness fell by tasting, then this teaches us not to seek out that which is vain. ______

1 Io sto como colui che, grande altura Bisognò ‘l gusto a’ suoi conforti como mirando, abaglia et d’un volto fa volti, 10 cognoscer per lo dolce l’amarezza, per li spirti che fa vinire sciolti per far perfetta la sensibil domo. lo troppo carco e soverchia cura. S’el primo trasgressor per sua vaghezza 5 Voi me rompìte sì ogni armatura, gustando cadde, noi da esso mo’ che poco posso – tu sai che m’ascolti; siam amastrati a non sequir vanezza. e se avete già mie’ pinsier’ folti, Dio però prego: “Aiuta tua fattura!” ______

9-11 Bisognò … domo: with the sense, “Taste was necessary (just as it is necessary to know bitterness through pleasure) in order to have a complete array of the senses”

302

5f Ventura on “Smell”: I can well see how asking questions frequently is the key to virtuous wisdom which opens and allows easy entrance into that treasure which God holds most dearly. Your speech, which I completely agree with, has lifted from my mind the beam of my ignorance, which was so heavy, giving me ample entry to Truth. Yet, why did Nature attach on front of the face a horn of soft flesh which is called a nose, trained on disgusting things, and, when it turns around, an explorer of stink and a pot for filth; and, for whoever has one, a cause of shameful scorn if, by some disaster, a piece is cut off. ______

1 Io vedo ben che ’l domandare spesso ma che fé a far denanzi al viso un corno è di sapienza virtüosa chiave, 10 de carne molle che se chiama naso, la qual diserra e fa intrar soave supra lo schifo e, al girar dintorno, e·llo tesoro che Dio à più appresso. spion de puzze et di sozzure vaso, 5 Lo vostro ditto, ch’io tanto confesso, e di chi ’l porta vergognoso scorno m’à da la mente levata la trave se per sciagura alquanto n’è giù raso? de l’ignoranza mia, ch’era sì grave, dandomi al vero liberal ingresso.

______

303

5g Ser Gaudio’s response: Little by little, as I look at myself: I find myself in a fragile ship in the middle of a great storm; Your rebuffs are so sharp and piercing that they the wood of my ship split. My vain presumption has brought me to this point, Uncovering my meager knowledge. You mock the many nostrils to which Nature assigned their task. The nose is that which adorns the face and it always goes about exploring smells, evading the bad ones and lingering over the good ones. I don’t know if I am dreaming at Parnassus, but I don’t change my opinion on this: the sense of Smell is good in every case. ______

1 A poco a poco, mirando me stesso, Questo è colui che fa lo viso adorno trovomi in gran’tempeste a debil nave; 10 e a spïar vapori è sempre paso, son vostre spénte sì tagliate e prave e schifa i rei et dî buon’ fa sogiorno. che voglion pur che ’l mio legno sia fesso. Non so s’io forsi sogno nel Parnaso, 5 Vana presunzïone a cciò m’à messo, ma da questa sentenza non mi storno, qual mio poco saver scoverto àve: che l’odorato è bono in ogni caso. voï scernite molte nare cave a’ quai Natura lor fatto à comesso.

______

12 sogno nel Parnaso: i.e., “if I am engaging in wish fulfilment”; cf. Purgatorio XXVIII 141 “forse in Parnaso esto loco sognaro”

304

5h Ventura on “Touch”: Although one can excuse the other senses I nevertheless think of one must use Touch, thanks to which the wise man goes crazy and every virtue remains confounded. The grace infused [by Touch] abandons the soul, and love, if is is not needed, is shattered, and also pact; that act of touch brings you to infamy and blame, and the sad, deluded soul grieves. From this is born unbridled desires, good will is powerless and the act of thinking strains to feed its ravenous hunger. From its long sleep, rage is awakened: immediately, without fruit, leaf, or branch, in a moment so much effort, oh my, is lost! ______

1 Benchè degli altri s’ametta la scusa, Da esso nascon l’angosciose brame, pur credo ch’adoprar se debbia ’l tatto, 10 lo voler stae, lo pensier s’embriga per cui l’uom saggio se converte in matto de pascere la sua rabiosa fame. e ciascuna vertù riman confusa. Da long’oculto, lo furor se stiga: 5 Parte da l’alma la grazia infusa, subito, senza frutto foglie e rame, rompese amor, se non se serva, o patto; perdese in punto, omè, quanta fatiga! infamia, biasmo s’areca quell’atto, quanto se doglia la trista delusa. ______

305

5i Ser Gaudio’s response Your muse shrewdly strives to condemn with well-turned phrases that which is well done, but perhaps the false mouse is a true cat and thus, someone who dedicates himself to whatever is best behaves well. Your accustation is leveled at the fifth sense, and I reject it as false; wherever you itch, I will scratch as best I can – this is a pleasure that I will never refuse you. The gentle breeze from the burning flames, and the hard from the soft, are distinguished and regulated by Touch, as in the sifting of grain. This [Touch] is that which which plants the seed of our humanity: whoever acquires its lead aquires the eternal kingdom. ______

1 Sottilmente se sforza vostra musa L’aure soave et le ardente fiamme, de dannar col ben dir quel ch’è ben fatto, 10 el duro e ’l molle si scerne et gastiga ma pur lo falso topo è ’l vero gatto, dal tatto, sì co’ nello cerner grane. e po’ ben fa chi al miglior s’adusa. Questo è colui che semente la spiga 5 El quinto senso fier la vostra accusa, de nostra umanità, sì che reame ed io com’ caluniosa la ritratto: eterno acquista chi usa sua riga. u’ che vi rode, al mio poter vi gratto, el qual piacer a voi mai non recusa.

______

3 ma pur …: i.e. appearance can be deceiving

306

6 1 Well I would be made of stone if I didn’t lament, and if I believed the world will endure, seeing that faith is so confused and weak in those who ought to be full [with faith]. 5 And I hear a barbaric language spoken, obscure, coloured, and variable; I see the actions worthy of Jugurtha or of whatever pitiless man who was the greater cheat. One isn’t considered wise unless he can delude, 10 and whoever knows how to lie without blushing considers himself worthier of praise. But, despite his desire to eat the flesh of his [prey], the wolf does not always enjoy his bounty; and I have seen the one who steals the hives get stung. 15 But, one can implore the judgement of God that he who threw the rock, feels the punishment. ______

1 Ben son di pietra s’io non mi ramarico Saggio non si ripùta sanza fraude, o s’io credo che ‘l mondo sia durabile, 10 e chi ben sa mentir sanza’arossarne, fede veggendo star confuse e labile a quel par esser più degno di laude. a chi più ne dovrebbe esser carico; E per voler mangiar dell’altrui carne 5 veggio parlare un linguaggio barbarico, non sempre il lupo sua rapina gaude, iscuro, colorato, e varïable; e punto vidi chi toccava l’arne. l’opere del figliuol di Manastabile o di qual crudo fu il più privarico. 15 Al consiglio di Dio talor s’impetra che ‘l colpo senta chi gita la pietra.

______

7 l’opere ... Manastabile ~ the actions worthy of the son of Mastanabal, i.e. Jugurtha, who Plutarch and Sallust attest was particularly ruthless and unscrupulous after usurping the throne of Numidia during the Jugurthine Wars in the second century BC; 12 dell’altrui carne ~ the possessive “altrui” refers to the meat of the wolf’s prey; 14 toccava l‘arne ~ “toccare” in the sense of ‘to steal’ and “arne” is a form attested in Guittone for “arnie,” and here with a meaning “steals the beehives,” which is likely in reference to Aesop’s fable of the “Bear and the Bees” but, may also be a possible riff on a trope regarding stealing from the commune, or the city’s treasury found in other Trecento civic lyric (for example, Antonio Pucci’s Ohmè, Comun, come conciar ti veggio and Se nel mio ben ciascun fosse leale)

307

7 The virtue of Hippolytus is so spent and the vice of Sardanapalus is so grown, that, in the committing a carnal activity not even priests nor sacristans abstain. 5 And all lay people would fly to this vice more frequently than the bird who pecks at Tityos. Whether equinox or solstice, they are ashamed of not a single thing in the usual way. There is no woman who does not adore Venus 10 as her goddess and no widow who cares for the ashes of her husband. Every woman raves and fasts for love; and they have so little care for their honour that they are happy when anyone follows after them. 15 Would to God that there were some monastery that wouldn’t receive this degredation! ______

1 Egli è si spenta la vertù d’Ipolito Donna non n’è che non adori Venere s di Serdanapal cresciuto il vizio, 10 come sua deïtà, e qual è vedova che del continuar carnale offizio non cura di colui ch’è fatto cenere; non si vergogna il prete né l’acolito; ciascuna con amor vaneggia e tredova, 5 de’ laici ciascun farebbe il volito e son dell’onestà sì poca tenere, a ciò più che ll’uccel che becca Tizio: contente son di chi per via le pedova. in tutto l’equinozio e nel solstizio; non si vergona cosa al modo solito. 15 Volesse Iddio che pur lo munisterio di ciò non ricevesse vituperio! ______

1 Ipolito: the son of Theseus, king of Athens, who spurned the advances of his stepmother Phaedra; the contrast between Hippolytus (virtue) and Sardanapalus (vice) in the next line, recalls Paradiso 17 where Dante meets his ancestor Cacciaguida 2 Sardanapal: King of Assyria said to have exceeded all others in sloth and opulence 6 ll’uccel … Tizio: a son of Zeus, Tityos, attempted to rape Leto; as punishment he was condemned to Tartarus where a bird fed on his liver after it grew back every night 12 tredova: my translation follows Vatteroni’s note, which considers this a hapax based on “triduana,” a three-day fast

308

8 Well has Jove divided the kingdom with you and conceded to you an attractive part: you have people to follow the works of Mars who can triumph with strength and ingenuity; a which even from antiquity is the worthiest in the hemisphere divided by the Apennines; every industrious activity makes tedium flee; an upright way of life with little disdain; And as props for your honoured name, horses, dogs, birds of all kinds and servants that know how best to serve; You have a lake, you have fields, you have a coast and forests and woods and meadows where there flourishes a great abundance of every kind of wild beast, and then also the beautiful fortress of Peschiera. ______

1 Ben à Giove con voi partito ’l regno E per sostegno de l’onrato nome e conceduto una leggiadra parte: 10 cavalli, cani, uccei d’ogni maniera voi gente da seguir l’opre di Marte e servi che servendo sanno ’l come; e trïunfar con forza et con ingegno; voi lago, voi compagne, voi riviera 5 d’anticha loda il sito ch’è più degno e selve e boschi e campi ove si prome ne l’emisperio ch’Apennin comparte; grande abbondanzia di ciascuna fiera; da fuggir ozio ogni sollicita arte; vita costante con poco disdegno. 15 e poi la bella Rocca di Peschiera. ______

1 voi: referring to Mastino II della Scala (1308-1351) 5 sito: presumably Verona, the seat of the Scaligeri government

309

9 King of Jerusalem and of Sicily, you who illuminate the world more wisdom than others, in whose beautiful kingdom run many rivers countless people humble themselves to you; sleeping securely under your watch, they fear neither pagans nor Christians nor infidels, hoping that you will look after their health as a good father does for his beloved daughter. You know that many desire your kingdom and that they want to subjugate the Italian part of your realm, the sweetness of which they dream about day and night. I don’t know if in this the Pope will reason, but be careful that German greed and Gallic strength do not prejudice even him. And don’t be late in attending to this, United with the Tuscans and the Lombards!

______

1 Re di Ierusalem e di Sicilia, Tu sai che molti il tuo reame aggognano che di saper più ch’altri il mondo allumini, 10 e voglion soggiogar la parte italica, nel cui bel regno scorron molti flumini, la cui dolcezza dì e notte sognano. senza numero gente a te s’umilia, Se ’l gran Pastor in ciò ragion prevalica 5 sicuri al sonno sotto tua vigilia, non so: ma guarda pur non lui dispongnano e non temon pagan’ cristian’ né cumini, l’avarizia tedesca et forza gallica. sperando ch’a la sua salute rumini come buon padre di sua cara filia. 15 E a riparar a ciò non esser tardo, congiunto col toscano et lombardo! ______

This sonnet may have been written around January 1342 when Ventura was one of the Otto procuratori (see Chapter 3 above). During the 1330s and early 1340s, Florence had been engaged in a campaign to exert territorial control over Lucca which, in 1335, had fallen into Mastino della Scala’s hands. In 1341, Florence offered to purchase Lucca from Mastino, but Pisa feared that Florentine dominion in Lucca with threaten Pisan independence. While Pisa layed siege to Lucca, Mastino refused to hand the city over to Florence. United with the Lombards in a league against the Scaligeri, Florence, in an effort to convince Robert of Anjou to incentivize the Pisans to abandon their seige of Lucca, granted lordship over Lucca to Robert. Directly involved in this effort, Ventura may have written a poem to him on this very occasion. Another possibility is Vatteroni’s suggestion: 1332, when Ventura was sent to Ferrara to confirm a Florentine alliance with the Scaligeri, the Estensi, and Robert I.

1 Re: Robert I of Anjou, titular king of Jerusalem and Naples

310

10 The house of the Salvaghi, wanting to avenge the bitter death of don Amicaro, rather should have wanted to fly like Icarus lose their feathers and drown, or even to take a great sea voyage without bringing any provisions, or to never eat anything except the roots of arum lilies, than to have behaved in such a way that people say they adopted the [treacherous] manner of Antenor against the excellent king, the Doge of Genova, from whom the family received such honourable glory that it will be a long time before it can be restored. It isn’t necessary to speak anymore about Branca Doria, because their sin of one negates the other’s shame, if it is true that a new evil ends the memory of a bad one. I could instead speak about the evil bird, but, I will avoid Levi for his brother. ______

1 Voluto à riparar la ca’ Selvatica contra lo excelso re, duca di Genova, l’avara uccision di dono Amicaro, 10 ond’ella ricevea contanta gloria devendo anzi volar nel modo d’Icaro, d’onor, che più per lei tardi si renova. perder le penne et annegar la natica, Non si vòl più parlar di Branca d’Oria 5 o pareggiar gran mar senza panatica che l’altrui colpa sua vergogna menova, o mangiar sempremai barbe di gicaro, se spegne novo mal vecchia memoria. che aver sì fatto che le genti dicaro ch’elli abbian d’Antenòr presa la pratica 15 Forse ch’i’ parlerei dil mal’uccello, ma rispiarmo Levì per lo fratello. ______

1 la ca’ Selvatica: the Salvaghi, a noble and Guelf family from Genoa 2 dono Amicaro: a member of the Salvaghi executed on charges of piracy in the name of Robert of Anjou; according to Villani, this was the beginning of an intense Guelf-Ghibelline struggle in Genoa in 1334; see Giovanni Villani, Nuova cronica XII, xxiv 12 Branca d’Oria: the Genovese noble condemned in Inferno XXXIII, 137, for having murdered his father-in-law after inviting him into his home 15 mal’uccello: perhaps a reference to Inferno XXII, 96, where Virgil converses with a Navarese grafter whom the devils of the eighth circle refer to as the “malvagio uccello” 16 Levi per lo fratello: an obscure reference; Vatteroni suggests a reading based on Dante’s Monarchia, proposing “Levi” refers to Giovanni XXII who capitulated in April 1331 to John of Bohemia (“his brother”), the heir to Holy Roman Empire; in Monarchia III v, Levi is representative of the Church and his “brother,” Judah is representative of the Holy Roman Empire

311

11 If Fortune has made you Prior, dispense and consider what measure requires; do not be without fear of falling when you think you have greater stability. Don’t hope that someone will tolerate your injustice if you do him wrong: he who feels more certain of his status sometimes finds himself falling into greater pain. Fortune doesn’t care who you are, she always turns her wheel as she pleases and she won’t say “Watch out!” when you fall. Oh you, who are ruling, take note of one thing: don’t be reckless when you are on the rise. How many men has she left in the mud! ______

1 Se la Fortuna t’à fatto signore Non riguarda Fortuna chi nè quali, dispensa e guarda ciò che vuol misura; 10 sempre come le par volge la rota non esser del cader sanza paura e non ti dice, “Guarti!”, quando cali. quando fermezza credi aver maggiore. Oh tu che reggi, una parola nota: 5 E non sperar che sia sofferitore non essere ignorante, quando sali, s’alcuno offendi contro a dirittura: quant’ella n’à lasciati entro la mota! chi dello stato più si rassicura talor pruova cadendo più dolore. ______

2 misura: Temperance 3 sanza paura: i.e. brash, or an excess of Fortitude 4 dirittura: Justice 11 non ti dici … Vatteroni reads and punctuates this line differently than my translation; hers would yield “don’t be ignorant, when you are on the rise, of how many men she has left in the mud!” 12 non essere ignorante: Prudence

312

12 He who went to Hell for his wife, playing his hollowed instrument, didn’t, in my opinion, have greater skill when he made the petals and leaves dance, 5 than [what skill] I found in you, when I fevered in pains, you revealed it to me, so that was distasteful to me except for the notes your right hand played. Now I would like to hear that delight again 10 at the hospital called San Pagolo: now is not the time to go birding because the force of the North Wind is so great that, while above he is great master and sire, down here, he is worth a dry apple with cabbage. 15 And if we want to take the place of Ciolo, whoever wants to listen will stay with us. ______

1 Colui che andò inn inferno per la moglie Ora ’l diletto ne vorre’ sentire versificando col cavato legno 10 a quel spedal ch’à ’l titol di San Pagolo: non ebbe, al creder mio, maggior ingegno, ch’a forniuol non è testé buon ire, quando ballar facea pedali e foglie, ch’egl’è tanta la forza di vent’agolo, 5 ch’ io trovai in te quando, di doglie ch’è lassù † maestro e sire, febricitando, ne mostravi segno, ch’egli è qua giù mela secca col cavolo. sì ch’ogni operazion m’era ’n disdegno salvo le note che tua destra coglie. 15 E se a Ciolo vorren tòr la volta, con noi sarà chi volentieri ascolta. ______

1 Colui: Orpheus 2 versificando: literally “making rhymes” 10 San Pagolo: Mabellini implies this could have been a hospital in any city while Vatteroni maintains it is located in Florence, either the hospital “dei convalescenti” in Santa Maria Novella, or the hospital “a Pinti” in the parish of San Pier Maggiore 11 a forniuol: frugnolo, a special lantern used while hunting birds at night to temporarily blind them; Vatteroni notes implications of a homosexual nature 13 lassù …: the tradition is damaged here and I have offered a translation of a tentative reading 15 Ciolo: a singer or musician, perhaps proverbial (?) 15 vorren: similar to acquisteren in Io veggio, ser Ventura, above: the first person plural desinence in -n[o]

313

13 Whoever wants to see a splendid thing, a rich treasure of pure wealth compared to which, stones, silver, and gold are as tiny lights compared to the sun in the middle of the day, look at this lady in whom is manifest graciously together every beauty, which ensure she claims, before all [other] beauties, the green laurel garland on her head. You will see Love beside her, Love who draws his bow and delicately pierces with the point of his arrow the heart of whoever looks at her; he who is worth little won’t notice but whosoever does notice it, immediately sighs. Love takes delight at this and beats his wings. He doesn’t however touch the heart of the Lady with his arrow because he always turns the notch and feathers toward her. ______

1 Chi vuol vedere una solenne festa Amor vedrà con lei che l’arco tira e di chiaro valor ricco tesoro, 10 e punge con la punta de lo strale al cui rispetto pietre, argento ed oro soavemente ’l cor di chi la mira; son lucciole appo ’l sol ne l’ora sesta, di ciò non à sentor chi poco vale, 5 guardi la donna, ’n cui si manifesta ma chi la sente subito sospira. d’ogni bellezza grazioso coro, Amor se ne ralegra e batte l’ale; che le fanno tener di verde alloro sopra le belle una ghirlanda in testa. 15 non però di saetta ’l cor li tocca, perché sempre ver’ lei volge la cocca. ______

314

14 Just as Acteon was instantly made a servant by the beauty of Diana, while he was hunting, and boldly spread his arms out to her wanting that for which he became a stag; then he who was once faithful to him became hostile and went after him in a furious chase, tearing at his antlered head until all his sinews were left defeated; in the same way, enflamed with love for a cruel lady, this is how I have become: thus, I am made a wild animal which, fleeing from her, sweats with shame. The fire which was kindled in my heart burns for her who appeared naked, even as she is discovered; [the fire] neither calls out for death, nor hopes for a remedy. I do not see a way to return to being a man: and so, wise sir, I ask you for your advice. ______

1 Come Atteon si fé subito servo così, d’amore acceso in donna cruda, de la beltà di Diana andando a caccia, 10 sembiante femmi, ond’io son fatto fera e ardito contra lei stese le braccia che, lei fuggendo, di vergogna suda. volendo quel per che divenne cervo; Il foco che nel cor creato m’era 5 poi chi gli era fedel si fece acervo arde costei sì che rimansi nuda, e mosse contra lui rigida traccia, né morte chiama, né salute spera. lacerando la sua cornuta faccia sì che vinto rimase ogni suo nervo; 15 Di ritornare in uom modo non veggio: come, saggio messer, voi ne richieggio. ______1 Atteon: Acteon is transformed into a stag after stumbling upon the goddess Diana bathing naked, see Ovid, Metamorphoses, 3, 165-205 5 chi gli era fedel: Actaeon’s dog, who was faithful to him when he was a man, turns on him as a stag 13-14 il foco … rimansi nuda: the sense of these two lines is a bit difficult; my translation, which understand the pronoun ‘costei’ as in reference to the lady of the poem and/or to Diana, differs from the gloss provided by Vatteroni who understand ‘costei’ as referring to ‘fera’ in line 10; nuda: ‘nude,’ or, more figuratively, revealed or discovered (‘ignuda’), as Acteon chanced upon the naked Diana. 16 saggio messer: Vatteroni argues this poem was addressed to Petrarch, whose Canzoniere was heavily influenced by Ovid’s Metamorphoses; both were authorities on “transformations.”

315

15 Ser Ventura in the voice of a gentle lady: “Seeing how the bow of Cupid wounds many with its golden arrows because of me, such that everyone follows me and gazes upon me wanting that for which Dido killed herself; and often hearing the sound of sighs begging me to feel myself in love; I always keep up a troubled appearance in order that I don't show passion and I smile only a little. Thus, wounded by the leaden arrow, just as Daphne fled from Phoebus I flee with the fear of being caught. O good Apollo, make me into a laurel tree and infuse me with its virtue. Then who could place his hands on me!” She who is speaking here comes from Italy, and she is so determined that she clips the wings of Love. ______1 “Veggendo pur che l’arco di Cupido Per che, ferita di livida punta, molti ne fiere di saetta orata 10 come davanti a Febo fece Danne per me, sì che ciascun mi segue e guata fuggo per tema di non esser giunta. volendo quel per che s’uccise Dido; O buon Apollo, di me lauro fanne 5 e sento di sospir’ sovente ’l grido, e fa la sua vertù meco congiunta: che pregan di sentirmi inamorata, poi chi può sopra me ponga le spanne!” tengo la vista mia sempre turbata, sì che poco mi scaldo e poco rido. 15 Quella che parla qui d’Italia venne, forte sì, che d’amor tarpa le penne. ______

SER VENTURA IN PERSONA DI UNA GENTIL DONNA: this rubric appears in the sole manuscript witness to this sonnet (Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, 433)

316

16 Again, my eyes, by accident, gaze upon a pleasing lady because she so resembles my own lady; and whatever may be the reason why it happened, her brilliant face turned her eyes with ranging light toward me. I looked at her, but fearfully, as one who senses that another beauty takes me with desire. For this reason, the mind returns to its duty not with a powerful desire, since sadness at doing so tempers my desire. Love marvels greatly in this, but remains silent to put me to the test, because it seems strange to him that I would change my faith for another beauty. And I cannot hide from him who sees everything. My conscience pricks me so much that my pleasure does not grow, because my sense of duty is mixed with fear that I will never receive favour. ______

1 Di novo gli occhi miei, per accidente, una donna piacente miraron, perché mia donna simiglia; Amor si fa di ciò gran meraviglia e, qual che sia cagion dil suo consente, ma tace per veder di me la prova, 5 sua figura lucente 15 sì li par cosa nova con vaga luce a me porse le ciglia. che per altra beltà cangi la fede.

Io guardai lei, ma paurosamente, E celarmi da lui che tutto vede come colui che sente non posso, e conscïenzia mi ripiglia ch’altra vaghezza con desio mi piglia. sì, che piacer non figlia, 10 Per questo al suo dever torna la mente, 20 perch’è ’l dever con tema di mercede. non con voler possente, tanto ’l voler la sua doglia assottiglia. ______

5 figura: where I have translated “figura” as the subject and “ciglia” s the object of porse, Vatteroni instead reads “with a graceful look, she turned toward me her splendid face” 9 ch’altra vaghezza: Vatteroni instead reads “the beauty of a lady who is not my own,” as in line 16

317

17 Now that compassion has completely abandoned me and won’t let me taste its sweetness any more Love understands less than anyone whether my life has any happiness as a consequence. He alone spurs me on in desire for a lady in whom this virtue of compassion is extinguished. And he torments my soul, Giving it almost no respite. But if, by chance, death takes from me the spirit that keeps me going even now, I would heartily depart from life with less pain, my life would be shorter; since Disdain clearly shows that it wants Piety for me to be completely dead. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

1 Poi che Pietate in tutto m’abbondona Ma se per tal cagion morte mi spoglia né vòl che più di sua dolcezza senta, 10 di quello spiritel ch’ancor mi porta, quanto di ciò mia vita si contenta assai mi partirei con minor doglia Amor lo sa, ma men ch’altra persona: quanto sarà la mia vita più corta, 5 perch’elli è sol colui che più mi sprona poi che disdegno mostra pur che voglia in desiar la donna dove è spenta che sia pietà per me dil tutto morta. questa bella virtute, e che tormenta l’anima sì, che poco le perdona.

______

318

AP P EN D IX III

______

The Administrative Office of Niccolò Monachi

Location of Year Office Salary Delegate Source office Ricordanze, 74r; Palazzo dei 1340 Coadjutor to Chancellor 8 lire/month Signori, Missive I Priori Cancelleria, 7–9 Delegate of Messer Piero da 26 lire. (3 fl. abroad, not [1340] Bolseno, Capitano del to Messer Ricordanze, 74r specified popolo Piero) Member of a secret embassy [1340] abroad 3 lire/day Ricordanze, 74r to the Anziani of Pistoia Syndic and Procurator to the Provv. Regg., 30, 1340 abroad Papal court 8r/v Notaio dei Camerlinghi della Palazzo dei 1340 8 lire Ricordanze, 74r camera d’arme Priori Notaio degli Atti della Palazzo del 1343 70 lire Ricordanze, 74r camera (Duke of Athens) Podestà Notaio della Moneta (Duke [Palazzo del 1343 90 lire Ricordanze, 74r of Athens) Podestà] Palazzo dei Ricordanze, 74r; 1343 Notaio dei priori 200 lire Priori Priorista, 89r [1343] Ufficiale di Terranuova abroad 50 lire Ricordanze 74 r Ufficiale dell’Estimo (Val di [1343] Sieve with Domenico abroad 30 lire Ricordanze, 74v Uccellini) Tratte, 137, 27v, 1343 Ambassador to Perugia abroad 33v, 45r Notaio della Condotta (with Palazzo dei 200 lire Ricordanze, 74r; 1344 ser Nicolao di ser Junta da Priori (together) Capitoli, 16, 222v Cascie) Syndic and Procurator (for a 1344 treaty with Count Guido abroad Lib. Fab. 23, 27r Alberto) Ambassador to San Miniato 1344 with Gherardo Bordoni and abroad 16 lire Ricordanze, 74r Nado Bucelli 1344/45 Ambassador to Pistoia abroad Cam. Usc. 15, 386v

1344/45 Ambassador to Valdinievole abroad Cam. Usc. 17, 395v

1344/45 Ambassador to Lombardy abroad Cam. Usc. 19, 415v 319

Syndic and Procurator in 1345 arbitration with the Malatesta abroad Lib. Fab. 25, 20r of Rimini 1345/46 Ambassador to Siena abroad Cam. Usc. 21, 466r 1345/46 Ambassador to Pisa abroad Cam. Usc., 23, 535r 1345/46 Ambassador to Pistoia abroad Cam. Usc. 25, 581v 1345/46 Ambassador to Romagna abroad Cam. Usc. 27, 610v 1345/46 Ambassador to Valdinievole abroad Cam. Usc. 29, 665r Cam. Usc. 32, 1347 Ambassador to Pistoia abroad 714bis 1347 Ambassador to Prato abroad Cam. Usc. 34, 745r 1347 Ambassador to Lucca abroad Cam. Usc. 38, 26v 1348 Ambassador to Pistoia abroad Cam. Usc. 40, 62v 1348 Ambassador to Fucecchio abroad Cam. Usc. 42, 109v Palazzo dei 1348 Chancellor (until 1375) 100 florins Ricordanze 75r Priori Piazza della 1349 Notaio della Condotta 31 florins Ricordanze 75r Signoria Palazzo dei Ricordanze 75r; 1350 Notaio dei priori 96 lire Priori Priorista, 95r Ufficiale delle Alpi (i.e. Guido di 45 florins 1350 expropriated Ubaldini lands [abroad] Ghito da Ricordanze, 75r (halved) in the Appennines) Gangalandi Palazzo di 1351 Notaio della Parte Guelfa Tratte 1163, 10r Parte Guelfa Ufficiale della Cancellazione [Palazzo dei 1351 dei sbanditi (with ser Guido 22 florins Ricordanze, 75r Priori] Chiti) Palazzo del ser Simone 1351 Notaio dell’Uscita di camera 20 lire Ricordanze, 75r Podestà Lapi Giovanni Notaio dei Gabellieri grossi Palazzo del 1353 21 florins Lagi (for Ricordanze, 75v (together with Nello Ghetti) Podestà both) Consolo dell’Arte dei giudici Palazzo del 1353 Ricordanze, 75v e notai Proconsolo Notaio della Cancellazione [Palazzo dei 1355 6 florins Ricordanze, 75v dei grandi Priori] [Palazzo del Lorenzo da 1355 Notaio dell’Estimo 40 florins Ricordanze, 75v Podestà] Cepperello Camerlingo dell’Arte dei giudici e notai (to replace Palazzo del 1356 Francesco da Rigrara who 28 lire Ricordanze, 75v Proconsolo died after nearly 2 months in office) 1356 Ambassador in Romagna abroad Manoscritti, 287, 85 Consolo dell’Arte dei giudici Palazzo del 1357 Ricordanze, 75v e notaio Proconsolo 320

Proconsolo dell’Arte dei Palazzo del 1358 20 florins Ricordanze, 76r giudici e notai Proconsolo Matriculation – Arte della 1359 Lana, Porta San Pier Manoscritti, 540 Maggiore Guardiano degli Atti di Palazzo del 1360 40 lire Ricordanze, 76r camera Podestà Notaio dei Sindici del podestà (Messer Piero di Palazzo del 23 lire, 16 1360 Ricordanze, 76r Gaddo Accorimboni da Podestà soldi Gobbio) Palazzo di 1361 Segretario di Parte guelfa Ricordanze, 76r Parte Guelfa Member of the Consiglio del Palazzo del 1361 comune (Podestà: Manno de Ricordanze, 76r Podestà Monaldensibus) Palazzo dei 1361 Notaio dei priori Ricordanze, 76v Priori Consolo dell’Arte dei giudici Palazzo del 1362 Ricordanze, 76v e notai Proconsolo Notaio della Gabella grossa Palazzo del 6 lire, 10 1362 Ricordanze, 76v (with Giovanni Romoli) Podestà soldi Palazzo dei Priorista, 106v; 1362 Notaio dei priori 14 florins Priori Ricordanze, 76v Ufficiale dei Nobili del 1362 contado (on behalf of ser 110 lire Ricordanze, 76v Giovanchino di ser Michele) Notaio dei Sindici del Palazzo del 1362 podestà (Messer Balginano 12 florins Ricordanze, 77r Podestà di Giovanni) Camerlingo dell’Arte dei Palazzo del 1363 Ricordanze, 77v giudici e notai Proconsolo Notaio del Guardiano degli Palazzo del 1364 20 lire Ricordanze, 77v atti di camera Podestà ser 2 florins Notaio degli Ufficiali Palazzo del Ghiberto 1364 (half the Ricordanze, 77v dell’Estimo Podestà ser salary) Alexandri Palazzo della 1364 Capitano della Parte guelfa Ricordanze, 78v Parte Guelfa Consolo dell’Arte dei giudici Palazzo del 1366 Ricordanze, 78v e notai Proconsolo Palazzo del 1366 Notaio dei Gabellieri grossi 301 lire pic. Ricordanze, 78v Podestà Notaio dei Capitani della Palazzo della 1368 60 lire Ricordanze, 79r Parte Guelfa Parte Guelfa Sindaco dell’Arte dei giudici Palazzo del 1368 30 soldi Ricordanze, 78v e notai Proconsolo 321

Consiglio del comune Palazzo del 1368 (Podestà: Messer Piero della Ricordanze 79r Podestà Marina da Racanate) Consigliere dell’Arte dei Palazzo del Giudici e Notai, 1369 giudici e notai Proconsolo 748, 117r Notaio dei Capitani della Palazzo della 1369 60 lire pic. Ricordanze, 79r Parte Guelfa Parte Guelfa ser Mino di Palazzo del 1370 Notaio della Gabella di sale 42 florins ser Ricordanze, 79r Podestà Dominco Proconsolo dell’Arte dei Palazzo del 1370 20 florins Ricordanze, 79r giudici e notai Proconsolo Palazzo dei Ricordanze, 79r; 1371 Notaio dei priori Priori Priorista, 115v Consolo dell’Arte dei giudici Palazzo del 1371 Ricordanze, 79r e notai Proconsolo Notaio dei Regolatori Palazzo del 338 lire 5 1372 Ricordanze, 79r dell’Estimo Podestà soldi Consolo dell’Arte dei giudici Palazzo del 1372 Ricordanze, 79r e notai Proconsolo Proconsolo dell’Arte dei Palazzo del 1372 145 florins Ricordanze, 88v giudici e notai Proconsolo Consiglio del comune Palazzo del 1373 (Captain: Guido Ugolini de Ricordanze, 79v Podestà Marchi) ser Ufficiale degli Errori del Palazzo del 1373 26 lire Bartolomeo Ricordanze, 79v grano Podestà ser Nelli Proconsolo dell’Arte dei Palazzo del Provv., reg., 62, 1374 giudici e notai Proconsolo 262r Consolo dell’Arte dei giudici Palazzo del 1376 Ricordanze, 88v e notai Proconsolo Consigliere dell’Arte dei Palazzo del 1376 Ricordanze, 88v giudici e notai Proconsolo Palazzo dei Ricordanze, 88v; 1377 Notaio dei priori 82 florins Priori Priorista, 122r ser Stefani Palazzo dei 1377 Ufficiale degli Otto di balìa 60 florins ser Mattei Ricordanze, 88v Priori Becchi

322 A P P E N D I X I V

______

The Testament of Niccolò Monachi

11 March 1399. Florence, Archivio di stato, Notarile antecosiminiano, 9729, fols. 35v-37v.

<35v> Testamentum ser Niccolay ser Venture.a)

Item postea, dicto anno, indictione ottava, die undecima mensis martii, actum in ecclesia sive loco heremitarum de Angelis de Florentia, presentibus testibus ad hec vocatis et rogatis ore proprio istius testatoris, videlicet, domno Bartolob) Iacopic), domno Niccholao Niccolay, domno Raffaello domni Guidonis, domno Benedicto Filippi, domno Girolamo Dredani, et domno Cristofano Simonis, et domno Ylariano Augustini, et aliis, suprascriptus ser Niccolaus condam ser Venture Monaci, populi Sancte Marie in Campo de Florentia1), per Iesu Cristi gratiam sanus mente, corpore, et intellectu, suarum rerum et bonorum dispositionem per presens nuncupativum testamentum, sine scriptis, in hunc modum facere procuravit et fecit, videlicet:

In primis, quidem animam suam omnipotenti Deo sueque glorosissime matri, virgini Marie devotissime, <36r> recommendavit, et corpus suum, quandocumque cum mori contigerit, sepelliri voluit et mandavit apud ecclesiam Sancte Crucis fratrum minorum civitatis Florentie in sepultura sua et suorum parentum cum habito beati Francisci, ubi sui corporis sepulturum elegit.

Item legavit nove sacristie ecclesie Sancte Reperate de Florentia solidos viginti florenorum.

Item legavit fabrice et constructioni murorum civitatis Florentie, solidos quinque florenorum.

______a) Testamentum … Venture: marg. sin. b) Bartolo: interlin. c) Iacopi corr. Iacopo MS –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1) Originally purchased by his father, Ventura, Niccolò owned a home in Via Caffagiuoli (today Via degli Alfani) near Santa Maria in Campo, just south of the monastery of Santa Maria degli Angeli.

323 Item amore Dey, legavit conventui fratrum minorum de Florentia libras decem florenorum pro missis cantandis et offitis celebrandis pro anima ipsius testatoris.

Item legavit conventui fratrum seu heremitarum de Angelis civitatis Florentie, pro missis cantandis et offitis et orationibus fiendis et dicendis pro anima ipsius testatoris, libras quinque florenorum.

Item sotietati Sancte Marie Orti Sancti Michaelis civitatis Florentie, pro anima ipsius testatoris, libras decem florenorum.

Item legavit amore Dey, fratri Tedaldo della Chasa, ordinis beati Francisci, solidos triginta florenorum pro missis beati Gregorii per eum celebrandis pro anima ipsius testatoris, et ipso decedente ante predictus testator decedat, dictos solidos triginta dicta causa legavit guardiano dicti loci qui pro tempore fuerit.

Item legavit fratri Leonardo Iusti, ordinis beati Francisci, solidos viginti pro missis celebrandis pro anima ipsius testatoris.

Item atendens dictus testator quod recepit in dotem domine Nanne, sive Johanne, uxoris dicti testatoris, florenos ducentos auri, et confessus fuit habuisse a dicta domina in dotem ipsius domine unum podere cum domo et terra laboratoria et vineata, positum in populo plebis de Giogolis, comitatu Florentie1), quibus domo et bonis a Io via, a IIo Domini Tomaxii de Marchis, chiasso in medio, a IIIo et a IIIIo <36v> dicti testatoris in extimatum, legavit eidem dictum podere per eum in dotem ut dictus, confessatus, hac lege quod nil aliud possit petere in bonis dicti testatoris vigore suarum dotium vel alia qua-cumque causaa), salvo eo quod infra disponitur.

______a) causa: interlin. ______

1) The parish of Sant’Alessandro a Giogoli is located to the south of Florence, just outside of Scandicci. While there is no record in the Ricordanze of this land brought by the dowry of what was likely Niccolò’s third wife (Giovanna di Angelo Ardinghelli), the Ricordanze do attest that Niccolò had previously purchased property in this parish on at least three different occasions: 1) in 1359 from Piera, the wife of Cristofano di Bargo di Michele for a purchase price of 510 florins (Ric. 3r); 2) in 1366 from Luca and Lorenzo di Gabriele dei Ramaglianti for 1100 florins (Ric. 2v) and 3) in 1372 from Mariotto di Simone Orlandini for 520 florins (Ric. 4v). All purchase prices were for unspecified amounts of land. 324 Item, legavit dicte domine, ultra predicta, omnes singulos et quoscumque pannos laneos et lineos suetos et consuetos et quos habet et suhebit1) dicta domina ad usum dorsi ipsius domine, tempore mortis dicti testatoris et foderosa) cum omnibus ornamentis existentibus tunc temporis supra dictos pannos.

Item legavit eidem domine florenos vigintiquinque auri cum quibus emantur panni pro induendo ipsam dominam tempore mortis dicti testatoris et varia ut requiruntur secundum statum et conditionem ipsius et dicti testatoris, iubens eam esse contentam; et nil possit ultra predictos pro indumentis petere; et ultra, hec, duos velos defore2).

Item legavit Bartolomee, vocata Meab), filie dicti testatoris, pro causa dotandi cum nupserit vel nubet et seu monacabitur unum podere cum domo et terris laboratis et vineatis positum in populo Santi Stefani de Ugnano comunis Florentie loco dicto Ugnano3), cum omnibus terris dicti testatoris positis in dicto populo; et ipsas omnes terras dicti testatoris existimatas in dicto populo quod dixit valori florenos septuagenios auri, hoc expresso quod liceat heredibus dicti testatoris dare eidem Mee dictum podere et florenos quinquaginta auri predictos vel florenos septuageniosc) auri predictos iubens eam esset contentam, hoc expresso et declarato quod in casu quo ipsa Mea decedat antequam nubat vel postea, quandocumque suis filiis legiptimis et naturalibus ex legiptimo matrimonio detur legatum deveniat iure a testandi heredibus dicti testatoris, hoc proviso quod per predicta nullum preiudicium generetur iure mariti lucrandi dotem mulieris sue.

______a) et post foderos del. MS b) vocata Mea: sic MS c) septuagenios: sic MS ______1) Sic MS, from “suo, suere.” It is perhaps not entirely unlikely that Giovanna might have done some of her own sewing. Some extant lists detailing bridal trousseaux exhibit sewing paraphernalia as objects falling under the unappraised portion. See Frick, Dressing Florence, 136. 2) Sic MS, possibly an Italianism corresponding to “deforis.” Women in late medieval and Renaissance Florence wrapped themselves in full-length cloaks or mantles for going outside their homes (“a fuori”). See Frick, Dressing Florence, 154. Another possible reading might be “veli di siore” an Italianism corresponding to “veli di signore.” I thank William Robins for this suggestion. 3) Ugnano is located west of Florence on the southern bank of the Arno just north of Scandicci. Niccolò accumulated land there (about seventy-five “stadia terre”) between 1364 and 1367 (Ric. 2r/v).

325 Item legavit eidem Mee, in casu quo vidua remanerit, habitationem <37r> et victum in domo dicti testatoris et suorum heredum, in casu quo dotes suas deponat et usumfructus deveniat in domum dictorum heredum, et in casu quo dotes suas reabere non posset, tunc legavit eidem dictam habitationem, victum, et vestitum absque aliqua condictione pro sua persona tempori donec vidua steterit.

Item, modo predicto, legavit domine Lene, filie dicti testatoris, usum et habitationem et victum in domo dicti testatoris et suorum heredum in casu quo non posset stare cum filiis et dotes suas deponerit, ut supradicta Mea, et quod non posset stare cum filiis, acedatur simplici iuramento ipsius domine Lene.

Item atendens quod Antonius, eius filius, recepit in dotem domine Nicholose, condam eius uxoris, florenos septuageniosa) auri quos expendidit in valiterumb) domum1) dicti testatoris, prelegavit eidem Antonio dictos florenos septuageniosc) auri quos extrahi voluit et mandavit ante omnia per dictum Antonium de hereditate dicti testatoris.

Item legavit eidem Antonio omnes denarios descriptos super quocumque monte communis Florentie, tam sub nomine dicti testatoris quam dicti Antonii, cum eorum pagis.

In omnibus aliis bonis suis, sibi heredes instituit Venturam et Antonium, eius filios legiptimos et naturales dicti testatoris equis portionibus et eos ad invicem substitui, prohibens et verans dictus testator eidem Venture alienationem, venditionem, donationem, translationem et ad non modicum tempus concessionem bonorum hereditanorum dicti ser Niccholay testatoris; eidem Venture pro ipsius obventu supradicto, quod si dicta huiusmodi bona vendentur, alienentur, transferentur aut ad non modicum tempus quoquo tempore locentur, dicta huiusmodi bona sic alienata eidem Antonio iure institutionis prelegavit et ad eundem Antonium iure a rescindi donatione2) voluit et mandavit.

______a) septuagenios: sic MS b) sic MS c) septuagenios: sic MS ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1) Possibly a reference to renovations around 1359 on a property in Scandicci amounting to “around” 80 florins as detailed in the Ricordanze, 3r. 2) Possibly a reference to the right of testators to designate that a bequest could be revoked in cases where it was destined for an emancipated son who does damages to it. See Pietro dei Boatteri’s “Expositio” on Rolandino da Passageriis, Summa, 577. 326 Et hanc suam ultimam voluntatem et testamentum asseruit esse velle quod et quam valere voluit et mandavit iure testamenti quod si iure testamenti non valet vel valebit, voluit istud et istam valere iure codicillorum et donationis mortis causa et omni alio iure quo et quibus melius de iure valere potest, capsans et anullans omnem et quodcumque <37v> aliud testamentum et ultimam voluntatem per eum consummatam et factam manu cuiuscunque notarii, quibus omnibus presens testamentum et ultimam voluntatem voluit prevalere, non obstantibus quibuscunque verbis in eo vel eis insertis derogatoriis, vel ultime voluntati quorum verborum derogatoriorum dixit et asservit se penitere. Rogans me, etc.

Ego, Iohannes condam Ugolini Ghaddeli, Florentinus civis, imperiali autoritate iudex ordinarius notariusque publicus Florentinus, predicta omnia et singula, secundum morem, testibus presentibus, acta rogantis, rogatusa), scripsi et publicavi eaque in suprascriptis.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– a) rogatus scripsi: rogavi MS