PEGOLOTTI’S ‘Book of Descriptions of Countries and of Measures of Merchandise‘ was first published as testimony to the former prosperity of its author’s native city. In the middle of the eighteenth century a Florentine Chancellor of the Tithe, Gian-Francesco Pagnini della Ventura of Volterra, puzzled by sundry anomalies that survived, an inheritance from the past, in the fiscal administration over which he presided, undertook to write a book summarizing the historical development of Florentine finance;1 he proposed to explain first ‘the ways in which the citizens subvened to the needs of the city,’ second ‘the value of the coinage with which they paid,’ and third ‘the sources from which they obtained the funds.’2He did not investigate far into the last topic before he was led to appreciate how much more splendid than in his own time had been the part formerly played by Florence in the economic life of Europe, how much broader had been the foundation upon which the government could construct its financial edifice; it was evident that between the twelfth and the fifteenth centuries the citizens of Florence had carried their trade into every accessible province and had drawn profits from the four quarters of the known world. To prove this fact, no better witness could be found than Pegolotti’s book, then lying in manuscript on the shelves of the Riccardian Library. Pagnini rebaptized the book and printed it entire as the third volume of his series under the now familiar title, which it has seemed wise to retain, La Pratica della Mercatura. He added as a fourth and final volume the similar but less ample manual written by Giovanni da Uzzano in the fifteenth century.

Although the book was thus made available to a comparatively wide public in 1766, the first notices of it in other works do not occur until a couple of decades later. Towards the end of the century, the historians of geographical discovery seized upon Pegolotti’s first two chapters for
 [[ Print Edition Page No. x ]] 
their description of the route to Cathay,1 and ever since that time the manual has been used as much for the purposes of geographic as of economic history. From 1766 to the present, however, in spite of the increasing interest that the work has attracted, the only available text, with the exception of a few published excerpts,2 has been the now rare edition by Pagnini. Pegolotti’s work has been known only through the medium of this eighteenth-century transcript.3

Pagnini was not without qualifications for his work of erudition. He was the author of letters on agriculture, of an Essay on the True Price of Things, Money, and the Commerce of the Romans, and of a translation of Locke’s Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money,4 to say nothing of the two scholarly tomes which form the first volumes of the series Della Decima. The editing of Pegolotti’s manual bears evidence of his care and ingenuity. Out of the tangled spelling and sentence structure of the manuscript the editor produced order by separating words, by eliminating superfluous letters, and by introducing punctuation and accents. He made ingenious emendations, many of which have been incorporated in the text below, for instance the readings per una for prima, tantaulaggio for tutta ulaggio, Caffa for chasta, peso for preso, Altoluogo for alchu luogo.5 On the other hand, there are a number of egregious and surprising inaccuracies in Pagnini’s text. Besides the omission of entire lines or phrases,6 and some confusions among the figures, such as 26 for 16, 4 for 1/4, 285 for 825,7 there are distortions of words, Pro for Orci, Melona for Celona, bianca for
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xi ]] 
biacca, 4 per 100 for 4 centinaia, pere for pece,1 and, most distressing of all, false readings of abbreviation symbols, errors which attention to the sense of the passage might have prevented: b.15 for bis (bisanti), libbre for bbra (braccia), once for soldi, perperi for piccioli, and denari for prepositional di.2 Punctuation led occasionally to trouble, as in the separation of words: storace, calamita and ambra, cani. Some of these errors are clearly to be ascribed to insufficient proof reading, some to lack of technical information, some, it must be assumed, to carelessness. There is an incongruity between the unnecessary faults described and the careful treatment of other passages, which can best be explained by the supposition that in preparing this text for the press Pagnini employed a secretary who was allowed rather more discretion than he merited. In any case, although the balance of praise and blame undoubtedly inclines in Pagnini’s favour, the number of inaccuracies noted in his text, together with its present rarity, seem to justify the attempt to offer a new edition based upon the original manuscript itself.

Fortunately this manuscript is still to be found in the Riccardian Library at Florence, under the number 2441, a large quarto volume bound in tooled leather, written on good cotton paper. The sole surviving copy, it was finished in Florence on the nineteenth of March, 1472, by Filippo di Niccolaio Frescobaldi;3 he in turn was transcribing from a copy already at one remove from the original, for, as the title page informs us, ‘this copy was taken from the copy of Agnolo di Lotto dall’Antella, and that book was taken from the copy of the book of the said Francesco Balducci.’ The script is uniform throughout, with the exception of a few explanatory words added to the list of spices by a later hand, probably of the late sixteenth century;4 it is clear, and offers difficulties of interpretation in but rare instances. A small number of blanks appear in the text, which are evidently traceable to the original copy, and must represent gaps in the author’s records; it is hard otherwise to explain why these blanks should commonly occur in groups, for figures grown undecipherable in the course of copying would be as likely to appear alone.5 Similarly, the three titles of exchange tables left unaccompanied by any text at the end of the chapter on Armenia6 may represent an unfulfilled intention on the part of the author.

There is reason to believe that several chapters are at present wrongly
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xii ]] 
placed, as if at some time one of the copies had fallen apart and a few pages were shuffled in the reassembling of the book. It is clear that the passage which in the manuscript is headed ‘Anche diritto che si paga all’uscire d’Arzilla’1 should follow as a continuation of the later section2 which treats of Arsila in some detail, and the last few lines of which are precisely the beginning of a customs tariff. On folio 98^r, the new section which opens with a discussion of qualities of copper certainly continues the matter of the closing paragraphs of the book; on the very last page of the manuscript, Pegolotti tells of two qualities of copper to which he refers in the earlier passage as points of contrast. It is reasonable to assume that the adjacent section on chartering ships3 would also move back to the technical division of the work, and in this way the geographical survey can proceed without interruption. The sole remaining oddity, the section on qualities of gold,4 should probably be attached to the division which deals with qualities of wares; in the course of the discussion Pegolotti speaks5 of having already given certain formulae for refining gold and silver, and he must be referring to the later section which treats of those subjects and which immediately precedes the chapters on qualities of merchandise.6 In the present edition the wandering chapters have been removed to their original positions as postulated here, in order to restore the continuity of the text.

If these changes are made, it will be noticed that the book ends in the middle of a paragraph with a disquieting ‘ecc.’ What happened it is impossible to say; whether Pegolotti was at this point distracted from his work, whether a later copyist grew weary, and if so how much is lost, there is no way to discover. In certain other respects, however, Pegolotti’s work was subjected to alterations which can be identified. The index at the front of the manuscript was compiled after the shuffling of the chapters discussed above, for the titles to those chapters are listed in the order of the manuscript; it was made, however, before the time of Frescobaldi, for he would not have written correctly into the index a title which in the text he had curtailed,7 nor have entered corrupt forms in the index to correspond with better versions in his text, for instance Reame for Rame.8 The dislocation of items in the listing of exchange tables, on the other hand, and the failure to list many tables which appear
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xiii ]] 
in the text, may represent either changes made in the order of subjects or additional information added in the course of copying,1 but there is no evidence to warrant a definite conclusion on either hypothesis. In the second place, it can be said that earlier manuscripts contained far more abbreviations than Frescobaldi’s copy; the misreading once 3 for 632 proves that the copyist tended to expand abbreviations; the occasional spellings karati for the usual carati, kantar for cantare are probably incomplete adaptations of the symbols kar and kant; and many of the mistakes, grossi for grani, libbra for braccia, cantare for centinaio, carica for cantara3 are best explained by the supposition that these words in the original were abbreviated. Finally, there are some few instances of the scribal repetitions and omissions inevitable in so long a manuscript.

The subject matter of the book scarcely lends itself to illustration, but scattered through the descriptions of wares are a few pen sketches of fibers and roots, and the title page is brilliantly illuminated. Within a border of purple, green, and blue foliage and flowers, decorated with putti, birds, and a multitude of bright golden discs, the title is written in red ink, and two initials contain miniatures, one a tiny but complete map of the known world, the other a portrait presumably of the author as his successors chose to imagine him. A laurel wreath at the foot of the page encircles a coat of arms, over which a seal has subsequently been imprinted; the arms are apparently on a field of azure, a lion rampant sable. The title page and sketches are all reproduced in this edition from the manuscript; it is to be assumed that the illustrations may be copies of designs in the original text, but that the illuminated title page is sheer decoration invented for Frescobaldi’s copy.

In place of any date that Pegolotti may have inscribed when he completed his book, we have now only the day of his second copyist’s Laus Deo, March 19, 1472, but the author has fortunately left in his text sufficient indications of the time when he was writing. It has been pointed out4 that Pegolotti mentions the date 1335, when he procured the charter of privileges for his company in Armenia;5 on the other hand, ‘the present King Robert’ was evidently still alive when the chapter on Naples was written,6 and that King died in 1343. The gap between these dates can be reduced when it is observed that in one of his calculations
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xiv ]] 
concerning the calendar Pegolotti refers to the day on which fell the calends of December, 1337.1 Certain details in the chapter on Genoa can be dated after the Catalan war (1332) and before the raising of the tariff in 1340;2 the Venetian duties were certainly recorded after 1338, perhaps even after 1339.3 Furthermore, as will be seen4 there is reason to believe that the chapter on marking cloths was written between 1338 and 1342. Now the Easter table5 opens with the year 1340, at the mid-point between these limits, and that date, long considered the term of Pegolotti’s work of authorship, may for general purposes be accepted as such.

Any date must, however, be used with caution, for it is obvious that Pegolotti, whenever he may have compiled the book, and the writing itself was no doubt a lengthy operation, certainly embodied in it material collected over a large part of his working career, material, in other words, which would refer back to various dates in the period between 1310 and 1340. An excellent warning is given by the chapter on Bruges, which includes a list of duties to be paid in Sluys or Damme;6 the list, it will be seen, is repeated, each item appearing twice, but in the first version the duty is reckoned at 10½ deniers parisis per groat tournois, in the second at 12 deniers per groat. In other words, Pegolotti had before him two tariffs of different periods, the second later than the first, for the course of the denier in relation to the groat was steadily down, and both tariffs are presumably of dates earlier than 1338, when Florence officially recognized the relation of 13⅓ deniers parisis to the groat.7 Indeed, in some places Pegolotti gives equivalences of 20 and 21 deniers per groat,8 and official valuations were likely to lag behind the current quotations. The attempt to ascertain a definite date for these values would be hazardous, but it is clear from this example that the facts set forth by Pegolotti derive from various periods of his lifetime.

Examination of the text, therefore, reveals that the evidence of this document cannot be used without some reservations. Pagnini’s edition has, of course, long ago incurred suspicion; it is hoped that the present edition, which furnishes the text of the Riccardian manuscript, will remove this impediment to our thorough acquaintance with Pegolotti’s
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xv ]] 
work. On the other hand, the manuscript itself is not wholly reliable. It is a copy at two removes from the original, a copy made over a century after Pegolotti’s compilation was presumably finished, and corruptions have inevitably crept in. There is good reason to believe that the matter has been slightly rearranged within the volume, and even that some material has been lost. The suspicion arises that later additions may have been made to the text, though it must at once be added that no direct evidence of interpolation has yet come to light. Finally, in point of dating the material, aside from the question of interpolation, clearly no more definite limits can be set for the larger part of the book than that it probably derives from the decades 1310 to 1340, the period of Pegolotti’s active career in business. It remains now to be seen what discoverable factors in the experience and methods of the author may for better or for worse further affect the estimation in which his work is to be held.

The Author

Of the author himself, it is known that he was a Florentine, that he wrote in the first half of the fourteenth century, and that he was active in the great banking house of the Bardi; no more is needed to explain the unusual scope of his work and to justify confidence in his extensive knowledge. Florence at precisely that period was in the heyday of her prosperity, building up great industries which stimulated a constant search for better sources of raw materials, for more profitable, more extensive markets to which the products might be distributed. At the same time, the abounding capital resources of the city, the confident skill of the citizens, enabled Florentine merchants to assume leadership in the world of international finance; along the ramifying channels opened to them by the peculiarly favorable patronage of the Papal Curia they spread in all directions until their operations included intimate financial dealings with the Kings of France and England, the restless Angevin House of Naples, and a host of lesser powers and potentates, dealings which brought as a natural consequence unusual favours and privileges in aid of Florentine commercial activity.

The Company of the Bardi was one of the most conspicuous firms among those groups of capitalists who were the leaders of Florentine enterprise. This firm is known to have had, on July 1, 1318, assets in inventory and accounts receivable, of at least 1,266,775 lire, 11 soldi a fiorino,1 equivalent, at $2.35 per gold florin, to $2,053,050 gold. In the surviving fragments of the company’s account books are recorded the
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xvi ]] 
names of 336 men employed by the firm during the period 1310 to 1340.1 The bank had branches or connections in Antwerp, Bruges, Paris, London, Avignon, many Italian cities, Majorca, Rhodes, Cyprus, and Constantinople;2 it enjoyed special privileges in the ports of Setalia in Asia Minor, Ayas in Armenia, Famagusta in Cyprus, and Seville in Spain,3 to say nothing of the favours showered upon it in Naples and England; a papal collector even suggested that the Bardi open an office in Cracow to handle the funds collected for the Curia in Poland.4 With these resources, the company advanced loans to kings, barons, prelates, and private individuals; accepted deposits either at fixed interest or for part share in profits;5 transferred funds between any of its offices; performed services for its patrons, giving courier facilities, or playing commissariat to royal armies; and finally it bought, sold, and shipped merchandise, wool, cloth, plate, grain, and spices. As a result of its operations depositors were paid an attractive interest, and the proprietors received, during the prosperous decades 1310 to 1330, both 8% per annum upon extra funds invested in the bank and a considerable annual return upon their shares of the basic capital which formed the core of the enterprise.6

Such was the world in which Pegolotti lived and worked. Fortunately there remain among the records of the period traces of his career which make it possible to gauge even more closely his experience and the use he made of it in composing his manual. Of his immediate background, to be sure, little can as yet be said, but at least this much is known, that Pegolotti’s father was a man of some consequence in the community and that his brother was an employee with a good position in Francesco’s own firm. The father, Balduccio Pegolotti, was sent by the Commune as ambassador to Siena to negotiate a treaty securing to Florentine merchants free use of the port of Talamone at the time when the expedition of Henry VII seemed likely to disturb intercourse with Pisa.7 This treaty was ratified in Siena on August 17, 1311.

Francesco’s brother, Rinieri di Balduccio, is known to us under rather unfortunate circumstances. By 1332, Rinieri had achieved a position of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xvii ]] 
no slight responsibility as representative of the Bardi to the city of Perugia, where he had under his eye important financial transactions with the Papacy. In that year one of his shipments of gold fell victim to the rapacity of certain brigands, nephews of the Bishop of Nocera; these principals loosed upon the convoy a band of highwaymen who killed one messenger, caused the other to disappear, and effectively made off with the treasure. A few of the bandits were subsequently captured and made to confess. The company held Rinieri responsible for the sum lost, and even attached some responsibility upon Francesco his brother, but, after much negotiation, of its own good grace the company in part relaxed its claims upon the pair.1

The name of Francesco Balducci Pegolotti himself is found on the payroll of the Bardi at least as early as 1310,2 and from the records at hand of his activity not long after that date it is apparent that he must have begun his apprenticeship some years before. For on May 27, 1311 he is attested to have made payment in Florence on a bill drawn on the Bardi by their Naples branch; two days later, May 29, he appears as witness to a notarial entry; and on June 1 he is appointed one of the five proctors assigned by the Bardi to the business of the Order of St John ‘in partibus Tuscie, Ytalie, ac Lombardie et Alamannie et alibi,’3 business concerned with a debt which ten years later amounted to 133,000 florins.4 The bestowal of such powers gives assurance that Pegolotti had already gained considerable experience, and it seems safe to place the date of his birth before 1290.

When next heard of, Pegolotti had embarked upon his travels, and had been conducting negotiations in Antwerp. In 1315, as he himself tells us, he procured a charter sealed with the Duke’s great seal, granting to all Florentines the same customs rates as were assessed of German, English, and Genoese merchants. This charter he left behind him in the hands of the company’s representatives when he departed in April, 1317, for England.5

In London, Pegolotti was at once associated with the small group of factors who, under the leadership of Doffo de’ Bardi, one of the Masters of the Company, officially represented the firm in all its local dealings. His name first appears on the rolls under the date of August 4, 1317;6
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xviii ]] 
when Doffo prepared to depart ‘beyond the seas’ towards the end of the year, ‘Francis Balduchii’ and Roger Ardingel were by letters patent nominated his attorneys for three years;1 on the books of the Bardi in Florence it is recorded that from 1318 to 1321 Pegolotti held the ‘ragione d’Inghilterra,’2 in other words, that he was a director of the firm’s English office.

During the four years of his directorate, Pegolotti was concerned in all the manifold operations of that busy office,3 which may be illustrated by a few examples. On June 15, 1318, grant was made to Roger Ardingelli, Dinus Forcetti, and Francis Balduch’ ‘and their fellows, merchants of the society of the Bardi of Florence’ of £6483/2/0½ in satisfaction of various arrears on advances by them to the King;4 on November 12th of the same year, the same grantees were to receive 3000 marks for delays in repayment and for their own good services.5 The first entry is a mere statement of account, the second is payment of interest on the company’s investment. A more detailed operation can be observed in a document by which, in February 1320, the company bound itself to lend to the King 5000 marks ‘pour son aler de la la meer.’ A statement attached to the guarantee shows that this sum was paid out in 34 items to different persons, as they set forth to cross the Channel, over the months of February to May of that year;6 that ‘ffraunceys Baldouche’ was associated with the disbursement of the moneys is seen from two receipts held by the company acknowledging payment of one of the items of the statement.7 He was also involved in the private loans made by his office, for instance, 100 marks acknowledged on July 22, 1318, by Thomas, Abbot of Pippewell, 1350 marks acknowledged on August 13, 1320, by Henry, Bishop of Lincoln, and 36 marks acknowledged on October 29, 1320, by Ralph de Grendon, Knight.8 Finally, the advantages derived from service to the Court may be illustrated by the grant, on November 28, 1319, of letters of ‘simple protection’ to Roger Ardyngelli, Dinus Forcetti, Francis Balduch’ and their fellows ‘who are attending to the King’s business.’9

It is observable, however, that Pegolotti was not consistently associated in the purely financial transactions between the Bardi and the Crown. Dinus Forcetti, Roger Ardingelli, and the latter’s successor, Bonus Philippi, are regularly named as principals acting for the company; if Pegolotti had been a party to the negotiations, surely he was too important a figure to disappear into the anonymity of ‘their fellows, merchants of the Society.’ On the other hand, his name is rarely absent from the records of more material traffic. In 1317, on October 3, he and his colleagues are granted £105, viz. £75 for 150 quarters of wheat, and £30 which together with the wheat they caused to be ‘delivered to Simon de Dryby for sustenance of the King’s lieges going on his service towards Berwick,’ this sum to be repaid from the customs at Kingston, in security for which they were given one part of the cocket seal.1 On October 7, 1318, they are granted £31/4 for cloth of gold and sendal bought from them by the clerk of the Great Wardrobe.2 Balduch’ is among the members of the firm to whom it is granted that they may ‘hold a tenement in the street called Lumbardestret in the city of London, sometime of Robert Turk, lately deceased, and Elena his wife, abutting on Lumbardestret on the south and Cornhulle on the north.’3 Finally, to Francis Balduch acting alone the King sold, for £46, 10 pieces of cloth and half a piece which he had ordered seized in reprisal from some Flemings. Within two months, however, the goods were restored to the Flemings, and the ‘letters obligatory’ of the company cancelled.4 The evidence is slender, but one may, perhaps, suspect that Pegolotti’s interest and skill lay rather in the commercial than in the financial dealings of his company; that coming, as he did, from the Low Countries, he was occupied with the trade in wares, particularly wool; and that it is to this preoccupation that we owe the great price list of English and Scottish wools which overshadows his short chapter on London.

But there was also the Pope’s business to attend to. Within two months after Pegolotti arrived in England, on June 9, 1317, the papal treasurers in Avignon agreed with local representatives of the Bardi that the members of the company assigned to the Curia would pay to the treasurers all monies deposited with the English branch by the nuntio sent to collect the first fruits and other papal revenues, an agreement renewed in 1319.5 In consequence, we find 41,800 florins transferred from
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xx ]] 
London to Avignon between September 6, 1318 and January 5, 1321, by the members of the company residing in London, among them ‘franciscus balduchi’.1

At last, on December 27, 1321, Pegolotti applied to the King for safe conduct for one year, ‘going beyond the seas,’2 and so far as is known, he left the north of Europe forever.3 As to his route of travel, it is perhaps permissible to think of his having followed the wool route from London which he himself describes, running by sea to Libourne, from there overland to Montpellier and Aigues Mortes, and so by sea again to Tuscany.4

Three years later, Pegolotti appears at another of the focal points of his company’s business, where he has already become a man of influence at Court. In 1324, on May 21, he procured from the King of Cyprus a privilege exempting Florentine citizens from paying more customs dues than had long been the rule for Pisans. On October 23, 1325, and September 21, 1326, he secured renewals, and on August 3, 1327, a perpetual grant of this charter, which nominated the procurator of the Bardi resident in Famagusta, at the moment presumably himself, as the sole court of appeal in case a trader’s Florentine citizenship was disputed.5

After these triumphs of diplomacy, Pegolotti spent at least two more years in Cyprus. The Curia at Avignon received on January 3, 1329, from the local representatives of the Bardi, 4000 gold florins ‘de pecunia recepta . . . et per . . . nuntios deposita penes Franciscum Balduchii et Zenobium Chinucii de societate Bardorum de Florentia in dictis Cypri partibus commorantes.’6 This transaction probably accounts for Pegolotti in the previous September, for the next entry shows that the interval between deposit and payment might be about four months; on June 26, 1329, the Bardi office in Avignon paid 5000 gold florins ‘de pecunia . . . ex causa cambii deposita penes Franciscum Banduchii . . . die 6 mensis martii de anno predicto, videlicet 30,625 Bisanc. albis de Cypro. . . .’7

The period of Pegolotti’s service in Cyprus, it may be noted, was of great moment in the formulation of this book, for a remarkably large
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxi ]] 
part of the descriptive material rests upon his experience on the island. Not only is the chapter on Famagusta one of the most detailed in the whole work, but the long list of tare weights to be calculated in the cost of numerous commodities is significantly reckoned in Cyprus ruotoli, as are the tare weights of selected eastern crude silks.1 It is likewise notable that he analyses with unusual thoroughness the conditions of sale and purchase of Cyprus syrups, of the bottles in which they are contained, and of the cases in which these bottles are to be packed.2 Among the most detailed of the descriptive passages at the end of the book is the discussion of Cyprus powdered sugar, its value, appearance, and packing.3 Indeed, one is led to wonder whether it was not in Cyprus that the idea of compiling this book was born, for his interest in accurate statistics had developed to such an extent that he was led to perform certain experiments, of which he is our proud informant. In the first place, for fear he should be caught without his standards, he drew up a list for converting weights of spices into dry measure. Then, dissatisfied with the conventional procedure for reckoning tare on the boxes of gingerbread from Alexandria, he weighed separately all the parts of the package—to complete the test he even took a box home to Florence and compared the results there with the Cypriote computation—and found that the methods employed in Cyprus concealed 25% of the true tare weight of the wrappings. Finally, he found that a normal pine cone would furnish one-sixth of its own weight in shelled pine nuts.4 Once on the track of such information, he could have found himself in no better locality for the collection of facts about conditions throughout the Levant and on into the East, and it was most likely in Famagusta that he hobnobbed about the route to Cathay with the ‘merchants who had used it,’ and that he gathered much of his knowledge of Asia Minor, perhaps also of the Black Sea, Alexandria, and even Constantinople.

After March, 1329, close upon his fifth year in Cyprus, no further record of Pegolotti’s activity is available until two years later, when suddenly he turns up in Florence under the novel guise of politician. In the official register of elections it is recorded that on November 21, 1331 ‘Franciscus Balducci Pegolotti’ was made ‘vexillifer vexilli vermili cum dragone viridi, pro sextu Oltrarni,’5 his tenure of office to last from December 1 to March 31, 1332.6 The position of Vexillifer Societatis, or,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxii ]] 
as it was known in the vernacular, Gonfaloniere di Compagnia, can perhaps best be explained in modern terms by saying that it involved the combined duties of city councillor and ward boss. In his particular district, the ‘Banner bearer’ was captain of the popolo and its adherents, his chief responsibilities being to preside over assemblies of his group, to guard the central bottega and arsenal of the district, and above all to take the lead in resisting any aggression on the part of dissidents, particularly of the grandi. At the same time, the nineteen gonfalonieri formed a council which deliberated with the Signory, and the consent of which was in certain matters required to validate acts of the higher authority. Pegolotti thus found himself invested with a typical fusion of political authority and party control, for he was at once a deliberative member in a state council and an important link in the organization which was designed to preserve his party’s monopoly of power. Beyond such generality it is unfortunately impossible to go, and one can only speculate both as to whether previous experience in this kind of activity qualified him for the position and as to what events distinguished his term of office.

Political activity did not permanently distract Pegolotti from his business career. Over three years later he was once more at work in the East, where, ‘while he was in Cyprus for the Company’ of the Bardi, he obtained from the King of Armenia a charter under date of January 10, 1336, with ‘pendent seal of gold,’ freeing his company from customs dues and from fear of reprisals.1 It is generally assumed that in the course of negotiations he visited Armenia,2 but no proof of the fact exists, and Pegolotti’s phrase makes it seem possible that he remained in Cyprus as head of that branch office directing negotiations from a distance. Certainly there is none of that intimate detail in his chapter on Armenia which might be expected had he personally dwelt in Ayas. In any case, this is the last voyage of which we have certain record.3

In 1340 Pegolotti was again in Florence, again occupied with politics. On August 22 in that year ‘Franciscus Balducci Pegolotti, pro sextu Oltrarni,’ was made Bonus Vir, to serve from September 1 to December 1.4 The College of Buonomini was specially designed to serve as chief
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxiii ]] 
advisory council to the Signory and seems to have been free of duties in relation to local organization. These duties, however, Pegolotti was not permanently to escape, for within a year, on November 20, 1341, he found himself once more Gonfaloniere di Compagnia, ‘vexillifer vexilli draconis, pro sextu Oltrarni,’1 his term to extend from December 1, 1341 to March 31, 1342.2 During this tenure of office Pegolotti’s career crossed one of the critical events in the history of his native city, for it was on Hallowe’en of 1340 that the Commune in the very nick of time nipped a formidable conspiracy engineered by the Bardi to overturn the government of the popolo grasso. Amid the ringing of bells, the authorities summoned their armed forces and aroused the populace, which swarmed across the Arno and dispersed the as yet scanty forces of the conspirators. The insurrection was to have burst on the very next day; instead, the leaders found themselves in exile, subject to proscription and confiscation. The remaining Bardi members of the Bank were in a difficult position, but they fortunately managed to show, by proofs which were accepted at their face value, that none of their guilty relations were active partners in the Bank.3 Of Pegolotti’s own attitude and activity we know no more than that, since he was only a year later allowed as Gonfalonier to occupy one of the key positions in the defensive organization of his party, he must have displayed sufficient loyalty to the oligarchy in power.

There follows now a gap of five years, but that Pegolotti was not without occupation in the government is suggested by the following document, which, it seems fair to assume, refers to this period: in 1346 certain officials of the Commune were given ‘baliam, autoritatem, potestatem, et offitium quam et quod praedicto communi habuerunt seu concesse fuit providis viris Luce Fei et suis collegiis . . . Francischo Balduccii et suis collegiis . . . civibus florentinis olim officialibus dicti communis super vendendis et alienandis bonis et aliis quae in ordinis dicti communis florentini de eorum officio loquti continetur.’4 Again Pegolotti’s skill in the practical details of business receives recognition.

The next record relates to what must have been the culmination of Pegolotti’s career, for it shows him occupying the highest position in the Signory itself. In the list of priors who held office during July and August, 1346 appears the name ‘Franciscus Balducci Pegolotti, per il quartiere di Santo Spirito, vessilifero di Giustizia.’5 The quarter of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxiv ]] 
Santo Spirito included the region ‘Oltrarno’ which he had represented earlier, the region, incidentally, in which the Bardi had their dwellings. As ‘Banner bearer of Justice’ it was Pegolotti’s privilege to preside over the Priors, his special duty to guard the Ordinamenti di Giustizia, which formed the basic constitution of the régime, and to punish all infringements of them. Although there were special officers, Esecutori, to enforce these ordinances, it was still within the province of the Gonfalonier to act upon alarms, and one may dwell with pleasure upon the picture of good business-like Pegolotti causing the standard of justice to be unfurled from the Palace, descending to the Piazza to bestride his charger, and galloping away, banner in hand, at the head of his companies to rescue or revenge some popolano who had been set upon and maltreated by the magnates. Unfortunately, as with all such piquant details, this scene is but imaginary, and we have no certainty that he was ever called upon so to bestir himself.

The tradition established by Pegolotti was maintained by his family, and from the same lists of Florentine officials we gain some knowledge of his relations and descendants. The following entries, all recording terms as ‘priores artium,’ speak clearly enough:1

Giovanni di Jacopo Balducci Pegolotti, oliandolus, per il quartiere di S. Spirito—Novembre, 1389.

Pegolotto di Francesco Pegolotti, per il quartiere di S. Spirito—Luglio, 1393.

Bernardus Pegolotti di Francesco Balducci, per il quartiere di S. Spirito—Maggio, 1426; Gennaio, 1439; Novembre, 1444.

Pegolotto di Bernardo di Pegolotto Balducci, per il quartiere di S. Spirito—Settembre, 1465;2 Settembre, 1495.

From these entries we learn that our author had a second brother and a nephew, and that his son, grandson, and great grandson all succeeded him as Priors.

Finally, the last records of Pegolotti’s life show him actively engaged in administering the bankruptcy proceedings against his company after the crash. For the great firm of the Bardi, despite its wealth, prestige, and long success, was unable to avoid the fate of almost all of its contemporaries. As a result of economic and political difficulties which have been brilliantly described elsewhere,3 the Bardi were forced to declare bankruptcy and to turn over their books and documents to a commission of syndics appointed by Commune and creditors to liquidate the business.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxv ]] 
On June 19, 1347, these syndics and officials, ‘Francischus Balduccii Pegolotti’ at the head of the list, petition the Priors to enlarge their authority, for those who wish to purchase some of the assets now refuse to do so, saying that transactions ‘non possunt secure fieri nisi fiat provisio ista.’1 The proposed change is accepted. Only three months later, September 6, 1347, the syndics and officials again petition the Priors. Pegolotti still heads the list, but some of the other names have changed. This time the commission is bothered about procedure, the prestige of their body being injured by uncertainty as to whether their judgments be valid when pronounced during absence or retirement of some of their number, and they ask for definite rules of order.2 The bankruptcy proceedings, in which Pegolotti seems to be mentioned no more, resulted, incidentally, in the payment to all but English and Neapolitan creditors of 9/3 per lira, a liquidation at 48%.3

So ends our knowledge of Pegolotti’s career. The statement sometimes made that he himself went on the journey to Cathay is contradicted by the indication that Pegolotti is writing ‘according to the reports of the merchants who have used’ the road.4 It has been said that Pegolotti worked in Naples and Barletta;5 nothing is more probable than that his informative chapters on those cities are the fruit of personal observation, and it is most unlikely that upon one of his voyages to Cyprus he did not travel by way of the southern kingdom; but no direct evidence of his residence there has survived.

One final and significant fact does remain. The accounts of the Bardi not only show that Pegolotti was in their employ from 1310 until the failure of the firm, but also list him as receiving a maximum annual salary of 290 lire a fiorino,6 representing 200 gold florins or, at $2.35 per florin, $470. The figure, even with allowance for the then greater value of gold, may not seem large until it is realized that employees of the company, after a year of unremunerative apprenticeship, used to begin their careers at some 5 to 7 florins per annum, and that only the most prominent members of the staff, who might be described as managers of branch offices in such vital centers as London or Naples, could hope to
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxvi ]] 
reach an annual salary of 200 florins.1 In eloquent terms the record proclaims that Pegolotti was among the most valued and trusted executives of his great firm. Combine with this evidence the numerous and responsible positions he held in the state, the extensive journeys he made, and a picture can be formed of the man, diligent, informed, and capable, from whose pen come the precious details of this manual.

Sources

Pegolotti was wise in the ways of commerce, his memory stored with valuable information about the peculiar customs of far places, yet his book is clearly more than a mere compendium of personal reminiscences, an offering of tips and formulae from an experienced trader to ambitious apprentices. In fact, the author himself states his intention to treat of ‘things needful to be known to merchants of divers parts of the world, and for those to know who deal in merchandise and exchanges,’2 in other words to present a comprehensive work of reference for readers of different nations and varied interests. With this purpose in mind he interleaved his personal knowledge with statistical information; beside the intimate detail, the tip, for instance, on bargaining with customs officers in Naples, is set the tariff of customs dues, the itemized account of transportation expenses. For such facts the author must have relied upon documentary records, and it is the few cases in which the authority for such details can be guessed or even identified that must now be considered.

Two passages in the Pratica can be traced directly to their sources. The long list of brokerage fees chargeable in Pisa is instantly recognized as a mere reproduction of the brokers’ tariff adjoined in 1323 to the Breve dell’ Ordine del Mare, which has been preserved and printed in full.3 The notes to the text below present the results of a thorough collation of the two documents. It will be seen that with one or two exceptions Pegolotti follows the exact order of items in the Pisan tariff, that the relationship of the texts is so close as to leave no doubt of their intimate connection, yet that strange and, from the point of view of Pegolotti’s readers, distressing irregularities occur in his copy.

No objection can, of course, be raised to the series of changes which merely substitute equivalent terms or Florentine usage for the Pisan words: taccolini for tacculini, mandorle for amandule, bolzone for bolsome,
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxvii ]] 
infranto for stracto, mondiglia for buschalia, navoleggiamenti for nauleggiamenti, caffera for canfara, risima for lisma. Other divergences, however, are unreasonable. Variations in the figures might possibly represent a change in rates effected between 1323 and 1340, but there remain serious corruptions: mincionoe for miccino, stame di leghi for stame di legati, bucherame for baraccani, dorato for morato, mercato for marcate, mele grente for melanghette, mulo for migliaio, senape for sapone, Guardia for Giadra, and the amazing errors in the list of silks at the end. On the other hand, Pegolotti’s copy improves on the Pisan text, at least upon the published version, in two cases, Bucherame d’Arzinga for boccorare da ringa, oricello for oncello.

What is to be made of this extraordinary garbling? It may be observed in the first place that hitherto this tariff has been the most obscure passage in the whole Pratica and that, distressing as may be the evidence against the reliability of Pegolotti’s text, one can only rejoice that so many problems of interpretation are solved by discovery of the original. This being so, however, it can be argued that the condition of the text at this point was unusual, that some exceptional problem confronted the scribe. Certainly there was no reason for any copyist working with Pegolotti’s original manuscript to break down at this point and misinterpret so many terms with which over the previous two hundred pages he must have become tolerably familiar. It may be a solution of the problem to suggest that for this chapter Pegolotti seized upon a copy of the tariff made for Florentine use, perhaps carelessly transcribed or adapted, and without close inspection either in some way incorporated the document whole into his volume or allowed his scribe, if he enjoyed such assistance, to copy it in. As will be seen later, copies of documents of this nature were clearly available to him, and only the difference in script which use of such a source would involve can explain the weakness of his text at this point, a weakness which, it must be repeated, is exceptional.

That Pegolotti’s reports were not always inaccurate is fortunately proven by the second textual collation. Although the privilege which he himself procured for Florentines trading in Antwerp1 is lost, the contemporaneous concessions to the Germans and the Genoese are available in print, and these concessions by Pegolotti’s own report were similar to the Florentine privilege.2 Indeed, the parallel phrasing of these two versions, and their close similarity to Pegolotti’s text justifies the use of the German charter as an exact source for his report. The results of collation, as embodied in notes to the text below, tell a story quite
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxviii ]] 
different from that of the Pisan tariff. There are, to be sure, the same translations into Florentine usage; but of errors there are only two which need to be mentioned. In one case the figure 18 has been reduced to 8, an item concerning seal-oil has been omitted, and that is all. Here, therefore, is an example which may fairly encourage those who wish to use the Pratica as a source of reliable information; this passage may reasonably be called representative of the text as a whole. Furthermore, this report may with certainty be traced to Pegolotti’s own records. The original document received from the Duke of Brabant had to be left in Antwerp ‘in the hands of the compagni’ who represented the Bardi in Flanders, so that his text must be based upon a copy drawn up either by Pegolotti or under his supervision. The author’s personal papers would seem to be reliable; it is his second-hand information towards which caution must be observed.

Although the source itself apparently no longer exists, there is in another case a hint of the document which was used by Pegolotti. The tariff of fees paid under the Missa duty of Cyprus1 contains two peculiar items: mele d’abellie, cioè d’ape, and Racino . . . cioè uve. Now although racino is no very unusual form, and even abellie is a gallicism which might not be considered unfamiliar, yet this list derives from the Kingdom of Cyprus, where an official tariff was likely to be issued in French, and a possible reason for the explanations which Pegolotti added to the terms is that he was writing from a document in which he encountered the words abeille and raisin. This fact may account for the puzzles that occur among the other commodities mentioned, but not even pursuit into French has revealed the nature of frietta and coinsines.

Mention must be made here of another source which has been suggested for some of Pegolotti’s information. There exists a Flemish price list of wools from English monasteries, dating from the middle of the thirteenth century,2 which bears such notable similarities to Pegolotti’s much longer list3 that Cunningham thinks some Flemish document of like nature must have furnished his information.4 It would be impossible and on the whole unprofitable to enter upon the complicated task of disentangling
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxix ]] 
the various linguistic traditions, English, French, Flemish, Latin, and Italian, which would be involved in determining the question exactly, but some observations can be made to raise doubts as to this hypothesis. It is true that the prices given are stated to have been those which prevailed in Flanders in a certain year, the date unfortunately a blank in the manuscript; there is striking similarity between the Flemish versions of English names and some of those listed in Pegolotti’s catalogue, Berlinghe in both to represent Barlings, Morgane in Flemish, Morgana in Italian for Margam, Boukeselee and Bocchesella for Boxley. But it is equally true that Pegolotti’s adaptations are only what might be expected from Italian efforts to catch in writing the strange sounds of these place names, without the intrusion of any Flemish intermediary. Chiricchistede may as well be derived from Kirkstead as from Kerkestede, Giervalese from Gervaulx as from Girvals, Miravalle from Merevale as from Mireval. Furthermore, in certain instances Pegolotti shows a better comprehension of the significance of the name than does the Flemish list; Valdio would never be derived from Waudien, Diolaccresca from Dieulecroisé, or Novelluogo from Niewestede. Here Pegolotti shows that he understands the meaning of Dieulacres, sometimes spelled Dieulacresse, where the Flemish interpretation is incorrect, and on the other hand he seems to depend upon Latin forms, de Valle Dei and de Novo Loco instead of the vernacular Vawdye and Newsted. Similar tendencies may be traced where the Flemish list offers no example at all, in the versions Borgo San Piero for Peterborough, Ponte Ruberto for Robertsbridge, San Chimento for Clementsthorpe. A later Flemish document may, of course, have been more correct and more inclusive than the example quoted above, the only one available, but there is yet more evidence. The occasional geographical indications, Dereforte icosta a Portamua, to cite only one, and the mention of monasteries which have no wool, suggest that Pegolotti’s list was intended more for a reader interested in collecting wools in England than for the merchant who wished to dispose of them in Flanders. Finally, the paragraph at the end of the list warns the purchaser in England to offer sums so much less than the quoted sale price in Flanders that the difference will cover transportation and allow a good profit. In short, although some sort of information from Flanders must have been at hand, it was fitted into a schedule designed for use in England, and the work seems to have been done by an Italian who had local and first hand acquaintance with the monasteries concerned. No more can be said than that this description admirably coincides with what is known of Pegolotti himself.

Again, it might be expected that the ‘Orders of Florentine Merchants’
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxx ]] 
concerning the marking of French cloths1 could be traced to some official proclamation available in Pegolotti’s native city. This is indeed the case, but the search for the original of this chapter raises a curious problem. The authority empowered to regulate the trade in French cloths was the great Guild of Calimala, and in the statutes of the guild are rubrics dealing with precisely the subject of how the cloths should be labeled. Over a period of some years, moreover, the rule was subjected to material alterations, and it might seem as though the discovery of Pegolotti’s source should contribute a definite indication of the date at which he was writing. The results of the investigation, as will be seen, are not entirely satisfactory.

The two Statuti related to Pegolotti’s text are written in the vernacular. The older statute, composed in 1332 and modified for the year 1336, has been published entire;2 of the second, compiled in 1338, with aggiunte up to 1435, only the index and the amendments are printed.3 The chapter on taccamenti in the statute of 13324 was amended in 1334,5 and further altered in 1336.6 Now, the revised statute of 1338 condenses all these emendations into a single rule, otherwise unchanged.7 The development had led to undue complexity, and a last completely revised and much simplified form of the rule is appended to the second statute.8 This last form of the rule is immediately preceded by aggiunte of December 1341, and followed by a confirmation of June 19, 1342; we may assume that it was formulated early in the year 1342.

The version of 1338 will be found at the top of the three divisions, its order somewhat disturbed for greater convenience of collation; Pegolotti’s chapter occupies the central position; the text of 1342, inverted in one instance, is at the bottom. The paragraphs are numbered for later reference, in the early version with roman numerals, in Pegolotti’s version with arabic numbers, in the later recension with letters. The text of the statutes is drawn from the original manuscripts referred to above, with the sole addition of punctuation.

1338. i (This paragraph properly follows ii and iii below.) . . . . E che tucti i panni di fiandra e di brabante si tacchino a parigini, a soldi xiii e denari quattro il fiorino, chome si solea fare. E che oltre al primo costo e a l’altre spese, a ciascuno panno che ssi comperrà in fiandra o in brabante si ponga per carreggio o vectura infino a parigi, quattro grossi tornesi per panno, . . . e a’ panni di doni scotto si ponga tre grossi tornesi per panno. . . . E tutti gli altri panni che ssi comperranno nel reame di francia, si tacchino a quella moneta a la quale si comperranno.

Pegolotti. 1 Ànno ordinato e vogliono i mercatanti di Firenze che tutti i panni di Fiandra e di Brabante che per gli mercanti di Firenze si comperano ne’ detti paesi, ciò che costeranno per lo primo costo e per la fattura e per la bandinella e per lo tolonneo o vero pedaggio della villa ove fussono comperati e per la malatolta del reame di Francia, di questo cotale costo solamente si debbia taccare ogni soldi 2 di grossi tornesi soldi 26, denari 8 parigini, e questo debbia essere il suo vero taccamento sanza porvi suso niun’altra spesa nè di cambiora nè di vettura nè niun’altra spesa vi si debbia porre sopra il detto taccamento.

1342. a Sia tenuto e debbia tucti i panni oltramontani i quali si comperanno da calendi aprile proximo che verrà inanzi ne reame di francia o di fiandra o di brabante o a qualunque moneta, taccare e segnare e tenere teccati(!) e segnati bene e lealmente sanza alcuna frode a fiorini d’oro in questo modo, cioè . . . (see ¶ b). (From ¶ b): E questo sia e essere debbia il suo vero taccare, e nulla altra spesa di cambi o di vectura o d’altra cosa vi si debbia o possa suso mectere o taccare o segnare. . . .

1338. ii Im prima che in su’ panni oltramontani che ssi comperano oltramonti, si tacchi il primo costo che ’l panno costa dal drappiere colle spese che diremo qui appresso: cioè il danaio di Dio e il recare i panni a casa, (one sentence excerpted to iii below). Anche il cardare, e ’l pianare, e ’l piegare, e apuntare, e ogni affeto (assetto), e la bandinella lina, e ogni assise, maletolte, e toloneo de le ville ove si comperarono i panni, e uscita dalle porte, e il legaggio e caricagio e ostellaggio e vino e ogni malatolta che il re di francia tolglie, per cagione di danari quattro per livra della compera, e d’ogni altra malatolta che il re tolgliesse. . . . E chi taccasse per altro modo . . . (the penalty etc., then ¶ iii following).

Pegolotti. 2 E che tutti altri panni di Francia o d’oltre i monti che per li mercatanti di Firenze si comperassono, a quale e chiunque moneta si comperassono quello cotale primo costo e quello che costasse per assetto e bandinella e pedaggio di quella villa e la malatolta del reame di Francia si debba vedere e recare quanti fiorini d’oro montano, e d’ogni fiorino d’oro si debba taccare soldi 13, denari 4 parigini; e i panni che si comperano a lire di tornesi, quelli si tacchino a ragione di soldi 16 denari 8 tornesi piccioli il fiorino d’oro quello che costerà di primo costo e per le sopradette spese e malatolta.

1342. b (cont.) . . . . cioè quello che’ panni costeranno del primo vero costo e le spese della bandinella e d’ongni malatolta del reame di francia e delle ville, e della tintura e dell’afetto (assetto) di panni solamente. E questo vero costo colle dette spese recare e contare a fior. d’oro contando e mettendo il fiorino dell’oro soldi xvi di parigini; salvo che i panni che si comperranno a tornesi si tacchino e segnino, e taccati e segnati si tengano, a fior. d’oro bene e lealmente, recando e contando il fior. dell’oro soldi xx di tornesi, mettendovi il primo costo colle dette spese della bandinella e della malatolta del reame di francia e delle ville e della tintura e dell’afecto (assetto). E questo sia . . . . (as in a, then continue ¶ c)

1338. iii (Excerpt from ii): E se alcuno panno si tingnesse in altro colore che fosse comperato dal drappiere, possavisi tacchare quello che cotale tignitura costasse. (Cont.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxxii ]] 
from ii): Anche che tucti i panni debbiano essere tacchati il costo del panno . . . e siavi scritto il nome della villa là dove il panno è facto e ’l nome del maestro che fece il panno. Salvo che a questo non siano tenuti i panni di Borgi perchè li si fanno i mercatanti medesimi, nè’ panni di tolosa, però che ssi vendono a panno . . . .

Pegolotti. 3 E se de’ panni che per li mercatanti di Firenze saranno comperati ne’ detti adietri luoghi, ed eglino ne volessino poi fare tignere in altro colore, sì sia loro lecito che quello che costasse di tintura e assetto taccare e segnare insieme col primo costo al sopradetto adietro modo. E ciascuno panno abbia sua scrittolina, in sulla quale scrittolina sia il costo del panno e la villa d’onde <è il panno e> il nome del maestro che fatto avesse il panno; e a’ sopradetti taccamenti non sieno tenuti i panni di Borghi nè i panni di Tolosa però che si vendono a panno, e possonsi tenere con tacche e sanza come piace al mercatante di cui fussero detti panni.

1342. c Ma se alcuno, poi che ’l panno sarà comperato, in quella medesima villa il farà tignere in altro colore, possa taccare e segnare col primo costo quello che costerae la tintura e l’afetto (assetto) del detto modo. . . . E secondo ch’è scritto di sopra, ciascuno sia tenuto di segnare e taccare e tenere taccati e segnati i panni predetti e oltre le tacche avere e tenere apiccata a ciascuno panno una scritta nella quale sia scritto il vero costo del detto panno al modo ch’è detto recato a fior. d’oro; la quale scritta s’accordi colle tacche; e sieno scritti di quale villa è il panno e ’l nome del maestro da cui sarà comperato. . . . E a questi taccamenti e ordini non sieno tenuti i panni di borgi nè’ panni di tolosa o di tolosana per ciò che si vendono a panni; i quali panni ciascuno possa licitamente tenere e vendere con tacche e sanza tacche come a llui piacerà . . .

It is evident that Pegolotti’s rule embodies the essential administrative alterations involved in the reform of 1342. The number of expenses which may be included in the taccamento is limited, expressly excluding some of the items previously permitted; there are striking similarities of phrasing, as in the sentence ‘e questo debbia essere il suo vero taccamento’ (¶ 1, a) not to be found in the early version. On the other hand, there is one ambiguity. Although all prices are to be reckoned in gold florins, thus following the later rule, Pegolotti’s phrase, ‘d’ogni fiorino d’oro si debba taccare soldi 13, denari 4 parigini’ (¶ 2), seems to mean that on the label each florin shall be entered as that sum of parisis, rather than that the cloths should be ‘taccati . . . a fiorino d’oro’ (¶ a) after reckoning the exchange. In other words, although Pegolotti follows the later rule in establishing one system of marking for all cloths and insisting that they be calculated on the basis of exchange with the florin, he seems to cling to the other rule in having the label made out in parisis, reducing prices in tournois to the same terms. On the other hand, Pegolotti’s version is in two respects closer to the rule of 1338 than to that of 1342. He retains the distinction between cloths from Flanders or Brabant and ‘altri panni di Francia o d’oltre i monti’ which it was the very purpose of the new rule to abolish; the distinction is in his text purely formal, for the treatment of both kinds is similar, but the division of matter into two paragraphs remains. Most significant, however, is the exchange rate of 13 soldi 4 denari parisis to the florin, the rate of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxxiii ]] 
1338, where the rule of 1342 allows 16 soldi per florin. The rate of 26 soldi 8 denari parisis to 2 soldi of groats tournois (¶ 1) likewise harks back to the older rule, for the real is equal to 2 soldi of groats tournois,1 the groat is usually reckoned at 12 to the florin,2 the florin is in the older calculation 13 s. 4 d. parisis; the real, therefore, equals 24 groats or 2 florins or 26 s. 8 d. parisis, a result introduced by Pegolotti into his text for the benefit of his readers and based upon the reckoning of 1338.

The unavoidable conclusion is that Pegolotti was following an intermediate version of the rule concerning taccamenti, a version which contained the essential changes desired by the guild, but which had not yet been revised as to exchange values, nor reduced to the simple terms set down in the statute of 1342. That he was copying a document seems clear from his wording; many of his phrases were retained in the official recension embodied in the statute; it is difficult to believe that he merely wrote from memory and thus confused the exchanges. Unfortunately, the temporary original from which he was copying has disappeared and it is impossible to control his textual work. There remains the information that this portion of the book was formulated between the years 1338 and 1342.

Among the unique features of Pegolotti’s book are the itemized statements which list the expenses involved in producing coins at various mints. In particular, the section devoted to Florence is predominantly occupied with a discussion of the coinage, and the treatment includes an account of the costs of production for each denomination of currency.3 Whatever may be the source of such information in the case of other cities,4 these Florentine lists may with some certainty be traced to official tariffs of the Zecca itself. For one example exists among the records of the mint to illustrate the type of these tariffs, and the evident parallel between this list and Pegolotti’s text gives good assurance that a like summary was at hand when he wrote. The passage quoted below beside Pegolotti’s list is to be found in the Fiorinario appended to a copy of the provision of July 30, 1332 which first authorized the issue of fourpenny pieces or lanaiuoli:5

Of the discrepancies here observable, some may represent a change of rate, for instance the fee of 24 den. to ovrieri instead of 23 den., or 9 den. for munetaggio instead of 8½, possibly also the change from 170 to 160 lire per year to the engraver. The mint’s figure for correggiuoli includes certain miscellaneous items, one of them no doubt Pegolotti’s 1 den. for ferri. Pegolotti’s additional estimate of loss in smelting is naturally not an item which would appear on an official tariff of fees, and the sole serious discrepancy remains the L15 per half year payable to the ‘guardian of coals’ according to the mint tariff. Even if allowance is made for this variation, it is surely evident that Pegolotti could find at the mint statements similar enough to those which he embodied in his text.

This document also furnishes additional limiting dates to the composition of the book, broader in scope than those derived from the Statutes of Calimala, but none the less corroborative. This portion of the book must have been written after 1332, when the issue of these lanaiuoli was first authorized. At the same time the grossi mentioned immediately above, struck off at 166 to the pound of alloy, with a value of 2 soldi 8 denari, must be the new grossi guelfi issued at precisely that weight, but with a value of 2 soldi 6 denari, of which mention appears as of 1318.3 Just when the rate rose to 2s. 8d. is uncertain, but these coins were discontinued in 1345 upon the appearance of a new grosso, again called guelfo, which was to be struck at the rate of no more than 134 per lb. and to be valued at 4 soldi of piccioli.4 The chapter on Florence may therefore safely be dated between 1332 and 1345.

Another and quite different order of material upon which Pegolotti
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxxv ]] 
might have drawn is suggested by the obvious manner in which, as will be seen, later handbooks borrowed from him and from one another. One such book does survive from an earlier date, and that some relation exists between it and the Pratica has already been observed.1 This manual, obviously of Pisan authorship, is preserved in a seventeenth-century copy now available in the Biblioteca Comunale of Siena.2 The manuscript first offers copies of the Capitoli della Compagnia di San Domenico di Siena, then a number of late fourteenth-century letters from the Tolomei archives, some transcripts from the archives of the Spedale di Sta. Maria della Scala di Siena, and finally the following introduction:3

In un libro in quarto de carta ordinaria coperto di carta pecora, nella quale vi è delineata un Leone rampante, sono scritte a mano diverse formole per Processi Civili et altre cose, e instruttioni legali, doppo le quali che sono in lingua Latina si legge nelle carte segnate dal no. . . . al no. . . . in lingua volgare questo appresso, seguendo di poi altre formole per Instrumenti:

4In nomine domini Amen. Anno ab eius incarnatione millesimo ducentesimo settuagesimo nono Indictione septima decimo septimo Kalendas Januarij

Hec est memoria de tucte le mercantie come carican le navi in Alexandria e li pesi come tornano duna terra addunaltra.

The first two paragraphs of the Memoria as it continues after the above title are arranged below in parallel columns with certain passages from Pegolotti’s book.

After this point the two texts are in no way similar. The Memoria proceeds to list in rather haphazard fashion a quantity of equations for weights and measures between Acre and Alexandria, between Pisa and Montpellier, Naples, or Constantinople; there is a ‘memoria de la mercantie . . . a che peso si conperano’ in Alexandria,1 a list for the ‘longhezze de drappi di francia’ in ells,2 a section on ‘le vendite e lo peso del arasso in Hermenia,’3 and an almanac.4 In none of these divisions are the arrangements or even the terms remotely similar to those of the corresponding parts of the Pratica.

It is extraordinary, now, to observe how neatly Pegolotti includes the first sixteen items of the Pisan list. Two corrections must be made: if we can assume that in line 2 the Pisan pengnano is a corruption of giegiano, a word used elsewhere for gengiovo,5 and that in line 5 the incomplete sentence concerning verzi disciolto implies the figure v cantars fulfuli, then Pegolotti’s line a is but a summing up of lines 1, 2, 5, and 10 in the Pisan list. Line b corresponds to 3, c to 4 and 6, d to 7, e to 8 and 11, f to 9, and all are accounted for with one discrepancy, Pegolotti’s 2½ cantars of sugar or powdered sugar as against the Pisan 3 cantars in lines c, 4, 6. Again, lines g, h, i correspond to 13, 14, 15; k to 12, provided
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxxvii ]] 
it may be assumed that mm stands for miglioresi. Line j does not agree exactly with 16, for a hundred times 2 lbs. 4 oz., at 12 oz. to the Pisan lb.,1 makes only 233 lbs. 4 oz., not 240 lbs. The last lines of both lists are the beginning of permanent divergence. As for the paragraphs quoted, there is little doubt that these two small sections of Pegolotti’s book are related to the Memoria; the relationship may, however, be indirect, and the possibility must not be overlooked that some third version has intervened.

Beyond this point no sources have been discovered which can be connected by textual relationship with Pegolotti’s work. Fortunately the examples are fairly representative of three important classes of material, official tariffs, bulletins of official regulations, and private compendiums of information. It is as easy to guess at similar sources as it is hard to discover the actual documents; the information about the Black Sea, related always to Genoese measure, suggests a source among the records of the Officium Gazariae, and there is indeed to be found a list of transportation fees between Trebizond and Pera similar in form if not in substance to the tariff Pegolotti presumably used;2 the freight charges on the Venetian galleys3 are evidently drawn from some similar bulletins, and other examples abound, but to quote further instances which have no textual connection is fruitless.

There still remain two different points of view from which some insight can be gained into the methods and resources used by the author of this book. For one thing, he was no mere private individual endeavoring on his own account to amass this variegated compilation, but rather an important official in an international bank writing a compendium of such nature that his employers might well be expected to favor its progress. Now without question, the Company of the Bardi must have preserved a vast file of records which would be most useful to Pegolotti, and there is no good reason to doubt that he readily availed himself of this opportunity. The nature of the resource cannot be illustrated directly, for the archives of the Bardi, with the exception of a few leaves from occasional ledgers, have completely perished. Fortunately, the records of Francesco Datini have experienced better fortune, and, although they derive from the end of the fourteenth century, these documents may certainly be considered representative of the contents of such a collection even at a somewhat earlier date. Here then are masses of
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxxviii ]] 
accounts, copies of letters, contracts, and reports,1 dealing with situations most of them very similar to the ones mirrored in Pegolotti’s pages. In particular, notice has been taken of two interesting items, one a notebook containing summaries of Florentine tariffs, the other a list of the dues payable by Florentine merchants upon their purchases in Pisa, a list copied upon a sheet which had evidently been posted upon the wall of the office.2 These examples suffice. Available to Pegolotti in the office of his own firm, probably also in the branch offices, possibly even in the headquarters of allied companies like the Peruzzi and the Acciaiuoli, would be records of all necessary varieties. Tariffs were there for public use, and at secondhand (a fact which may explain the confusions discovered in the Pisan schedule copied into this book), notes and summaries innumerable lay waiting. Without too freely indulging the imagination, it may be suggested that perhaps in this way Pegolotti came across an actual contract for delivery of grain which prompted his legalistic treatment of that subject;3 indentures for the farming of mints may be responsible for his information on mintage costs;4 such an office would be likely to keep lists of the conventional terms set for bills of exchange, to say nothing of calendars and tables of compound interest calculations.5 It is even possible that there was a small bookshelf upon which would be found, if not volumes similar to the Pisan Memoria, then perhaps an arithmetic from which to copy problems concerned with the alloying of precious metals.6 And from this source, in fine, would most easily be drawn the many small statements of prices and costs, particularly costs of transportation or unloading, which look suspiciously
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xxxix ]] 
like the reports of a travelling agent.1 In the absence of definite evidence further elaboration would be hazardous, but clearly any appreciation of Pegolotti’s book must take account of this opportunity to obtain information, not to speak of the obscurities which, in some cases, use of this source may have introduced into his text.

Less uncertain than Pegolotti’s own use of sources is his service as a source for others. For it is a remarkable fact that in handbooks written over a century after he had finished his composition there are clear traces of dependence upon his work, and one writer of a presumably more up to date manual even copied extensively from his pages. Not only does this relationship usefully exemplify the principles under which these manuals were composed, but, since the borrowings occurred before Frescobaldi undertook his task of writing the present Riccardian manuscript, it also throws some light upon earlier copies of the work. No excuse will therefore be needed for introducing a partial collation of Pegolotti’s text with the work of certain later imitators.

One of the most complete commercial handbooks to be compiled in Florence after the time of Pegolotti is the Pratica della Mercatura scritta da Giovanni di Antonio da Uzzano nel 1442, published by Pagnini as the fourth volume of his series. This handbook is divided into two books, and the first book into two parts. Part i is a Libro di Gabelle,2 with long and detailed tariffs from Florence, Pisa, and Siena. Part ii, entitled Pesi e Misure e Monete, in those chapters which treat of particular trading centers, offers much the same kinds of information as are to be found in the first part of Pegolotti’s book. Chapter i of this part deals with Constantinople. On the next page, chapter ii is entitled ‘Chiarenza di Romania, cioè nella Morea,’ and the text will be found below in parallel column with various passages from Pegolotti. The italicized words represent the most serious discrepancies.

The next six paragraphs in Pegolotti are paraphrased as closely by Uzzano as the above passage. Then Uzzano, after the brief comment concerning lo dobbiere della Morea proceeds as follows:

The next two paragraphs in Pegolotti are copied faithfully enough until:

Three more paragraphs are reproduced with some variations, even the little sketches faithfully reappearing, until the closing phrase:

The next three items in Uzzano correspond with items on p. 118 f. in Pegolotti, amd Uzzano adds two items of new material. After this point there are scattered passages which are similarly related to Pegolotti’s book, and one chapter on Ancona corresponds as closely as does the above section dealing with Chiarenza.1

The remainder of part ii of Uzzano’s book contains several more chapters on individual cities, several of them new centers scarcely mentioned by Pegolotti, but these chapters are scattered and dispersed among a greater number of divisions dealing with technical subjects. In contrast to Pegolotti, the main interest is in this case concentrated upon the technical chapters, and a good half of these deal with matters of coinage and exchange, terms for remittances, and exchange quotations of coins between different towns. There are sections on classes of wares, a chapter on Brescian steels, on Florentine silks, on cloths and furs, chapters similar in intent to those of Pegolotti which deal with English wools or French drapery. The lists of merchandise bear witness to the developments of a hundred years; many new materials appear, and the subdivisions and qualities are more numerously specified. Finally, hosts of price lists are to be found, and one chapter even classifies the values of Perpignan cloths according to their makers.1 The whole second part of the book is devoted to a Compasso, a periplus of the Mediterranean ‘from one Strait to the other,’ with the bearings of the islands situated therein. This part closes, singularly enough, with a lone chapter on precious stones.

The collation above proves conclusively that in certain passages Uzzano’s information is closely related to his predecessor’s work, and that some of his exchange tables greatly resemble items scattered through various parts of Pegolotti’s book. Of the differences between the two texts, some are clearly in favor of Frescobaldi’s copy; carati should stand in the place of Uzzano’s chafissi, den. a fiorini for carati a fuori, vannone for riannone, sol. 33, den. 4 for soldi 336 e un quarto, vino for vajo. Judgment on other divergences must await additional evidence; some variations in the description of eastern coinage must await sufficient numismatic information before they can be determined. Finally, in two cases Uzzano, in spite of a faulty text, improves upon the present reading of Pegolotti; the 2¼% tax at Chiarenza is subdivided into items of 1% and 1¼% instead of 1% plus 1%, obviously a more accurate or a corrected rendering; the equivalence of 4 rather than 1 Stiva moggio to 3 Chiarenza moggia is correct.

This proportion between the corrections that can be made in one text from the other holds true throughout all passages in which any relation between the two books can be observed. The text below benefits by a few corrections from Uzzano,2 but would itself serve in a larger number of cases to correct him; and where Frescobaldi’s errors thus revealed are
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xliii ]] 
largely mistakes in figures, or reasonable misinterpretations of symbols, Uzzano makes wilder mistakes. One more passage illustrates vividly the difficulty under which Uzzano seems to have labored:

Mille for miglioresi, 188 for tarì 38, dassi for d’argento all represent misreading of abbreviations, perhaps mi, ti and dars, and in all three Uzzano is at fault, for the silver values of Pegolotti’s equation work out quite accurately. If Uzzano was working directly from a text of Pegolotti, this and his other errors again prove that the earlier texts contained more abbreviations; they also gain Frescobaldi credit for his intelligent work. But the compiler of a book such as this would surely, if opportunity offered, be able to avoid these stupid errors,1 and one must consider the possibility that a third hand has intervened, a possibility more clearly illustrated in the next book to be considered.

The second handbook which seems to owe a debt to Pegolotti is the Libro che tracta di mercatantie et usanze de’ paesi, commonly attributed to Giorgio Chiarini. Several manuscripts of this work exist, of which the earliest is dated 1458; the book was printed three times, and a complete version was included in the famous manual of Fra Luca Paccioli.2 To
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xliv ]] 
discuss the complicated problem of the interrelation between these manuscripts and editions would scarcely serve the present purpose, and it will be sufficient to concentrate attention upon the edition printed in Florence in 1481 by ‘Francesco di Dino di Jacopo, Kartolaio Fiorentino.’

A few collations will quickly prove that the texts of Chiarini and Pegolotti run closely parallel:

The names in the first item are inverted, a trick harmless in this case, less so in others. It is impossible to make a choice between seta and cera in the second item. Chiarini adds a new item, as he frequently does.

This passage represents Chiarini’s closest parallel with Pegolotti.

After this point Chiarini quotes the remaining two items in Pegolotti’s paragraph and adds one more of his own. The purpose of this comparison is to show the unreasoning way in which Chiarini could combine two texts, for if 123 lbs. Florentine made 1 cantar in Avignon, then it is ridiculous in the next line to give 100 lbs. the same equivalence.

Again Chiarini inverts the labels. The change in the fraction is characteristic. There can be no doubt that the reading in Pegolotti is correct in form, but it has been impossible to check the relative values so as to decide whether the figure should be 7 or 17.

Pegolotti, p. 202:

Firenze con Ancona

Libbre cento d’Ancona fanno in Firenze libbre 107

Canne 10 di Firenze fanno in Ancona braccia 37¼

Marco 1 d’argento d’Ancona fa in Firenze once 8, denari 6

Soma 1 di grano d’Ancona fa in Firenze staia 7 colme

Chiarini and Pegolotti each make an error; in the fourth item of Chiarini’s list, Ancona and Firenze should be transposed, for the soma is the Anconetan measure; Pegolotti is wrong in the second list in giving 107 lbs. It is possible that in the fourth item Chiarini’s 6½ staia should be emended to read 7½ and so stand midway between Pegolotti’s 7 heaped and 8 level staia. But the interesting features here are the constant order of items, and the fact that Pegolotti gives two variants of the same list, the only occasion on which such a phenomenon is to be observed. In this case it becomes clear that the relationship between Chiarini and Pegolotti lies in a common source, a source which may be pictured as a family of documents, small tables or collections of facts which, as they were copied, easily retained the same structural form, but as easily underwent correction or corruption in detail. Pegolotti seems to have picked up two differing versions, Chiarini a third, but all apparently derived from the same stem.
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xlvi ]] 
Of the remaining exchange tables in this part of Chiarini1 many deal with places not so much as mentioned by Pegolotti, Florence with Piombino, Bolsena, or Sutri, and Venice with Scio, Sorghat, Malaga, or Francavilla; the other tables do not draw upon the information available in Pegolotti’s book. After 30 pages have been devoted to the exchanges of Florence, and 72 to those of Venice, the remainder of the book (88 pages beginning with Chapter clii) first takes up briefly the ‘customs’ of various towns—Bruges, Paris, Seville, Valencia, Bologna, Lucca, Sicily, Tunis, Alexandria, Constantinople indicate the scope; it continues with a very brief description of certain wares, which has no relation with the similar chapters by Pegolotti; and it closes with 20 pages on alloys of coins, terms for letters of payment, and periods of scarcity of cash.

Finally, there is available a third manual, and one fairly contemporary with Pegolotti himself, which has been postponed until this point because observation of Uzzano and Chiarini helps to clarify some of the problems involved. The Tarifa zoè noticia dy pexi e mexure di luogi e tere che s’adovra marcadantia per el mondo,2 of Venetian composition, illustrates in itself the method by which such manuals were compiled. It is in three parts, the middle section, pages 41 to 70, a fairly full survey of Constantinople, Tana, Sara, Negropont, Famagusta, Candia, Alexandria, Damascus, Majorca, and Venice itself; the first part, pages 11 to 41, an abridged discussion of the same places with additional mention of Trebizond, Messina, Ancona, Montpellier, the Fairs of Champagne; and the last section, pages 70 to 75, a Chognoscimento de splezie et altre merze; finally, in a blank space just before the Chognoscimento a different hand has inserted, page 70, a small paragraph Gaieta con Veniexia. Now there is good reason to believe that the first, briefer part is in places a summary of the middle section,3 as will be seen presently by illustration; furthermore, this first part mentions facts related to a treaty
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xlvii ]] 
of 1345,1 so that the earlier section may very well have been contemporary with the Pratica. To cap the climax, the editor of the Tarifa, in an elaborate series of notes,2 has pointed out many similarities to Pegolotti which induce him to believe that the Pratica may have been employed as a source, particularly for the additional information included in the later part.3 It is a few of these parallels which must briefly be examined.

The closest similarity between the two texts is to be observed in the table Alexandria con Ancona of the later version:

Again, and, strangely enough, likewise in relation to Ancona, there is the constant order of items; again the figures differ in several instances; again each text offers a correction to the other, for in the last item Pegolotti is right in saying pesi, but the Venetian equally right in his figure 6 for Pegolotti’s 76.4 In his next table, Alexandria con Messina, the Venetian is fairly close to Pegolotti5 in the first three items, but he substitutes two new items for Pegolotti’s last two; further, Pegolotti corrects him once, for the cantar gerui is certainly equal not to the Venetian’s rotoli 14 a sotil, but to cantaro 1 e ruotoli 14.

Two or three paragraphs concerning Majorca connect both versions of the Tarifa with Pegolotti, for instance:

Anchora è uno altro pexo, che se chiama kanter, al qual se vende zucaro chandy, zenabrio, arzento vivo, endego, verderame, melegete, lane, e ancheline de Maiolicha e de san Mathio, e lane unglese. E questo kanter si è livre 104 de la tera; e livre 3 de Majolicha torna a Veniexia livre 4 a sotil, sì che questo kanter
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xlviii ]] 
geta a Veniexia livre 158 2/3. Kanter 11 1/2 de Maiolica geta a Veniexia miero 1 grosso.1

Ancora se vende a uno altro pexo, che se chiama kanter, zucaro, chandi, zenabrio, arzento vivo, et endego tutte sorte, e verderame, melegete, lane de quele de Maiolica e de San Mattio e lane unglexe; e lo dito kanter si è livre 114 de la tera. E livre 3 de Maiolica torna a Veniexia livre 4 a sotil: sì che questo kanter geta a Veniexia livre 138 2/3 a sotil. E chanter 11 1/2 de Maiolica geta a Veniexia miero 1 a groso.2

A cantara della terra vi si vendono: Argento vivo, e vermiglione cioè cinabro, e mele d’ape . . . (6 items) indaco d’ogni ragione salvo del golfo, e mondiglia di verzino, . . . (5 items) zucchero candi, . . . (15 items) verderame, guado, agnellina di Maiolica, agnellina di San Matteo, lana e agnellina d’Inghilterra.3

A cantara della terra . . . ch’è libbre 104 di maiorchini.4

Carica 1 di Maiolica fae in Vinegia libbre 420 sottili.

Lo migliaio grosso di Vinegia fae a Maiolica cantara 11 3/7 di cantaro al peso della terra.5

The similarity in the lists is striking. In two respects the first and older version is closer to Pegolotti, in mentioning agnelline (ancheline) and in quoting 104 lbs. per cantar, undoubtedly the correct figure. But the second version likewise offers two points of similarity, in mentioning indigo tutte sorte, and in giving 138 2/3 lbs. subtle of Venice per cantar, for if the Majorca carica is according to Pegolotti 420 lbs. subtle, the cantar, 1/3 carica, comes to 140 lbs. subtle. Both versions differ from Pegolotti in listing melegette, which he includes under items sold by the lb.,6 in omitting a number of names, and above all in varying the order of items.

The editor of the Tarifa considers that the descriptions of merchandise which close his manuscript are closer to Pegolotti than ‘casual coincidence’ would allow.7 One parallel will suffice:

Lacha fina, zoè la madura, si vuol trar in color rosso e vuol esser grossa e tegna puocha polvere, e sia ben neta de legno, ma non aver constreto per entro. Eziandio non vuol esser dentro de quela che par pegola spania, zoè cussì luzida, perchè quela cussì fata xe axerba.8

If this paragraph is compared with Pegolotti’s lengthy discussion on page 366, it will be seen that there is actually but one point of contact;
 [[ Print Edition Page No. xlix ]] 
certain lumps, known as costiere, may form, ‘dura in modo di pece, ma ove la pece è nera, e quelle cotali costiere . . . sono rossi e del colore della lacca acerba, e truovasi più quelle cotali costiere nelle lacche acerbe che nelle lacche mature.’ This matter of pitch or tar, and they are not necessarily the same thing, is surely a technicality which would be familiar to all merchants who had to deal with lac, and which would easily creep into any such description as this. The same may be said of the other chognoscimenti; compared to Pegolotti’s excellent discussions, they are bare and thin, and if occasional words appear in both texts, this is most likely due to the fact that the qualities of wares and the manner of describing them are, after all, conventional and more or less universal factors. The lists of items treated are by no means the same, and in the subjects which are common to both books the Venetian has marvellously neglected the most individual and most valuable elements in Pegolotti’s work.

Without now going into greater detail of comparison, it may be said in general that the above are the closest parallels that can be drawn; elsewhere, the Venetian, if he was using Pegolotti, must have skipped about a great deal in selecting his quotations, for the related sentences are scattered haphazard and embedded in quantities of other material. He must also have adapted freely, for in the lists of wares the order is altered, items are entered under other units of weight or measure than those given by Pegolotti, and omissions or additions are numerous. Certainly, if Pegolotti is to be claimed as a source for the later version, he must also be allowed his share in the earlier recension, as the above example concerning Majorca shows. The fact is that, after studying the earlier collations with Chiarini and Uzzano, one is inclined to doubt that the Venetian actually was borrowing from Pegolotti, for, except in the few exchange tables, there are here neither the similarities of phrasing nor the parallel order of items which in Chiarini particularly are so striking. Without these criteria it is safer to say that the relationship is rather one of milieu than of direct contact.

Even so, the Venetian Tarifa, by reason both of its date and of its substance, must be singled out as the most effective supplement to Pegolotti’s book which is to be found among available manuals of mercantile practise. Its author was interested in the same kind of detail, in the technique of handling wares, in the processes of commerce; it is because later authors allow the financial interest to predominate, because they sacrifice discussions of practical procedure to schematic tables of exchange and money movements that they lose the colour and the solidity of these fourteenth century writers. At the same time, the
 [[ Print Edition Page No. l ]] 
Tarifa offers a usefully compact example of the manner in which authors went to work in compiling their treatises, copying material, freely modifying and adapting it. The small addition made to the text by a different hand, like the later notes appended to Pegolotti’s list of spices, shows how even to the finished book anonymous contributions might still be made, accretions which in any subsequent copy would no doubt be integrated with the original text.

These comparisons with the work of Pegolotti’s successors, therefore, confirm our impressions of the manner in which he gathered together his great fund of information. For a last and essential source he could rely upon the varied and anonymous collections of fact into which commercial society was constantly distilling its experience. As he wrote, he must have been literally surrounded by manifold compilations of data, whether more or less inclusive treatises like the Pisan Memoria and the Venetian Tarifa, or brief occasional tables of statistics and miscellaneous information. One may imagine such memoranda to have been in a continuing state of flux, now copied or excerpted for a particular occasion, for some prospective voyage or venture, now embroidered or corrected by a superior expert, and sometimes corrupted by a hasty or ignorant scribe. All the manuals rest in some measure upon this foundation; evidence of Uzzano’s dependence upon it has even led to the passing remark that most of the commercial handbooks may be regarded as anonymous compositions of which mere copyists have assumed the authorship.1 Valid as the suggestion may be in many cases, of the Pratica it cannot be held entirely true. Pegolotti’s debt to others may be great, but the singular virtue of his book lies in the fact that he clothed this skeletal detail with the flesh and blood of his personal knowledge and experience, often shaping his record to vivid, individual form.

The Pratica has experienced some vicissitudes since it left Pegolotti’s hands. Subsequent copyists have occasionally lost their way in his long, repetitious sentences; they have cavalierly distorted his figures, and garbled terms with which they were unfamiliar. Some of his sources were unwisely chosen, and it is well to make a distinction between those parts of the book which derive from Pegolotti’s personal experience and those which may be assumed to rest upon second-hand information. More allowance must be made, perhaps, than might have been anticipated for the blurring of details, but the Pratica none the less remains an invaluable mirror in which can be seen reflected at once the broad interests of the Florentine community, the manifold concerns of the House of the Bardi, and the faithful ability of the author, Pegolotti himself.