This article was downloaded by: [Daniel Curtis] On: 03 September 2012, At: 10:57 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Medieval History Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmed20 Florence and its hinterlands in the late Middle Ages: contrasting fortunes in the Tuscan countryside, 1300–1500 Daniel R. Curtis a a Research Institute for History and Culture – Humanities, Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13, Utrecht, 3512, BL, Netherlands Version of record first published: 23 Aug 2012 To cite this article: Daniel R. Curtis (2012): Florence and its hinterlands in the late Middle Ages: contrasting fortunes in the Tuscan countryside, 1300–1500, Journal of Medieval History, DOI:10.1080/03044181.2012.719830 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03044181.2012.719830 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Journal of Medieval History 2012, iFirst, 1–28 Florence and its hinterlands in the late Middle Ages: contrasting fortunes in the Tuscan countryside, 1300–1500 Daniel R. Curtis* Research Institute for History and Culture – Humanities, Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13, Utrecht 3512 BL, Netherlands Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 (Received 9 February 2012; final version received 5 April 2012) A key strand of research for social and economic historians of the pre-industrial period is the relationship between city and countryside. Sometimes urban and rural environments enjoyed mutually beneficial relationships, though in other cases cities reduced their rural hinterlands to poverty and decay – the question is, why? By focusing on late-medieval Florence and Tuscany, this paper moves away from approaching this question through an ‘urban bias’, and suggests the answers can be found within the structural configuration of rural societies themselves. Essentially, some rural regions were well set up to repel urban predatory tendencies, while other societies were susceptible to exploitation. Keywords: Florence; Italy; Tuscany; settlement; decline; city; countryside A major preoccupation for scholars of the pre-industrial period is the relationship between cities or towns and the countryside.1 In some cases, urban and rural environments were connected to each other in a mutually beneficial way. From approximately the tenth century onwards, new towns began to appear and proliferate across Western Europe, and urbanising trends continued well into the thirteenth century.2 These towns swelled in size and numbers through the integration of urban markets and agriculture.3 The surpluses from newly specialised agrarian enterprises helped sustain increasing numbers of ‘non-productive’ citizens in urban agglomerations;4 and historical literature has now shown how urban growth in demand encouraged agricultural *Email:
[email protected] 1 The following abbreviations are used in this article: ASA: Archivio di Stato di Arezzo; ASF: Florence, Archivio di Stato di Firenze; BNF: Florence: Biblioteca Nazionale Firenze. An excellent historiography is presented in S.R. Epstein, ‘Introduction’, in Town and Country in Europe, 1300–1800, ed. S.R. Epstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 4–9. 2 P. Jones, The Italian City-State. From Commune to Signoria (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 94–6; C. Dyer, ‘How Urbanized was Medieval England?’, in Peasants and Townsmen in Medieval Europe, ed. J. Duvosquel and E. Thoen (Ghent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon, 1995), 169–83; A. Verhulst, ‘The Origins of Towns in the Low Countries and the Pirenne Thesis’, Past and Present 122 (1989), 3–36; idem, ‘The Origins and Early Development of Medieval Towns in Northern Europe’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, 47 (1994): 362–73. 3 R. Britnell, ‘Urban Demand in the English Economy, 1300–1600’, in Trade, Urban Hinterlands and Market Integration c.1300–1600, ed. J. Galloway (London: Centre for Metropolitan History, Institute of Historical Research, 2000), 1. 4 P. Clark, European Cities and Towns: 400–2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 44–5. ISSN 0304-4181 print/ISSN 1873-1279 online © 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03044181.2012.719830 http://www.tandfonline.com 7 M. c. Journal of Economic History 57 (1997): 827–58. see T.1450 (Leiden: Brill. B.13 Urban producers became increasingly concerned at the flow of rurally produced 5 See. Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ‘Medieval London and its Region’. ‘Cities. D. Agricultural History Review 36 (1988): 1–20. The Rise and Decline of Holland’s Economy. in particular. Epstein.8 Even seemingly uncompromising rural regions such as the East Anglian Breckland and the South Holland peat-lands benefited from urban demand for rabbits. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 81 (2003): 1124–6. Faber. ‘Matching Supply to Demand: Crop Production and Disposal by English Demesnes in the Century of the Black Death’. Epstein. c. Kowaleski. 10 For example. Ghent.L. The ‘Mother of All Trades’: the Baltic Grain Trade in Amsterdam from the Late 16th to the Early 19th Century (Leiden: Brill. . Campbell and others.1350–c. D. The Long Road to the Industrial Revolution: the European Economy in a Global Perspective. Campbell. M. Regions and the Late Medieval Crisis: Sicily and Tuscany Compared’. 2002). ‘London’s Grain Supply: Changes in Production. 1000–1800 (Leiden: Brill. Freiburg and the Breisgau: Town-Country Relations in the Age of Reformation and Peasants’ War (Oxford: Clarendon Press. see J.11 Urban territorial expansion effectively caused ruin within some rural societies.L. ‘Commercial Dairy Production on Medieval English Demesnes: the Case of Norfolk’.1250–1570’. B.1300 (London: Institute of British Geographers. 11 S. Curtis development. Shaping Medieval Markets: the Organisation of Commodity Markets in Holland.5 Higher-quality grains were grown for wealthier urban consumers. c.1200– c. 1150–1350 (New York: St Martin’s Press. Historical Geography Research Group. for which see M. chapter 2. thereby effectively blocking the development of rural cloth making. 2nd series. ‘Land. Nicholas. Galloway. the relationship between urban environments and the rural hinterlands could become far more exploitative. see M. Anthropozoologica 16 (1992): 109. ‘Early Proto-Industrialization in the Low Countries? The Importance and Nature of Market-Orientated Non-Agricultural Activities in the Countryside in Flanders and Holland.7 Markets emerged catering for horse breeding. the guilds of some cities and towns safeguarded the manufacture of certain products such as cloth as an urban preoccupation. Afdeling Agrarische Geschiedenis Bijdragen 9 (1963): 3–28. 57 (2004): 505. Bailey. van Bavel and J. Lease and Agriculture: the Transition of the Rural Economy in the Dutch River Area from the Fourteenth to the Sixteenth Century’. 6 B. van Bavel.1500’. Masschaele. Campbell. ‘Het problem van de dalende graanaanvoer uit de Oostzeelanden in de tweede helft van de zeventiende eeuw’. ‘The Rabbit and the Medieval East Anglian Economy’.L. Towns were not always well supplied by their surrounding countryside. 1993).6 Urban demand for meat supported a pastoral economy and the development of cattle rearing. 13 S. Distribution and Consumption During the Fourteenth Century’. Merchants and Markets: Inland Trade in Medieval England. Peasants. as some cities and towns grew stronger through the course of the Middle Ages. woods and pastures. van Tielhof. van Bavel. A Medieval Capital and its Grain Supply: Agrarian Production and Distribution in the London Region. Past and Present 70 (1976): 8–11. A study which gives real significance to urban demand for commercial expansion is J. 9 B. 2009). London Journal 14 (1989): 103–4. 2nd series. ‘Economic Reorientation and Social Change in Fourteenth-Century Flanders’.12 leading to settlement abandonment and rural migration towards the city in search of work.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 2 D. 46 (1993): 466–9. Production was driven also by the brewing trade. Economic History Review. sometimes expanding through long-distance imports. J. ‘Town and Country: Economy and Institutions in Late-Medieval Italy’. Franco-British Studies 20 (1995): 23–34.10 Furthermore. 60–1. 2011). Scott. Merchant Capitalism and the Labour Market (Manchester: Manchester University Press. 8 J. 293–300. van Zanden. Keene. From the high Middle Ages onwards. Past and Present 130 (1991): 3–50. van Zanden. 12 For example. van Zanden. J. Dijkman. either through the imposition of taxes or the avaricious consolidation of land. c.9 This story is an idealistic picture. fish or proto-industrial produce such as bricks and textiles. Past and Present 172 (2001): 36. La formation dex prix céréaliers en Brabant et en Flandre au XVe siècle (Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles. 1986). ‘The Jump-Start of the Holland Economy During the Late-Medieval Crisis. Tits-Dieuaide. 1997). Economic History Review.R. For seventeenth-century Amsterdam. 1993). B. 1995). 3. B. 1975). J. 31–46. see C. Geschichte der Städtverfassung von Italien (Leipzig: Weidmann. ‘Urbanisation and the Italian Economy During the Last Millennium’. 40. 4–5.17 Nonetheless.18 By 1300. Labor. . increasing from 10. see C. Paping. was one of the most densely populated regions of Europe before the Black Death. ‘Parasiteren op het platteland?’. vol.15 In the pre-industrial period. Blanshei. which encouraged barter and specialisation. in Stad en regio. 1300–1750 (London: Routledge/LSE. 19 B. with a distinctive urbanised character in the early Middle Ages. ‘Markets for Land. S. it was not until the tenth century that the urban population of northern and central Italy really expanded. ‘Lo sviluppo dell’economia toscana medievale’. 20 S. around one-fifth of the population of northern and central Italy lived in cities. Malanima. Also on the same theme. P. 2010). Petralia. R. ‘Manifatture tessili e strutture politico-istituzionali nella Lombardia tardo-medievale: ipotesi di ricerca’. 17 For the ‘land of cities’ line. however. 474. 1682. Uomini e comunità del contado senese nel Duecento (Siena: Accademia Senese degli Intronati. ‘La storia economica: dalla caduta dell’impero romano al secolo XV’. A contrast is drawn between the Florentine contado. and. 217. Annales de Démographie Historique (1979): 135–44.19 Tuscany conformed to this general trend of urbanisation between 1000 and 1300. 2000). Florence had risen to almost ‘metropolitan’ status and 14 S.000 inhabitants between 1175 and 1300. Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society. Pisa. 1982). 400–1000 (London: Macmillan. 112. E. an area of plains and hills encircling Florence.Journal of Medieval History 3 Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 cheap cloth into the cities.21 By 1300. 61. Except for Flanders. and Capital in Northern Italy and the Low Countries.000 to 110. 1981). 18 P. ‘Congregare populationem: politiques de peuplement dans l’Europe méridionale (Xe–XIVe siècles)’. 71. Romano and C. thereby stopping rural producers from securing the best price. 15 R. Epstein. 1974). but imposed monopolies in order to have exclusive access to the produce. cities and the countryside sometimes enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship. and how they were affected in different ways by the growth of Florence. van Bavel. Freedom and Growth: the Rise of States and Markets in Europe. 1976). possibly doubling between 1000 and 1300. ed. Twelfth to Seventeenth Centuries’. Collenteur and others (Assen: Van Gorcum. Redon. Arezzo. in Storia d’Italia. Prato. 1260–1340: Conflict and Change in a Medieval Italian Urban Society (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Perugia. economic and demographic disruption caused by the decline of the Western Roman Empire. 16 The link between medieval settlement concentration and specialisation of production has been made in C. see van Zanden. 2 vols. Vivanti (Turin: Einaudi. 1: 119–20. 2.14 Other towns allowed rural production to take place. Jones. 21 G. 15. though in other cases the urban–rural dynamic was far more exploitative. Why did some rural societies benefit from increasing urban influence while others were reduced to poverty and decay? That question is explored in this paper by comparing the fortunes of two rural regions of Tuscany between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. ed. ed. furthermore. in Storia della toscana: dalle origini al Settecento. Florence was still arguably the least important of all the major Tuscan cities (Lucca. 2004). Petralia. O. which experienced the crystallisation of settlement into concentrated villages around flourishing local markets. three times the level of urbanisation seen in other parts of Western Europe. which suffered settlement contraction and abandonment in the late Middle Ages. G. European Review of Economic History 9 (2005): 99–102. Studi di Storia Medievale e di Diplomatica 12–13 (1991–2): 19. (Rome: GLF editori Laterza. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 41 (2011): 505. Guarini and P. Italy remained ‘a land of cities’.16 Florence: urbanisation and the growth of the city-state Even after the political.20 In the twelfth century. Higounet. Siena) (Figure 1). supporting 60 people per km2 around 1300. Epstein. G. It was only in the thirteenth century that it grew in size and significance. Wickham. Long Road to the Industrial Revolution. 1847). Pezzino. and a mountainous region (in the distretto) more distant from Florence known as the Casentino Valley. Hegel. Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 4 D.V. ‘Le vignoble florentin et ses transformations au XIVe siècle’. 1973). 34 (1981): 377–88. in The Cambridge Economic History. Evidence from the fourteenth century suggests that Florence was consuming annually 4000 oxen.E. 2nd series. 77. 60. Il libro del Biadaiolo: carestie e annona a Firenze dalla metà del ʼ200 al 1348 (Florence: L.E. 4–6 juin 1971 (Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.–1363 env.P. had from at least the days of the Roman Republic exploited the South for grain. de la Roncière. Economic History Review. ‘The Trade of Medieval Europe: the South’. 23 See R. Miller.R. Studi Storici (1987): 433–4. in L’impero romano e le strutture economiche e sociali delle provincie. Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages. 2nd series. ‘I prezzi del grano a Firenze dal XIV al XVI secolo’. with C. Abulafia. Postan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Atti del convegno di studi nel X anniversario della morte di Federigo Melis. See E. E. M. 24 D. The Medieval Super-Companies: a Study of the Peruzzi Company of Florence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.000 pigs and 25 million quarts of wine. 72. as well as 1300 bushels of grain daily. 126.24 Other products such as spices.23 As a result. Postan and E.N.25 The problem with this reliance on imports was acutely felt when prices were high.H. Firenze-Pisa-Prato. Un changeur florentin du Trecento: Lippo di Fede del Sega (1285 env. Quaderni Storici 10 (1975): 5–36. Britnell. Curtis Figure 1. 1994). in Le vin au moyen âge: production et producteurs. 25 M. ‘La Sicilia romana’. ed. Università degli studi Firenze. paper and stone were imported from Asia. Olschki. R. Balard. Grenoble. 369. The North. so did its need for supplies of food and produce. Actes du IIe congrès des médiévistes. 10–14 marzo 1984 (Florence: Istituto di storia economica. however. Lopez. M. ‘Southern Italy and the Florentine Economy. 1987). C. however. 1985).S. vol. 22 . Goldthwaite. the city became more reliant on its trading network with southern Italy. 1986).000 sheep. Economic History Review. Pinto. Crawford (Como: Edizioni New Press. 20. 1978). de la Roncière. 64 (1991): 29. (some) textiles. Gabba. 64–80.000 goats. 1265–1370’. C. G. Major medieval cities and towns of central Italy was the home to companies (such as the Peruzzi) with world trading interests and leading banking agencies. food M.. ‘The Towns of England and Northern Italy in the Early Fourteenth Century’. ‘Firenze e le origini della banca moderna’. ed. which provided large quantities of grain and pottery. 30.26 Furthermore. Hunt.) (Paris: S. Luzzati. 1978). in Aspetti della vita economica medievale: studi nell’archivio Datini di Prato. 2.22 As Florence grew during the thirteenth century. 26 R. ‘Le commerce du blé en mer Noire (XIIIe–XVe siècles)’. 31 J. while the State of Siena was not conquered outright until 1555. Francovich. 1981). McCormick (Aldershot: Ashgate. Francovich and R. Esser (Pisa: PLUS-Pisa University Press. acquiring rights to uncultivated marshes and woods. Contraction. ed. 29 The best works of reference on this are Jones. 34 Around 2400 castelli have been identified in the historical record for Tuscany. C. Gelichi (Florence: all’insegna del Giglio.34 In accordance with the G. ‘Early Modern Tuscany: “Regional” Borders and Internal Boundaries’. the Florentine administration began to extend its influence and authority over the countryside. 2004). R.33 In the Florentine contado. 55–82. Tabacco. Francovich and others.32 Some parts of Tuscany never fell into Florentine dominion. 33 A. Egemonie sociali e strutture del potere nel medioevo italiano (Turin: G. In some places Florentine influence caused rural decay and ruin. 97. open or loosely clustered villages known as casali. 1979). 130–1. D. ‘The Beginnings of Hilltop Villages in Early Medieval Tuscany’. in The Long Morning of Medieval Europe: New Directions in Early Medieval Studies. S. Many of the concentrated fortified settlements may have developed before the typical incastellamento period (the tenth and eleventh centuries). in idem. something which could be achieved by a more intensive exploitation of the surrounding countryside in Tuscany. 61–74. Griffeth. de la Roncière. 1997). extending its jurisdictions. Pinto. ‘Alimentation et ravitaillement à Florence au XIVe siècle’. small hamlets and some isolated aristocratic structures such as curtes or ecclesiastical granges. 2004). forcing the Florentine government to fall back on its international networks for the supplies it needed.28 By 1300.000 km2. M. ix–x. in Italy in the Central Middle Ages. 2003). 28 C. Prix et salaires à Florence au XIVe siècle (1280–1380). ed. Osheim. Ellis and R. the evidence for decay and ruin from the beginning of the fourteenth century onwards is in the contracting settlements and long demographic downturn.27 One solution was to be more self-sufficient in the production of food. 97–101. 2008).29 As is explained in the next section. Before 1300. Einaudi. while the more distant distretto was brought under control much later (Figure 2). Regions and Identities in Europe. See D. 30 R. only around 4900 km2 of this was considered contado. 1969). S. ‘Rural Italy’. 1982). Najemy. such as the Republic of Lucca. Archeologia Medievale 8 (1981): 185. Florence did not affect the entire Tuscan countryside in the same way. ed. J.30 Indeed. 1200–1575 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Brucker. in I congresso nazionale di archeologia medievale: auditorium del Centro studi della Cassa di risparmio di Pisa (ex Benedettine): Pisa. 108. while other areas withstood the exploitative tendencies of the city and even indirectly benefited from the growth of Florence.31 The contado was distinct from the distretto: it consisted of the rural areas which had formerly been under feudal jurisdiction before coming under the control of the Florentine commune. 2009).Journal of Medieval History 5 Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 shortages were common. R. many of which were sited in the Florentine contado. the contado represented only the plains and hills closely encircling the city of Florence. ed. ‘Commercio del grano e politica annonaria nella Toscana del Quattrocento: la corrispondenza dell’ufficio fiorentino dell’Abbondanza negli anni 1411–1412’. perhaps as early as the seventh or eighth centuries. and levying taxes in kind and in coin. See R. 5. Italian City-State. however. 1996). 32 G. Maria Pult Quaglia. Valenti. Renaissance Florence (Berkeley and Los Angeles. running from Empoli and Prato in the west to the Arno and Sieve rivers in the east. Villa to Village (London: Duckworth. 27 . ‘Verso un atlante dei castelli della Toscana: primi risultati’. decay and abandonment: the Florentine contado and rural–urban migration Although by 1427 the Florentine territory extended over around 11. the landscape of the contado was a patchwork of castelli or castri (fortified villages perhaps with a castle). 97–122. Hodges. The City-State in Five Cultures (Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio. in Frontiers. 163. Città e spazi economici nell’Italia comunale (Bologna: Clueb. A History of Florence. G. Abulafia (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collection de l’École française de Rome 59 (Rome: École française de Rome. L’insediamento altomedievale delle campagne toscane (Florence: all’insegna del Giglio. 29–31 maggio 1997. 2006). de la Roncière. Davis and M. Herlihy. 2nd series. 1400–1433 (Cambridge.37 The relationship between Florence and its close rural hinterlands from the fourteenth century onwards has long been seen as defective. See C. after 1300.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 6 D. 1968). Medieval and Renaissance Pistoia: the Social History of an Italian Town. Bollettino dell’Unione Statistica della Città Italiane 2–3 (1921): 38–43. 37 Anthony Molho. see D. 248–90. 1967).36 and reduced populations made Florentine fiscal demands unbearable for many inhabitants of the countryside. 64–6.R. Fiumi. MA: Harvard University Press. 1 (Milan: Giuffrè. ‘La peste del 1348 e la popolazione del contado fiorentino’. idem. idem. general trend in Western Europe. 185–9.38 Indeed. de la Roncière. Journal of Italian History 2 (1979): enclosed map. 1962). N. 1971). Economic History Review. ‘La demografia fiorentina nelle pagine di Giovanni Villani’. Archivio Storico Italiano 108 (1950): 78–158. thus by 1300 the countryside was teeming with rural folk. Fanfani. Florentine Public Finances. many of these population centres grew in size between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. G. ‘Indirect Taxes or “Gabelles” at Florence in the Fourteenth Century: the Evolution of Tariffs and the Problems of Collection’. 38 See the negative views offered in M. Rubinstein (London: Faber. 18 (1965): 225–44. Florentine territories: contado and distretto. so much so that by the time of the Florentine catasto in 1427. poor harvests and harsh Florentine fiscal oppression. Becker. Pardi. a situation worsened by the fact that urban property in the countryside was exempted from tax. The boundaries are based on E. ‘La popolazione del territorio volterrano-sangimignanese ed il problema demografico dell’età comunale’. 24. the population may have been a third of what it was at the end of thirteenth century. 1201–1430’. Studies in the Rise of the Territorial State (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Florentine Public Finances in the Early Renaissance. 181–8. ‘Population. 1574. ‘The Grand Duchy of Tuscany at the death of Cosimo I (1574)’. 36 Including the despised gabelles. 35 . in Studi in onore di A.35 The combination of heightened tax pressure. 1200–1430 (New Haven: Yale University Press. Molho. ed. 2. particularly in the second half of the fourteenth century. the rural population began to suffer a major reduction through a series of severe pestilences. Curtis Figure 2. Florentine oppression of its contado was much more severe than the For examples of rural population decline. 23–36. Plague and Social Change in Rural Pistoia. E. Florence in Transition. However. 1968). vol. vol. Fasano Guarini. in Florentine Studies: Politics and Society in Renaissance Florence. 124–7. 1983). ‘Santa Maria Impruneta’. 44 Herlihy. L’émigration de la campagne à la ville libre de Florence au XIIIe siècle (Copenhagen: Gyldendal.E. 5 (Turin: Einaudi. 40 Epstein. Henderson. ‘Pauvres et pauvreté à Florence au XIVe siècle’. ASF. in particular. Klapisch-Zuber and J.. 1966). in Il tumulto dei Ciompi: un momento di storia fiorentina ed europea: convegno internazionale di studi [organizzato dal] Comune di Firenze in collaborazione con l’Istituto nazionale di studi sul rinascimento.40 As a result. ‘Santa Maria Impruneta: a Rural Commune in the Late Middle Ages’. 272–9. Firenze. C. Catasto. 438r. unimpressed with the heightened tax demands upon them as a result of depopulation. no. using a combination of financial power and harsh jurisdictions to deplete the countryside of its resources. Caduff. ‘Publici latrones’. On building industries. I catasti agrari della Repubblica fiorentina e il catasto particellare toscano (secoli XIV–XIX) (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo. 1965). just north of Florence. 1994). Kotel’nikova. 48 Herlihy. Nenci. 16–19 settembre. ed. ‘Condition des salairiés à Florence au XIVe siècle’.P. 242–76.48 The impression of the contado during the late Middle Ages seems to be one of widespread impoverishment. ‘Cities. idem. R. B. Romano and P. 19–30. tells a general story of rural misery. 266–9. 41 D. 13–40. Studi e Ricerche 1 (1981): 139–77. Trexler. L. The Laboring Classes in Renaissance Florence (New York: Academic Press. Vivanti. Klapisch-Zuber. La formazione della struttura agraria moderna. 1934).46 As early as the thirteenth century. 45 For immigration into the towns and cities of Tuscany. Cohn. Jones. Herlihy and C. ed. Courbin (Paris: S. I servitori domestici della casa borghese toscana nel basso medioevo (Florence: Libreria editrice Salimbeni. 78. idem. Florentine hospitals and charitable foundations swelled with the impoverished and destitute. E. see S. Caferro. ed. 1980). Meek. J. hoping to be absorbed into urban building industries. inhabitants fell from 37. 69. C. ‘City and Countryside in Siena in the Second Half of the Fourteenth Century’. ‘Villaggi abbandonati ed emigrazioni interne’. 311–69. J. Regions and the Late Medieval Crisis’. Papers of the British School at Rome 24 (1954): 196. ‘Ricerche sull’immigrazione dal contado alla città di Firenze nella seconda metà del XIII secolo’. see P.44 Rural people fled to the city in search of work. C.39 The dominant city-state acted in the same way as an extractive feudal lord.N. village settlements collapsed and farm plots were abandoned. de la Roncière. Plague’. Journal of Economic History 54 (1994): 85–103. 1973). as increased migration into the city caused real wages to sink and pauperism and crime to rise. History of Childhood Quarterly 1 (1973): 260. 437–8. 442–3. Conti. Guarducci (Florence: Le Monnier. 1369–1400: Politics and Society in an Early Renaissance City-State (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1978).42 The fortified villages (castri) became almost deserted refuges. in Sviluppo e sottosviluppo in Europa e fuori d’Europa dal secolo XIII alla rivoluzione industriale. vol.598 in 1244 to just 8969 in 1404.45 Florence was no respite for the impoverished country-folk. 307. ‘The Foundlings of Florence’. ed. ‘Population. 42 P. 1982). in Storia d’Italia: i documenti. Ottanelli. Mollat (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. 3. 1979 (Florence: Olschki. 1978). 46 C. ‘Tendenze progressive e regressive nello sviluppo socio-economico della Toscana nei secoli xiii–xv (campagna e città nella loro interdipendenza)’. vol. ‘Support and Redeem: Charity and Poor Relief in Italian Cities from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Century’. Piety and Charity in Late Medieval Florence (Oxford: Clarendon Press. M. Day. Romano and C.41 Land went uncultivated for lack of tenants. Lucca. Plesner. A. ed. Italian City-State.49 The catasto of 1427. R. Klapisch-Zuber. deepening the antagonism between rich and poor. Ricerche Storiche (1988): 505.47 Even the richer members of rural society began to migrate to the city. 43 Jones. 1974).Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Journal of Medieval History 7 relationships between other Tuscan towns and their hinterlands in this period. Pullan. 166. 39 . instability W.V. 47 R. M. 241– 60. 515. f. 661–745.E. 1981). ‘Villages désertés en Italie: esquisse’. in Florentine Studies. Herlihy. ‘Town and Country’. however. in Études sur l’histoire de la pauvreté. Les toscans et leurs familles: une étude du ‘catasto’ florentine de 1427 (Paris: Fondation nationale des sciences politiques: École des hautes études en sciences sociales. Rubinstein. Guarducci and V. C. 112. in Villages désertés et histoire économique: XI–XVIII siècle.43 In the district of Pistoia. Continuity and Change 3 (1988): 177. 49 D. ‘Florentine Families and Florentine Diaries in the Fourteenth Century’. see S. ‘La carestia del 1346–47 nell’inventario dei beni di un monastero del contado aretino’. in contrast to the picture of impoverishment that Giovanni Cherubini has painted. Zagnoni (Pistoia: Porretta Terme. For higher taxation in the mountains compared to the plains.55 If people of the distretto were forced to move on. Connell and A. 1996). 2007). Cherubini. ed.56 In fact. ‘Demography and the Politics of Fiscality’. English Historical Review 114 (1999): 1121–42. Tuscans and Their Families: a Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427 (New Haven: Yale University Press. Journal of Modern History 55 (1983): 1–21. Studi Storici 27 (1986): 359–69. Broun and M.57 In a book of charters belonging to a great landowning monastery of G.52 Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Blossoming villages and markets: the Casentino Valley and the concentration of settlement The more distant rural areas of Tuscany which came much later under Florentine jurisdiction were known as the distretto and were often mountainous. ed. idem. 110–27. Cohn. 1985). in Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power. Cohn and S. in Portraits of Medieval and Renaissance Living. see S. 73. Among them was the area known as the Casentino Valley. idem. and catering towards local. 57 Wickham. ed. they simply chose another mountain village. Cherubini. often compacted around small coherent market centres. Brucker. and the constant demand for rents and taxes drained the countryside of coins. ‘Markets for Land’. a network of concentrated villages developed in the Casentino Valley from c. 1999). ‘Il montanaro della novellistica’.8 D. ‘The Great Ill-Will of the Lowlander’? Lowland Perceptions of the Highlands. Herlihy and C. rural people had no liquid assets. 53 G. 1427–1480’. in Mìorun Mòr nan Gall. Prior to the fourteenth century. where some of its communes such as Poppi were only brought under Florentine administration as late as 1440. 187. For mountain poverty. Cohn. regional and urban demand. ‘Ai margini del lavoro: i mestieri per “campare la vita”’. 52 D. as Chris Wickham has shown.54 Yet Samuel Cohn has shown that mountain people of northern and eastern Tuscany did not migrate in droves to Florence. Creating the Florentine State: Peasants and Rebellion. ‘Highlands and Lowlands in Late Medieval Tuscany’. 50 . 7–15. I Tatti Studies: Essays in the Renaissance 5 (1993): 11–32. 178–93. 30 km east of Florence. Mazzi. 56 S.53 Parts of the distretto responded more favourably to the rise of Florence: some areas did not suffer the same settlement contraction and abandonment as the late-medieval contado. ‘Florentine Voices from the “Catasto”.1300 onwards. Cohn. R. see S. Also for a related theme on religious institutions and piety in the mountains. ‘Piety and Religious Practice in the Rural Dependencies of Renaissance Florence’. see G. 2000). sometimes crossing the mountain passes into Romagna. University of Glasgow. Rivista di Storia dell’Agricoltura 10 (1970). Donne e uomini delle montagne. Epstein (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 54 For plague in the distretto. people lived scattered across the landscape in the Casentino. 51 Van Bavel. Zorzi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ‘Inventing Braudel’s Mountains: the Florentine Alps after the Black Death’. Mountains and the City. Curtis and insecurity in the countryside close to Florence. in Homo Appenninicus. D. Studi Storici 36 (1995): 1023–49. ed. Klapisch-Zuber. during the first half of the sixteenth century. S. ‘Bureaucracy and Social Welfare in the Renaissance: a Florentine Case Study’. M. Medieval and Modern. MacGregor (Glasgow: Centre for Scottish and Celtic Studies. 55–112.R. 519. 404. see G. many on the verge of famine and supported only by charity. W. A Provincial Elite in Early Modern Tuscany: Family and Power in the Creation of the State (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.51 The population of the contado declined all the way up to the mid-fifteenth century and only recovered much later. 2008). Benadusi.50 Only 4% of Tuscan movable wealth was in the hands of contado inhabitants. Essays in Memory of David Herlihy. 1348–1434 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohn. 22. 55 For the positive view of Tuscan mountain society. idem. Pestilence did reach these mountain communities and Florentine taxation in the distretto was at an even higher rate than in the contado. 1996). ‘Insurrezioni contadine e demografia: il mito della povertà nelle montagne toscane (1348–1460)’. 62 My database from ASF. 59 My data from L. Houses were considered ‘concentrated’ if they were explicitly referred to inside the castle walls. Castelli e villaggi nell’Italia Padana: popolamento. Tabacco. partly due to the fragmented nature of aristocratic power and landownership around settlements. Pratica segreta. 123–36. (Rome: E. 120. 117–18. Houses were considered ‘dispersed’ or ‘isolated’ if they were explicitly mentioned on a particular toponym on their own or explicitly mentioned as being outside the castle walls. no. the fragmented jurisdiction over the castello of Partina in 1258 in ASF. Camaldoli. BNF. D. Some of the settlements grew into flourishing small towns. 15. Catasto. MCLXII. ii. W. no. ff. no. Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 16 (1962): 451–5. idem. and were often explicitly described as located inside the castle walls. Die Frühgeschichte Camaldolis’. Schiaparelli.59 In fact the effects of tenth. 30 agosto–6 settembre 1962 (Milan: Società Editrice Vita e Pensiero. 174. around two-thirds of the houses were located in concentrated villages in the Casentino Valley. 1994). 5–6. nos. Also at Montecchio in 1164 in H. no. Storia e documentazione (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte.62 In the 1427 catasto. 1965). Lasinio. 2 vols. 462. 1907–22). Diplomatico. Loescher. nos.60 Castles in the Casentino were political symbols and isolated aristocratic residences. see ASF. ‘La data di fondazione di Camaldoli’.61 Scattered settlement continued through to the thirteenth century despite the presence of numerous castles.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Journal of Medieval History 9 the region. Toubert. no. but significantly they were rarely population centres and their demographic effect was negligible. 178. R. San Salvatore. La problematica archeologica’. 61 See. bakeries. In the late Middle Ages. which had grocery shops. ‘Relazione della peste in Poppi nel 1630 e memorie della più distinte famiglie della stessa città scritta da Bernardo di Giuliano Lapini nel XVII secolo’. vol. 1979). 179–81. see A. ‘Romualdo di Ravenna e gli inizi dell’eremitismo camaldolese’. 60 Unlike in the classic incastellamento narrative. Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 44 (1964): 1–34. (Rome: École française de Rome. butchers. 1 January 1258 and 19 January 1258. see Biblioteca Comunale di Poppi. Through the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries this proportion likely increased to levels closer to 75%. Magliabechi. On the varied forms of incastellamento in Italy during this period. i. F. sometimes situated on the outskirts. founded in 1005. Settia (Turin: Regione Piemonte. for example. 2. 1981). no.and eleventh-century incastellamento in the Casentino Valley had no consequences for demographic and settlement change. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Mendola.. 58 . Camaldoli. ‘Castelli e incastellamento nell’Italia centrale. 16–21. 330. Comba and A. P. no. The only signs of economic decline in the Casentino come at the end of the sixteenth century. Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae (Hanover: Hahn. 63 For example 44 out of 60 houses in Moggiona in 1574 were inside the castle walls. 246. 1. stimulated by increased marketing of diverse products to satisfy increased urban demand. MCLVIII usque ad a. f. Baldesseroni and E. 246. Vedovato. and between 1427 and 1552 these real village concentrations in general increased in population by around 30%. For the pestilence in the early seventeenth century. see some of the temporary outward migration in search of work to the Maremma in ASF. For population comparisons between 1427 and 1552. 330. 160. Friderici I diplomata inde ab a. In larger settlements. some houses were mentioned in particular borgi. Corporazioni religiose soppresse dal Governo Francese. G. for example. Appelt. Catasto.64 Late-medieval concentration of settlement in the Casentino Valley was linked to the close grouping of inhabitants around small market centres and points of production. ASF. Storia e archeologia relazioni e communicazioni al convegno tenuto a Cuneo il 6–8 dicembre 1981. see G.58 around 55% of the houses mentioned during the eleventh century were positioned outside of the castle walls and were identified by the name given to the field in which they were located. 39. On the foundation by Romualdo di Ravenna. or situated on a central piazza. eds. 64 See BNF. corte or piece of pasture. for example. EB. in Castelli. 1984). ed. 24. By 1427.63 Settlement in the Casentino only started to contract right at the end of the sixteenth century. 1973). this settlement structure changed.. 179–81. 10. ‘Campus Malduli. Les structures du Latium médiéval: le Latium méridional et la Sabine du IXe siècle à la fin du XIIe siècle. 250. e sicurezza fra IX e XII secolo (Naples: Liguori. houses were often recorded as clustered around central corte or piazze. Andrews. Camaldoli e la sua congregazione dalle origini al 1184. See ASF. 4 vols. eds. 250. Settia. potere. Kurze. in the context of a declining pastoral trade and the reappearance of pestilence. in L’eremitismo in occidente nei secoli XI e XII: atti della seconda settimana internazionale di studio. Strozziane. such as Poppi. Regesto di Camaldoli. but the effects were by no means homogenous. see ASF. 330. Cherubini and R. ‘Forme e vicende degli insediamenti nella campagna Toscana nei secoli XII–XV’. Cherubini.65 In 1427. see Schiaparelli. 2: no. barbers. tailors and cobblers. no. Decima granducale. Centro italiano di studi di storia e d’arte. 6852. Bartolo Rampino of ‘unknown status’ lived in Stia and had a shop there. economic portfolios. Porciano. 250. 27r. Università degli studi Firenze.66 Fifteen per cent of those heads of household listed in the catasto were tradesmen. 21–24 aprile 1977 (Pistoia: Centro italiano di studi di storia e d’arte. merchants. 747–58. 86v. abandonment and outward migration towards the city.67 Houses and shops came to be increasingly huddled around the market centres and by the late Middle Ages markets or fairs were in existence at Soci. have been dated by archaeologists to the fourteenth century. notaries. 283. furthermore. Firenze-Pisa-Prato. ff. nos. The Undevelopment of Capitalism: Sectors and Markets in Fifteenth-Century Tuscany (Philadelphia: Temple University Press. while Antonio Cecco. although the proportion could have been higher. 471. From my database of ASF. 246. ff. 71 G. 1980). ‘Artigiani-affituari nelle città e nelle campagne toscane del XV–XVI secolo’. Catasto. blacksmiths. G. Those pre-industrial societies unable to fight off urban exploitation (such as the contado) were made up of a number of distorted configurations. innkeepers. Some of the market centres with a distinctive triangular design. ‘Coltura e produzione dei cereali in Toscana nei secoli XIII–XV’. 67 ASF. saddlers. millers.10 D. Catasto. even benefited from heightened urban demand for rural produce? In this section it is suggested that those pre-industrial societies which were best equipped to fend off urban exploitation were made up of a number of egalitarian and flexible configurations. 179. Quaderni Storici 24 (1973): 875. and power balances. 705.. 475. modes of exploitation. while other areas of Tuscany (such as the Casentino Valley) were able to withstand Florentine exploitative tendencies and. tailors. Kotel’nikova. 1–21v. transfer and access. which were essentially polarised and difficult to shift. 179–81. società (Florence: Sansoni. 78v–79r. soldiers. 1985). shoemakers. Curtis druggists. belt-makers. Baldesseroni and Lasinio. 559–60. 128. 66 . 1: nos. barbers. leather-harness makers. Reale Arcispedale di Santa Maria Nuova. no. Goldthwaite. doctors. in Aspetti della vita economica medievale: atti del Convegno di studi nel X anniversario della morte di Federigo Melis. wealthy Florentine burghers purchased large portions of land in the contado. ff. Property distribution. These configurations are addressed in turn as: property distribution. 68 For early evidence of markets. spice-sellers. had a smith’s workshop in Marciano.70 become more self-sufficient in the production of food. ‘peasant cultivator’. for example. Strada. The Building of Renaissance Florence (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1984). 1063. Poppi.69 Landownership in the countryside was one way urbanites could diversify their commercial portfolio. no. Pistoia. such as Pratovecchio and Stia. in Civiltà ed economia agricola in Toscana dei secoli XIII–XV: problemi della vita delle campagne nel tardo medioevo. Regesto di Camaldoli. Ottavio convegno internazionale. Emigh. eds. 1982). R. 70 R.R.71 and perhaps 65 ASF. Francovich. G. in G. Romena. no. 2009). 69 See. 417. for example. 1981). 474. Pinto. La Toscana nel tardo medioevo: ambiente. transfer and access From the fourteenth century onwards. L.68 Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Divergent rural fortunes in the late Middle Ages The growth of Florence into a dominant city-state by 1300 had a great impact on the Tuscan countryside. Pinto. For later markets and fairs. 49–50. L’Italia rurale del basso medioevo (Rome: Laterza. 10–14 marzo 1984 (Florence: Istituto di storia economica. economica rurale. the Casentino already had an assortment of bakers. Castel San Niccolò and Bibbiena. weavers and weapons makers. Pratovecchio. Stia. 105r. Why did the contado suffer from settlement contraction. ff. Dean and C. 326. Balestracci. Utrecht University. while 1 would represent a totally inequitable society (wealth consolidated in the hands of one interest group). vol. A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Why Some Settlements are Resilient and Some Settlements are Vulnerable to Crisis’ (PhD diss.78 There is no sign of common land ever being important on the eastern plains of Lucca. T. 1981). Land and Power. adjoining the Florentine contado. Olschki. 73 E. in idem. 80 D. 395–411. 260. chapters 1–2. ‘Markets for Land’. over four-fifths of the inhabitants were described as poor or propertyless. a figure comparable with some of the most renowned areas of economic polarisation in western Europe in the late Middle Ages or early-modern period such as the Dutch river area or the coastal marshes of north-western Europe. 400–1200 (London: British School at Rome. 2007). Community and Clientele in Twelfth-Century Tuscany: the Origins of the Rural Commune in the Plain of Lucca (Oxford: Clarendon Press. Studies in Italian and European Social History. Dal medioevo all’età moderna (Florence: L. none of the rural households owned any land whatsoever. while rural communes further north in Lombardy had to sell off their communal pastures in order to settle debts. 97–102. a figure of 0 on the Gini index would represent a totally equal society (wealth distributed evenly between all the landholders).72 Thus social distribution of land in the late-medieval contado became increasingly polarised. 1965). 77 E. 74 Taken from calculations using the database in D. 78 C. 1998). vol. Scholars have suggested the noble lifestyle exhibited by the nouveaux riches in late-medieval Tuscany damaged commerce. 23–38. 1.74 In some parishes such as Montecalvi.S. for example. Curtis. Olschki. Gobbi Sica. G. ‘Pre-Industrial Societies and Strategies for the Exploitation of Resources. scholars are generally of the position that Tuscan peasants were barely influenced by communal management of fields and grazing. For a comparative perspective on the figure. Herlihy and C. 1993). in G. Merideth (University Park. Wickham (London: Hambledon. 79 C. 85. Klapisch-Zuber.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Journal of Medieval History 11 even assert a certain social prestige. For clarification.76 Over 60% of the landowners there were townspeople. ‘Lavoro e povertà in Toscana alla fine del medioevo’.77 Furthermore. the increased urban encroachment upon land in the contado reduced common land to almost nothing during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. F. 140.79 Of the minimal common lands that had existed prior to 1300. trans. de Crémone et de Brescia du Xe au XIIIe siècle (Rome: École française de Rome. Census and Property Survey of Florentine Domains and the City of Verona in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge MA: machine readable datafile. Pinto. 546. Squatriti and B. 377–403. Campagnes lombardes du moyen âge: l’économie et la société rurales dans la région de Bergame. 1994).8. Florentine Villas in the Fifteenth Century: an Architectural and Social History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.80 This was not a phenomenon exclusive to the Florentine contado. ‘Le campagne senesi fra Quattro e Cinquecento: regime fondiario e governo signorile’. Society (Abingdon: Routledge.S. Conti. Wickham. in Contadini e proprietari nella Toscana moderna: atti del convegno di studi in onore di Giorgio Giorgetti. 1990). 2. because Sienese burghers had expropriated much of the commons around Siena by 1500. 14–15. 2012). Studi Storici 23 (1982): 567. Fiumi. 1961). surplus) in the contado was distributed highly unequally with a Gini index of 0. PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Wickham. see D. La formazione della struttura agraria moderna nel contado fiorentino. Monographie e tavole statistiche (secoli XV–XIX) (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo. By the time of the catasto in 1427. ‘Honour and Profit: Landed Property and Trade in Medieval Siena’.75 In the town and territory of San Gimignano in 1332. in City and Countryside in Late Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Essays Presented to Phillip Jones. . animals. History. 1999). only 18% of the land in the contado was owned by rural inhabitants. 2005). The Renaissance in the Fields: Family Memoirs of a Fifteenth-Century Tuscan Peasant. P.73 Taxable wealth (land. The Florentine Villa: Architecture. declining to 14% by the end of the fifteenth century. Isaacs. University of Wisconsin Data and Program Library Service. cultivating their plots as and when they chose. 81 A. 337. ‘Land Sales and Land Market in Tuscany in the Eleventh Century’. as evidenced by the construction of residential villas in the second half of the fifteenth century. 75 Van Bavel. ed. Balestracci. Lillie. Storia economica e sociale di San Gimignano (Florence: L.81 72 A. 1979). 513 76 D.. Menant. Économie rurale et démographie en Normandie orientale du début du 14e siècle au milieu du 16e siècle (Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales. 62. Rivista Storica della Chiesa in Italia 10 (1956): 90–1. ‘Markets for Land’. Samuel Cohn. Curtis The rural inhabitants of the contado were in no position to stem the tide of urban acquisition of property in the countryside. 1. particularly since the urban courts tended to side with urban landowners and speculators. 1998).89 Forty-five percent of the land belonged to either local tradesmen or peasant farmers. 90 ASF. R. 84 D. de la Roncière. 116–17. 703–21. the monastery of Camaldoli being one of the largest landowners in the region. less than one hectare out of a total 323 belonged to a Florentine owner.86 In fact. T. ed. however. Cherubini and others. Age of Transition?. Past and Present 80 (1978): 8–10.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 12 D. ed. 330. Dean and Wickham. Postan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ‘Le finanze della badia cistercense di Settimo nel XIV secolo’. Creating the Florentine State.87 In the Casentino over half of the households recorded in 1427 were local cultivators who owned their own land. The peasant-owner property structure of the Tuscan mountains remained stable well into the early-modern period.. 20. in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe. 886. 39.M. 191. 15% belonged to rural nobles. nos. Crise du féodalisme. nos. 246. Past and Present. 88 ASF. Martino la Palma. 2005). The Agrarian Life of the Middle Ages. Iversen and R. as seen in a number of angry disputes between the monastery of Settimo and the people of S. 235v. 2–176. 1976). Catasto. 507–8. Corporazioni religiose soppresse dal Governo Francese. lost their lands to new urban landlords. ‘Crisis: from the Middle Ages to Modern Times’. no.88 Approximately 35% of the land was in the hands of ecclesiastical institutions. While Florentine jurisdiction increasingly extended out into the distant mountains by the fifteenth century. Land. Speculum 64 (1989): 317–37. Epstein. 250. Pestilence and diseases of the fourteenth century in many parts of western Europe brought about new freedoms and opportunities for the rural peasantries that survived. and over three-quarters of the population lived in their own houses. G. M. in the mountain village of Moggiona in 1576. f. for in other parts of the distretto smallholders held as much as 85% of the land. f. Rural inhabitants of the contado also had very weak security on their property. 1200– 1400’.R. Dyer. found almost no mention of urban landownership in Appennines to the east and north. through a series of plagues and poor harvests. 89 ASF. 87 S. T. 1280–1340)’. Bois.85 The situation in the distretto was different. 172. ‘A Monastic Clientele? The Abbey of Settimo and its Neighbours and its Tenants (Tuscany. while only a very tiny remainder was in the hands of urbanites (and these were mainly Aretine. for example. who. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 91 G. Hilton. Scott (London: Longman. 22–4. Lords and Peasants. no. Osheim.83 Neither did the villagers have the wealth to call upon legal aid to support their claims. ‘The Ineffectiveness of Lordship in England. For example. eds. ‘Countrymen and the Law in Late-Medieval Tuscany’. Myking. 86 Cohn. working on a large number of notarial charters to trace the workings of the Florentine land market. 83 Van Bavel. 195 (2007): 69–86. ‘The Peasantries of Italy’. 89.90 High peasant property ownership was not solely characteristic of the Casentino Valley either. ed. 1966). 179–81. For accumulation also see P. L.91 See for example. idem. Peasants’ Right to Control Land in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period – Norway. Also see high peasant landholding at.82 Not so for the people of the Florentine contado. urban landownership did not follow suit.84 Even ecclesiastical institutions tended to accumulate property in the contado at the expense of local peasants. Catasto. ‘La proprietà fondiaria in alcune zone del territorio senese all’inizio del Trecento’. in The Peasantries of Europe from the Fourteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries. Scandinavia and the Alpine Region (Trondheim: Department of History and Classical Studies. Rivista di Storia dell’Agricoltura 14 (1974). not Florentine). much of the land in the distretto remained in the hands of rural inhabitants throughout the late Middle Ages. Val di Cecina and the Valdarno in ASF. Genicot. Catasto. ‘A Crisis of Feudalism?’. in City and Countryside. vol. 85 C. Jones. 82 . ed. Comba and A. although not high yields in anything – thereby prohibiting exploitation in any sort of agrarian-capitalist sense. in I borghi nuovi. the lack of incentive for urban land acquisition in the distretto might have had something to do with the poor fertility of the soils. 1933). and if any prospective Florentine burgher had hopes of constructing a series of sharecropping farms this far out.. the Casentino. C. archeologici ed artistici della Provincia di Cuneo. Consuetudini e statuti reggiani del secolo XIII. 92 . in Florentine Tuscany. Luzzati. see P. 1980). Also for Umbria. ‘Primi aspetti di politica annonaria nell’Italia comunale. it is difficult to see where Florentine landlords could have mobilised manpower for this task. 1989). E. Upland Communities. 31–58. R. was that the amount of cultivable land in the northern and eastern mountains of Tuscany was much smaller than in the plains and hills closer to Florence. 96 For the Po Valley. 1. ‘I contadini e la guerra di Pisa (1494–1509): nuovi dati sulla base dei registri battesimali’. Fasano Guarini and M. Environment. M. Settia (Cuneo: Società per gli studi storici. Barbieri. ‘Die Berglandwirtschaft im europäischen Agrarmodell’. Pirillo. 24. secoli XII– XIV. but given the demographic downturn in the Florentine contado.94 Furthermore the heavy clays and steep slopes were unsuited for medieval cultivation techniques. in Florentine Studies. Smyth and G. 1989). Mirri (Pisa: Pacini. for example. A. 18. 95 For the difficulties associated with mountain agriculture. Brown. Garfagnini (Florence: La Nuova Italia editrice. See G.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Journal of Medieval History 13 It is difficult to discern whether the lack of Florentine accumulation of land in the distretto was down to a lack of incentive or a general inability. Fasano Guarini. Mallett. in Ricerche di storia moderna. The valleys and slopes were often densely covered in ancient forests. 1976).95 Probably more important. G. Fischler. as described in M. In other areas of northern Italy such as the Po Valley. Prosperi (Pisa: Giardini. ed. ed. However. Such was the local reliance on woodland that hardly any attempt was made to cut down trees for arable See S. Cerlini. Castegnetti. Der Almund Bergbauer 11 (2002): 3. Biagoli. when one considers that the area around Pisa became dominated by Florentine landowners looking to exploit the fertile plains for grain production and to control trade through the coastal ports.93 In that case. A. 86. 184. in Studi in onore di Armando Saitta dei suoi allievi pisani.96 It was not just the physical task of assarting that dissuaded potential Florentine investors: many of the forests in the distretto were protected by highly valued common rights. cities and towns offered favourable concessions to new colonists to drain marshes and fell trees for arable and vineyards. Pozzi and A. A basic issue might have just been distance: land acquired in the mountainous distretto was simply too far away to be able to administer easily. Campanini. 1966). P. vol. ‘Market Structures’. Studi Medievali 13 (1974): 363–481. ed. ed. ‘The “Economic Decline” of Tuscany: the Role of the Rural Economy’. 1993). however. Connell and Zorzi. The climate and soils supported a wide range of crops in the eastern mountains. I rubricari degli statuti comunali di Reggio Emilia (secc. ed.. in Florence and Milan: Comparisons and Relations.92 Pisa was further away from Florence than. Viazzo. there was a good chance they would first have to clear substantial woodland. Memoria illustrativa della carta della utilizzazione del suolo della Toscana (Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle richerche. 94. ed. Epstein. L’agricoltura e la populazione in Toscana all’inizio dell’Ottocento (Pisa: Pacini. see A. ‘Citta soggette e contadi nel dominio fiorentino tra Quattro e Cinquecento: il caso pisano’. it has been shown that transportation costs between the Casentino and Florence were not prohibitively high. Furthermore. G. XIII–XVI) (Reggio Emilia: Fotocromo Emiliana. An argument purely on distance is dubious. ‘Pisa and Florence in the Fifteenth Century: Aspects of the Period of the First Florentine Domination’. but it is always dangerous to equate modern soils with medieval ones. (Milan: U. 1975). for account books suggest the costs of bringing 100 Florentine pounds (around 38 kg) of wool from Poppi to Florence was just 4% of the cost of the wool. 1997). Rubinstein. Chittolini and E. ‘Borghi e terre nuovi dell’Italia centrale’. 94 Modern statistics suggest very low yields in most crops. 11–22. 1–94. see F.. however. La bonifica della “palus comunis Verone” (1194–1199)’. 110. Population and Social Structure in the Alps Since the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 432. R. there were more barriers to land polarisation in the mountains than exhibited in the contado. 93 J. eds. Pisan country folk strongly opposed Florentine encroachment. Hoepli. Bicchierai. Strategie di una signoria territoriale. Carda. vol. 98 Archivio Storico dell’Eremo e Monastero di Camaldoli. 45–60. 34v. Mittarelli and A. 6 (Venice: Prostant apud Jo. 102 M. serving as a meeting place for the people of Raggiolo. 54r–60r. 156. ff. 2006). I conti Alberti (secoli XI–XIV).103 In a mountain area further north of the Casentino. in heightened geographical mobility. the importance and stability of common resources in areas of the distretto may have provided further difficulties for Florentine land acquisition. Calletta.100 Access to one area of the forest was prohibited and a charge was levelled on any unwanted animals found there. foresta: frammenti di cultura tradizionale’.101 Raggiolo had a long history of close control over its communal woodland resources. albero.. 25v. ‘Uomo. Abatantuono and L.105 Modes of exploitation The problems in the contado in the late Middle Ages were exacerbated by malfunctioning factor markets (in labour.99 Grazing rights in the mountains also were rigorously guarded.97 These sorts of restrictions were still in use some 300 years later. 139–54. 84r–87r.102 The forested slopes around Pratovecchio became a contested space. Una comunità rurale toscana di antico regime: Raggiolo in Casentino (Florence: Firenze University Press. ‘La lunga durata dei beni comuni in una comunità Toscana: il caso di Raggiolo in Casentino’. a reduction in population (as happened with the Black Death) often provided benefits to rural communities. as a series of charters between 1563 and 1575 strictly forbade the monks of Camaldoli to cut down trees in the forest without first consulting the local communities and the monastery. 242. In the Florentine contado this was not the case and the reduction in inhabitants actually worked against those who stayed or survived. 101 ASF. 36r. Atti Capitolari. 2000). 18r–19r.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 14 D. for example. Curtis or settlement. Costadoni. even the Prior of Camaldoli was forbidden to cut wood to repair houses of the hermitage without first consulting the wider monastic community. eds. In the Casentino Valley in 1279.104 Ultimately. 18v. Serfdom had almost disappeared by the thirteenth century in this part of Tuscany (as in many 97 G. ‘Emergence of Endogenous Legal Institutions: Property Rights and Community Governance in the Italian Alps’. Statuti delle comunità autonome e soggette. preventing both sales to private parties and assarting of new land. which contributed to the emergence of the onerous sharecropping regime. in Comunità e beni comuni dal medioevo ad oggi (Pistoia: Porretta Terme. Righetti. Notarile Antecosimiano. Cetica and Garliano to discuss their grazing arrangements and the boundaries involved. 104 M. 76r. 21r. credit. 68r–69r. . on the Tuscany–Romagna border. La montagna tra Bologna e Prato (Rastigano: Gruppo di studi Savena Setta Sambro. 100 For the management of the commons of Raggiolo. 696. 49r–50v. 2007). Plague and fiscal repression caused a contraction in settlement and promoted rural-urban migration. 99 M.R. 1773). Villages and institutions clung on tightly to their highly guarded communal rights over pastures and forests. capital). 9495–7. more work to go round and higher wages. no. as seen in the mountain community of Raggiolo in the sixteenth century. In western Europe. where a cap of 2000 was put on the number of animals that could pasture in the forests of the commune. 232–3. 95r. 14v. 103 M. nos. 43r. 86–7. Benedicti. see ASF. Bicchierai. no. while an area known as the ‘Pastura di Prata’ was reserved only for animals belonging to Raggiolo villagers in 1545. in Comunità e beni comuni dal medioevo ad oggi. Casari. 3r. Borghi. Journal of Economic History 67 (2007): 191–225. Baptistam Pasquali. Annales Camaldulenses ordinis S. 105 Perhaps also holding a cultural or spiritual affinity with the woodlands as suggested in C. no. ff. the aristocratic Alberti family had to resolve a point of contention between two communities (Baragazza and Castiglione) over the territorial boundaries of the commons. 45r–50r. 5r.98 The increasing use of charters in the late Middle Ages to regulate pastoral resources in a more formalised manner has been noted for other mountain regions of Italy. Indeed. 114 On the lack of credit. poderi were leased on fixed-terms to rural ‘middlemen’. ‘Manor to Mezzadria’. 714. Emigh. 14. ‘La dispersione dell’habitat nell’Italia centro-settentrionale tra XII e XV secolo. Jones. 107 G. and the Role of Jewish Lenders in Medieval and Renaissance Italy’. ‘Tuscans and Their Farms’. see R. La casa rurale nella Toscana (Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli. ed. Hopcroft and R. J. Journal of European Economic History 29 (2000): 15–16. ‘Qualche considerazione sulle campagne dell’Italia centro-settentrionale tra l’XI e il XV secolo (in margine alle ricerche di Elio Conti)’. ‘The Mystery of the Missing Middle-Tenants: the “Negative” Case of Fixed-Term Leasing and Agricultural Investment in Fifteenth-Century Tuscany’. Rubinstein. demesnes or even castelli.113 The rural inhabitants of the contado. See the thirteenth-century Florentine legislation against serfdom in one village community in ASF. credit markets in the contado were local and isolated. Rivista di Storia Economica 9 (1992): 76–94. Botticini. 228. La Toscana. Revista Storia Italiana 79 (1967): 111–57. Jones. 2009). increasing their susceptibility to expropriation. Studi Storici 25 (1984): 765–83.106 and the demographic depression in the contado prevented the emergence of large lease farms of the sort seen in Lombardy107 due to the lack of a ready pool of wage labour.114 Florentine For a good account of this process see P. so urban landlords could not invoke extra-economic coercion. On the link between lack of credit and sharecropping. Vent’anni di ricerche’. ‘Divergent Paths of Agrarian Change. 108 There is an extensive literature of which the best is probably C. Medievali ‘case da lavoratore’ nella campagna fiorentina (Florence: Salimbeni. f.108 Occasionally. 242–6. Botticini. 211–14. 12. ‘A Tale of Benevolent Governments: Private Credit Markets. ‘Tuscans and Their Farms: the Economics of Share Tenancy in FifteenthCentury Florence’. 112 As suggested in R. 149–64. many were simply adapted from curtes. Zuijderduijn. dovecotes. who then re-leased the farms on sharecropping contracts to peasant families. ‘Peasantries’. 91. 111 R.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Journal of Medieval History 15 parts of northern and central Italy). Eastern England and Tuscany Compared’. Klapisch-Zuber. Biasutti. Comba. did not want to be involved in the direct demands of farming and did not want to be too concerned with supervision. stables. On personal bonds and risks of expropriation. see D. Journal of European Economic History 25 (1996). ‘Alle origini dell “grandi aziende” dell bassa lombardia’. Chittolini. see R. 106 .112 The lack of labour made sharecropping the obvious solution for urban landlords who wanted a supply of food in order to be more self-sufficient. M. 4.110 These farms included all the buildings needed to run the enterprise.111 Poderi were not always entirely new constructions however. Pinto. ‘Loans and Livestock: Comparing Landlords’ and Tenants’ Declarations From the Catasto of 1427’. barns. Stopani. Explorations in Economic History 37 (2000): 242. wells and cellars. 161–2.109 Poderi and sharecropping were not just a phenomenon in the Florentine contado. urban landlords re-arranged their lands into compact farms (poderi) and forced households to work on them in sharecropping contracts (mezzadria). idem. 109 See R. Rivista di Storia Economica 11 (1994): 131–7. Medieval Capital Markets: Markets for Rents Between State Formation and Private Investment in Holland (1300–1550) (Leiden: Brill. Umbria and Emilia. in Civiltà ed economia agricola in Toscana. but appeared in the hinterlands of towns and cities across Marche. ‘Moral Hazard and Risk Sharing in Late Medieval Tuscany’. and F. Galassi. Ackerberg and M. ‘The Choice of Agrarian Contracts in Early Renaissance Tuscany: Risk Sharing. Public Finance. Rivista di Storia Economica 11 (1994): 11–23. ‘Mezzadria e insediamenti rurali alla fine del medio evo’. Journal of Economic History 60 (2000): 170. Provvisioni. in Florentine Studies. furnaces. G. huts. 113 See the debate between S. Moral Hazard or Capital Market Imperfections?’. had to accept their fate as sharecroppers. Quaderni Storici 39 (1978): 828– 44. Theory and Society 27 (1998): 351–75. ‘From Manor to Mezzadria: a Tuscan Case-Study in the Medieval Origins of Modern Agrarian Society’. Emigh. forcing peasants to contract debts with their landlords. Epstein. Consequently. no. 1978). Emigh. 78. Cherubini. idem. 110 Epstein. R. ‘Le origini medievali dell’assetto insediativo moderno nelle campagne italiane’. lacking both capital and access to credit. Storia d’Italia: Annali 7 (1985): 386. 1938). 115 The tenant households working the sharecropping farms faced a number of imposed restrictions – tenants could even be gaoled for speaking disrespectfully to their landlords. 1587–1784 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones. 195. a pair of capons. Journal of Historical Sociology 11 (1998): 37–73. Pinto.122 In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. particularly in the fifteenth century.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 16 D. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 5 (1954): 168–83. 117–18.R. no. Tuscans and Their Families. 117 R. ‘Manor to Mezzadria’. 7r. Emigh. 117. 1980). the monastery of Camaldoli went from strength to strength in the late Middle Ages. indicative of a buoyant economy and population. the monastery of Camaldoli was a strong community of around 300 monks and lay brothers. Camaldoli. curious given Van Bavel. f. Camaldoli. ‘Forme di conduzione e rendita fondiaria nel contado fiorentino (secoli XIV e XV): le terre dell’Ospedale di San Gallo’. no. Economic History Review. 589. 1978). Camaldoli. beans. f. Piccinni. the castaldo (lay brother) Benedenti for the ‘Podere Cutrino’ at Monte paid Camaldoli a rent of 110 staia of grains and 25 staia from his vineyards and orchards in 1349.118 and furthermore there were stipulations made on the types of crops cultivated (with emphasis on labour-intensive viticulture or olive-growing). dates of sowing and harvesting. although it was not the dominant mode of exploitation as in the contado.117 Sharecropping families were prohibited from movement and performing work outside the farm.119 It was even the duty of some of the tenant families physically to carry the portion of produce destined for the urban landlords to Florence.120 What characterised the modes of exploitation in the contado was the complete lack of flexibility and choice. 300–6. see S. ed. 524. 118 Herlihy and Klapisch-Zuber. oil. 2nd series. Sharecropping was not unknown in the distretto.123 In complete contrast to the declining rents shown by David Herlihy on the poderi of Impruneta in the contado (landlords lowered the amounts to attract tenants). piles of wood. although these were usually leased out on fixed terms (normally three years) and rents were agreed. pork and even a few days labour on the monastery’s demesnes. 121 ASF. McArdle. grain. and so it made sense to adapt the rents from the poderi to whatever the monastery needed the most. 116 F. Curtis administration backed this up with oppressive legislation. ‘Labor Use and Landlord Control: Sharecroppers’ Household Structure in Fifteenth-Century Tuscany’. bread. 200 eggs and one cell of wood. 183. ‘Le donne nella mezzadria Toscana delle origini. 123. Using this system. 50. legumes.124 The number of poderi also increased substantially: Camaldoli had just six documented in 1328. 120 Jones. but in 1481 the rent was 188 staia of grains. E. eggs.116 Urban landlords matched up the sizes of the farms well in accordance with the size of families. Cohn. 255v. the rents on the Casentinese poderi increased between the middle of the fourteenth and the end of the fifteenth century. ‘After the Black Death: Labour Legislation and Attitudes Towards Labour in Late-Medieval Western Europe’. and the length of ditches to be dug. Corporazioni religiose sopprese dal Governo Francese. chickens. Altopascio: a Study in Tuscan Rural Society. 60 (2007): 457–85.121 In 1427. such as the monastery of Camaldoli. 167. 300 pounds of pork. 115 . ‘Markets for Land’. ‘Florentine Families and Florentine Diaries’. In a comparative sense. Materiali per la definizione del ruolo femminile nelle campagne’. setting high food prices and blocking labour movement. in Studi di storia medievale e moderna. ‘A Tuscan Monastic Lordship in the Later Middle Ages: Camaldoli’. 935. did create a series of poderi. no. Large ecclesiastical institutions. Sestan (Florence: Olschki. 123 See also P. f. 223. Ricerche Storiche 15 (1985): 152. 119 G. f. 136. two chickens. tenants paid in combinations of cash. 4. G. essentially subdivided former granges and curtes. ASF. Jones. nos. fixed amounts rather than percentages of surplus. 191. 136. no. 39. freezing wages. 122 ASF. For example. 124 ASF. but over 30 by the onset of the sixteenth century. Documenti per la storia della città di Arezzo nel medio evo. Regesto di Camaldoli. ed. G. C. 53. 121 (1963): 5. ‘Church Property on the European Continent 701–1200’. Le abbazie benedettine nell’alto medioevo italiano (Florence: Le Monnier. ‘Une crise ignorée: comment s’est perdue la propriété ecclésiastique dans l’Italie du nord entre le XIe et le XVIe siècle’. Fiora. Annales Camaldulenses ordinis S. The mountain regions of Tuscany have generally been painted as rather ‘backward’ and conservative places.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Journal of Medieval History 17 the general decline in monasteries in central Italy at this time. Manaresi. Baldari and S. Cipolla. 132 G. 535. Vieusseux. Regesto di Camaldoli.127 More frequently. giving up distant peripheral lands at Borsemulo in 1319. no. 1916). 1. 133 For extent of demesne between 1000 and 1250.125 Camaldoli sold off land during hard times and there is periodic evidence of debt. was the great variety and flexibility in the tenurial structures. see Schiaparelli. 153. eds. 137v. ‘Un problema aperto: le crisi della proprietà ecclesiastica fra Quattro e Cinquecento’. no. For the ill-formed manorial economy. 125 . 13. Pasqui. no. Storia del monachesimo in Italia (Rome: Edizioni Paoline. 7 (1954): 30. with some fixed ancient rents based more on custom and fidelity. Baldesseroni and Lasinio. E. 1: nos. A 776–945 (Rome: Tipografia del Senato. vol. 373.. Fiora.133 Between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries in the eastern mountains of Tuscany. 138v. 130 For example see. there was a great variety in tenurial forms. 129 See P.130 Such a picture is only half true.. U. see P. 1180–1337) (Florence: Presso G. 56v. 127 G. in Città. Civilisations. Codice diplomatico (an. 216. ed. no. 430. 128 ASF Camaldoli. 1777). 900–1200’. Rivista Storica Italiana 85 (1973): 235–92. Benedicti. For symbolism of labour works. 271. customary labour was not particularly onerous. 2: nos. 2 (1947). 50. f. S. Mittarelli and A. 169.128 Camaldoli thrived while its Benedictine neighbour towards Arezzo. eds. Baldesseroni and Lasinio. Documenti per la storia della città di Arezzo nel medio evo.132 Most of the demesnes in the Tuscan distretto were small. where profits were insufficient to make them worthwhile. 1. 1974). Sociétés. little ‘feudal enclaves’ where manors and serfdom lingered on well into sixteenth century. Jones. Annales: Économies. ed. no. Jones. vol.. 1961). 713. Pasqui. no. vol. I placiti del ‘regnum Italiae’. for example in Romagna. G. Baptistam Pasquali. 1231. 114–25. Economic History Review. 317–27.131 However. ed. 376. see in particular. these demesnes did not resemble anything like the classic bipartite estates seen in northern Europe during the high Middle Ages.. Costadoni. ‘Manor to Mezzadria’. ‘Aspetti della proprietà fondiaria nell’aretino durante il XIII secolo’. Codice diplomatico (an.P. eds. Vieusseux. ff. caught in a culture of debt and owing money to Aretine banks and citizens of Florence. 724. 2nd series. 9 (Venice: Prostant apud Jo. 183.129 What was most striking about modes of exploitation in the Casentino Valley. vol. 1957). Indicative of this flexibility in modes of exploitation was the constant and rapid switching between direct and indirect On monastic decline.. Herlihy. 170. 750. 481. Cherubini. Speculum 36 (1961): 98. 266. Demesne agriculture did continue in some places all the way into the sixteenth century. 650?–1180) (Florence: Presso G. and corvées were more symbolic than having any economic significance. 131 ASF. D. under the influence of ecclesiastical institutions or lay aristocratic families such as the Guidi or Ubertini. the monastery leased out distant lands. such as at the mountain village of Moggiona where customary labour works were performed. 126 Jones. in contrast to the contado. ‘Il Casentino. 2. 64–99. contado e feudi nell’urbanistica medievale. 2: no. Chittolini. Penco. Italian CityState. Camaldoli. ‘An Italian Estate. Una vallata montana dallo sfruttamento feudale all’annessione al contado urbano’. S. Also ASA. 106. 1899).126 but this was more a policy of efficient economic organisation rather than true bouts of crisis. was reduced to a handful of monks in the late thirteenth century. see C. U. 1955). alongside newer tenancies more linked to the market value of the land and paid in cash or kind.. Guidoni (Rome: Multigrafica Editrice. Grossi. Farina.P. 704. 590. Archivio Storico Italiano. For the light obligations. E. 503. see an inventory in Schiaparelli. 3: no. 72–4. the former castaldo Benuccio. 41–57. which had a circular effect in stimulating further demographic and settlement contraction. in Villaggi. ‘La dimora silvo-pastorale appenninica’. and then. Increasingly in the contado. ff. Gambi (Florence: L. Zagnoni. inhabitants and institutions of the Casentino Valley followed quite diverse economic portfolios. 136 Brown. that simply left no time for industrial side-projects. in La casa rurale in Italia. Archeologia Medievale 8 (1981): 247–80. and mountain dwellers were particularly reliant on the consumption of chestnuts. however. 139 The chestnut was a key food resource across most of the Appennines. Foschi. Mountains and the City. the options were sharecropping.135 Judith Brown refined this argument by suggesting instead that it was the precise combination of mixed cropping on labour intensive activities. P. In some of the mountain regions outside of the contado.18 D. 66. G. Those rural inhabitants who did not fit into a sharecropping family or were unsuccessful sharecroppers had little choice but to migrate to the city. 305–6. 138 See Wickham. some cheese and wine were produced. Balducci. it was once again worked by the same tenant. exploit the common woodlands and pastures. Rivista di Archeologia. 110–11. 1970). Zagnoni (Pistoia: Gruppi di studi alta Valle del Reno. boschi e campi dell’Appennino. 523. 1997). Barbieri and L. they could cultivate their own lands. R. no. 137 Van Bavel. P. Costume 3 (1977): 7–18. made worse by the fact that landlords simply adapted the sizes of their farms to whatever household structure and labour were present. the lack of economic diversity was probably sown before the dissemination of mezzadria. a lack of proto-industries) in the contado was explained by the fact that mezzadria and proto-industry were incompatible. it returned to the monks of the hermitage at Camaldoli. Curtis Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 agricultural management.R. La decadenza di un’economia cittadina: l’industria di Firenze nei secoli XVI–XVIII (Bologna: Il Mulino. For example.134 In mountain areas such as the Casentino Valley. ed. such as viticulture. ‘Markets for Land’. Even before 1300. Economia. Olschki. the situation was completely different. Cherubini. in the general demographic crisis of the fourteenth century. ed. 88. Penoncini and R. based mainly around a subsistence economy. 135 . E. 117. ‘La “civiltà” del castagno in Italia alla fine del medioevo’. ‘“Economic Decline” of Tuscany’. Camaldoli. which were high in protein. B. one podere in the mountain village of Monte was worked by a former castaldo as a tenant in 1328. Andreolli. Storia. Urban investors and landlords saw no reason to set up rural industries in the contado because of the absence of a ready labour pool. ‘La coltivazione del castagno nella montagna fra Bologna e Pistoia nei secoli XI–XIII’.139 The growth of Florence during the thirteenth century and its increased contact with the distretto during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries only served to widen the range of economic activities performed in the region – though individual households themselves 134 ASF. in 1332. or work as wage labourers or as customary tenants on demesnes. in 1334. Malanima. Economic portfolios Paolo Malanima suggested the limited number of economic activities (for example. the diverse tenurial structure meant local people could be fixed-lease tenants or (less frequently) sharecroppers on poderi. 1982). Il castagneto nella Lucchesia altomedievale’. migration or hunger. Small wooden huts appeared in the forest for storage of chestnuts. O. G.S. 123–43.137 There was no incentive for rural craft occupations and industries to develop in the contado.138 Peasants practised a mixed pattern of cultivation and small-scale silvo-pastoral farming. ‘Formule di pertinenza e paesaggio.136 As Brown also remarked. 7–13 aprile 1983. no. Cherubini. 179. ‘La società dell’Appennino settentrionale (sec. cultura. in La montagna fra Toscana e Marche: ambiente.146 In some places there were even more pasture and woodland plots than arable. institutions such as Camaldoli began to organise pasture into coherent blocks. Tuscans and Their Families. ff. 1157. 142 R.140 Certainly from 1300 onwards (and perhaps beginning some time in the thirteenth century). 1973).142 Through the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Una comunità dell’Appennino dal XIII al XV secolo: Montecoronaro dalla signoria dell’abbazia del Trivio al Dominio di Firenze (Florence: L. territorio. 143 N. Camaldoli. 130–1. given the limitations discussed above. 250. for example double in the higher areas of Raggiolo and Ortignano. 91–115. 144 Jones. contadini. Olschki. Camaldoli. ‘Pastoralism and Underdevelopment in the Early Middle Ages’. ASF. 145 Database compiled from ASF. f.144 These rights of grazing came at a great cost. in particular. 147 ASF. ff. such as the 12-hectare unit at Campo Drezzale at Serravalle or the 10-hectare unit they created at Siepi by 1576. 173. ‘Paesaggio agrario. ‘Risorse. there were four plots of either pasture or woodland: an extremely high ratio of cultivated to grazing land. esp. 331r–350v. in L’uome di fronte al mondo animale nell’alto medioevo. 148 ASF. 1 (Florence: Sansoni. 627–88. particularly since Florence could not get certain products from its contado. 13–15)’. 179. 338v–365r. ‘La società dell’Appennino settentrionale (secoli XIII–XV)’.149 A number of different mountain activities are described in G. no. 627–88. Catasto. 141 In contrast to the view that pastoral farming was a ‘traditional subsistence economy’ in the eastern mountains argued in Herlihy and Klapisch-Zuber.147 Furthermore. 9.S. 39. XIV–XV’. 1985): 401–51. idem. nos. borghesi: ricerche sulla società italiana del basso medioevo (Florence: La Nuova Italia. 58–92. Storia di Firenze. no. vol. ff. and that is without even considering any land held in common. f. became more commercially orientated in the late Middle Ages. 257r–315r. ed. no. 246.143 In 1419. a wide range of products and goods was sold in concentrated villages crystallising around local market centres. 330. An Historical Geography of Europe. ff. Corporazioni religiose soppresse dal Governo Francese. since Camaldoli charged high cash rents for such privileges. no. 331r–354v. insediamenti e attività silvo-pastorali sulla montagna tosco-romagnola alla fine del medioevo’. in that year narrowly more than the monastery itself. the Casentino Valley became so renowned for larger-scale pasturing that people from outside the area began periodically to graze their animals there too. 1974). 123. Davidsohn.148 Demand for pasture was so high that Camaldoli leased out all of its meadows at Asqua in 1515 to local farmers. ‘A Tuscan Monastic Lordship’. 180. idem. See C. idem. Pastoral farming. Signori. after the assets of the aristocratic Guidi family had been subdivided. 1984). Catasto.141 The suggestion this may have begun as early as the thirteenth century is indicated by the existence of some extremely large flocks: in 1239 in the eastern mountains. idem. 246.145 For every five plots of arable recorded in the catasto. the Gualdrada family inherited 4600 sheep. over half of the inhabitants had access to animals and a third had sheep.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Journal of Medieval History 19 became more specialised in their production. paesaggio et utilizzazione agricola del territorio della Toscana sud-occidentale nei secc. 223r–248v. Sheep and cattle are more associated than pigs with commercialised pastoral farming. Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 31 (Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo. in Civiltà ed economia agricola in Toscana. economia. 449r–481r. cattle or both. 146 ASF. 1972). 140 . Pounds. one Florentine put 600 sheep on Camaldoli’s pastures. 149 ASF. Modena 6 (1972): 23–36. no. 121. no. 180. 180. 1956). Wickham. 371r–405r. cattle and goats. catering for the rise in Florentine demand. ff. 383–4. ff. 179–81. Anselmi (Milan: Angeli. 114v. società dal medioevo al XIX secolo. Catasto. 450BC–AD1330 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 161–252. in idem. no. 250. S. In the same valley. 410v–416v. no. 183. f. during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries concerted attempts were made to control production of Casentinese cloth and its marketing. scritto l’anno 1666 da Giuseppe di Scipione Mannucci’. enticing inhabitants into the system by offering transit rights and more secure regulation of grazing.155 A vital piece of evidence for this notion was the concern of the urban guild of Prato in 1541 about the increasing number of woollen cloths introduced into the city and made in the Casentino. 1976). see R. paesaggio et utilizzazione agricola del territorio della Toscana sud-occidentale nei secc. f. Spallanzani (Florence: L. commercio et consumo dei panni di lana: atti della ‘Seconda Settimana di Studio’. artisans. Bulletino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino 82 (1984): 321–62. Also outside Tuscany. Della Bordella. Cherubini. no. ‘Produzione tessile nel Piemonte tardomedievale’. D. it was noted that animals from the Casentino arrived en masse at the winter pastures by the coast of the Maremma and a permanent economic link between the two regions was thereby crystallised in the fifteenth century. bestiami e pascoli nei secoli XV–XIX (Florence: Medicea. 15. Curtis The commercialised pastoral economy of late-medieval Casentino was supported by the emergence of long-distance transhumance – the seasonal and organised movement of animals from one grazing location to another.151 The new pastoral economy supported a flourishing local production of woollen cloths in the area. both Stia and Poppi were still two of the most important cloth-producing locations in Tuscany as late as 1660. XIV–XV’. The lay signorie and large institutions saw they could profit from this development.152 Indeed. 7. 152 See P. Misc.158 By the beginning of the sixteenth century shops with looms and dyeing equipment were appearing along the banks of the Arno River in the Casentino.156 The Prato guild eventually forbade the introduction of Casentinese cloth except through fairs. in Produzione. 359. 150 151 . 159 BNF. ‘La società dell’Appennino settentrionale’. a general trend for Tuscany. 1269. 59–131. 123–4. ff. no. Rossini and M. 157. Barsanti. no. I. Imberciadori (Parma: La nazionale tipografica editrice. See ASF. despite increasing restrictions put on Casentinese cloth by the city. Medicea.150 In 1419. 112. F. 79r–81r. despite the fact Casentinese merchants had always sold products in that town and at Impruneta. L’arte della lana in Casentino. vol. a band of wool manufacturers. Mazzaoui. no. 154. Pastori. La decadenza. From mediocre origins in the fifteenth century. M. 156 ASF.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 20 D. 1987). ed. Pratica segreta. Studi nell’Archivio Datini di Prato. G. Melis. 88. in Civiltà ed economia agricola in Toscana. E. 160 Despite the decline. for they wanted to preserve this activity as a solely urban occupation. 1 (Siena: Olschki. Arte della Lana. 459. Studie e Ricerche 4 (1972): 11–59.R. 58v–64v. Magliabechi.S.157 Nonetheless.153 We have evidence of a large sale to a merchant from Bologna in the thirteenth century and by 1400 Florentine citizens were doing the same. Comba. XIII–XV)’. though this was something that the Florentine administration actually came to resent.159 It was only at the end of the sixteenth century that cloth production declined in the valley. Provincial Elite in Early Modern Tuscany. 1996). 536–7. 1971). ‘Descrizione delle cose più essenziali e relevanti del Casentino con diversi ragguagli delle famiglia e persone. 1962). ff. 155 Malanima. Storia dei lanifici (Cortona: Primarno. 157 ASF. Cherubini.160 The growth of the pastoral economy stimulated by the demand from cities such as Florence encouraged the emergence of local rural elites converging around the small market villages. Allevamento e transumanza in Toscana. shopkeepers. ‘Risorse. Amiata e Maremma tra il IX e il XX secolo. 133. ‘La lana come material prima nel Veneto sud-occidentale (secc. 103. there were many instances of evasion of the restrictions imposed on Casentinese cloth. Olschki. no. 154 ASA. Fondo di Murello. 221–30. 153 L. 158 Benadusi. ‘Il primo statuto della dogana dei paschi maremmani (1419)’ in Per la storia della società rurale. ‘La produzione dei panni di lana nella campagna Toscana nei secoli XIII–XIV’. Aspetti della vita economica medievali.154 However. 54v–55r. 10–16 Aprile 1970. Kotelnikova. Tuscan towns had for a long time marketed country-made cloths. ed. Firenze.166 We are told that goods were G. Indeed through the catasto we can plot the emergence of the local well-to-do. One of the most important activities in the late-medieval Casentino Valley was the production of iron using the many mills and foundries powered by the fast-flowing Arno River. owning multiple houses. J. 94v. Archeologia Medievale 3 (1976): 429–46. For the tavern.165 The premises of the two men were situated in the heart of villages and served a commercial purpose. See D. 157–78. 1200–1430 (New Haven: Yale University Press. 330. 6852. see ASF. Social History 20 (1996). Lamioni (Rome: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali. 161 . Niccolo a Vado Stia and Pratovecchio Bibbiena S. Catasto. notaries and petty landowners became the local ruling elite in Poppi by the mid-sixteenth century.164 Two fifteenth-century account books belonging to two ironworkers. Six of the 10 wealthiest inhabitants of the Casentino in 1427 were tradesmen or merchants (Table 1). Medieval and Renaissance Pistoia: the Social History of an Italian Town. f. By 1590. 179–81. and the relationship between iron production and manufacture of weapons. Reale Arcispedale di Santa Maria Nuova. 231–44. establishing their enterprises in the heart of villages and marketing their produce in the same centres. 1994). fabbro casentinese’. 71r. and differentiated from the rest by the high quantities of cattle and sheep they possessed. 124v. 19r. see ff. Benadusi. Herlihy. 53r. idem. 34r. Reale Arcispedale di Santa Maria Nuova. Attention was drawn to the source by L. In the Shadow of Florence: Provincial Society in Renaissance Pescia (Oxford: Oxford University Press. finished products also began to be manufactured out of the material. no. Wealthiest 10 heads of household in the Casentino Valley. 1967). 98r. Maria in Castello Spice seller Unknown Spice seller Belt maker Peddlar (merchant) Smith Smith Peasant cultivator Peasant cultivator Peasant cultivator Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Source: ASF. Provincial Elite in Early Modern Tuscany. Brown. 163 ASF. 162 G. 1427 Cristofano Battista Giovanni Antonio Landino Francesco Giovanni Antonio Andrea Meo Piero Antonio Franceschi Matteo Stefano Giovannino Venturicci Niccolo Nanni Niccolo Taxable fortune (florins) Location Occupation 861 622 550 526 505 476 447 441 425 394 Bibbiena Bibbiena Bibbiena Stia and Pratovecchio S. 164 In contrast to Pistoia and Pescia where iron had to be imported from Elba. Martino a Vado S.Journal of Medieval History 21 Table 1. Benadusi. 113r. tools and machinery. Martino a Vado S. one Valerio Cascesi had accumulated 16 wool shops in the Casentino. de Angelis. and when the wool trade declined at the end of the sixteenth century. C. 87r. As a result.163 The commercialisation of the Casentino and the marketing of produce were not limited to the pastoral economy however. Giovanni built himself a tavern near to a shop which had just been constructed in Porciano. nos. 246. 166 For the shop.161 These families used the burgeoning commercial production of wool to establish strangleholds over local administrative positions and politics. 200r. 102r. 24r. 79r. 474. Deo di Buono da Tracorte and his son Giovanni da Stia. nos.162 Families from lowly backgrounds achieved success very quickly. 1982). these local elites instead resorted to land concentration and accumulation. and had a shop in the centre of Stia. ‘Ceti dirigenti locali e bande granducali nella provincia Toscana: Poppi tra Sedicesimo & Diciassettesimo secolo’. no. 250. 143r. ‘Intorno all’attività di Deo di Buono. 75r. provide a vivid insight into this commercialised activity. ‘Rethinking the State: Family Strategies in Early Modern Tuscany’. Decima granducale. 62r. 165 ASF. 4–5 dicembre 1992. ff. 474–5. 173–5. in Istituzioni e società in Toscana nell’età moderna: atti delle giornate di studio dedicate a Giuseppe Pansini. ed. 107. in Mostra di armi antiche (sec. no.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 22 D. see no. Interestingly.172 A pool of evidence shows various mills belonging to high-status seigneurial families. See also R. 171 A basic distribution for the Casentino is given in J. mills were needed for grain and presses were needed for grapes and olives. 169 M. For example. 105r. 1996). pescaie e porti sull’Arno a monte di Firenze: la politica di acquisizione e gestione degli impianti idraulica del monastero di San Salvi tra .168 Between 13 January 1469 and 9 June 1471. Melis. 78v–79r. Poppi. 1999). The number of mills in the Casentino increased in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. For Pratovecchio. The fifteenth century was the peak of iron production and iron working in the valley and numerous sources record forges serving this purpose. However. no. ed. Muendel. there are many more. ff. in idem. Lohrmann. f. see also F.167 According to the books. Pinto and P. in contrast to a view which suggested (without evidence) that Casentinese ironworkers relied on imported iron from the Magona of Pisa: R. who spoke of the ‘great iron of the Casentino’ and how he had bought ample quantities from markets in Bibbiena. 474. Lindgren (Berlin: Mann. Industria e commercio nella Toscana medievale. Signoria e società di antico regime: Raggiolo in Casentino (Raggiolo-Montepulciano: La Brigata di Raggiolo-Editori del Grifo. On the trading activities of Lazzaro Bracci in this area of Tuscany. ‘I mulini e i porti sull’Arno a monte di Firenze’. and the Casentino was no different in that regard. 27r. ‘I mulini ad acqua della zona casentinese fino alla metà del secolo XII’. See G. The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank: 1397–1494 (Washington: Beard Books. ‘The “French Mill” in Tuscany’. Lazzaro Bracci. 1989). 475. idem. 172 For the seigneurial monopoly on mills across Europe. the duo received over 500 kg of iron from Biagio di Piero di Lorenzo di Stia. Dini (Florence: Le Monnier. see ASF. U. D. the ironworkers did not rely on middlemen to provide them with the iron.171 Seigneurial monopoly of the rights over mills was a trait common in much of western European society from the tenth century onwards. ed. For unspecified markets. ‘Antrieb von Getreidemühlen’. Barlucchi. Annali Aretini 14 (2006): 169–200. Il Valdarno di sopra nei secoli XII–XIII: atti del convegno di Montevarchi-Figline Valdarno (9–11 novembre 2001). Bicchierai. de Roover. and although many were associated with iron foundries.R. Marignani. Pirillo (Rome: Viella. and therefore difficult to monopolise for whole communities. 474. Reale Arcispedale di Santa Maria Nuova.170 Thus we see the close relationship between two commercialised enterprises in the valley: raw-iron production and manufactured production of iron objects serving the needs of the local population. Terenzi (Florence: no publisher given. f.173 The miller took a cut of the profits but provided 18 staia of grain to the count every month. Niccolo di Iacopo da Muglio rented a mill in Partina from the family of the Guidi counts for a period of two years in 1350. 2005). mills in the valley were tiny and numerous. a great variety of products was made from iron. ed. M. Journal of Medieval History 10 (1984): 218. 65–71. 1994). Commonly mills were rented to local inhabitants who then acted as millers for the communities close by. Some of the products were made using old iron bought from inhabitants in the valley. f. Curtis sold at local fairs in Vado and other unspecified places. 1967). in particular axes and saws used by local woodcutters. G. ‘Lazzaro Bracci (la funzione di Arezzo nell’economia dei secoli XIV–XV’. 168 A description of the positions of the foundries is given in A. ed. Three forges located close to the river pertaining to the community of Raggiolo were in the hands of the aristocratic Ubertini family in the fourteenth century. XIV–XV). for they were close enough to the foundries themselves to ensure consistent supplies. in Europäische Technik im Mittelalter. a sure sign of increasing commercialisation of production. 800 bis 1400: Tradition und Innovation: ein Handbuch. ‘Momenti dell’economia del Casentino nei secoli XIV e XV’. Il castello di Raggiolo e i conti Guidi. in general. see no.169 The significance of iron was highlighted in the books of the Arezzo merchant. in Lontano dalle città. but also sold in the market centres to meet regional and urban demand. which amounted to 167 For Vado. which allowed him the monopoly of milling activities not just for Partina but perhaps also for Lierna and Ragginopoli. and at a local market in Pratovecchio. 191–210. Castello dei Conti Guidi. 175–91. see D. 165. which was reworked into new objects. 475. Melis. 221–32. ‘Mulini. 173 However. ‘La lavorazione del ferro nell’economia casentinese alla fine del medioevo (tra Campaldino e la battaglia di Anghiari)’. Argomenti Storici 6–7 (1981): 22–50. 170 F. 195–6. 86v. Pappacio. Badia Prataglia antica e moderna (Bagno di Romagna: S. 176 ASF. Ciampelli. 1983). 185 See R. 55r. no. ‘La farmacia di Camaldoli’. Alla macchia. 475. . Lonnano. 181 Niccolo Nanni stored 70 barrels at his farm at S. see G. barrels of wine were the most valuable and the large number stored by some families indicates these were intended for sale. 186 For the importance of cattle farming in Tuscany in the thirteenth century. Camaldoli. ‘A Tuscan Monastic Lordship’.183 More affluent local families owned furnaces and produced mortar and roof tiles. in idem. Pisa in the Early Renaissance. or alternatively were attached to the houses and walls of the concentrated castelli. Fondo di Murello. Carbonai. no.179 The trade in wood from the forest also stimulated other local industries. ‘Comunità e beni comuni nella montagna fra Bologna e Pistoia nel medioevo’. L’antica foresta di Camaldoli. ed. memorie. 182 Jones. 179 P. Signori. f. such as the ‘Vigna dei Romiti’ at Pratovecchio. Erboristeria Domani 2 (1979): 7–14.176 The monastery of Camaldoli was also prominent in the timber trade and in 1317 offered a discount on 3000 pieces of wood to the Florentine Guiduccio Tolosini for 2000 florins (the quantity normally sold for 2500 florins). ‘La “bannalità” del mulino in una signoria casentinese (1350)’.178 Some wood was used locally by tradesmen. 1973). 157–76. Cacciamani. Meneghini and O. 174 G. while Camaldoli did the same for its mills in Soci and Partina. f. ff. Herlihy. Decima granducale. no. borghesi. who crafted tools out of beech as well as using it to heat their homes during long. 200r. ed. 72r. hard winters.180 Casentinese wine was also highly prized and found a willing urban market.175 Another significant commercial venture was the timber trade. 56.. Zagnoni. 1958). creating an important resource for blacksmiths. F. Storia e codice forestale (Arezzo: Edizioni Camaldoli. 179. 2. Camaldoli Cittadella di Dio 16 (1968): 103–9. such as charcoal burning.174 Other mills were leased out by the Guidi in the fourteenth century in the Casentino. Quaderni Mensili di Vita Benedettina 9 (1940): 14–19. as the Arno River allowed for its transportation. no.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Journal of Medieval History 23 one staia of grain (said to be approximately the total grain produced from 0. 183 ASA. vetturini. contadini. ‘L’antica farmacia di Camaldoli’. 177–9. see D. 175 ASF. A. 2010).185 Arezzo was a key market for leather from the thirteenth century onwards. however. nos. Of all the goods recorded in the assets of households in the catasto. f. Sznura (Florence: Aska. ‘L’antica farmacia di Camaldoli’. 6852. no. 1v. 67. ff. Cherubini. 178 ASF. but leather was also bought by important Florentine companies such as the Datini. A Study of Urban Growth (New Haven: Yale University Press. Bucena and Contra. 1910). 13. Pax. these were more often coherent units kept in clausura and formed part of an isolated podere. 49– 50. G. 184 ASF. no. Catasto. in Fiumi e laghi toscani fra passato e presente: pesca. regole. Camaldoli also saw the commercial sense in producing good wine and kept vineyards in demesne well into the sixteenth century. f. 180 See A. 225. 134–60. Maria in Castello: ASF. 1965). Vestrucci & Figlio. 1269. 136. 177 G. Notarile Antecosimiano. in Comunità e beni comuni dal medioevo ad oggi.186 In a letter XII e XV secolo’. Seghi. 92–4. ASF. 27r. Hives were everywhere in the Appennines and the Casentino was no exception. Gori.184 The monks of Camaldoli developed and distributed a number of different medicines and remedies from their pharmacy at the monastery. 589. 81r–82v. Fragai. 48r.181 Vineyards were common in the valley and were the highest valued of all lands in the catasto. Cacciamani. tagliatori (Stia: Cianferoni. Camaldoli. R. nos.2 hectares) from every inhabitant of the three settlements mentioned per year.182 Another commercial pursuit was the sale of bees and the production of honey.177 They also demanded some of their rents be paid in wood on their poderi at Monte. no. Pampaloni. Lumber cut by sawmills in the area was put on rafts and floated down the river to buyers. 125. f. Reale Arcispedale di Santa Maria Nuova. Unlike the fragmented pieces of arable and pasture. Rent payment in grain by millers was apparently common in Tuscany. Firenze al tempo di Dante: documenti sull’urbanistica fiorentina (Rome: Ministero dell’interno. 179. Singleton. Vieusseux.187 The leather trade also stimulated a host of local shoemaking businesses listed in the catasto. Documenti dell’antica costituzione del comune di Firenze (Florence: G. Power balance As early as the first decades of the twelfth century. Trexler. American Historical Review 101 (1996): 649–50. nos. fishing in the river by Stia and Poppi had been outlawed completely. ‘Economic Development and Aquatic Ecosystems in Medieval Europe’. Pignoni. 1619): copy in BNF. Santini. Takahasi. they described a payment of 115 florins for the leather of the revered ‘hairy’ buffaloes. 196 See P. 1936). showing it was not the act of desperate peasants. R. Bando.P.190 Popular lyrics frequented alluded to the association between the Casentino and wet-nursing.. Curtis written to Giuliano di Tommaso of Poppi. The production of chestnuts. 277.193 In 1450 the city threatened the people of the Casentino with substantial fines if caught poisoning the river with lime and nutshells. Trexler. Women. Viator 5 (1974): 462–7. Many richer proprietors of the chestnut trees decided to give this work to day labourers and in the Casentino owners paid men (often in kind) to collect and clean chestnuts ready for sale. R. 227. Canti carnascialeschi del Rinascimento (Bari: Laterza. a doctrine had already emerged suggesting that Florence had a legitimate claim to the countryside in its immediate environs. ‘I bambini e i genitori-‘espositori’ dello spedale di Santa Maria degli Innocenti di Firenze nel XV secolo’. 189 See C. ‘Momenti dell’economia del Casentino’. 196–7. ‘‘La “civiltà” del castagno’.188 Another commercial activity in the Casentino was the ‘growth industry’ of wet-nursing and the foster care of children from foundling homes in Florence. ‘The Foundlings of Florence. ‘Measures Against Water Pollution in Fifteenth-Century Florence’. History of Childhood Quarterly 1 (1973): 259–84. evidence suggests it became at least partially commercialised. 175–6.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 24 D. 190 P. concerned not only about losing a potential supply of food upstream but also about the poisoning of the river.R. but the organised actions of ecclesiastical institutions like Camaldoli. ‘Blood Parents and Milk Parents: Wet Nursing in Florence. and a register from a shoemaker from Poppi confirms his locally sourced leather. a food known to have found a ready market among the elite in many parts of medieval Western Europe. 195 Z. 191 C. nos. 1300–1550’. Cherubini. 1985). Klapisch-Zuber. 193 R. Provvisioni Registri. 132–64. important from the twelfth century onwards. 187 188 .191 A final commercial activity undertaken in the Casentino in the late Middle Ages was the sale of trout caught in the Arno River. Gavitt. and while this activity leaned more towards peasant self-sufficiency rather than market production. Collecting chestnuts was a risky and difficult task which involved climbing trees.195 Florence grew increasingly restless as it failed to profit from diverse commercial ventures undertaken in the Casentino in the late Middle Ages. E non poter pescare dal principio d’Arno fino al ponte di Stia sopra Arno (Florence: Zanobi Pignoni. continued to have significance. e prohibizione di non poter pescare nel fiume de l’Oia in Casentino nel Vicariato di Poppi. trans. Annuario dell’Istituto Giapponese di Cultura 25 (1991): 35–57. T. 1990). 1395–1455’. which then sold the fish at market. suggesting that the institution had set up a network of contacts for this village. Family and Ritual in Renaissance Italy. Hoffman. 29.194 ‘Priests. ed. Other scholars have used the archives of urban charitable institutions to show the development of this micro-economy in the mountain regions to the east of Florence. By the seventeenth century. 192 See. nos 1–2.196 Many of the Melis. in idem. 94. 1895). Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. more generally.189 Castello San Niccolo in the Casentino was mentioned by 24 separate wet nurses in documents of the Ospedale degli Innocenti in Florence.192 We know the frequency and scale of this activity thanks to legislation from Florence. ed. 194 ASF. Charity and Children in Renaissance Florence: the Ospedale degli Innocenti 1410–1536 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. clerks or other religious lay brothers’ were revealed as guilty parties. L.. Davidsohn. territorial lords. 200 D. ‘Chivalric Culture in the Age of Dante’.201 This bond between city and countryside was reinforced by a network of landed and family relationships and the very fact that. Comparative Studies in Society and History 10 (1968): 458–85. 201 Jones. Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 28 (1966): 144–59.199 While. in Europa 1500. 1 (Florence: no publisher given. Branca (Florence: Sansoni. vol. Also see W.200 There can be little support for the notion that the rural communes were the product of a rural aristocracy antithetical to a rising urban bourgeoisie. Forschungen zur älteren Geschichte von Florenz. In any case. linked to urban residence and citizenship. 358. Community and Clientele. 1 (Berlin: E. . such as Fiesole in 1125 and the castrum of Montebuoni in Impruneta in 1135. 300–1. Mittler und Sohn. Inventario e regesto. 345. ‘Civilità cortese e civilità Borghese nel Medioevo’. important rural nobles relocated from the contado to Florence (for example. ‘Town and Countryside: Social and Economic Tensions in Fourteenth-Century Flanders’. but always retained patronage rights over the churches and monasteries. 1971). 204 C. ed. it was a process not without its problems. Larner. Economic. 1896). Town and Countryside: Social. fiscal and landed encroachment. 28. the ratio of rural to urban magnates declined through the fourteenth century. 211–26. storia.197 Between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. ‘Stadt. Seibt and W. Calamari. and even the notion of ‘gentility’ came to be seen as an essentially urban concept. 172–6. in medieval Flanders strong opposition grew up between powerful interest groups such as the urban guilds. urban citizens or burghers. as described in J. In contrast. 1973).Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 Journal of Medieval History 25 closest rural communes were brought to heel by the city very quickly. simply because there was no sharp distinction made between rural and urban. for example. 392–6. Florence probably did not exert the sort of dominant authority it would have liked (particularly when taken in comparison with the contado). 280. A. Economia e società nell’Italia medievale (Turin: G.204 It was exceedingly difficult to penetrate through the assorted layers of power and jurisdictions in the distant mountains. F. There were no rural interests standing in direct opposition to urban interests. H. Blockmans. Florentine economic fortunes were still undoubtedly tied up in agrarian interests.202 The lack of strong oppositional interest groups facilitated the late-medieval Florentine encroachment into the rural contado. Nicholas. 286. and connections in the rural borghi from which they had come. ‘La lega dei comuni di Valdinievole e la loro pace Firenze (1328–1329)’. 202 P. Italian City-State.203 while the Alpi Fiorentine experienced almost permanent fiscal and corporate exemptions.S.. 44. idem. Linked to this was the cult of chivalry and courtly life. Brucker. ‘Per la storia dell’arte della lana in Firenze’. although Florence slowly extended its jurisdiction further into the distretto during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. and Political Tensions in Fourteenth-Century Flanders (Bruges: ʻDe Tempel’. Roncaglia. Valley communities such as the Valdinievole enjoyed extended periods of independence from urban territorial subjection. I capitoli del commune di Firenze. 152–5. 1998). Hoshino. Einaudi. ed. in Concetto. the Golden Age. this meant that by the beginning of the fourteenth century in the contado. 1138–1737 (Berkeley: University of California Press. furthermore. Jones.198 Ultimately. Guasti. despite the rise of Florence as an international commercial hub. 89–90. 416. 1980). at the same time. it became increasingly impossible to tell whether a baronial family had ‘rural’ or ‘urban’ origins. and seigneurial lords (cultivating a real rural–urban opposition). Eberhard (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Istituto Giapponese Annuario (1972–3): 49. there was no alignment of local power structures that had the propensity to stand up to Florentine jurisdictional. 203 G. V. Florence. Jahrhundert’. the Medici moved to the city from the Mugello in the late twelfth century). Renaissance Studies (1988): 120. The rural signori or nobili of the contado were. ed. miti e immagini del Medioevo. 1987). the interest groups of Florence and the contado were one and the same. 199 A similar point is made for the countryside surrounding Lucca in Wickham. 1866). where 197 R. vol. 198 G. Region und Staat: ein Dreiecksverhältnis: der Kasus der Niederlande im 15. Olschki. I fiorentini e il loro territorio nel basso medioevo (Florence: Le lettere. Casini. in Formazione e strutture dei ceti dominanti nel Medioevo: marchesi conti e visconti nel Regno italico (secc. Costruzione di un contado. Sterpos. 1989). T. 3–4 dicembre 1993 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo. 206 G. Cronica. . the Florentine administration 205 See the clash of rural and urban interests in D. Osheim. 1. in City and Countryside. 1988). 1990). in Studi di storia medievale e moderna per Enesto Sestan. ‘Archeologia delle terre nuove in Toscana: il caso di San Giovanni Valdarno’. R. Dean and Wickham. ‘Demography and the Politics of Fiscality’. Abulafia (Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Florence: Magheri. 91. but it was a lot better than the harsh rates of taxation they would have had to pay to the Florentine administration. The Italian City-Republics (New York: Longman. ed.212 Life as feudal subjects to these lords was by no means perfect. E. 13.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 26 D. jurisdictions and castles all over the mountains of Romagna and the Casentino. Italia medievale (Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane. Diplomatico. For example. Manifestazione espositiva itinerante (Florence: Amministrazione Provinciale di Firenze. ed. 1: 48–9. in Italy in the Central Middle Ages. introduction. Giogo. Francovich. Waley. Rinaldi. 1985). Osservazioni ed ipotesi’. in idem. 2004). inhabitants of the village petitioned the troops of the aristocratic lords of Pietramala to assist them in regaining control of the village. Villani. 1980). 84–5. 356–78. in I borghi nuovi. Pirillo. Olschki. F. communal and village interests. ‘The Minor Rural Aristocracy and Great Lords in Thirteenth-Century Tuscany: Three Cases from the Entourage of the Guidi Counts’. D. ‘La signoria dei conti Guidi in Valdarno.R. granting mountain villagers their own control over the operation and regulation of the forests. 212 Indeed. 4: 279–80. C. Ageno (Florence: L. Di Luca. patronages. 209 Argued also in P.S. 3: 308–9. 210 Zagnoni. ‘I conti Guidi e il Casentino’.206 The aristocratic families of the Guidi and Ubertini had land. Fabbri. Also for the peasant fideles of the Ubertini and Guidi. 166. vol. Settia. G. 208 D. the people of Raggiolo and the Guidi lords had a long history of co-operative treaties. Moutier. I. ‘Comunità e beni comuni nella montagna’. Curtis there existed a peculiar balance of seigneurial. Sestan. 155–94.210 In the mountains in the direction of Arezzo. R. in an episode of peasant insurrection in 1391 in Raggiolo. territorial. ed. Sacchetti. de la Roncière. clientèles dans le contado florentin au XIVe siècle’. ‘Fidélités. villagers under the jurisdiction of the Ubertini suggested they enjoyed living ‘in peace under the dominion of their true signore’. Larner. Statuti e riforme del comune di Terranuova. Comba and A. ed. IX–XII). 211 ASA. in Persorsi e calichi dell’Appennino fra storia e leggenda. Pinto and Pirillo. Osteria Bruciata. As it happened. ‘Appunti sul brigantaggio in Italia alla fine del medioevo’. pergamente e carte varie. 203. the villagers regained their castle at Raggiolo and. Futa. 287–90. 289–90. 8 vols. ‘Evoluzione delle comunicazioni transappenniniche attraverso tre passi del Mugello’. ‘Crossing the Romagnol Appennines in the Renaissance’. Bicchierai. Ricerche Storiche 15 (1985): 37.S.211 Rural communities and signorial lords often teamed up in order to maintain control of settlements and territories.207 The Florentine administration strategically founded new towns close to the Appennines to the north and east of the city. in idem. 147–70. 211–40. 115. 1487–1685 (Florence: L. Journal of Medieval History 30 (2011): 180–96. ecclesiastical. 1823). F. R. ‘Le origini dei Guidi nelle terre di Romagna (secoli IX–X)’. 39–53.209 The signori in turn recognised the benefits of maintaining amicable relations with rural communities. Cherubini.208 Some of the mountain communities were very strong. 1966).205 Illustrative of this tension between the rural signori of the distretto and the commune of Florence is the wealth of material describing assaults on Florentine merchants passing through the Alpi degli Ubaldini. in Lontana dalle città. ed. 200. although Florentine troops later exacted retribution by burning some of the village to the ground. M. no. C. 2001). See also J. in order to compete in an area dominated by rebellious nobles. ‘Il popolamento tra signorie territoriali e dominio fiorentino’. 103–33. D. 2: Atti del secondo convegno di Pisa. eds. Medioevo (Florence: Olschki. see Cohn. 225. Il libro del rime. 207 See E. often aligning themselves with seigneurial interests in order to stave off rising Florentine interference. ‘Rural Italy’. Boldrini and D. 1996). U.L. Rosina e Taena all’inizio del Quattrocento’. Thoen. based around a ‘commercial-survival’ agro-system (to borrow Erik Thoen’s term). Domestici (Florence: Nardini. Hoppenbrouwers (Turnhout: Brepols. such as Bruges and Ghent. the particular alignment of these societal configurations dictated the way in which cities and towns chose to exploit their rural hinterlands. An Essay Taking the Former County of Flanders as an Example (Middle Ages–19th Century)’. 13. Codice diplomatico (an. Cherubini. such as Pratovecchio in 1343. vol. The aristocratic Ubertini family managed to save their jurisdictions over the villages of Chitignano. Rosina and Taena in the late fourteenth century. Vieusseux. did not exploit their respective rural environs for a supply of grain. even where Florence did take control of settlements and territories in the mountains. as this case study of late-medieval Tuscany demonstrates. 47–66. 216 G. idem. Conclusion In pre-industrial Europe. P. however. getting it instead from northern France. rural regions responded in divergent ways to urban influence.Journal of Medieval History 27 Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 also realised the need for concession and compromise in these mountain areas – including a fiveyear tax exemption for the villagers affected by the conflict. perhaps a city was more interested in exhaustively exploiting the resources of one rural region more than another. van Zanden (Turnhout: Brepols. the late-medieval decline in fortunes of the rural settlements in the Florentine contado was caused by urban exploitation. 1937). 1983). while others were susceptible to exploitation. However. 125. Beni. In this line of reasoning. Guida del Casentino. 3. 2001). 1337–1385) (Florence: G. Documenti per la storia della città di Arezzo nel medio evo. Some rural regions were well set up to repel urban extractive tendencies. 214 . ed. 2004). it is argued that the divergent fortunes that rural areas experienced in their relationships with cities can be explained through the differing configurations of rural societies themselves.216 The balance of seigneurial and communal interests in parts of the distretto proved to be awkward obstacles for the Florentine state to overcome. Pasqui.. Hoppenbrouwers and J.214 The Palagio branch of the Guidi family in Stia only fell to Florentine administration in 1402. because the small-farmer property structure present in much of inland Flanders. Una comunità rurale toscana di antico regime. ‘Social Agrosystems as an Economic Concept to Explain Regional Differences. ed. in summary. see E. but others took much longer to bring to heel. the powerful medieval cities of Flanders. 250–1. ‘La signoria degli Ubertini sui comuni rurali casentinesi di Chitgnano.217 So. 832. In this paper. Bicchierai. Some villages were conceded to the Florentine administration in the mid-fourteenth century. The literature tends to explain this through an ‘urban lens’ or an ‘urban bias’: the divergent fortunes of rural areas must have been down to the differing objectives pursued by urban institutions and actors. the duke of Milan. 102–57. did not easily lead to large grain surpluses. 217 On this issue. The Flemish Countryside and the Transition to Capitalism (Middle Ages–19th Century)’. Archivio Storico Italiano 126 (1968): 151–69. van Bavel and P.P. the fortunes of cities and countryside were often entwined. in Peasants into Farmers? The Transformation of Rural Economy and Society in the Low Countries (Middle Ages–19th Century) in Light of the Brenner Debate. by making tactical concessions elsewhere. such exploitation was facilitated in the first 213 Cohn. revised F. ed. Creating the Florentine State. and Count Francesco Guido only lost the town of Poppi as late as 1440 because he made the error of aligning his interests with that of Filippo Maria Visconti. Castel San Niccolo in 1348 or Bibbiena in 1359. B. there was always some complex negotiation to consider. no. Furthermore.215 Furthermore. 215 C. However.213 Lay aristocrats and villagers put up strong resistance to save their jurisdictions. in Landholding and Land Transfer in the North Sea Area (Late Middle Ages–19th Century). ‘A Commercial Survival Economy in Evolution. To put this point in a comparative context. g. Florentine institutions and burghers failed to penetrate through this mountain society’s balance of seigneurial. ecclesiastical. unlike in the contado. . communal and village interests. despite obvious Florentine territorial ambitions and advances in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Curtis has recently completed his PhD thesis on ‘Pre-Industrial Societies and Strategies for the Exploitation of Resources. there was no urban accumulation of land in this region: it was thwarted by the high levels of continuity in local peasant–farmer property ownership. territorial. the people and institutions of the Casentino followed a wide. were antithetical to interests of the city.Downloaded by [Daniel Curtis] at 10:57 03 September 2012 28 D. Bas van Bavel (Utrecht University). A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Why Some Settlements are Resilient and Some Settlements are Vulnerable to Crisis. In addition to an ability to stave off potential urban predation. Curtis instance by a number of ‘distorted’ societal constellations in the contado itself. in the process benefiting from rising Florentine demand for products (which could not be made in the mezzadria-dominated contado) and selling them in small coherent market centres across the valley. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Prof. and Dr. labour. Furthermore.’ He works at Utrecht University and belongs to the Research Institute for History and Culture. Chris Wickham (University of Oxford). The skewed property structure eventually lent itself to imperfections in other societal constellations: the disappearance of welfare systems such as the commons. some of which had been locked in over the long-term. The rural aristocracy. Prof. a rural elite did not emerge in the contado to counter urban predations. varied and flexible balance of economic activities (making full use of the local resources) and modes of exploitation. capital) and the restricted economic portfolios which followed. Prof.R. often with support of the local communities. the consolidation of large ecclesiastical estates (e. the Casentino Valley. whereby urban expropriation of countrydwellers’ land was made easier by urban courts siding with urban landowners and speculators. In contrast. was better equipped to repel urban predations. Peter Hoppenbrouwers (Leiden University). because these rural elites (as early as the twelfth century) were essentially urbanites. Auke Rijpma (Utrecht University) for their help in improving the article. an area of the Florentine distretto further away from the city’s immediate hinterlands. Camaldoli) and the persistence of common rights over the forest. vigorously standing their ground.. Daniel R. the imposition of mezzadria to counter defective balances in factor markets (land. One of the key problems was the lack of distinction made between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ interests. This contributed to a distorted property structure.