I am compelled to address the review of my book, both the overall discussion of the book's contents and with regard to specific criticisms. I believe that the reviewer did not appropriately evaluate the book's substance and its novel contributions. The work focuses on the medieval grain market at Orsanmichele and then the confraternity that was associated with the market. I conducted the first detailed study of this market, and I approached it from a market structure perspective, both original contributions. Within this, I also found elements of modern exchanges as early as the thirteenth century in Florence.
The volume observes the organization and critical social impact of the grain market at Orsanmichele. This one market was able to feed on a daily basis a population of up to 100,000 persons whose caloric consumption was 75 percent grain, but who were for the most part not producing their own food. The volume examines how Florentine traders and financiers, working in the southern peninsula at the highest levels of government, were able to export massive volumes of wheat and grain to Florence and around the Mediterranean. The study explains the Florentines’ rigorous bulk grain export-import system, and it details royal export authorizations. The examination of vessels was not superfluous but a demonstration of the extensive measures required to move grain into Florence. The study also reveals that, in translating wholesale volumes into retail bushels, over a million staia were exported from the Regno in certain years. I argue that Florentine imports revolutionized grain trading in Florence and made possible the market at Orsanmichele.
In Florence, traders and communal officials introduced sophisticated market operations. I provide an analysis of the market, its elements, operations, participants, and oversight, among other features that enabled the rapid and efficient sale of a core dietary staple. These attributes are found in modern exchange markets, as discussed in the volume. The book also demonstrates how the market made grain available year round and overcame price and volume swings usually associated with seasonal harvests and non-harvest periods. The market was a significant part of a social safety network, together with the communal government and the confraternity of Orsanmichele. The extensive overlap between traders, confraternity officers, and communal officials, which I found and detailed, buttressed the market and loggias in support of a communal form of government, which was opposed by traditional forces.
The volume explores the fragility of Florentine society due to factional fighting, which led to the political burning of the grain market and commercial areas in 1304. It explains communal and trader efforts to rebuild rapidly, constantly protecting the market and confraternity. It also demonstrates how Florentine market and import operations generally avoided grain shortages until larger forces, such as a political blockade near Pisa in 1329, disrupted the entire market system. As a novel contribution, I identified the situation of 1329-1330 as a market disruption with an accompanying panic, which is even known in modern markets. I observed and explained with specificity how communal officials worked to quel uprisings, maintain stability, and feed the population even in dire times. Communal officials and the confraternity were able to stop a public panic from turning into a political revolution or a situation that resulted in famine. Importantly, the commune preserved the institution of the market.
With this perspective, the review might have addressed market structure issues and the volume’s approach for this period. The review might have considered the volume’s placement of the grain market within market history and within the history of exchange markets. It might have considered my volume in light of advanced financial and market operations in the early modern period, particularly in the much-studied Netherlands, only centuries earlier and in Florence. It might have considered my study vis-à-vis studies of other commodities and/or financial markets of the medieval period. It might have considered how I addressed issues of social stability through the market, and how potential famine and related social turmoil was handled vis-à-vis other cities of the time. The review overlooked the sophisticated nature and critical societal impact of the grain market at Orsanmichele, as presented in the volume, and it overlooked the commodities exchange point entirely.
The review also might have discussed the book’s contributions to our understanding of the confraternity and grain loggias. The volume examines the successive images of the confraternity’s Madonna under the grain loggia, and the oratory-offertories in which it was situated. It suggests a shift from an emphasis on St. Michael, dating from Lombard times, to a new focus on the Virgin as part of a transforming and forward-looking city. The review might have addressed the point that my study found three, rather than two, grain loggias at Orsanmichele over time. Arnolfo's first loggia of the late thirteenth century, and then the still-standing fourteenth-century loggia, heretofore have been the scholarly focus. It is well documented that the first loggia burned entirely in 1304. I found evidence of a reconstructed grain loggia by 1308, which accords also with the well-recognized completion of the neighboring wool guild's headquarters in 1308. I also identified extensive trading and confraternity activity under this second loggia. The initiation of a new (and third) loggia in 1336/1337, and its decades-long construction, have been well studied. The review might have addressed my consideration, heretofore overlooked, of a reconstructed second loggia in the period between 1304 and 1336.
The following concerns points raised in the review, and related issues, that merit specific comments.
Claimed repetition of the terms granaioli and biadaioli. Florence was a highly structured society, and this carried into the grain market. My distinction between wheat dealers (granaioli) and grain dealers (biadaioli), which I believe was the first such scholarly recognition, was a vitally important part of the market structure and daily transactional life. The distinction showed that the Florentine socio-economic class system was not only a part of the larger social picture; it permeated even grain trading and market operations. The distinctions were made throughout because the two classes were a vitally important part of the market’s structure, its daily functioning, and the work of, and limitations placed upon, its participants. Discussion of such class distinctions, which carried practical ramifications, worked against any depiction of the trading community as a monolith.
The review did not mention that I also introduced a previously neglected trading group, the trecchi. These were marginalized traders who were not part of the guild structure and who operated as resellers of foods along the roads and markets around Florence. Their presence and operations were highly restricted by the communal government. Trecchi were treated as a nuisance to the larger trading community, but they were tolerated at some level, even at the grain market of Orsanmichele. Overall, the trecchi must have served the lowest consumer tier, which was willing to risk the quality of food in order to have any quantity at all. It would have been beneficial if the review had addressed these novel contributions to our understanding of trading conditions and the stratification of the trading community.
Frequent mention of the Macci. The Macci were a unique force in Orsanmichele and for the grain market and confraternity. They have not previously been studied in depth, but were ubiquitous in the records relating to Orsanmichele and the grain market. The Macci were an elite family that emerged in the twelfth century and grew to dominate the area of Orsanmichele in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and beyond. The Macci had a significant presence north of the piazza, with an early fortified palace and stone towers, like many elite of the time. As part of the powerful Society of Towers, the Macci could have continued for the long-term in this known environment. During this same period, however, they started to engage in building the early Florentine commune, serving many aspects of the nascent government, and they turned to domestic, regional, and international commerce and finance.
By mid-thirteenth century, the Macci participated in commodities trading and finance at the highest levels in numerous locations across Europe. When exiled for their Ghibelline leanings in the mid-thirteenth century, they were found in the Regno, financing the papacy and participating in exports. They also exported wool from England and conducted financial operations in Venice and at Champagne and other northern fairs. Although not as well-known as certain large traders, the Macci appeared to be the backbone of the grain market, and they were important to the Florentine economy and monetary system. The Macci should have been part of the regular historiography on leading Florentine traders. The review might have noted this volume’s novel contributions concerning the Macci.
Spelling and Orthography. The reviewer’s notes on spelling and the use of medieval rather than modern terminology is appreciated and makes clear the usefulness of specialized proofreading. Medieval Italian and Latin words appearing next to the English or modern Italian terms, however, were purposely retained to reflect the unique spelling in the original source. In addition, as noted in the prefatory materials, original orthography was intentionally retained as appropriate. It was used particularly for the hundreds of names in the appendices, but also in the text. Medieval spellings were notoriously inconsistent. I used original orthography for accuracy and for the benefit of current and future researchers. Names that appeared frequently in the volume, such as Bindo and Berto Galigai dei Macci, were “sanitized” for consistency of the narrative, although original spellings were generally retained in the appendices. Names that appeared less frequently generally retained their unique spellings as reflected in the particular document. Despite differing spellings in the sources, the identities of these individuals can generally be understood without difficulty. I wanted researchers to have the exact spelling provided in the given document in order to save hours of unnecessary effort to obtain a source simply to check the original spelling of a name.
As a comment on the use of the term San Andrea for Sant'Andrea (an early medieval church northwest of Orsanmichele), while the reviewer’s note is well taken, it fails to acknowledge that certain current scholarship refers to the church as San Andrea or S. Andrea, not Sant'Andrea. I followed the path of experts in using terminology, but would in the future note distinctions between the medieval and modern, and scholarly versus common, spellings.
An absence of secondary sources on the Renaissance. Although I employed certain Renaissance-oriented sources that were directly useful for my study, I purposely did not focus on the massive number of secondary sources concerning the Renaissance, which was not the subject of my study. My point was to examine the medieval period and the medieval foundation of the Renaissance loggia and life at Orsanmichele, not the overstudied Renaissance itself. A multitude of medieval sources were employed in my work, both original primary sources, including archival materials, and secondary sources. I also used extensive economic, agricultural, market history, and market organization studies, as well as art and art history materials, and manuscript images, among other sources. I sought to evaluate and use any source that would have been directly relevant to the work. The review might have considered my extensive source base, footnotes, and bibliography. I believe I made clear that my work sought to show the vibrant life at Orsanmichele before the Renaissance, and the medieval contribution at Orsanmichele toward building the Florentine economy and commerce, and a republican government focused on and based in business.
In conclusion, I wish that among its many particular criticisms, the review had considered the larger points and contributions of the book. It is already being cited in a number of current studies. The volume has been acquired by numerous academic and even popular-level libraries, and it is available in bookstores across the world. I continue to believe that the volume has value for those who read it, and that it makes several important contributions to our understanding of medieval Florence.