The Merchant of Prato’s Wife: Margherita Datini and Her World, 1360–1423

696 119 3MB

English Pages [169]

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Merchant of Prato’s Wife: Margherita Datini and Her World, 1360–1423

  • Author / Uploaded
  • coll.

Citation preview

Page 1 →

Introduction When I first mentioned calling this book The Merchant of Prato’s Wife: Margherita Datini and Her World, 1360–1423, rather than Margherita Datini and Her World, 1360–1423: The Merchant of Prato’s Wife, several people expressed doubt about the chosen title, on the grounds that it undermined Margherita’s individuality, treating her as a mere wife, a kind of appendage. I maintain that it is justified because Margherita herself believed that she had an important job to perform as a wife, even though her relationship with her husband was not particularly loving; she saw wifehood as a profession. I have also chosen my title partly in recognition of Iris Origo’s earlier study of the Datini, The Merchant of Prato. Origo has been criticized for being more a writer than a historian. However, her work is, on the whole, sound, and it both awakened my interest in the Datini and provided a starting place for my research. I do not always cite areas of overlap between my book and hers, since I have pursued further any leads she provided. Margherita is my subject in a way she is not Origo’s. This book investigates what a wife and woman of the urban merchant elite could and could not do in late medieval and early renaissance Italy. My main source is the frequent and detailed correspondence between Margherita and Francesco Datini that continued over more than twenty-five years, set in the context of other writings. I often use their letters’ words, including Margherita’s colorful comments, to illustrate personalities and activities. My hope is that this book will go some way toward conveying the female voice that has so often gone unheard in the historical record, as well as female activities that have so often gone unnoticed. Only two or three correspondences of personal, nonliterary letters have been preserved and studied for fourteenth-century women; Page 2 → there are more for fifteenth-century women and an increasing number for the sixteenth century.1 Since the role of wife traditionally had universal characteristics, many aspects of Margherita’s position would have been similar to that of other women in Italy and beyond. Therefore, I believe her case can provide insight into the lives of other wives and women, despite individuality in her circumstances and her personality. The Datini correspondence shows that Margherita accepted that she was Francesco’s subordinate, according to the approved view of power relations between husband and wife. She nonetheless had considerable autonomy in carrying out her many duties and dealing with the many people involved, because of Francesco’s frequent absence and his lack of close male relatives who might have helped her. Her activities conformed to what was appropriate for a wife because she was acting on behalf of her husband. Her most serious failure to meet expectations was her inability to have children, leaving her to concentrate on other aspects of being a wife. More positively, she stood out in her desire to excel and in her enthusiasm for seeking responsibility beyond the required and expected. The result was that she and Francesco, despite a difficult personal relationship, had an interdependent domestic partnership. The letters between the couple are found in the Datini collection in the Archivio di Stato di Prato, housed among more than 150,000 letters and five hundred account books collected by Francesco Datini. Most of the documents there focus on mercantile activities. However, the core sources of my book are the 244 surviving letters from Margherita to Francesco, written between 1385 and his death in 1410, and the 181 letters from Francesco to Margherita, for a total of 425 letters between them, dealing with household, family, business, and political matters. Some of the letters are long, some short; some are personal, some impersonal. There are also letters to and from Margherita from others and many to Francesco from Margherita’s relatives. Even the business letters are relevant, because they contain passages about the couple’s personal life. The Datini correspondence is now very accessible, since the whole collection has been put online (herein referenced as Datini Online) via the home page of the Archivio di Stato di Prato. Scanned versions of the originals can be easily searched there by names, dates, and locations. This website was not yet available when I did the bulk of research for this book in Prato, but even at a late stage, it has been valuable for checking what I have done. Very recently, Margherita’s letters have been translated into English by Carolyn James and Antonio Pagliano. Though also published too late for me to make much use of it, Page 3 → their edition is an excellent resource, with notes identifying many of the people mentioned.2 In 2002, the Archivio di Stato di Prato produced a CD of

Margherita’s letters, with images and transcriptions of the original fourteenth- and early fifteenth-century Italian and translations of some of the letters into modern Italian and English.3 There are somewhat hard-to-find published editions of Margherita’s letters to Francesco and of his letters to her, transcribed by Valeria Rosati and Elena Cecchi, and it is sometimes easier, for this old-fashioned person, to refer to a printed page. The other important published primary source is the collection of letters written by a friend of the Datini, the notary Ser Lapo Mazzei, who directed his correspondence with them mostly to Francesco but sometimes to Margherita and others. The collection’s nineteenth-century editor, Cesare Guasti, included a lengthy introduction and many annotations, so that it also functions as a secondary source.4 Previously, Margherita was dealt with mainly by Origo, who treats her as an efficient housewife with a sharp tongue, a valid characterization as far as it goes, but one offering an incomplete picture that I hope to render more complete. Carolyn James has produced a couple of nuanced articles on Margherita, and Valori has penned an insightful article about Margherita’s relation to honor.5 Byrne has two short articles setting Margherita in the European historiographical context before 1996.6 Byrne and Congdon take an interesting approach in their article “Mothering in the Casa Datini,” although they have not investigated the Datini milieu thoroughly enough to avoid inaccuracies. Studies about Francesco Datini often include sections on Margherita, especially in the ongoing writings of Jérôme Hayez, most importantly his “Rire du marchand.” Recently, he, along with Diana Toccafondi, edited the beautifully produced two-volume work Palazzo Datini a Prato, the main subject of which is the palazzo itself, but which also provides information about Margherita as well as Francesco.7 Francesco, not surprisingly, has received a lot more attention than Margherita, some of it unflattering, although most writers agree that, in business, Francesco was energetic and innovative. The attitude of Italian economic scholars toward Francesco has varied depending on attitudes toward the Trecento Italian economy. Sapori saw that period as one of economic decline, after earlier medieval success, and considered Francesco an example of decline; Melis, who admired Francesco without reservation, considered him to represent a new and higher stage of economic development; and recent articles collected by Nigro in Francesco di Marco Datini also present Francesco as starting something new.8 As for Francesco’s personal characteristics, Origo, a woman of foreign Page 4 → origin living in Italy and married to an Italian count, portrayed Francesco, rather condescendingly, as a small-minded representative of the Tuscan petite bourgeoisie. Brucker and Becker emphasized his negative qualities. Brucker characterized him as a “rootless and isolated parvenu,” seeing Francesco in the context of the Florentine elite. (I would comment that Francesco was not rootless in Prato, as evidenced by the fact that he built his house on the site that had held his parents’ house.) Other writers provide a sympathetic picture, without overlooking his faults: Guasti (in his collection of Mazzei’s letters), recent articles in the collection by Nigro, and Nanni in Ragionare tra mercanti portray Francesco’s character and business relationships; Byrne’s doctoral dissertation and articles by Hayez add further insights.9 Francesco certainly demonstrated the flaws for which he has been criticized, but after considerable contact with him through his letters, I maintain that he was often goodhearted and could be generous as well as stingy, with his stinginess resulting largely from a fear of others taking advantage of him. Nonetheless, it would have taken a more patient wife than Margherita to live with him without strife. One thing that cannot be denied is that Francesco is responsible for the existence of the rich Datini archive. He directed his network of companies by letter, saved all letters coming to him and his household, kept copies of many of his outgoing letters, and insisted that his employees and partners in Italy, France, and Spain do the same. Lacking heirs, Francesco bequeathed the bulk of his fortune to the charitable institute he founded in Prato, his Ceppo for the Poor, a body that still dispenses help to the needy today, and Francesco’s Ceppo kept his already carefully saved papers. Over the centuries, the documents in the collection came to be ignored and neglected, but they were still there for the archdeacon Martino Benelli and Cesare Guasti to rescue and organize in the nineteenth century and for more recent scholars to consult.10 When using these letters, it is necessary to keep in mind that they were not entirely private documents. Francesco’s employees often penned or recopied his letters; Margherita mostly dictated hers to scribes, usually Francesco’s employees, and these same employees read Francesco’s letters aloud to her for many years, until she improved her reading. Therefore, Francesco and Margherita were constrained by the knowledge that their words

would be read by others. Nonetheless, the couple was often remarkably frank in their emotional exchanges. Part of the reason is that fourteenth-century notions of privacy differed from ours.11 However, Margherita and Francesco had some idea of discretion, deferring the discussion of things better dealt with face-to-face and never Page 5 → referring directly to Margherita’s failure to bear a child. Their letters closely followed the spoken word, without stylistic editing, reflecting the dominance of oral culture in the fourteenth century. Since oral, rather than literary, culture has been posited to sharpen capacity for speech and rapid thought, it probably contributed to the distinctiveness of the Datini letters.12 Margherita’s letters were also outspoken because she was an outspoken person. In this book, I tell Margherita’s story with an eye toward gaining insight into the Datini marriage relationship, into childbearing, into the possibilities available to women and limits on women, into honor, and into letter writing. Before continuing, I will say that almost every letter shows the importance Margherita gave to the role of wife, to her desire to have her intelligence and competence recognized, and to her association with a wide range of people, including unrelated men. Together, the chapters also show that the role of wife allowed for a range of activities that would not be expected by looking at legal restrictions on women or looking at most historical sources relating to the late medieval and early renaissance Italian urban wife. Chapter 1 looks at the young Margherita and the beginning of her marriage to Francesco.

Page 6 →

CHAPTER 1 Avignon, 1374–82 In 1360, Domenico di Donato Bandini, father of Margherita, was decapitated as punishment for his part in a conspiracy to overthrow the Florentine government, and his property was confiscated. Margherita’s maternal grandfather (her mother’s father), Cione Gherardini, called Pelliccia, also participated in the plot. Pelliccia was a magnate, from one of the highborn families that had lost the right to hold important political office in 1293 because of their violent ways—with the Gherardini being among the highest, mightiest, and most violent of the magnates. Pelliccia escaped capture, as did all those involved in the plot except Domenico and one other man. However, like Domenico Bandini, they all had their portraits painted on the walls of the palace of the podesta as a sign of shame and had their property confiscated. Of the twelve main conspirators, six were magnates, and all were probably Ghibelline sympathizers, at a time when the Guelf government had outlawed Ghibellinism. Originally, Guelfs favored the pope as a political leader, whereas the Ghibellines favored the Holy Roman Emperor based in Germany, but issues of social class, regionalism, and personality had confused the issue. The Bandini and Gherardini conspirators’ goal to create a more aristocratic government fit in with Ghibelline ideas.1 Margherita was born in the year of her father’s death, the youngest of five children. No evidence remains about how the widowed Dianora Gherardini Bandini and the children survived after Domenico’s death, but they would have lived on Dianora’s dowry, first in Florence and then in Avignon. Until 1376, everything said about their activities has to be prefaced by the word probably. It was probably in 1374 that Dianora took her four younger children to Avignon—in Page 7 → Page 8 → order of age, Zanobi, Isabetta, Bartolomeo, and Margherita, with Margherita being fourteen years old. Before she left, Dianora had married her eldest daughter, Francesca, to Niccolò dell’Ammanato Tecchini in Florence. 2 Avignon, a French-speaking or rather Provençal-speaking speaking city on the Rhone River, was a major trading center. Its economic and political importance had increased after the papacy moved to Avignon in 1309 (see fig. 1). Many Italians went there as part of the papal court and as merchants and craftsmen serving the papal court.3 Dianora would probably have gone to stay in the household of unidentified friends or relatives, perhaps because she wanted to begin to establish her sons in careers in Avignon. Zanobi, the oldest Bandini brother, begins to appear in Francesco Datini’s account books in 1375.4 Zanobi would have been in his early to middle twenties. In that same year, Margherita, aged sixteen, was betrothed to the wealthy Francesco, aged about forty.5 Francesco was a self-made merchant from the city of Prato, about ten miles from Florence. Francesco later wrote that the marriage came about because he knew Margherita’s brothers and lived near them. People normally looked among their acquaintances for marriage partners, and the Bandini and Francesco lived in the area of Avignon inhabited by other Tuscans, who mostly knew each other and could evaluate each other. Contributing to the match was friendly social contact, a desire to preserve Tuscan identity, and the attraction of Francesco’s wealth and the Bandini’s social background.6 In an era of arranged marriages, brides did not choose their own husbands. Girls always married young, and men often waited until their thirties or forties, when they had established their careers.7 Margherita’s attitude cannot be known, but she was probably pleased to be given a successful husband who, at forty, was still in the prime of life. Later evidence indicates that she was ready to love him and be a good wife, despite his personal foibles. Francesco announced the marriage in a letter to Monna Piera di Pratese Boschetti, his adoptive mother, in Prato: “I think that God ordained when I was born that I would have a Florentine wife, and so I have taken a girl named Margherita.” Francesco went on to describe Margherita’s family and what had happened to it. The letter contains inaccuracies that make it likely that he was less acquainted with the Bandini than he claimed. He emphasized that he knew well what he was doing, implying that Monna Piera might doubt it, perhaps because he makes no mention of a dowry. He also makes it clear that he had chosen Margherita partly because she was a Florentine,

coming from Prato’s prestigious ruling city.8 Page 9 → As previously mentioned, social status was on the Bandini side. Margherita’s mother’s family, the Gherardini, were of high social position as magnates, and in the earlier fourteenth century, the nonmagnate Bandini were wealthy members of the Florentine governing class and regularly held high government office. However, the Bandini apparently fell afoul of the ruling Guelf hierarchy. In the years before Domenico’s coup attempt, Domenico and Aldobrando di Donato Bandini appear in the Florentine Tratte, records of officeholders, as Ghibellines who had been deprived of their political rights.9 It is perhaps relevant that besides Domenico, another of the four children of Margherita’s paternal grandfather (Donato Bandini) married a magnate, adding to the family’s prestige but limiting the family’s political future: Giovanna Bandini married Silvestro di Cantino Cavalcanti. Marriage required a dowry. Francesco’s will later states that Margherita brought him no dowry, leading to his biographers’ belief that the normally hardheaded merchant had married exclusively for love.10 A more cynical explanation about the lack of dowry might have been that the Bandini thought Francesco’s relatively low social origins unworthy of a dowry. However, documents show that Francesco was promised a dowry of four hundred florins, though he never received it and though no formal marriage contract referring to a dowry was signed. The dowry was much less than the seven hundred florins Margherita’s sister Francesca received, perhaps reflecting that Francesco was a less socially desirable husband than Francesca’s or, more likely, that the Bandini’s financial position deteriorated after Francesca’s marriage. Dianora was in financial straits. Although she still owned a valuable house in Florence, worth four hundred florins, she had little income. Francesco’s account books show both her and Zanobi borrowing money from Francesco in the 1370s and 1380s, although they mostly repaid it.11 Margherita’s dowry was to have been part of a larger financial arrangement between the Bandini and Francesco. At the time of the marriage, Francesco lent Zanobi Bandini six hundred florins to go to Rome (where the pope had recently returned), so that Zanobi could sell fine cloth and precious objects to the papal court. Some of the documents about this loan were drafted in the hand of Margherita’s mother, Dianora, which suggests that it was as much a personal as a business arrangement. Zanobi would then pay the dowry out of his profits, since the family did not have four hundred florins available otherwise. One can imagine Dianora, whose strong character is in evidence in later letters, refusing to agree to the marriage unless Francesco made this loan to her son. However, Page 10 → as it happened, Zanobi lost money during his trip to Italy and then died young, so the bulk of the dowry never was paid. Furthermore, a plan to take Monna Dianora’s house in Florence as dowry brought its own complications.12 Margherita did not go to live with her groom Francesco until September 1377, over a year after the wedding festivities. The delay, while not particularly unusual, may be explained by the wait for the dowry.13 Although Francesco accepted Margherita without the dowry having been paid, its lack would continue to be harmful to Margherita, weakening her position in relation to Francesco and in relation to society. A suitable dowry brought self-respect to a woman, respect from others, and money that could be used for support in widowhood and was not dependent on her husband’s charity. Francesco provided elaborate wedding celebrations, judging by his list of the foods for the festive wedding banquet: 406 loaves of bread, 250 eggs, one hundred pounds of cheese, two quarters of an ox, sixteen quarters of mutton, thirty-seven capons, eleven chickens, two boars’ heads and feet for jelly, and wines from Provence and Tuscany, the latter supplying Chianti and sparkling Carmignano.14 The luxurious wedding party was a sign that Francesco had risen in the world from his beginning as a poor young immigrant. Francesco had been born in Prato around 1436, to parents who, to use modern terminology, were members of the lower middle classes. His father, Marco, ran a tavern and a butcher shop, lending money on the side. Francesco’s father died in June 1348, at the beginning of the Black Death, and Francesco’s pregnant mother, Vermiglia, and two of his siblings died of the plague at the same time, leaving behind two boys, Francesco and Stefano.15

The plague was the most feared of all epidemics, because of its short incubation period followed by rapid death. Half the population or more died in Prato and its neighbor Florence in the summer of 1348. Plague outbreaks then continued until 1500, but they did not hit everywhere all the time, so those who could afford to do so left plagueaffected places and escaped to plague-free places. Escaping the plague is a recurrent subject in the Datini correspondence. The writer Boccaccio’s famous description of the plague stated that it dissolved kinship and social ties, with wives abandoning sick husbands and parents abandoning sick children. However, recent scholars have disputed this view; it is clear, from looking at wills and other documents, that kinship and neighborly ties remained strong even in the first terrible summer of 1348, and such solidarity seems to have existed in Francesco’s family.16 Early in the summer of 1348, Francesco’s dying father left his two sons Francesco and Stefano in the guardianship of a relative, Piero di Giunta del Rosso, Page 11 → the father of a family with whom Francesco would continue to be close. Piero di Giunta del Rosso looked after the boys’ modest inheritance and the annual income it brought.17 The boys lived with Monna Piera di Pratese Boschetti, also a relative, who remained the person Francesco loved most in the world while she lived.18 It is impossible to know the exact genealogical relationships among these people, because it is never specified; however, they are sometimes referred to as parenti. Ordinary folk had less interest in genealogy than the elite, and even among the elite, genealogical information comes mostly from retrospective genealogical tables. In everyday life, people usually limited themselves to the vague terms parenti and, among the elite, consorti.19 Soon after the deaths of his parents, Francesco held a couple of short apprenticeships in Florence, learning the merchant trade. At age fifteen, hearing of the opportunities in papal Avignon, he sold a piece of land for 150 florins and traveled there to make his fortune. Once in Avignon, he was self-supporting, without having to ask his guardian for money. He probably worked as an apprentice in a business at first and then invested as a minor partner. In 1358, Francesco visited Prato, sold another piece of land for 138 florins, and persuaded his guardian, Piero di Giunta, to entrust him with his brother Stefano’s share of their inheritance, to invest in Avignon. He took Stefano back with him to be his partner, but Stefano soon died. In this period, Francesco and his Tuscan partners dealt chiefly in armor and weapons. They could not rival the great Florentine trading companies in Avignon, the Alberti and Soderini, who were the pope’s bankers, but business opportunities in Avignon were varied and plentiful enough that there was room for all.20 Francesco’s surviving correspondence with his adoptive mother, Monna Piera di Pratese, and his Prato neighbor Niccolozzo Binducchi begins in 1371, five years before his marriage to Margherita. The letters shed light on his and their continuing goals. Origo describes this correspondence well, but returning to the originals adds detail. One principal topic was Monna Piera and Niccolozzo’s desire that Francesco return to Prato. They repeated often that Monna Piera was old and unwell and needed Francesco there before she died.21 Evidence that Francesco himself was serious about returning to Italy was his purchase in 1358, while still in his early twenties and working in Avignon, of additional property to augment the Prato house he had inherited from his parents. Together these properties formed the complex where he began to build the Datini palazzo.22 Niccolozzo’s first surviving letter to Francesco, written in 1372 and signed “your brother,” already talked about the building project.23 Another topic of long-term relevance was Francesco’s work habits. Niccolozzo Page 12 → thought it was time Francesco stopped working so hard (in the false expectation that Francesco would live a more relaxed life once he returned to Italy): “You are rich enough, thanks be to God. Don’t want it all, don’t want it all, don’t want it all.”24 Niccolozzo repeated the phrase three times to show the importance he attached to it. Letters from Monna Piera and Niccolozzo also encouraged Francesco to marry, a subject that takes on prominence in their letters of 1375–76, when Francesco was approaching forty. Niccolozzo pointed out that God had given Francesco the grace of acquiring riches and that Francesco had undergone many worries in doing so, that he should not go to all that trouble for strangers but should leave behind him people who would pray to God for his soul and to whom he could pass down his possessions with love and pleasure. He advised Francesco to realize that, without children, his house would die when he died.25 Sounding impatient, Niccolozzo wrote, “When do you expect to marry? When you are old? Then you will have to leave your children, if God gives you any, in the hands of guardians, and God only knows how they will be treated.”26

At this stage, Francesco was less intent on a legitimate heir than Niccolozzo and Monna Piera, and he was not without female companionship. In 1374, he had an illegitimate child by an unidentified mother, probably a servant or slave. The child was a boy whose birth he announced with pride. Though Niccolozzo replied that he and Monna Piera—especially Monna Piera—were as happy as they could be about the baby that God had given Francesco, he added, “Nonetheless, we remind you that having a legitimate child will bring you more honor before God and the world.”27 The baby died a year later. Francesco asked Monna Piera to look for a suitable wife for him in Prato, but she said she would do it only if he came to see the girl for himself, because she knew he was hard to please. “I beg you to come see this merchandise in person. This is not merchandise that you can buy or sell.”28 While the use of a word meaning “merchandise” when referring to a wife is materialistic, Monna Piera makes a distinction between a wife and ordinary merchandise. In the end, Francesco chose a wife for himself: Margherita di Domenico Bandini. Francesco and Margherita lived together in Avignon for six years before they returned to Italy. Avignon was a city of thirty thousand inhabitants, crowded within walls and huddled under the looming and gigantic papal palace. The some six hundred families of Italians there, mostly merchants and craftsmen, dominated the luxury trades of fine cloth, armor, and precious objects, but there were also cardinals of the church from Prato, Florence, and elsewhere Page 13 → in Italy, with whom the Italians had a special relationship. The Italian nonchurchmen resided in the center of the city in the area of the Place des Changes, under the jurisdiction of their own consuls, forming their own religious confraternities, and keeping their own local holidays.29 Francesco lived and worked in that neighborhood, and Dianora and her family lived there.30 The Italians associated mainly with Italians, and there is no sign that Margherita or Dianora knew Provençal, even though Dianora would remain in Avignon for the rest of her life.31 No letters survive between Margherita and Francesco from their time in Avignon, and any information about Margherita is indirect and lacking detail. The couple seems to have been happy enough, judging by comments in Francesco’s correspondence. Francesco set up a kind of competition with Niccolò Tecchini, the husband of Margherita’s sister Francesca, about who had the best wife, from a husband’s point of view. Niccolò commented, “You praise Margherita for showing you reverence and obedience and no Gherardini qualities. In good faith, I can say the same about Francesca, and if anyone has reason to be contented with his wife, I do.”32 Niccolò jokingly blamed Margherita—referring to her by her childhood name Bita—for Francesco’s slowness in returning to Italy, accusing her of being unlike most women, who sought to live in their homeland honorably among their peers, according to their station, and not having a Gherardini spirit.33 When Francesco, in his response, defended Margherita, saying that she had been asking to go back to Italy for a long time, Niccolò quipped that love might be causing Francesco to lie and that, in any case, Margherita’s pleas would be most effective if she did not make them in a Gherardini spirit.34 By “Gherardini spirit” and “Gherardini qualities,” Niccolò was referring to the fierce Gherardini clan of Francesca and Margherita’s mother, Dianora, and perhaps also to the forceful Dianora herself. Later, describing how hard he worked during the Avignon years, Francesco said that he had Margherita work also, sewing cloth linings for helmets while the wife of his partner Tieri went gallivanting with other women to parks and parties.35 However, the serious-minded Margherita probably would not have minded the labor, especially since Francesco seems to have paid her for her work. Showing that Margherita already had some independence of will, Niccolò Tecchini wrote, “You say that Margherita has one hundred florins between money she earns and money for household expenses and that she does not want to give them into your care; I don’t know where the florins would be better and more secure [than in her hands].” This passage suggests that as a young Page 14 → wife, Margherita received an allowance for household expenses, to be used at her discretion, as well as earning some money herself. However, Niccolò finished this passage by saying, “but I would rather see her become fatter by making children than in gathering in money.”36 Maybe Niccolò, a devout Christian and a merchant himself, was showing a little distrust about the emphasis on moneymaking in the Datini household—an activity closely related to the Christian sin of avarice—or maybe he thought her activities detracted from childbearing. Francesco tried to have Monna Piera come from Prato to stay with the Datini in Avignon in order to keep Margherita company, but she never did.37 Their circle was enlarged instead by four girls for whom Francesco became guardian, the children of Bonaccorso di Vanni, Francesco’s dead friend and business associate, also from

Prato. The girls were illegitimate, so Francesco struggled to claim their father’s inheritance for them. He succeeded, but to no avail, since the girls were all dead by 1383. In 1379, however, they were still healthy and had an impact on Margherita’s life, as indicated by Francesco’s request to Monna Piera to send fifty lira worth of the finest ribbons because he had five females in the house who wanted to work with them. The girls’ aunt in Prato sent Margherita thanks for her kindness to them.38 Francesco explained to Monna Piera that he was helping the girls out of love for Bonaccorso, their father, and out of love for God, but he showed he was also haunted by the fear that God would punish him if he did not help the girls. Francesco had a punitive, rather than loving, view of God’s attitude toward human events. Francesco said he left it to God’s will to decide whether he would have children or not, and he feared that should he have children, God would pay him back through them if he did not assist Bonaccorso’s daughters.39 The belief that having children or not having children was all God’s doing, already seen in Niccolozzo’s comments quoted above, would have been comforting to Margherita when she failed to conceive. Margherita, proud of her good moral character, never showed any sign that she thought God had reason to punish her with infertility, but she did believe God was constantly teaching humans that life on earth was valueless and short compared to the next life.40 From the time Margherita and Francesco married, those around them waited for her to become pregnant. When it failed to happen, Niccolozzo reported that Monna Piera was praying night and day that Margherita would have a child.41 Monte Angiolini, a friend and business associate of Francesco’s, had recently returned to Prato and to his wife, who had remained in Prato Page 15 → while he was in Avignon, and Monte made childbearing one of the topics of his letters, in passages intended to be read aloud to Margherita. Monte already had older children, and Francesco had been a godparent to at least one of them, making Monte and Francesco compari, or co-godparents (the relationship between co-godparents being at least as important in late medieval and renaissance Tuscany as that between the godparent and godchild). What Monte wanted was for himself and Francesco to become compari stretti, or close co-godparents, with each being the godparent of the other’s child.42 In the Datini circle, people chose only one or two godparents for each child, unlike the Florentine elite in the fifteenth century, who chose many. Since godfathers tended to be more important men than the godchildren’s fathers, that Monte and Francesco each served as godfather for the other indicated some equality between them. Klapisch-Zuber emphasizes how godparents were almost always men and that women were left out, while Hass suggests, without describing the way godparenthood operated in the family, that godmothers had an important role.43 The Datini evidence indicates that godparents tended to be men but that the comare, or godmother (the godfather’s wife), was important in the relationship, making the wives as well as the husband’s part of a semifamilial group that allowed them all to associate in an informal and friendly way. Prato and nearby Florence were so closely interconnected that their customs about godparenthood would have been the same. In 1379, when Margherita and Francesco had been married two years, Monte jokingly compared making a baby to milling flour, with his wife being the grain and himself the water—such milling having been impossible while he had been away from his wife: “Tell Monna Margherita that I have done and am doing everything I can so that we can be compare stretti; but maybe the mill is broken because it has not had water it was used to. Perhaps once it becomes accustomed again, it will produce good flour as its fruit.” Monte suggested that Francesco, too, should do everything in his power to produce a baby and that perhaps Francesco’s mill would produce fruit before Monte’s.44 More than two years later, Monte mentioned that he had sent Margherita’s greetings to the comare (Monte’s wife) and repeated that he was doing everything he could toward his wife having a baby, so that they could be compari stretti. But as much as he wished it, he wrote, it had not worked. Maybe it would be Francesco’s turn this time. He then excused himself to the comare (Margherita) for his childish joking.45 Page 16 → Monte eventually had two babies while the Datini were still in Avignon, including a girl named Margherita, and Margherita and Francesco were godparents by proxy. In 1382, about three and a half years after the Datini married, Monte wrote proudly, “Tell the comare [Margherita] that even though I am old, I can make a male baby, and if she [Margherita] were here, the comare [Monte’s wife] would teach her how, because there is no woman

here who is not pregnant or giving birth.”46 (Monte was in his midforties, the same as Francesco.) There were no more letters like this from Monte, mostly because the Datini soon joined him in Prato, but perhaps also because the subject was no longer so funny. Niccolò Tecchini discussed the Datini’s childlessness in his letters. As mentioned above, Niccolò thought Margherita should be growing fat with babies, not money. At this stage, Niccolò was rather smug about his four little boys. (Later, he would be beaten down by life after at least three of these boys died.)47 Niccolò repeated, in a couple of letters, that Francesca would lend Margherita one of her babies but not give it to her (and Niccolò and Francesca later did, in effect, often lend Margherita their children).48 He suggested one time that the Datini were not praying hard enough for a baby, which meant they did not really want one.49 He also said that the Datini should go back to Italy, where the air was fertilizing, and Niccolozzo, writing for himself and Monna Piera, also put forward the idea of Italy’s fertilizing air.50 Francesco’s business continued to grow after his marriage. His Avignon company had broadened its trade beyond armor, to include salt, saffron, fine cloth, religious vestments, silver and gold objects, jewels, and religious paintings. He regularly sent his agents to Italy as buyers, who would return with objects for resale.51 Nonetheless, his plan to return to Tuscany never wavered, even if he was delayed by business, and he continued to be preoccupied with building his house in Prato. Francesco had Niccolozzo send him measurements of the house and land, and Francesco bought furnishings for the house. Niccolozzo moved at a cautious pace, consulting Francesco by letter about every move, because, he said, he did not want to throw away Francesco’s money as a result of Francesco’s not understanding how the building was proceeding. People had different tastes, he maintained, and when the work was finished and the money spent, it would be too late for alterations.52 Francesco chaffed at Niccolozzo’s slowness, but Niccolozzo was wise to gain approval for all he did, given Francesco’s strong opinions and attention to detail. Francesco’s departure was delayed year after year by business. He benefited Page 17 → from but was also slowed down by the War of the Eight Saints, which lasted from 1375 to 1378. A coalition of cities led by Florence fought the papacy, leading the pope to place Florence under an interdict. The interdict also fell on Florentine merchants abroad, who were forbidden to trade in Avignon and whose goods were liable for seizure unless they paid a large indemnity. Prato was exempt from the interdict, leaving Prato merchants free to trade. It is believed that some of the Florentines put their business in Francesco’s hands.53 During the war, Pope Gregory XI departed from Avignon to defend Rome.54 Before the pope left, Francesco experienced an event he remembered as among the most important in his life, an audience with Pope Gregory XI.55 Gregory and his successors remained in Rome, where most people thought the pope should reside, since, by tradition, Saint Peter, the first pope, had died there. Avignon did not fade from church history, since a rival papacy to the Roman one was established in Avignon, creating problems that would not be solved until 1415. But many Italian merchants, including Francesco, returned to Italy. A memorandum about Francesco’s departure remains, written by Francesco’s business partner Boninsegna and copied into Francesco’s account book: “This is to record that on 8 December 1382, Francesco di Marco da Prato left Avignon to go to Prato, taking his wife with him, leaving the management of the Avignon firm in the hands of Boninsegna.”56 Once in Italy, Margherita and Francesco spent enough time apart for their long correspondence to begin. Several of the themes that are important throughout this book were introduced during their time in Avignon: marriage, dowry, childbearing, limits on and possibilities for women, and Margherita’s individual character. However, the letters allow a more detailed consideration. The following chapter discusses Francesco and Margherita’s first years in Italy, when Margherita was still very young, a time she was focused more on her relationship with Francesco than on the other concerns that took her attention in later years.

Page 18 →

CHAPTER 2 Back in Italy, 1383–86 Margherita sent her first surviving letter when she was twenty-four. She, in Florence, sent it to Francesco, who was in Pisa dealing with problems in his Pisan business. She began, “Margherita, healthy and happy, recommends herself to you with a great desire to see you; and she is indeed healthy.”1 She was staying at her sister’s in Florence, where she said they were making jokes about her as a new bride, although she had been married seven years. If she was sad, they said she was jealous of Francesco. If she was happy, they said Francesco di Marco had cured her. This bantering has the sound of her brother-in-law Niccolò Tecchini, who made a practice of teasing about love.2 Margherita’s first letter is unique in being so cheerful. However, there are other themes that reappear in later letters, for example, that Francesco should stop staying up late working and should live a more regular life. Francesco had told her to look after their belongings, and she tells him that she does as good a job as he could possibly wish. She had been speaking to their employee Bernabò, who had arrived in Florence from Prato. She had asked him who had the key to the wine cellar in Prato, because she thought Bernabò would be a bad guardian of the wine. Bernabò told her the builder had begun doing more work on the palazzo in Prato, and she had asked Bernabò whether he was giving the builder expenses and a snack. Bernabò suggested that they should give the builder dinner too, but Margherita thought the frugal Francesco would not want that. Although Margherita described herself as in good health, there was a medical reference in her first letter, as there usually was. The slave Bartolomea and the servant girl Ghirigora had been unwell, and she had taken them to the doctor, paying him a florin.3 Page 19 → Francesco had told her it seemed a thousand years until Carnival, when he would return from Pisa, and she agreed. But there was some bite to her comments. Not only should she look after their belongings, so should he in Pisa. If Francesco was worried about her ability to care for things in Florence and Prato, he should return home and look after them himself. If it seemed a thousand years to Francesco until they could be together, the road from Pisa to Florence was in fact short if he really wanted to see her sooner. Francesco and Margherita had been back in Italy for a year, reaching it in January 1383. Once in Tuscany, Francesco set up companies in Prato, Florence, and Pisa, while continuing the one in Avignon, with the Florence and Prato companies being pivotal.4 In Avignon, he had focused on retail trade, but now he wanted to emphasize international wholesale trade, without totally forsaking retail sales.5 Everyone had thought that once back in Italy and rich, Francesco would relax his hectic work schedule, but he never did. When he was not working on business, he dedicated himself to finishing the palazzo and other building projects.6 Although Margherita always considered herself a Florentine, Prato had pride of place in Francesco’s life and in Margherita’s married life (fig. 2 shows the city of Prato with Francesco as its patron). Prato’s population, depleted by the plague and including its contado, or subject territory, was about twelve thousand in the later fourteenth century. It was considerably smaller than that of nearby post-plague Florence, which ruled Prato after 1350: Prato’s population was about a quarter the size of the city of Florence, much less if the Florentine contado were included.7 After having left Prato as a poor boy, Francesco returned as a rich man and an important citizen, to a Prato full of admiring friends and relatives. One evidence of Francesco’s success was the palace or large house that he was building (see fig. 3). At the time the Datini arrived back in Prato in 1383, it was finished to the top of the ground floor’s walls. In the following years, it was completed as a two-story building, later to be enlarged further.8 Francesco also built up his

businesses in Prato. He established a wool manufacturing company and a dyers’ company, with his old guardian and relative Piero di Giunta di Rosso as managing partner, joined later by Piero’s son, Niccolò di Piero, and still later by Niccolò’s son Agnolo. 9 Prato had a network of canals leading from the Bisenzio River to facilitate an already existing wool industry, to which Francesco and his partners contributed so much that Prato is still a center of the textile industry. Francesco was emotionally close to the family of Piero di Giunta, Page 20 → as Margherita too became over time. Francesco’s other close and affectionate bond was with his foster mother, Monna Piera di Pratese, who died soon after their return to Italy.10

Besides the wool company, Francesco had a personal trading company in Prato, managed by Monte d’Andrea Angiolini (his former business associate in Avignon and correspondent about having babies). The company oversaw Francesco’s property holdings and dealt with obtaining supplies for the Prato wool company and selling the company’s wool. The Angiolini were an old and rich Prato family, whereas Francesco came from a modest background. But Francesco was boss, and Monte was employee.11 Francesco’s company in Florence, about ten miles from Prato, traded in a wide range of goods, including wool, silk, animal hides, spices, wine, and wheat. Francesco’s business in the port city of Pisa emphasized shipping, that is, import and export of supplies and goods to and from all over Europe and even Africa, with an emphasis on supplying the Florentine company.12 Page 21 → Despite Francesco’s attachment to Prato, Florence was the most important center for his business, and the Datini spent much time there. When in Florence, Margherita could see her sister Francesca and Francesca’s family, as well as other relatives. Those from her mother’s disgraced branch of the Gherardini lived outside Florence, but they had some Florentine presence, and her grandfather Pelliccia was still alive when the Datini returned to Italy. Pelliccia had spent years in exile because of the plot against the government that had led to the execution of Margherita’s father, but he was allowed to return to Florence as a very old man. Margherita’s mother, Dianora, mentioned that Pelliccia had been important in giving Margherita a warm greeting when Margherita returned.13 The relatives in Florence on the Bandini side were through the sisters of Margherita’s father, Domenico.14 The Bandini created, from Francesco’s point of view, a desirable upscale social life in Florence. In 1383–86, Margherita and Francesco’s marriage largely conformed to the approved pattern for husband and wife, except for their childlessness. According Page 22 → to the approved point of view, the husband had the right to tell the wife what to do. However, as wife, Margherita had the right to advise Francesco about how to live a healthier and more religious life.15 While accepting Francesco’s dominance, Margherita became annoyed when he, always finicky, gave her too many detailed orders. Although she mentioned negative stereotypes about women (that a wife’s advice on matters outside the family was considered less valuable than a man’s and that women were more likely to lie than men), Margherita always felt able to express her opinions about business and other matters. Margherita approached life with seriousness, making little use, unlike Francesco, of humor. When she felt ill-treated, she expressed her hurt in anger rather than tears. She did not hesitate to express her feelings in her letters, although perhaps, as she claimed, she was a little more forbearing in person. At this time, Francesco showed love for Margherita and went out of his way to please her, but he also saw her as something of a burden. Margherita increasingly disapproved of Francesco’s excessive devotion to work and inability to stop working even when he said he would. Nonetheless, Margherita and Francesco were, even in anger, emotionally close in these years. Although rarely mentioned directly, Margherita’s childlessness and related ill health were a canker at the heart of the marriage. It had become clear that Margherita had health issues related to her reproductive system. Throughout the period of the letters, 1384–1410, she had severe and debilitating problems around the time of her menstruation, which were referred to by everyone, including employees, as her doglie, or “pains.” In the year after her first surviving letter of 1384 and before her next three letters a year later, Margherita was often incapacitated by illness.

Thus Francesco wrote to Monte that he was not returning to Prato from Florence, as he had planned, because Margherita had been very sick with her doglie. Soon afterward, Margherita and Francesco went for two weeks to Bagno a Consense, a medicinal spa, in the hope that it would help her become pregnant. Spas were also places of entertainment, and their neighbor Niccolozzo, Francesco’s correspondent while he was in Avignon, accompanied them.16 Monte wrote that he had consulted with Maestro Naddino, the Datini’s favorite doctor, about which herbs they should and should not use to help Margherita. He advised Francesco to also write to Maestro Naddino directly for guidance. A later letter by Maestro Naddino, in which he promised (unsuccessfully) to cure Margherita’s infertility, gives further information.17 It suggests that Margherita suffered from endometriosis, a condition in which fragments Page 23 → of the uterine lining that are expelled through the vagina during normal menstruation instead go into the fallopian tubes, moving from there into the pelvic cavity and becoming embedded in other pelvic structures, usually the ovaries, but sometimes the rectum or colon. Endometriosis often leads to infertility. Nowadays, it can be treated by surgery, but in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, female physiology was largely a mystery, and even if it had been understood, surgery was undeveloped.18 Endometriosis can also be treated by suppressing menstruation through the reduction of hormones, which would have been unlikely but not impossible with herbal treatments, though counterproductive given the Datini desire for children. The condition often improves after menopause, but there are few letters from and about Margherita in the postmenopausal period of her life.19 In the first years back in Italy, Margherita and Francesco were still hoping for a child and still preferred to be together rather than apart. In 1484–86, the business in Pisa was stagnating, because of a plague outbreak in 1383 and for other reasons, and Francesco had to spend time there to reorganize it. When he left for Pisa, Niccolò Tecchini told Margherita to remind Francesco of what women of the Marches region told their husbands when they left, “Remember your home,” and she repeated the phrase in a letter to Francesco.20 However, given business demands, the obvious way to be together was for Margherita to go to Pisa. Francesco’s first surviving letter to Margherita, written in February 1385, broaches the subject of her coming to Pisa and asks her opinion about it. He had already asked his manager in Prato, Monte Angiolini, to tell her about this plan, but Francesco had decided to write to her directly too, because (showing some respect for her autonomy) he wanted her to choose to come to Pisa of her own free will, not because he had ordered it. He would have to be in Pisa for three months or more, and he thought they would be better off together than with one of them in Pisa and the other in Prato. Now they spent money in both places, he noted, with him badly off in Pisa and her not doing well in Prato. If she was content to come to Pisa, he continued, she should get everything ready that she thought would be needed. “Maybe it will be the last time we live away from home, and it is good to try it; afterward our bread at home will seem better,” he wrote, thinking, as he wrongly continued to do, that they would soon settle down in the Prato house. Francesco added, sounding somewhat dubious about the plan, “Let it all be for a good end. I do it with good intentions.”21 Francesco was expecting Margherita to arrive accompanied by her aunt Page 24 → Giovanna, Niccolò di Piero di Giunta, and Niccolò’s wife, Monna Lapa, as well as by servants, people who would keep Margherita entertained while Francesco worked. They would make a bella brigata, a “fine company,” Francesco said.22 His comment makes it difficult to know how much he missed Margherita as an individual and how much group and practical concerns dominated his thinking. Francesco’s long letter included, as was usual, a section about how Margherita should act: “Go to bed in good time and get up in good time [says the man who habitually stayed up almost all night]. Don’t leave the gate open if you are not up, and take good care of everything. . . . Act in such a way that I do not have to be displeased with you. . . . Be a woman and not a girl, because you will soon be entering your twenty-fifth year [Francesco himself was nearing 50].”23 Margherita countered, “As to telling you when I go to church, I have told both of them [Niccolò di Piero and his wife, Monna Lapa], and they will confirm it, if they do the right thing.” 24 She accepted that Francesco, as husband, had the right to question her, but she found it annoying, and she did not quite trust Niccolò and Lapa to back her up.

Even given the fact that Margherita still called Francesco by the respectful voi rather than tu before 1389, it is notable that Margherita’s response to Francesco’s invitation for her to come to Pisa began more formally than her other letters, perhaps because it was a particularly important subject. “I see that you would like it if I were there along with all the family, because of the confidence you have in me. You ask this out of courtesy, since I am not worthy of so much honor. I have decided to go not just to Pisa but to the end of the world if it pleases you. You say that we will be better together rather than one here and one there, which is true for many reasons.”25 One of the reasons it was true, Margherita continued, was that they spent two times as much by being in two places. In her opinion, that would matter little if he was well served, but she believed that Francesco was badly taken care of in Pisa and that she was needed to organize the household there so that he could better attend to business. It could easily happen, she thought, that Francesco would catch some illness because of Lenten fasting and because of the malaria in Pisa. Referring to her belief in her wifely duty to take physical care of her husband for financial as well as other reasons, she wrote, “It is my job to see that you are healthy, because when you are healthy we are well off and can survive any great expense that arises. . . . For this reason it seems a thousand years before I am there so that you will live more content and so will I.”26 Page 25 → Despite his invitation, Francesco’s letters to Monte Angiolini indicate that he was not sure he was making the correct decision about having Margherita come to Pisa. His problem seemed to be in determining whether it would help him finish his work faster or hinder it. Francesco went to Florence a couple of times to discuss Margherita’s trip with her. From those visits, she must have realized that he had doubts, and Francesco wrote to ask Monte to reassure her. Tell Margherita that, notwithstanding how she is, and no matter what anyone says, I have no intention either of going to or of staying in any place where she is not with me; and, no matter what anyone says, I don’t feel a man without her. I will act toward her like the man who carries a lantern on his shoulders for seven years; I am disposed to take her with me wherever I go. It seems a hundred years since I have seen her; it will help me to have her with me more than it will to earn a thousand florins, if she does not become conceited. [The last phrase probably added a touch of humor.]27 This passage is the most loving Francesco ever committed to paper. Why was it included in a letter to Monte? His letters to Margherita herself were more prosaic. The reason probably had to do with privacy, both on his side, in his office, and on Margherita’s, at home. In both places, letters passed through the hands of young apprentices in front of whom Francesco needed to maintain his dignity. Also, at this stage, Margherita had her letters read aloud to her, often by the same young apprentices, whereas Francesco’s correspondence with Monte was more confidential.28 Nonetheless, although Francesco’s tone was loving, it also indicated problems in the relationship. He says, “notwithstanding how she is,” which refers to her poor health and infertility; his “no matter what anyone says” suggests that some people doubted his devotion; and his metaphor of the lantern has the sound of a burden. Margherita went with Francesco to Pisa, and they stayed there from late March to early July 1385. Although Francesco’s plan had been to have a bella brigata arrive from Prato, only Margherita went, accompanied by the apprentice Simone. Francesco wrote Monte that they might stay longer since they had rented such a beautiful house, and Margherita as well as Francesco would have been involved in furnishing it with things obtained in Pisa and things sent from Prato. They were in Pisa over Easter, during religious and other festivities. Francesco described wedding celebrations they attended. In one passage, he mentioned that he, Margherita, Monna Parta (a friend living in Pisa), and another Page 26 → person were gathered together in the evening when a visitor arrived, which suggests that such evening gatherings were not uncommon. He also thought that he and Margherita should go to a medicinal bath for a week—he for his liver, she for general purposes—although they decided the weather was too hot. Margherita was well until just before they left Pisa, when she had a severe attack of her doglie.29 While in Pisa, Margherita received two letters from Monna Lapa, wife of Niccolò di Piero di Giunta. The first of these contains some interesting comments.

Dear Sister, Lapa recommends herself to you with the desire to see you. It seems to me that I have been left very alone. I am answering a letter that Niccolò had from Francesco that said that you don’t ever laugh heartily except when you are with me. I too only laugh heartily when I am with you, whom I consider to be my dear sister. And Francesco says in that letter that he would like it if you wished him as well as you wish me. . . . I think Francesco was joking, because I think there are few wives who love their husbands as much as you do.30 This letter’s hint that Margherita lacked cheer in Francesco’s presence may indicate that she was losing patience with him, as her letters over the next couple of years demonstrate. However, no matter how irritated or hurt she became, she was always serious about carrying out her wifely responsibilities. Francesco went to Pisa again from December 1385 through January 1386, to deal with business there that again needed his personal care. Margherita did not go, because they thought the trip would be brief. When Francesco told her he would have to stay longer, she pointed out that she was very willing to go there, as they had discussed in many conversations. She wished she could curse those who were giving him so much work to do in Pisa.31 Francesco himself felt overwhelmed by work; a letter he wrote from Pisa to his Florentine office was signed “from Francesco di Marco da Prato in Pisa, where he lives the life of a dog.”32 Francesco’s visit to Pisa was a busy period in their correspondence, with seven letters from her and six from him, dated from 12 December to 30 January 1385–86. Two of his letters have been lost, but the content can be worked out Page 27 → from Margherita’s. They show a substantial sentimental bond between Margherita and Francesco at that time, if not a happy one. Although Margherita’s letters were resentful because Francesco had not taken her to Pisa, it is possible to detect occasional hints of flirtatiousness and humor on both their sides, though such inclinations are not obvious if one takes the letters at face value. For example, Margherita wrote to Francesco, “I have realized that you make fun of me in your letters, but I like it. My anger has gone down a bit, but I have faith that it will return soon.”33 Margherita had a volatile temperament, and one can observe in the Datini correspondence overall that she was inclined to flare up and then calm down. While Francesco was in Pisa, Margherita was staying in Florence, in the headquarters of the Datini firm. In 1386, the living quarters were above the fondaco, or warehouse, although the residential and business quarters would be located in separate houses in later years. Margherita’s main companions were the apprentice Simone and the slave Bartolomea. A brief description of these people is in order. Simone Bellandi, a nephew of Niccolò di Piero, Francesco’s partner in the Prato wool business, was probably about ten years old in 1386 and was just beginning to learn business skills. He had the special job of helping Margherita and writing her letters for her, and he had gone to Pisa with her and returned to Florence with her. Most of the boys who acted as Margherita’s personal assistants over the years were just starting out in business and needed a more protected, homelike environment than an office would provide. Simone was later employed for many years as a fattore and partner in several of Francesco’s companies—in Prato, in Pisa, and then in Catalonia. He became known for being excessively fond of wine, women, and gambling, but during the time Simone worked for Margherita, he was well behaved and useful.34 The Datini’s slave Bartolomea was with them until 1388, when she was sold.35 Slavery had been outlawed in Florence and other Italian cities in the middle ages, as a way to weaken rural landowners—enemies of the towns, whose serfs were not unlike slaves. With the labor shortages after the bubonic plague, however, household slavery, but not agricultural slavery, reappeared, although slaves were never numerous. Late medieval slaves came mostly from the Black Sea area and the eastern Mediterranean and only rarely from Africa. Whatever their ethnic origin, wives distrusted slaves since husbands tended to treat them as concubines; however, Bartolomea, in her late thirties, was neither young nor attractive and thus posed no sexual threat.36 Page 28 →

Bartolomea did washing and heavy household labor, and she had a special talent for looking after mules and horses. When Francesco commented that he hoped Margherita was managing the servants well, Margherita wrote that she paid as much attention to Bartolomea as she would to him when he was there.37 Margherita limited Bartolomea’s outings to trips to the bakery, since Bartolomea went far afield if given a chance; Margherita said she preferred to manage any of the other servants rather than Bartolomea, implying that it was a struggle for a young wife faced with a recalcitrant older servant: “I don’t want you to think that she has behaved worse than usual, because she has always been a devil and will always be so.”38 Elsewhere, Margherita described Bartolomea as pazza, “crazy.” Francesco agreed that Bartolomea was inclined to roam around town, but he did not want to hear about Margherita’s quarrels with her; he had more important things to worry about. While Francesco was in Pisa, he left Piero di Filippo Milanese and Filippo di Matteo di Boninsegna in charge of the Florentine business, with Piero di Filippo having on-the-ground responsibility. Although Margherita then had less of a role in the business than she would have later, she, as Francesco’s wife, kept in her possession the keys to the locked storage chests and sometimes helped search for documents he required. In this she was unlike the wife in Alberti’s Book of the Family, who was kept away from the husband’s study and papers.39 She also offered Francesco general advice and observed events from her quarters above the warehouse. Her observations caused her to form a low opinion of Piero di Filippo: “You have left two in charge that are worth only a half. You know how [Piero] wanders away from his post. One day he rings the opening bell at vespers, and another day he does not ring it at all, and on Saturday, when it is most necessary, he does not ring it. Imagine how your affairs are going.” When Francesco sent company letters to Piero, it was necessary to waste time bringing them wherever Piero was in order to have him deliver the letters addressed to others. The fondaco was closed half the day, and a lot of customers arrived and found the entrance locked. “It seems a business run by little boys,” Margherita reported, advising, “I would suggest that if you have any broken reed to send to replace him, do so, if you can’t think of anything else.”40 Margherita went on to say that apart from Boninsegna and Tieri in Avignon, there was no employee who did not betray Francesco twelve times a day. God would know, she claimed, if she was a shameless liar about Piero di Filippo, but it rarely happened that she did not tell Francesco the truth. “If you were as Page 29 → much honored as you are deprecated,” she wrote, “good for you, because one hundred people wish you ill. . . . I tell you this because the things I hear bother me, since your shame seems to be mine.”41 She believed that Francesco was being criticized and cheated behind his back and that it was her duty to warn him, especially since, as his wife, she shared his reputation or lack thereof. Francesco responded that he would not answer everything Margherita had mentioned, because he did not know into whose hands his letter would fall. He showed that he valued her information: “I’ll tell you my opinion in person, and you will see if I make you content about what you have written.” He advised that Margherita should do what she could to keep the fondaco open and should have Bartolomea go down to help Simone when goods arrived. He assured her, “This matter cannot go on for long. I think our friend will soon go away and then things will become better.”42 In fact, Piero di Filippo left the Florentine company shortly thereafter and then Francesco’s employ altogether. Margherita gave Francesco more advice. Although she wanted him to get rid of Piero di Filippo, she nonetheless implored him to handle Piero with tact and avoid enmity that would damage his affairs, which Francesco, she said, had not always done in the past. “I beg you to comport yourself peacefully with him,” she advised, “. . . until you are in the right frame of mind to give [him and others] what they deserve. . . . Give them promises and fine words until you are at the stage where you want to be; thus does a man kiss the hand that he really wants to have cut off.”43 In December and January 1386, there were two other cases where Francesco was harmed by a business associate. In one, Margherita told Francesco, “Leave the vendetta to the Lord God. You will be vindicated, as has happened in the past to those who have acted against you.”44 In the other case, Francesco showed he had a similar view when he heard with pleasure that a couple of his adversaries in Avignon had difficulties: “God will pay back all

the traitors who have done me harm.”45 In a world where acts of physical revenge were still common—for example, among Margherita’s Gherardini relatives—leaving the vendetta to God was a major theme of the slightly later San Berdardino of Siena and other preachers, and both Margherita and Francesco, living in a relatively nonviolent merchant milieu, agreed with this point of view. Both, however, thought God was on their side.46 Margherita’s dislike of Piero di Filippo had an element of jealousy. “Simone says you write him [Piero] three or four pages, and I don’t believe it is all about merchant business, since you send these bibles nearly every day. You must be Page 30 → unburdening your mind with him.”47 She wrote that while Francesco might tell her that she knew what was in the letters, she could only imagine, knowing Francesco’s depressed mood. She also noted that Piero di Filippo had no trouble getting through these long epistles, because he had assistants who helped him read: his mother and daughter and all those at the fondaco—an interesting comment from the perspective of female literacy.48 Over the years, Francesco did write long letters while he stayed up in the night, “unburdening his mind” in them to employees and sometimes to Margherita. However, a look at the very long letters Francesco sent to the Florentine business in this period shows that they were all about business. In this case, Margherita’s suspicions were incorrect.49 Francesco asked Margherita if Piero di Filippo was her scribe. His concern was whether Piero di Filippo had heard Margherita’s outspoken criticisms of him. Margherita was annoyed that Francesco thought she was so unintelligent as to let Piero know her opinion. However, the other issue involved was the high value Margherita set on her own competence. Although a scribe penned Margherita’s letters for her during most of her life, the degree to which the person dictating a letter, the author, expected the scribe to intervene varied: the author might expect word-for-word reproduction of his or her words or might provide a list of ideas for the scribe to put in letter form.50 This distinction must be kept in mind in order to understand Margherita’s attitude. She took it as an insult when Francesco suggested that the letters were too well done for her, as a young woman, to have composed them herself, that is, for her to have had the scribe transmit the exact words she had dictated. Instead, Francesco thought that she must have allowed the scribe to do the composing as well as penning the letters. Her January letters, it is true, are notably fluent, but their fluency probably resulted from her having written in a state of high emotion about Piero di Filippo while using a scribe, Simone, who had the ability to write fast enough to catch her rapid flow of words. She told Francesco, “Saving your grace, I never have anyone else compose my letters, neither [Piero di Filippo] nor anyone else. You must consider me an inept person if you think I would dictate my letters to him. If I did not have Simone, I would go to Niccolò dell’Ammanato [her brother-in-law Niccolò Tecchini] or to Lorenzo di Matteo [another of Francesco’s business associates]. I would tell my secrets to these two and no one else.”51 Page 31 → Margherita was particularly upset that, without consulting her first to check, Francesco had written to Piero di Filippo to ask him whether he was writing Margherita’s letters. She commented by repeating a negative stereotype about women, while denying that it applied to her: “You have hurt me a lot, although not for the first time. It seemed to me . . . that you should have waited for my answer, because, as women go, you have always found me to be little given to lying, little given to flattery, and little given to associating with friars.”52 The comment about friars shows an anticlericalism common in the otherwise devout Datini circle, which is seen elsewhere in correspondence, despite their religious devotion. Francesco responded, condescendingly but with humorous intent, that she had convinced him that the letters were in her own words: “I am both pleased and displeased. I am very pleased that God has given you so much talent for speaking, but I am displeased because I have a great fear that it is a sign that you are near to death. It is commonly said that when a young person says or does something outside the usual for a person of that age, he is unlikely to live. And since this letter is beyond the usual for a young woman like you who is not accustomed to composing letters, I fear that you are being given the ability to do miraculous things before your imminent death.”53

Margherita was not amused. She did not want to be treated with condescension. Noting that she had heretofore written rationally and tried to answer him as best she could, she declared, “But today I will do the opposite: we can communicate in frivolous words, as you seem to want” (although there are no frivolous words in the letter). She continued sarcastically, “They make me feel so much better.” Margherita told Francesco that she did not believe there was need for empty phrases between him and her and had never been a young enough girl to be pleased by them, although she would learn to use empty phrases if that was what he wanted. She went on, “Note that this letter has been dictated by me,” pressing home her point about her dictation skills.54 A few years later, Francesco made clear that he no longer doubted Margherita’s ability with words, although it was spoken words he mentioned.55 Margherita’s discontent with Francesco’s way of life affected her whole attitude toward him: “I wish you would not always be the same Francesco that you have been since I have known you, who has done nothing but torment your mind and then your body. You are always preaching that you will lead a good life and that each month and each week will be the one when you begin.” Francesco had also been saying that he first wanted to wind up his business affairs Page 32 → with honor and profit and that new problems arose every day preventing him from doing so. “In vain do I remind you that you are fifty years old,” wrote Margherita, “. . . and that you have always served the world; now is the time to begin to serve God.”56 Margherita continued this theme in other letters. She commented on the calluses he had developed on his hand from writing and on how, upon his return to Pisa after a visit to Florence, he had not dined or gone to bed but had stayed up writing and doing other unnecessary things.57 She was feeling sorry for herself as well as worried about him: “You send messages to me to enjoy myself and be happy. I have nothing in the world to be happy about. You could make me happy if you wanted to, but you’re not interested in your own happiness or anyone else’s. Every evening when I go to bed I remember that you have to stay awake until morning and then you tell me to enjoy myself.”58 Margherita partially excused herself for her criticisms, which were disrespectful coming from a young wife to a much older husband: “I know that I have written too frankly and with too lordly an attitude in telling you the truth. If you were here, I would say it more discreetly. Slap me in the eyes or on the head or wherever you will, I don’t care.” She continued, “I always speak the truth insofar as I know it. I have said nothing to you that I haven’t already said at least once a month” (suggesting many intense discussions). “When you are here, I don’t perhaps speak in such a forthright fashion, although every day I see you do things that make me swell twelve times my normal size with anger.” She explained her behavior by saying, “I have a little Gherardini blood in me, not that I attach much importance to it, but I don’t know what your blood is.”59 These comments raise several issues. They make one wonder about physical punishment when she says, “Slap me in the eyes or on the head;” however, it seems to have been said in a tone of banter. The comments also make one wonder about the relationship between spoken language and written language: Which encouraged greater outspokenness and under which circumstances? It also raises the question of how much the assertive personality that Margherita revealed over the years related to confidence arising from her Gherardini blood. Her behavior was certainly often contrary to guidelines given to wives in Alberti’s Book of the Family and elsewhere.60 These January letters provide insight into Margherita’s recognition, in theory, of a hierarchical relationship between men and women. When Francesco wrote to Piero di Filippo about the dictated letter instead of mentioning it to her first, she told Francesco that he should have known that, as women went, Page 33 → she was little given to lying, implying that men lied less. When Francesco said that he knew that Boninsegna and Margherita always gave him good advice, Margherita responded that, nonetheless, he never followed Boninsegna’s advice: “I won’t mention my own advice, because I am a woman, and man should not be governed by women.”61 There may well have been some sarcasm, rather than conviction, embedded in her statement, but it expresses the general point of view. She could, in any case, imagine a situation where she governed Francesco: if she were in charge, she would get him to do things differently.62 As is clear throughout this book, she did not hold back on giving advice. Francesco accepted what Margherita said about needing to change his life, because he too thought he should to

live a different way. In the previous year, 1385, he had written to Monte Angiolini that he worried about his sins, realized that his life was not good for soul or body and hoped God would give him the grace to improve.63 In January 1386, he wrote to Margherita, “I am certain I have sinned in many things, which weighs on me. Now I am disposed to behave differently. . . . Where you have lived discontented, you will be the opposite, if it pleases God.”64 One might wonder what Francesco believed his sins to be.65 Was it significant that Margherita asked him, while he was in Pisa, whether he slept alone or with someone?66 It was probably a straightforward question, as people regularly shared rooms and sometimes beds. For example, Margherita told Francesco about his male partner Barzalone, “I am pleased that Barzalone is sleeping with you.”67 Two other examples, more to the point, suggest that not only unrelated men but also men and women slept in the same room in different beds. Francesco later would describe how the house they rented in Pistoia contained a room with two big beds, one for the men and one for the women, and during the stay in Pisa under discussion, Francesco told Margherita that he spent his first night there sleeping with (i.e., in the room with) Monna Parta and her daughter.68 Furthermore, it is doubtful that Margherita would have asked the question about whom he was sleeping with if she thought she would not like the answer. Perhaps the sins Francesco worried about had to do with dubious business practices; they certainly had to do with working so hard that he was careless in his religious observances.69 Margherita commented, “You seem to me to be so consumed by your own affairs that I believe you wanted to skip Carnival so you wouldn’t have to observe Lent.”70 Business went well in Pisa, and by the end of January, Francesco thought he could safely leave, though he wrote that “when a man thinks that things will get Page 34 → better, a little wind comes and knocks it all to earth.”71 He was looking forward to his return to Margherita and home, proclaiming, “Be as certain as death that I am disposed to become a different Francesco.”72 Becoming a “different Francesco” had appeared in his letters at least once before, in a way that at first glance seems different from his 1386 attitude. In 1372, he told Monna Piera that he would be a different Francesco when he returned to Prato, meaning, in that case, that he was no longer the poor boy who had left but a man who would live in some style.73 The two uses are not contradictory, however. Francesco now was imagining a more regular life, with normal bedtimes, moderate work hours, and more attention given to religious obligations, all carried out in a setting of well-prepared meals and finely furnished rooms—a more leisurely, gentlemanly life in an elegant setting. He told Margherita that she would soon see proof that he was a changed man: “I have planned something that I think will make you content forever.” He was sorry that he had angered her about not inviting her to Pisa, but he would soon make peace. He was bringing her a gift that would please her.74 Margherita wondered what the present could be: “I can’t guess. When I have it, I will say, ‘What a great favor.’ It is not your custom to bring me many things when you return.”75 Elsewhere she wrote that although she could not think what the gift could be, she would like it whatever it was—although it would be enough that he return in good health. As for his being a new Francesco, she concluded, “I’ll sit back and wait for a good while to see if what you say is true; even half of it would do.”76 In mentioning a “gift,” Francesco may have been referring to new business arrangements, in addition to or instead of a physical object. In the future, he expected to be able to avoid travel and to have more leisure, because he was reorganizing his businesses to free himself from everyday management. Until this point, he had been actively involved in all the details of running the companies in Pisa, Prato, and Florence. Now he set up a holding company centered in Florence, with himself as senior partner of ten companies: two sole trading companies in his own name in Prato and Florence; five partnerships in Avignon, Florence, Valencia, Barcelona, and Mallorca; two wool and dye manufacturing companies in Prato; and a bank in Florence. He directed his carefully chosen partners with firmness by letter; in return, they sent him a mountain of information, which he sifted through in order to make decisions. This system was a forerunner of the later holding company system and is considered Francesco’s most important contribution to business history.77 Page 35 →

If the new regime led to a “new Francesco,” it did not last long, and he was soon back to his workaholic ways. The “old Francesco” was a basic part of his character. It was what had made him rich, and it could not be turned off. In April, when he had to go back to Pisa for a time, Margherita was still telling him to change his worldly habits and think of his soul, and Francesco was still telling her that he was planning to reform when he returned.78 After this trip, Francesco’s reorganization of his companies meant he no longer had to spend time in Pisa. Margherita and Francesco were mostly together for a year or more, but their relationship deteriorated, rather than improved, and was mostly characterized by mutual exasperation. The letters do not address directly Margherita’s inability to have children, indicating there were some topics the correspondence avoided, especially since the letters were read by others. However, her infertility was no doubt a factor in the worsening of Margherita and Francesco’s relationship and contributed to Francesco’s fathering two illegitimate children, as described in the following chapter.

Page 36 →

CHAPTER 3 Coping with Illegitimacy Niccolò Tecchini wrote about his sister-in-law Margherita, “I think it is not healthy that she is shaken with fever and pains every day, and I fear that having received so many shocks (you understand me), she could die.”1 Niccolò was referring to the illness with which Margherita responded to the birth of Francesco’s illegitimate baby in September 1387. In early 1387, Francesco had impregnated the servant girl Ghirigora di Firglione da Brescia in Prato. Ghirigora had been twelve in 1383, when she was mentioned in the Datini’s Prato tax return,2 which made her sixteen at the time of the pregnancy. She had accompanied the Datini back from Avignon, and her name indicated that her place of origin was Brescia, so she would not have had family members to protect her. She appeared in a routine way in the Datini letters; for example, Margherita had taken her to the doctor, and in 1385, Francesco told Margherita to watch Ghirigora carefully in his absence because she lacked good sense.3 Ghirigora’s lack of sense would have facilitated, rather than inhibited, Francesco’s relations with her, relations that cannot be dignified with the word affair but, rather, seem to have been a matter of proximity. They occurred while Margherita and Francesco were together in Prato,4 although Francesco would have had many opportunities for sex when he and Margherita were apart. Perhaps acrimony between the couple while both were in Prato was a contributing factor. There are no letters from Francesco to Margherita between April 1386 and February 1388, but Francesco’s letters after that often show irritation with Margherita rather than the affectionate tolerance he had demonstrated before, and Margherita reacted with defensive anger.5 Page 37 → In March, Francesco found Ghirigora a husband, as a man often did for the mother of an illegitimate child he planned to recognize as his.6 Although many children fathered on slaves and servants ended up at orphanages, Francesco would have placed too much value on his child to have done that.7 I would even hazard that extramarital affairs were not habitual with Francesco, because any sex Francesco had outside of marriage resulting in additional pregnancies would have remained in the record, Francesco being so eager to have a child, legitimate or not. Francesco married Ghirigora to Cristofano di Mercato di Giunta of Prato, who was a poorer respectable relative of his own, a small-scale merchant. Ghirigora and Cristofano married in May, and Francesco gave her a dowry of 165 florins in cash and two chests of clothes, linen, and household utensils worth 45 florins, for a total of 210 florins. It was an advantageous match for her, a poor servant girl, now the mother of a child conceived by the wealthy and important Francesco. However, Cristofano continued to believe that the dowry was not big enough.8 In May, Niccolò Tecchini helped Cristofano with matters relating to the marriage, when Cristofano went to Florence and searched for fine cloth in which to dress Ghirigora. Niccolò’s attitude toward the pregnancy is unclear. He may not have known about it in April, when he wrote to Francesco, clearly referring to Margherita, “I don’t wonder that you do not write or remember us, . . . and especially because you are with your wife and he who has what he loves has all he needs.” This description of the Datini’s relationship was excessively romantic, even leaving the pregnancy aside, and if he knew about the pregnancy, it was a rather tone-deaf thing to suggest. A few days later, he did know, meeting with Cristofano. In early May, he made a remark that may have indicated that he disapproved of the pregnancy, but he accepted it as a fact and helped Francesco in any way he could.9 There is no evidence about when Margherita found out about the baby. She made one comment at the end of March, four months before the birth, that is perhaps relevant: “There is no one who thinks ahead more than I and who safeguards your honor as well as I do in everything that concerns me, . . . and there is no one who knows

more than I what you like and don’t like.”10 It is possible that Margherita was emphasizing her usefulness because she knew about the child and wanted to point out that, while she could not give him a child, no one could match her knowledge of his needs or her concern for his welfare. But she would have had this attitude whether she knew about the baby or not. Early in Page 38 → the marriage, she had been more secure in Francesco’s affection than she was by this time. On 6 September 1387, Francesco recorded in his account book that, on the night before, “Ghirigora di Firiglione of Brescia, wife of Cristofano di Mercato, gave birth to a baby boy whom she says is the son of Francesco di Marco.”11 The baby was baptized on the evening after its birth and put out to nurse with a wet nurse. The nurse was a miller’s wife, who was to be paid one lira and ten soldi a month. The baby was sent with swaddling clothes and bedding. Niccolò Tecchini worried about Margherita’s health, as described above, but he also worried about Francesco’s, because of the “blows, anger, cares, fatigue, and preoccupations” that Francesco had suffered. Niccolò knew that Francesco was healthy and strong, but there was no tower so strong that it would not fall if subjected to many blows.12 Niccolò’s comments suggest that Francesco did not take Ghirigora’s pregnancy lightly (although there is a hint that some business troubles were also, as always, bothering Francesco). A husband could father illegitimate children without substantive punishment, whereas a married woman bearing such a child would probably find her marriage ended and herself exiled from society. Nonetheless, Francesco would have been affected by the way the birth aroused snickers among his employees and acquaintances, by the problems of finding Ghirigora a husband and arranging the marriage, and by worries about the baby. And then there was the problem of facing the agitated Margherita. Francesco had, in general, a well-developed sense of sin, believing that God would punish him for his misdeeds.13 How did this attitude relate to his fathering an illegitimate child? Religion taught that adultery was sinful, but in the general view, it was a woman’s sin; for men, it was less serious. Most likely, Francesco considered it a small sin deserving of a small punishment, while at the same time being upset by the circumstances surrounding it. As for its effect on honor, his reputation would not have been much damaged; it was the child who would go through life with the black mark of illegitimacy on his head. Furthermore, values in the world of religion and world of honor could conflict: from a worldly point of view, an illegitimate child increased a certain kind of male honor, since virility was a desirable trait. Nobles and aspiring nobles in courtly milieus had second families as a way of demonstrating wealth and high status, and husbands of the citizen classes in late medieval and renaissance Tuscany strayed, but such behavior was not taken for granted by respectable people in the late fourteenth century.14 Leaving matters of sin aside, Francesco was pleased to have gained a son; he Page 39 → had an ex-voto image of himself made in wax to be placed in a church, probably to thank God for giving him the child.15 Margherita continued to feel unwell for months after the birth. Although her health was poor anyway, the shock and humiliation of Francesco’s disloyalty and the resultant baby no doubt played a large role. In February, Niccolò Tecchini wrote to Francesco, who was in Prato, that Margherita had had several unpleasant episodes of illness while she was staying with the Tecchini in Florence. The doctor had seen her and, in Niccolò’s opinion, had cured her with his solicitude. Thanks be to God, Niccolò reported, she was doing quite well and was on the road to health: “I and my family have given her all the attention we know how to give and she is so well that she now has little need of other doctors, except one, you understand me.”16 Niccolò was probably saying that the only doctor Margherita now needed was Francesco, and the correspondence indicates that, although Margherita felt betrayed, her relationship with Francesco was still of basic importance to her. A day before Niccolò’s letter, she had written resentfully that Francesco must have been told about the bad attack she had had, but his letter made no mention of it. She had fallen over in the sitting room while in the company of the Tecchini family, and she had lost the ability to speak and had not known where she was. All those who wished her well were very upset. Dying without last rites would have been harmful to her soul, she lamented, but God watched over her, as did the relatives who wished her well. Several times in the letter, she repeated the phrase “those who wish me well,” a backhanded criticism of Francesco, but still she wanted to see him.17

The thing that would help her get better, she wrote, was for Francesco to come as soon as he could—although she only cared about that, she claimed, because she worried that the bad weather would harm his health. As for Francesco’s delaying his arrival in Florence so that he could oversee the building of the palazzo in Prato, she wished that God would give her the grace to care as little about herself as others cared about her, adding, “you understand my meaning,” and further clarifying, “But you will always be Francesco. It has been a long time since you were a little boy but you act like one. If I had power over you as you have over me, I would see that you had a guardian to look after you.”18 Although Francesco was twenty-five years older than she was, Margherita seemed now, as at other times, to dismiss his defects as those of a heedless boy. Margherita felt humiliated and embittered, but she remained emotionally bound to Francesco and still wanted to be as good a wife as possible, because, in an age before divorce, that was her job. As for the baby, called il fanciullo mio, “my boy,” and never referred to by Page 40 → name, Francesco’s account book indicates that he changed wet nurses several times when each one proved unsatisfactory. In the fourteenth and fifteenth century, almost all babies were nursed by someone other than their mothers, even among the poor if the woman had no milk. Nurses were often young wives who had recently had a baby of their own who died. In Ghirigora’s case, it was especially likely that the baby would be put out to nurse: she was married to someone other than the father, and since Francesco had accepted the child, he, not the mother, was in charge of the child’s upbringing. Although all advice givers said that it was better for the mother to nurse her baby, there were many reasons it did not happen: a lack of milk in an age before formula; the mother’s duties with older children or work; or, in the higher classes, her social duties. It was also believed that having sex while nursing a baby was harmful to the baby, which detracted from husbands’ enthusiasm for breast-feeding, since babies were often nursed for three years.19 In early February, Niccolò di Piero sent a letter to Francesco, who was in Florence. Enclosed in it was a note written on an extra piece of paper, so that Francesco’s employees or Margherita, who was with Francesco, would not see it: “The little boy is well and will be a good boy. God bless him and make him a good man if it is His pleasure.”20 A few days later, the nurse’s husband went to Niccolò di Piero and announced that the baby was very sick. The matter was dealt with by Niccolò di Piero’s mother and father, Monna Gaia and Piero di Giunta; his wife, Monna Lapa; and Monte Angiolini’s wife. The baby got better but apparently remained fragile; a month afterward, he became so ill that it was thought best to take him to Niccolò di Piero’s house, where he could be better tended. Francesco consulted a doctor in Florence about the case, but the doctor could only say to keep the baby warm and dry and give him a little medicinal oil.21 A day later, Monte wrote to Francesco that it had pleased God to want the child as His own and that the baby had gone to Heaven. Monte begged Francesco to comfort himself with the knowledge that God does what is best and that one must accept His decisions, as Monte himself had done in similar circumstances.22 After the child died at Niccolò di Piero’s house, they took him to the Datini palazzo secretly and placed him in the kitchen, rather than in a better room, because he was illegitimate and Francesco had not formally proclaimed himself the father. Margherita and Francesco were in Florence. The Datini friends and relatives prepared the baby for burial and interred him with suitable honors in San Francesco Church, at the foot of the tomb that Francesco was preparing for Page 41 → himself, near the place where Francesco’s forebears were buried. Francesco did not return to Prato for the burial. There is no doubt that Margherita soon learned about the death. When she and Francesco were back in Prato, Francesco noted in his account book that Margherita was entrusted presenting twenty-five lire to the nuns of San Michele in the baby’s name, on Ghirigora’s behalf.23 Ghirigora reappears in the correspondence in 1390, when Cristofano di Mercato was on the point of dying of plague. Cristofano’s family had accepted Ghirigora only with reluctance, and during Cristofano’s illness, she became estranged from him and from his family. Niccolò di Piero considered Francesco still to be responsible for the mother of his dead son, even if Francesco felt it less strongly himself. Niccolò wrote to ask whether Ghirigora should go to Niccolò’s house or Francesco’s, because she would be needing support; Cristofano was in poor financial condition, and Ghirigora had a baby at her breast. Niccolò joined considerations of religion and honor to encourage Francesco to carry out his obligations: “Provide for her in a way that you don’t receive shame. You

gave her the dowry and conducted her to my house after the wedding, and I remind you to remember your soul and your honor.”24 Francesco and Margherita were in Pistoia at the time, so Margherita would not have had to deal with Ghirigora in person. Francesco refused to take Ghirigora into his house, and Niccolò wrote that he had sent several women to collect Ghirigora and accompany her to Niccolò’s house. Niccolò said that she could remain there for as long as Francesco thought, even one year or two: “I will treat her the same as I would Margherita, with all honor and wellbeing. Enough said.”25 Niccolò’s comments indicate that he thought Margherita deserved good treatment as much because she was Francesco’s woman as for herself as an individual, which, while partly true, provides an incomplete picture, since Niccolò and his wife, Monna Lapa, showed themselves to be genuinely fond of Margherita. The issue relating to Ghirigora that most interested Francesco was her dowry, which he had given her and wanted to reclaim for her from Cristofano’s hostile relatives if Cristofano died. There were also a number of other debts Cristofano’s relatives owed Francesco. Francesco had Cristofano’s assets seized from Cristofano’s shop in late October and November. When Cristofano recovered from his illness, he complained bitterly about the dishonorable way that Francesco had treated him. The affair was settled when Cristofano’s assets were returned, and his relatives ceded one of their lands to Francesco in remission of Page 42 → their debts to Francesco.26 Ghirigora is not mentioned again in the correspondence, and presumably she and Cristofano got back together. The Datini spent July 1390 to May 1391 in Pistoia, avoiding the plague. Since Margherita and Francesco were together, there are no letters to or from Margherita at that time. Francesco, as usual, kept up a large and informative correspondence, directing his business and his building activities from Pistoia and communicating with friends and acquaintances. The Datini had many visitors, including the son of Monte Angiolini and the daughter of their neighbor Messer Piero Rinaldeschi, who they took with them to Pistoia. Francesco said that he was treating Monte’s son like his own but that the boy had wet the bed several times (especially a problem since people slept several in a bed). Francesco described Caterina di Messer Piero, who slept at the bottom of Margherita and Francesco’s bed, as a somewhat fussy eater unwilling to go to sleep at night because she wanted to stay up playing, but he treated these characteristics as charming.27 After falling down outside and hitting her head, Caterina had lost consciousness for quite a time, but she had recovered. In October, Francesco complained that he had worries upon worries: Margherita’s aunt Giovanna fell off her horse, and, furthermore, Margherita became very ill. Francesco had to spend a lot of money on doctors for Margherita and noted his opinion that “women are somewhat ungrateful.”28 In the summer of 1391, soon after the Datini returned from Pistoia, Francesco impregnated their slave Lucia, again at a time when Margherita and Francesco were together in Prato.29 Lucia had probably been acquired in late 1388; by that time, their slave Bartolomea, described in the previous chapter, had been sold by the Datini. Lucia was about fifteen when first mentioned and eighteen when she became pregnant, given that she was listed in the Datini’s tax return of 1393 as being twenty years old.30 She appears in the letters in a routine way, mentioned over the years in relation to trips between Prato and Florence, the need to provide her with clothes and a mattress, and an injury to her eye.31 Slaves were always foreigners, but we know nothing about Lucia’s ethnic origins, except that neither she nor her daughter stood out physically in the Italian population. Slaves were even more vulnerable to sexual exploitation than servants. Margherita’s cousin Bindo Piaciti, with whom Francesco often did business, jokingly showed what he expected when he offered Francesco a slave to purchase. “Today I bought a little slave girl, aged ten or twelve, who has such an ugly face that I know that Margherita won’t be jealous of her.”32 While in Pistoia, Francesco Page 43 → had dealt with the case of another of the Datini slaves, Giovanna. She was made pregnant by one of their visitors, Manno degli Agli, who was a partner in the Pisa company. Before this, Margherita had had only bad things to say about Giovanna, “a bestial woman” whom she could not trust to leave on her own in Florence when they went to Prato.33 In comparison, Margherita’s comments about Lucia always had a positive tone; however, individual character was not the issue with lustful men.

Francesco was annoyed about Giovanna’s pregnancy because it had happened in his house, which showed a lack of respect for his honor as householder, but he still took responsibility for his slave. He decided to send Giovanna to Pisa so that Manno and the employees there could make arrangements for her. He instructed them to treat her well and not sell her while she was pregnant, because pregnant women were especially likely to die of the plague. Before she left for Pisa, Francesco threatened Giovanna with being beaten and sold if she did not improve her conduct, but he also told her that she would be well provided for if she was good and was loyal to the Pisa company.34 Francesco wrote understandingly about Manno: he knew that young men were inclined to similar tricks (scherzi). From Francesco’s perspective, Manno gained some dishonor from where he did the act (at Francesco’s house) rather than from the act itself. The religious point of view was less tolerant. Manno was a devotee of the Pisan Dominican nun and holy woman Beata Chiara Gambacorti. In one of the devotional letters she wrote to Francesco and Margherita, Beata Chiara asked Francesco to influence Manno to better behavior: “You would do well to see that Manno consoles his mother by marrying, which will be better for his soul. . . . He is such a good young man. I want him to live a life faithful to Christ: I think you understand me.”35 Manno had another illegitimate baby in 1398, for which Margherita found the wet nurse. Manno died of plague in 1400, before he had a chance to console his mother by marrying, but the mother, Monna Bice, had already been involved in seeing to the care of her grandchild in 1398.36 Ginevra, Francesco’s own child by the slave Lucia, was born in early 1392. Byrne has pointed out that since it is never directly stated that Lucia was Ginevra’s mother, it is possible to doubt it. Nonetheless, Francesco’s longterm sense of responsibility to Lucia and at least one comment made by Ser Lapo Mazzei make it highly likely, and I assume it to be true.37 Lucia was probably immediately separated from Ginevra after the birth. Francesco’s description of a different slave mother may be relevant to Lucia’s feelings. That mother was Page 44 → kept away from the baby to keep her from talking about it, because the baby’s birth was a secret. Francesco also said that she would want to see and touch the baby and that there would be no end to it—indicating the difficulty a mother might have in parting with her child.38 Francesco definitely wanted to keep Ginevra’s birth similarly private. Impregnating Lucia might have been thought somewhat sinful and also undignified at his age, though it would not have been considered as dishonorable as Manno’s relationship with Giovanna, since Lucia was Francesco’s own property and not someone else’s. Ginevra was sent out to nurse with the wife of Piero di Strenna in Montelupo, partway between Florence and Pisa. Francesco noted in his account book the cost of clothing he sent for the baby and the payments to Piero di Strenna. Francesco had other dealings with Piero, a small merchant who sometimes traded with Francesco in lead and other commodities and to whom Francesco sometimes advanced money for deals Piero made.39 Piero also appears in Francesco’s correspondence as middleman in finding a wet nurse in Montelupo on another occasion, for the baby of a slave fathered by another associate in Pisa (not Manno this time).40 One can wonder why Ginevra was sent so far away—perhaps for secrecy. Meanwhile, Lucia settled in as a valued servant in the Datini household. It is uncertain at what point Margherita found out about Ginevra, but it did not make her dislike Lucia. Although portraying Lucia as somewhat absentminded and accident prone, Margherita and Francesco praised the slave for her baking skills, and Margherita had confidence that Lucia would look after Francesco well when the slave was with Francesco and Margherita was not.41 It is unlikely that Francesco had sexual relations with Lucia after Ginevra was born. He valued his only living child, Ginevra, greatly and wanted her to have as respectable a background as possible, which included a chaste and then married mother. Lucia’s job included going on errands, and in 1394, the Datini delegated an older servant, Monna Piera, as Lucia’s companion. The term used is guardare (meaning “to look after”), but it seems that Monna Piera had the job as a companion because Lucia was young and attractive, not because the Datini did not trust Lucia. Margherita had a low opinion of Monna Piera and a good one of Lucia, as can be seen in an exchange Margherita had with Francesco. When Monna Piera suddenly quit her job, Margherita wrote that she cared little, because Monna Piera had such a bad reputation that Margherita was ashamed to be seen with her inside or outside their house and did not like Lucia going out with her alone: “I think that Monna Piera has more need of being watched Page 45 →

over than Lucia does. . . . It is better that Lucia go alone rather than badly accompanied.”42 Francesco’s daughter, Ginevra, came to live with the Datini in 1398.43 Whether she ever found out that Lucia was her birth mother is unknown. In late 1399, the former slave Lucia was legally granted her freedom and married to Nanni di Martino di Pagno, a privileged servant of Francesco’s.44 Nanni came from a sharecropping family on lands in Palco, near where Francesco built his villa. He served the Datini as a man-of-all-work, whom Francesco called “mio fattore,” using the same word used for Francesco’s business employees, which made Nanni more than a servant. He was usually referred to in the correspondence as “our Nanni,” to distinguish him from the many other Nanni in the Datini world. Both Francesco and Margherita sought and listened to his opinions about a variety of subjects.45 By the time Lucia was freed and married, she was already a pampered member of the family, judging by Margherita’s instruction to Francesco to take good care of Lucia’s pet cat while Lucia was away from it. (The Datini and especially Francesco were fond of cats, beyond their mice-catching abilities, so they would have been sympathetic to Lucia’s cat.)46 In 1400, Margherita, showing an interesting view of a bride who was also the mother of an illegitimate child, told Francesco to be understanding if Lucia made mistakes, advising that new brides do not have all their wits about them and that even those who are generally sensible become less so.47 In 1400, the Datini made another long trip to avoid a serious outbreak of plague, this time going to Bologna. Lucia and Nanni, as well as Ginevra and others, accompanied them. While there, Lucia had a baby boy. The baby was given a wet nurse “to help in the birth and to look after the baby and do the usual things that are done,” all paid for by Francesco. The Datini’s friend Ser Lapo Mazzei, struggling to raise money for a dowry for his daughter, implied that he thought Francesco spent too much money on Lucia.48 Before they left for Bologna, Francesco had written a will, leaving money to “his former slave Lucia” for a dowry of two hundred florins. If Francesco died before the dowry was paid, she was to have income from various lands for life in its stead. In Francesco’s will of 1410, he bequeathed Lucia, “his servant of many years,” two hundred florins for the lifetimes of herself, her husband, and her children, to be returned to the estate after the death of the last of them. This sum was in addition to the dowry that he had already provided. After Francesco’s death in 1410, Lucia and Nanni farmed at Palco; she died in 1417.49 Page 46 → At the time Ginevra was born, the Datini and their relatives still had not given up all hope that Margherita would become pregnant. She continued to attempt to become pregnant when in her thirties, with those around her making every effort to help her succeed. She and her relatives used physical remedies of varying merit, superstitious remedies, and prayer, none of which succeeded. For example, in 1393, Niccolò Tecchini told Francesco he was praying that God would give children to Francesco and Margherita.50 Margherita was only thirty-three years old at that time, not old by modern standards, but pregnancy was unlikely, since she had been trying since she was seventeen. In September 1393, Margherita’s sister Francesca reported to Margherita, who was in Prato, that many women in Florence had become pregnant using a poultice made by the wife of Nofri di Messer Lapo Arnolfi, which they put on their body. Francesca had gone to ask that one be made for Margherita, and Nofri Arnolfi’s wife agreed to do so, but said that they would have to wait until after All Saints’ Day, as it had to be done in winter. The Arnolfi woman claimed that the poultice had never yet failed to make pregnant a woman who applied it, but she advised that it stank unpleasantly, so that some husbands threw it away. Francesca suggested that Margherita should find out if Francesco wanted her to get one of these poultices, adding that it was not expensive.51 A couple of years later, Francesca Tecchini suggested a rather bizarre scheme to help Margherita, although whether it was aimed at curing Margherita’s painful cramps or at making her pregnant is unclear from the letter Niccolò Tecchini sent describing it. The scheme required that a virgin boy tie a belt with prayers written on it around Margherita’s bare belly; before doing this, the group should recite three Our Fathers and three Hail Marys in honor of God, the Holy Trinity, and Saint Catherine. Niccolò, a devout orthodox Catholic, saw this procedure

as superstition, not religion, and said that acts of charity would be more effective: it would be better if Margherita fed three beggars on three Fridays rather than listening to old wives’ tales.52 Margherita might have agreed with Niccolò, because she wrote, in another context, that she never believed in spells or charms to help her. 53 Whether Francesco accepted any of these ideas is unknown, but he too thought Margherita’s related problems of menstrual pains and infertility might still be cured. In 1395, he had written for advice to their friend Maestro Naddino Bovattieri, a successful Prato doctor who had set up practice in Avignon. Naddino responded in August that he had delayed answering Francesco because the Datini’s doctor in Florence, Maestro Giovanni, had only recently sent him Page 47 → the details he had requested about Margherita’s case. This treatment, Maestro Nadino wrote, was best undertaken in either April or October, so it would now be necessary to wait for October. (Fertility treatments were apparently affected by the seasons.) The doctor was enclosing a sheet outlining the necessary procedure, which had worked for a woman patient whose symptoms were very similar to Margherita’s. The woman had been cured of her severe monthly pains and had soon thereafter given birth to a baby boy, followed recently by a baby girl, both children being alive and well. Doctor-like, Naddino was careful not to encroach on other doctors: they should consult with the Datini’s doctors in Prato and Florence before undertaking the treatment, so that elements could be added or subtracted depending on the state of Margherita’s health.54 The paper Naddino enclosed that outlined the course of treatment has disappeared. However, it did not work, because Margherita never became pregnant. She consoled herself and Francesco by accepting that it was God’s will and by emphasizing the uselessness of counting on anything in this short earthly life. She also pointed out that she and Francesco had escaped the common sorrow of children dying. Although often outspoken, Margherita only mentioned the sensitive subject of their childlessness a couple of times in the letters, and she did it for the purpose of encouraging Francesco to be more devout. One time after Francesco had suffered a loss in business, she told him, “Why is it that in this and other matters you don’t do as you say you would do about your children (if you had any): that if God took them away from you, . . . you would accept it without complaint?55 Margherita seemed to be suggesting that there had been a conversation during which she had told Francesco that even if they had had children, the children might have died, as several of Niccolò and Francesca Tecchini’s had. She went on, “If we were to place all our faith in Him and accept what came, we wouldn’t suffer such anxieties. If we thought about death and how little time we have on this earth, we wouldn’t worry as much as we do, and we would allow ourselves to be guided by Him and accept everything that happens.” Even though as Margherita emphasized that life was short and full of troubles, her attitude was not entirely negative: “I don’t think there is a man or woman more fortunate than we are, because we have received much bounty from God and are not bowed down by many burdens in this world.”56 Another passage on the subject of children comes from 1402, when Margherita, aged forty-two, had passed the age of expecting children. Someone had died, and Margherita consoled Francesco, “God has taken away the possibility of your having sons and now has given you this blow, in order that you detach Page 48 → yourself from this evil world. . . . You are right to feel sad about the matter, but you should realize that God does everything for the good of your soul. . . . I pray that God . . . gives that mother the grace to accept this bitter pill in a way that won’t offend God.” Finding consolation in her own barrenness, Margherita ends the passage by saying, “I thank God that I will never have to swallow this bitter pill.”57 It is hard to know whose death is under discussion: the mention of a mother makes it sound like it could be a baby, but it could just as likely refer to the mother of an adult child. A suspicious mind might wonder, if it was a baby fathered by Francesco, but that is unlikely: in that case, Margherita would not have mentioned it openly and sympathetically or in such a religious context. Margherita was a devout person who followed the traditional Catholic beliefs. She attached importance to the rosary, to listening to sermons, and to going on pilgrimages. Fasting during Lent was particularly important to her, as an act of self-mortification. One time, the resulting hunger made her ill, and the doctor ordered her to eat pounded chicken until she was better. At that time, she finished her letter by saying she would write no more because her brain, small at other times, was even smaller during Lent.58 Francesco was a believer, but he was mostly rather careless in observing religious duties, acting mainly when he

feared God’s punishment. Margherita criticized him for his laxness but also thought it was up to her as his wife to improve Francesco’s position in the eyes of God. She went on a short pilgrimage to fulfill a vow she had made on Francesco’s behalf to protect him from the plague; she had hoped he would go too, but he did not.59 She even agreed to fast for him during Lent, because she thought he was leading too unhealthy a life to do so safely. If she had as much money to give away in alms as he did, she wrote, she would not fast, because there are so many other good paths to Heaven during Lent.60 Religion comforted Margherita for disappointments in life and especially for her inability to bear children. She also considered looking after Francesco’s soul as part of her wifely duties, along with many more practical activities that will be described in the following chapter and later chapters.

Page 49 →

CHAPTER 4 Setting for a Domestic Partnership, 1394–98 After a spate of letters between Margherita and Francesco in 1389, they were mostly together in Prato for five years, and there were no other letters until 1394. Subsequently, over half of Margherita’s 354 letters to Francesco and over three-quarters of Francesco’s 182 letters to Margherita come from 1394–98. The couple were in their prime, Margherita from ages thirty-four to thirty-eight and Francesco from a still hale and hearty fifty-eight to sixty-two. No realistic portraits exist of either of them, since portraiture was in its infancy. The two images that are most likely to have some degree of accuracy are those in the Tabernacolo della Romita (see fig. 9 in chap. 12) and La Trinità (not published in this book). However, they portray Margherita quite differently. The tabernacle image, painted in 1418, after Francesco’s death but while Margherita was still living, shows Margherita with a round, pretty face and Francesco with sharp, bony features. In La Trinità (1404), the only image from Francesco’s lifetime, the small forms of Margherita and Francesco both have pronounced features. An anthropological study of Francesco’s bones indicate that he indeed had a long skull and face. It also shows that he was of slightly less than average height, and both the images under discussion show the kneeling Margherita nearly as tall as the kneeling Francesco. Also, Margherita at one point describes herself as a large woman, although not as large as the woman who was using her dress as a pattern.1 This chapter provides the background to the Datini’s lives during the years 1394–98. It is based on the correspondence from those years, with a few references to the 1389 letters and other sources. It presents an overview only, with later chapters providing more detail on the same subjects. It takes place in the Page 50 → context of the frequent periods the couple spent apart. Modern researchers can be grateful for these separations, one of two main reasons for the letters, the other being Francesco’s need to micromanage. Francesco stayed away from Margherita because he habitually became caught up in whatever he was doing, whether in Florence or in Prato, feeling unable to leave. He wrote, for example, “I cannot say when I will be there, because every day new things arise, and I want to be here and see and touch everything: thus I have always done.”2 This comment reveals the secret of Francesco’s success but also the characteristic that made a sedate domestic life impossible. That said, it must be admitted that when Margherita joined Francesco, Francesco often soon left; they did not find pleasure in each other’s company. Margherita was sometimes understanding of Francesco’s delays.3 However, often she was not. When she complained, Francesco told her that he neither ate nor slept, night or day, to finish what he was doing and that it has pleased God that all men and women are suspicious of each other.4 Another time, when Francesco said he had so much to finish up that he could not return for Easter, she wrote that his list of things to do resembled a list on a chalkboard, which children fill up with items and then wash off and start writing on again without ever finishing their list.5 The couple’s separations were often shorter than they might seem at first glance. Prato and Florence are close together, and Francesco made brief visits to Prato when staying in Florence, usually on Sundays. Even so, he often, to Margherita’s annoyance, postponed coming after he had said he would come. On one such occasion, she wrote, “As for your staying there until Thursday, you can do what you please. Being the master is a good office, but it should be used with discretion.” She could not understand the need for him to send a message every Wednesday saying he would be there on Sunday, when it seemed to her that he changed his mind every Friday. He could at least send a message on Saturday evening, so that she would not overdo the shopping. She wrote bitingly, “I found someone to keep me and these other women company, so we had a good time; unhappy is she who puts her trust in you.”6 Francesco answered that her letter had been such a comfort to him, a recurring sarcastic phrase that each of them used after receiving unfriendly letters from the other.7 Margherita also sometimes postponed joining Francesco. She wrote of staying behind in Prato to put things in

order before leaving, because there was no one she could trust to organize the household when she went to Florence, “considering how young the servants and employees I have here are.”8 Margherita Page 51 → took seriously the role of wife, no matter what problems there were in her personal relationship with Francesco. Overall Margherita accepted the advice of moralists and advice givers who said that the husband should rule and the wife should serve, with the husband having the right to administer moderate physical punishment to the wife, if needed. The dynamic between husband and wife was often explained in terms of women’s inferior nature. The moralists also agreed that the wife had a valuable if subordinate role; no household could function well without her, in both moral and practical ways. Although a wife should not give her husband orders, she should tactfully and gently influence him to moral and religious behavior, as Margherita tried to do with Francesco, if not always tactfully. The wife was supposed to have three principal functions: provide children for her husband, look after his physical and emotional well-being, and care for his possessions and household.9 Margherita could not do the first, but she dedicated herself to the second and third. As for the wife’s second function, looking after the husband’s person, a series of “commandments” attributed to a mother sending her daughter to a husband summed up the marital relationship by saying that a wife should give her husband what he liked to eat even if she did not like the food herself.10 Margherita’s efforts at caring for Francesco physically were made difficult by his frequent absence, but, as has already become apparent, she worried about his staying up late and taking little care of himself. It gave her great pain, she wrote one time, but she could do nothing about it.11 As for his emotional well-being—no easy challenge with the depressive but also easily annoyed Francesco—she tried but often failed to follow another of the commandments mentioned above, which stated that the good wife should not do anything that upset her husband. Although Margherita often went out of her way to be sympathetic to Francesco, she would just as often lose tolerance.12 If she sometimes found it difficult to follow the mother’s commandment not to tell her husband that her opinion was more correct than his, Margherita accepted the concept and phrased her disagreement tactfully when in a friendly mood.13 Moralistic writers assumed that a wife’s activities were all done inside the family residence, and a distinction has often been made between women’s private sphere and men’s public sphere. However, as Elizabeth Cohen notes, the “private” can include not only the internal domestic household but also the ramifications of the domestic that reached outside the household.14 Francesco’s possessions were so scattered and his mercantile and agricultural responsibilities Page 52 → so varied that they involved Margherita in a broader environment, which was probably less unusual than sometimes assumed. In fact, it is more accurate to say that a wife was supposed to look after her husband’s interests no matter where her responsibilities took her, as long as propriety was observed. Accepted female roles such as wife and mother could provide the opportunity to exert influence outside the household and to interact with the larger economic and political world. Furthermore, since Francesco had no brothers or close male relatives, more fell on Margherita than if he had. Francesco was clearly in charge because of his gender, age, and self-made success, and Margherita accepted this distribution of power, just as a loyal employee in a modern company would not contest the employer’s authority, while still taking pride in doing well the assigned responsibilities. Nonetheless, Margherita had enough scope for action that she can be considered a trusted agent or even “deputy husband,” as evidenced by the fact that she kept keys to the Datini buildings and to the locked trunks therein, which she guarded carefully in Francesco’s absence.15 Margherita did almost all the activities described in the following chapters in Francesco’s name and not for her own individual interests. People nowadays might remark on Margherita’s lack of opportunity to express her individual identity in the world, but Margherita did not see the problem: wifehood was her profession, and she was proud of it. And her individuality always showed through.16 Margherita had another goal, related to being an outstanding wife: to possess honor in her own eyes and in the eyes of those around her, honor being a word the Datini sources often use in relation to both men and women. As Kuehn says, “At its base, honor is both a reputation accorded to individuals and families by society and an intense subjective experience on the part of those who would lay claim to honor”—a useful definition because it gets at the strong emotions involved in a sense of honor.17 Margherita’s preoccupation with honor contributed a heightened importance to the way she perceived her job as wife.

Honor, defined broadly as good reputation, often refers to notable public esteem, and the Datini sources sometimes use it that way.18 However, the kind of honor (and its opposite, shame) mentioned most often for both women and for men was the more routine respect earned for carrying out well one’s duties. Margherita told Francesco, “I try as much as I can to do what I think is for your pleasure and my honor,” and Francesco often told Margherita, “Provide for the family in ways that bring you honor,” and more positively, “I am pleased that you manage the house in such a way as to bring yourself honor: the wise are recognized by their response to challenges.”19 The word honor was used in a Page 53 → similar way for the Datini’s male employees, to emphasize pride in doing well the tasks assigned to them.20 Margherita’s strong feelings about honor can be seen in her response to the simple task of entrusting an acquaintance’s baby to a wet nurse: “God give me grace that I receive honor. . . . One can receive shame and not honor from the many things that can happen.”21 Margherita also believed she contributed to Francesco’s honor and saved him from shame: “I think I take care of everything so well [in Prato] and keep the family behaving so well that I will receive no shame.”22 The Datini use of the word honor in relation to Margherita’s activities adds another dimension to the scholarly literature about honor, especially honor in the Mediterranean region. That literature has emphasized that female honor was almost synonymous with chastity and that fear of losing sexual honor forced women to live in relative seclusion to protect their own reputation and, by extension, that of their families.23 While it is true that a woman’s chastity was of basic importance in the Datini circle and that Margherita was disapproving of loose-living women, 24 chastity was largely taken for granted for a respectable woman like Margherita. Valori expresses this well when he writes that a woman such as Margherita was expected to have internalized society’s values and thus to be in control of her own sexual behavior without outside oversight.25 Concern with sexual reputation did not prevent Margherita from mixing with unrelated men when she was going about her varied occupations. The men mostly came to see her at the Datini palazzo, rather than her going out to see them. Nonetheless, she did go out to see them occasionally, although it is probable that she went accompanied by an apprentice or a servant, even if she does not mention being accompanied.26 Valori states that Margherita agreed it was more honorable for a woman to stay home when possible to protect her modesty.27 But I see no sign that Margherita believed the environment she and Francesco inhabited either in Prato or Florence presented any such threat to honor, either in the examples Valori gives or elsewhere. When Margherita told Francesco that he should not have left the builders working on the palace while he was away, her concern was that thieves might come in the open entranceway, not that there might be any harm to her reputation. When Francesco jokingly called on God to give Margherita the patience and religious merit to read a very long letter he sent, which would take up all her time at home, Margherita responded that it did not bother her to stay home and that it would not be honorable for her to do otherwise, considering how depressed he seemed; she was referring, however, to her duty as a wife Page 54 → to spend time on reading his letter when he seemed so unhappy, not to any immodesty in going out. When Margherita said she had not left the house since Francesco had gone away, she was telling Francesco she had been staying home not in order to appear virtuous but, as the letter makes clear, because she had been sick.28 As for Francesco, his interest in her staying close to home came when there was no other responsible person available to guard it from thieves. For example, the property manager Barzalone di Spedaliere told Francesco that Francesco should not worry about Margherita leaving the house untended, because Margherita was intelligent and knew what Francesco wanted.29 The issue of a wife staying home is, therefore, more complicated than that of sexual reputation. An honorable wife stayed home when it was necessary in order to carry out her household duties, following the nonsexual definition of honor, that is, doing her job well. She did not go out for frivolous reasons and, in any case, should ideally have at least her husband’s de facto approval when doing so. The main example of Margherita’s need for permission came when Margherita, in Florence, failed to seek the agreement of Francesco, in Prato, before going on a religious pilgrimage to nearby Fiesole, accompanied by female relatives and friends whom she had entertained for dinner the previous day and then overnight. Francesco’s response to the Fiesole trip raised the issues of wifely obedience and a wife’s household responsibilities, not sexual reputation. Francesco found out about the episode through the tattling apprentice Fattorino, who claimed that Margherita had not wanted Francesco told about the trip and, furthermore, that

Margherita had been regularly having her relatives over for free meals. Francesco, who considered Fattorino a troublemaker, also feared, showing his stingy side, that Margherita was wasting time and money in social activities at his own expense. Margherita, expressing hurt at Francesco’s lack of trust, defended herself by showing how hard she had been working and how little she had been entertaining, which she considered to be her husband’s main concerns. However, she did add that she would not have worried Francesco by mentioning the trip if she had not been sure he would hear about it anyway, showing a loose interpretation of wifely obedience.30 Francesco expressed the desire that he and Margherita should lead a better life, more refined and orderly, without all their customary fatigue.31 Nonetheless, both he and Margherita drove themselves hard. They believed in the importance of saving time, of not waiting around until one task was complete before moving on to the next, only returning to the first task when it was ready Page 55 → to be addressed again. Thus Margherita reminded Francesco, when she thought he was forgetting it, that “the most valuable thing in this world is time and there is no one to whom it is dearer than you.”32 This attitude toward time was particularly a trait of merchants, related to the precise dating of letters and to an emphasis on counting.33 Perhaps Francesco had been the moving force behind Margherita’s emphasis on hard work when she was a young bride, but she was completely in tune with it. Her failure to have children and her need, then, to prove herself in other ways must also be taken into account. Illness slowed Margherita’s efforts to be an excellent wife. She was out of action one or two days a month because of the severe pains surrounding her menstrual period. She could not bear loud noises then, although sometimes she did not totally neglect her correspondence; for example, she ended a letter, “Let’s talk about the things to buy at the fair another time, because it hurts me to speak, after a bad night, full of pain.”34 She also had a number of other serious illnesses over the years, one time telling Francesco that he should not be surprised she had not written for two days, because she had had the worst fever she could remember. While the young employee Guido was reading her a letter from Francesco, she continued, she was trembling so much with fever that she could not understand anything he said.35 Francesco may have tired of her ailments. Barzalone reproved Francesco for staying away from Prato for so long, considering the poor state Margherita was in when Francesco left. Barzalone had visited her that morning and saw that she was still very weak.36 Francesco’s health was not always good either, and he and Margherita kept several doctors in business between them, frequently mentioning pills, syrups, and purges to clean the system. The main verdict for Francesco was that he should relax,37 and perhaps Margherita’s health was undermined by striving to be the best wife she could, given her childlessness. She may sometimes have wanted to escape her position. One time, she told Francesco, apparently thinking of a convent, “If it were not for love of you and because I am not free, I would see if I could leave all these tribulations behind and no longer serve the world. . . . Nothing prevents me from doing so except the two things I mentioned and the fact that I’m no saint, as God has shown me.”38 After the end of the relatively affectionate years before 1387, Margherita and Francesco’s relationship had stabilized at a lower level. Despite Margherita’s exasperation with Francesco, she continued to love him and centered her life around him for more than practical reasons. Francesco’s emotional attachment to Margherita after 1387 is more doubtful than hers to him. In fact, he criticized Page 56 → men who valued their wives more than their friends, with friends, he wrote, being the dearest thing there was. However, his criticism of wives was based partly on the way they detracted from their husbands’ work, which Margherita did not do.39 Margherita’s attitude toward Francesco depended on the situation. Margherita was friendliest when she was in Florence, had fewer responsibilities, and thus received fewer carping directions from Francesco, as during her long stay there in 1399; or when they were working together for a common goal, as during the political negotiations of early 1394.40 Francesco could be critical and peevish, and Margherita was most hostile when he did not appreciate her efforts. Apparently Francesco shouted at her when he was annoyed, as he did with his employees, and she no doubt shouted back, more able to do so than employees who could be fired.41 They remained close enough that they usually slept in the same bed when they were together.42 Margherita would also try to comfort him and advise him. When he was upset about a financial loss, she told him she wanted to know how much the loss was, because his distress should be according to the amount of the loss and no more.

Maintaining that they could do no more than act well and remain contented with what was done by their sweet Lord, who cleansed them according to their sins, she begged Francesco not to consume himself so. In her opinion, he had no reason to do so and had more reason for thanking God than most men had.43 Margherita could seem slightly flirtatious. When Francesco mentioned a couple of errors he said she had made, she replied (although she denied making the errors), “I would be happy to be there to receive my punishment.”44 Sometimes, she showed signs of humor, especially in her wry comments about Francesco. She could also indicate pleasure, but always with a religious proviso: Describing a game she and Francesco played with their neighbor Messer Piero Rinaldeschi, she wrote, “Certainly there was never a better time to enjoy ourselves than now, however keeping our eye on God and remembering our end, which to me seem to be the greatest pleasures that there are.”45 Margherita usually wrote in an earnest tone—whether informative, sympathetic, or angry—whereas Francesco often, rather jauntily, used aphorisms and quotations. She mentioned that Francesco had made fun of her when she had expressed the opinion that “I always follow the path to which I am accustomed and will not change from it because of anything said to me.” She had never known how to make fun of Francesco or anyone, she went on; instead, it was Page 57 → her policy to do unto others as she wanted done to her, implying she did not want to be the butt of jokes either.46 Francesco, in good moods, held forth as if on stage, whereas Margherita’s attitude was responsive, reacting not only to what Francesco said but also to what she saw and heard in the world. Francesco and Margherita’s different approaches can perhaps be related to Hayez’s observation that proverbs and quotations serve to buttress the authority of the person uttering them and that Margherita’s spare use of them suggests a lack of authority in relation to Francesco.47 Often Margherita did not expect Francesco to take her at her word alone; she would call on witnesses to back her up. She could also quickly switch to an indignant response when Francesco became disparaging. He could sometimes be unjust, as when he complained that she cared little about helping him in his activities,48 and Margherita was ready to stand up for herself. For example, she wrote sarcastically in response to his quibbling, “Your letters comfort me because, you know, when you are here [in Prato] you do as you like, whereas I have your and my own tasks to attend to. . . . However, I would resign myself to everything if only half of what I do were acknowledged.”49 When Francesco compared Margherita unfavorably to the wife of the eminent Florentine political figure Guido del Palagio, she shot back: “You tell me that Guido says that his wife has never given him any cause for displeasure. I am sure he is telling the truth, but I believe that he has given her less reason for displeasure than she has given him.” It was not, she wrote, that Guido allowed himself to be dominated by a woman, since he had authority over an entire city; rather, Guido treated his wife like a lady, not like some innkeeper’s wife. Margherita was making reference to the many people who came and went at the Datini palazzo. These comments demonstrate her belief that a husband ought to be in charge but should be more considerate of his wife than Francesco was. “It is fifteen blessed years since I came to Prato, and I have lived as if in an inn,” she wrote, adding (referring to the continual construction going on at the Datini palace), “I don’t think there is a single innkeeper who runs the inn and oversees the building of it at the same time.”50 Some of the Datini’s friends had advice about their difficult marriage, believing that their own marriages were more successful. Although, in his writings about the family, Friar Giovanni Dominici gave little attention to marital affection, which might suggest that it was not an important consideration to him, others in the fourteenth century emphasized it. The moralist Paolo da Certaldo, although having a generally restrictive attitude toward women, recommended Page 58 → love between the married couple, and the Datini correspondents show an expectation of mutual love and companionship in a good marriage, even if the correspondents doubted that the Datini had a good marriage.51 In a letter to Francesco, their friend Ser Lapo Mazzei sent greetings to Margherita, who “has heard your blessed preaching for eighteen years.” (“Ser” was the title for a notary, a kind of lawyer with expertise in drafting documents.) Ser Lapo noted that Margherita was in Prato “with more things to worry about than women usually have, and you are tempestuous.”52 One of Francesco’s business associates in Florence, Domenico di Cambio, told Francesco that he, Domenico, ate cooked chestnuts each morning before he left the

house, because his wife treated him with affection, the same as he did to her. “I don’t do as you do,” he admonished, “always shouting at yours, . . . and then you say, “I am a good husband.”53 Francesco’s associate Barzalone di Spediliere got at something that was seen as a problem in Margherita and Francesco’s relationship at the time and that makes it interesting to the modern observer: “Be aware that the priest at Santa Riparata says that God tells the husband to be both father and mother to the wife, and thus I would want you to act toward her.”54 Despite his greater age and achievement, Francesco acted not like a calmly authoritative father or a caring nurturing mother, as the stereotypes advocated,55 but more like a quarreling older brother. When fighting, Margherita and Francesco acted as if they were on an equal level. Margherita did not operate alone in Prato in Francesco’s absence. Living and working nearby were Barzalone di Spediliere, who had replaced Monte Angiolini as property manager in 1390, and Niccolò di Piero, the managing partner of their wool and dye companies. Barzalone and Niccolò di Piero stayed in frequent contact with Margherita and also, by letter, with Francesco. Margherita was their approximate equal rather than their subordinate, with each of the three having their separate spheres of activity under Francesco’s overall jurisdiction.56 Barzalone and Niccolò sometimes reported about her household management to Francesco, 57 and they often reported about her health. Margherita also made comments about them. The relations among the three of them were friendly, with Margherita remarking that things could not help but go well wherever Barzalone and Niccolò were. 58 This harmonious relationship contrasted with her relationship with Francesco, indicating that she quarreled with Francesco but rarely with others.59 Unlike his behavior with Margherita, Francesco also did not quarrel with Barzalone or, usually, with Niccolò di Piero. Page 59 → Barzalone became property manager when Monte Angiolini was murdered in Pisa in 1390; the motive for Monte’s killing by a notary from Prato is not recorded in the sources.60 Monte had merchant responsibilities in addition to property management, whereas Barzalone did not. Barzalone concentrated on buying lands and houses, buying building equipment, buying and selling large quantities of grain, and overseeing the farms, whether because of the increasing number of properties Francesco owned or because of Barzalone’s lesser business expertise compared to Monte.61 The mercantile side of Francesco’s activities in Prato had been taken over by the Florentine company by the 1390s, with some of its undertakings located in the Datini palace in Prato, thus impacting Margherita’s domain.62 Margherita and Barzalone’s nonmercantile responsibilities overlapped, and they often worked together. Margherita sometimes saw Barzalone as indecisive and encouraged him to act when she thought he was dithering; however, she had a generally high opinion of him.63 Barzalone’s letters to Francesco lack the detail of Monte’s and are not such good sources for the researcher. He could wax poetical or philosophical or humorous instead of conveying information: once when he was at his villa, he remarked that he had all the materials necessary for writing available but could not concentrate because of the sounds of crickets and frogs that were filling his head that evening.64 Barzalone and Francesco sometimes kept each other company outside of work. They used tu to refer to each other, whereas Monte and Francesco had always used voi. The intimacy between Barzalone and Francesco existed despite Francesco’s being enough older than Barzalone that Barzalone considered Francesco to be like a father.65 Barzalone’s wife, Monna Nanna, is mentioned only casually in the correspondence. Niccolò di Piero was managing partner of the wool company, replacing his father, Piero di Giunta, Francesco’s old guardian, in 1392. Niccolò turned the wool company over to his son Agnolo in 1398, concentrating himself on a related dye company.66 The processing of wool affected Margherita because Niccolò di Piero sometimes used one of the Datini household employees to help with drying the wool and other tasks. Once, when Francesco did not want to spare an employee for wool processing and told Margherita to find someone else, she said no one else could be found.67 To some extent, Francesco treated Niccolò di Piero as an employee rather than a partner, expecting him to do tasks unrelated to the cloth business, and Barzalone once cautioned Francesco not to overwork Niccolò. 68 That Francesco had provided most of the capital for the wool companies, combined with Niccolò’s obliging nature, made Francesco Page 60 → feel justified in imposing on him. Nonetheless, Niccolò

sometimes gave Francesco advice that Francesco did not want to hear.69 Furthermore, there was real affection between them. When Niccolò’s son Agnolo was on his deathbed in 1399, Francesco described himself as more attached to Niccolò and his family than to anyone else in the world, and Margherita stated that she considered Agnolo her son and that he considered her his mother.70 Niccolò’s wife, Monna Lapa, also worked for the wool company, spinning and sewing. 71 Niccolò and Monna Lapa looked after the Datini palace in the Datini’s absence, and Monna Lapa sometimes stayed with Margherita, acting as her companion, even when Lapa would have preferred to be at home.72 After one of Margherita’s illnesses, Margherita praised Lapa and other women for the way they had helped her get through it. She said that people in Prato were so kind to her that she had decided to be buried in Prato when she died (at the end of her life, though, her allegiance had shifted back to Florence, where she was buried).73 For a long time, Lapa and Margherita used voi to refer to each other, but they later changed to tu.74 Margherita’s physical environment, as well as her human environment, affected her life in Prato. She often frequented churches and convents, and Francesco, if less assiduous in personal attendance, commissioned paintings, stained glass windows, altars and devotional objects in several of them.75 The Datini’s closest ecclesiastical connection was to San Francesco Church, located a short walk from the palace. It was the church of Francesco’s patron saint, where his parents and siblings were buried, where he prepared his own tomb, and where he often made charitable contributions.76 Francesco regularly provided the supplies for a celebration there on San Francesco’s day. One time, Monte Angiolini told Francesco, who was in Florence, not to forget the festa at San Francesco; the friars had told him that Monna Margherita could provide for it if Francesco was away while Margherita was in Prato.77 Soon after Francesco arrived back in Prato from Avignon, he had a tabernacle, or personal devotional area, built inside San Francesco Church, with a sculptured crucifix on a stone base as the tabernacle’s focal point. A Florentine artist, Tommaso di Mazza painted a mural depicting Margherita as well as Francesco. Describing his plans, Francesco told Monte Angiolini about the picture he wanted for the tabernacle’s vault, depicting Santa Caterina accompanied by Santa Margherita and San Francesco, with Francesco’s wife, Margherita, at Santa Margherita’s feet, dressed in a cloak of either red or purple, and with Francesco at San Francesco’s feet, dressed in the same color as Margherita. Page 61 → These frescos have long since disappeared, so the final result is uncertain, but the general plan was carried out. In the early 1390s, Francesco also had murals of devotional subjects painted in San Francesco Church, and Margherita sometimes dealt with the painters when Francesco was out of town—in matters of payment, not matters of art.78 The most important part of Margherita’s physical environment was the Datini palace, with construction and decoration continuing during all her years in Prato, sometimes to her annoyance79 (see fig. 3). When Francesco was not in the grip of merchant business, he was in the grip of building fever. Their friend Ser Lapo Mazzei once opined that the palace was the child Francesco never had, a way, as with a child, to leave a memory of himself after he died.80 Ser Lapo also advised that what Francesco needed was a more spiritual legacy than the palace, and Francesco, under Lapo’s influence, would accomplish such a legacy by leaving his money to a charitable institute, Francesco’s Ceppo for the Poor, which would be located in the palace. By 1390, the palace was essentially complete. Francesco bought an adjacent building (the one that now forms the base of the Archivio di Stato di Prato) in 1407, and later generations added more space. The palace complex included the area across the street. The devotional tabernacle by Niccolò Gerini is still there, but the fondaco, or business office and warehouse, and the elaborate garden are not. Francesco spent six hundred florins on the garden, which had peacocks, fine orange and fig trees, beautiful flowers, fountains, and a painted loggia. It was a place for entertaining guests, but Margherita may also have walked in the garden in her few leisure moments. Margherita and Francesco’s correspondence from the late 1380s until 1394 is sparse and gives little attention to the building of the palace and its decoration, so I will not dwell on it, since my focus is on Margherita. However, Margherita did indicate that she sometimes had a role overseeing the work.81 And it was in and from the palace that she directed her activities, as I will describe in the following chapter.

Page 62 →

CHAPTER 5 Prato, 1394–98 Household, Farming, Building Margherita prided herself on running a smoothly functioning household. One time, after returning home early from a visit in order to oversee the washing, she remarked in a letter to Francesco, “You know what gets done if you or I aren’t here,” pointing out the equality she felt with her husband in household concerns. When Francesco did not give her the recognition she craved, she replied huffily that she made every effort to give him a detailed account of what she did; it upset her when he interrogated her needlessly about trivialities, which seemed to indicate a lack of faith in her.1 Margherita’s work took place in a fine setting, which still exists, slightly modified, now the site of the Museo Casa Francesco Datini. The palazzo was constructed with an eye to comfort—with fireplaces, water basins, and toilet cabinets in most rooms. The ground floor comprised a few large rooms with vaulted ceilings, the walls decorated with geometric designs, forest scenes, and religious figures. On festive occasions, tapestries and wall hangings were added. There were two rooms on either side of the entrance hall: a guest bedroom/reception room, called the “room with two beds,” on the right; and a room on the left, sometimes called the scrittorio, or writing room, where Margherita would have dictated many of her letters, and which also sometimes served as a dining room and guest room. The core of the residence was the courtyard, toward the back of the building and open to the air, with a graceful protected loggia at the side. The courtyard hosted social events but also contained the only well, so it was frequented by servants getting water for everyday tasks. There was a well-appointed and large kitchen, used also as a sleeping place for male servants.2 To decorate the palace rooms, Francesco hired, among others, the painters Page 63 → Niccolò di Piero Gerini, Agnolo Gaddi, and Bartolomeo Bertozzo. The most ambitious murals, by Niccolò Gerini, were in the courtyard and are still faintly visible today, depicting the virtues with vices underneath, the seven liberal arts, famous philosophers, and illustrious men from history, all popular subjects in the period. Francesco favored the international gothic style that he had seen in Avignon, showing little interest in the latest renaissance artistic trends. Francesco’s interactions with the artists were notable for a quarrel he had with them over the amount of money he owed, which showed him in a bad light. Since there are no letters between Francesco and Margherita on that subject, Margherita’s attitude is not apparent. However, the quarrel was eventually patched up, and most of the same painters worked for Francesco again in later years.3 The upper floor, with a hall that wrapped around the courtyard opening, contained the master bedroom, furnished with a very large bed, and fine painted chests for storage, the walls covered with cloth hangings, religious pictures, and a shield with the Datini and Bandini arms. A small adjacent room sometimes functioned as a study. Francesco stored most of his papers relating to business activities in Prato in the master bedroom, in locked trunks to which Margherita had the keys. The master bedroom and the downstairs “room with two beds” also each had a birth tray (desco di parto) on the wall,4 typically used to commemorate births of family babies and, thus, possibly referring to the births of Francesco’s illegitimate baby who died and of Ginevra. Upstairs, there were three rooms besides the master bedroom: two bedrooms and a sala, or lounge. The bedrooms would have housed the relatives who were often in Prato: Margherita’s niece Caterina; Margherita’s stepdaughter, Ginevra; and Francesco’s visiting business associates, such as Stoldo di Lorenzo and his wife. A second kitchen with an area for grain storage was up another set of stairs, at the top of the house; Lucia and probably other female servants slept there, away from the male servants. Francesco’s desire to know everything that went on in the Prato residence provides a picture of Margherita’s everyday concerns, centered in the palace, even if the minutiae described are not always interesting in

themselves.5 Margherita had to organize the many comings and goings—a continual stream of people traveling back and forth between Prato and Florence, by horseback, mule, or on foot. Even Margherita sometimes walked the ten miles between the cities, although she went more frequently by mule, and she also had the possibility of going by litter, if sick.6 Margherita worried about an employee’s one-day trips to Florence in winter. She asked Francesco to send the courier Nanni Page 64 → di Santa Chiara back to Prato earlier than he had been doing, for Nanni’s sake and that of the animals. Nanni had twice returned at ten at night and could hardly manage to arrive that soon, given the short December days, even if he threw the load in the middle of the road in Florence and turned around immediately. “Just think, Francesco,” Margherita wrote, “if these animals get sick or Nanni falls ill. It could lead to serious damage, since the last few nights there had been such a frost that in the morning it seemed as if it had snowed.”7 The Datini had several mules and horses, stabled on the Datini property. The horses were workhorses used in a similar way as the mules, except for one or two higher-quality horses kept exclusively for riding. In busy periods, a mule laden with equipment, food, and wine had to go several times a day to the villa at Palco, and the same mule or another went several times a week to Florence to carry goods and people. One time, Margherita remarked on the sad sight of a tired mule.8 The animals required care, which Margherita oversaw, as did Francesco. The employees had to wash the animals’ feet often in hot water and re-shoe them. When one of them hurt its leg, they kept a bandage on it for several days. When another one hurt its knee, Margherita, showing respect for Francesco’s authority, said they treated the mule exactly as Francesco would have done if he had been there: following medical ideas of the day, they bled the animal to cure it. Medical care could be uncomfortable in other ways: Margherita reported that the farrier who looked after the animals’ health ordered that an injured horse be kept in the river so that the poultice would be well soaked. They were then to wash the sore with lye and with soap, and the farrier would make two cuts to bleed it, so that the horse would be well enough to travel the next day.9 One mule was affected badly by its hard life: Margherita complained of having to keep two mules at the palace because one of them went crazy if it had to stay alone.10 Leaving aside letter writing (addressed in chaps. 6 and 10), Margherita’s activities inside the palace included standard items of woman’s work—that is, activities keeping life in the palace functioning—with the difference that she had to make sure the Florentine household was supplied as well as the one in Prato. As mentioned before, she returned home early from a visit in order to oversee the washing, which would have included the washing from Florence. She also supervised cooking. When there were no guests, the Datini household ate simply but with excellent ingredients, and when there were guests, they ate lavishly. Margherita sometimes participated in cooking. She told Francesco, who was in Florence, how to instruct a servant there in making a dish using Page 65 → dried peas. Although the servant had watched Margherita do it many times, Margherita was not surprised that the servant did not know how to do it, because it was a little difficult.11 As for bread, Margherita referred to it as “having been made” at the palazzo rather than making it herself, and the slave Lucia was praised for her breadmaking ability. Margherita thought that bread cooked until it was brown was healthier than bread cooked for less time. Enough bread had to be prepared to send to Florence in addition to the bread they ate in Prato, with white bread for the Datini and guests and coarser bread for employees.12 One time, Margherita wrote that she could not send bread to Florence that day, out of love for the family in Prato, who needed it.13 Although Margherita’s own health was often poor, she looked after the health of the “family,” which, in the terminology of the time, meant the residents of the household. When the courier Nanni di Santa Chiara returned from Florence with a fever, caused, Margherita thought, by his scabies rash, she said she would observe his case and see how it developed; in the meantime, she requested, Francesco should ask someone in Florence who knew about medicines to send something with which to treat Nanni, because the rash was so bad that he could not bend his arms.14 Another time, two young people in the house became sick with tertian fever, a kind of malaria. Francesco’s response to hearing about the illness combined religion and medicine: he was very sorry to hear that Filippo and the others were sick, but these are the things of this world; let God be praised for everything. Certainly, though, Francesco continued, they should leave nothing undone, and, as far as Francesco could, he would undergo any fatigue and expense to help the sick youths. Margherita called in the doctor and administered medicine. However, even as Filippo was getting better, his skin was yellow, and the doctor said he had never

come across more putrid urine. Margherita was particularly worried because a lot of young people were dying in the area.15 Margherita also looked after furnishings, with beds (lette), daybeds (lettieri) mattresses (coltrici, matterassi), and quilts (copertoi) being frequently mentioned. She noted, one time, that they did not need another mattress, because all the beds had them, including her and Francesco’s big bed and several beds on the upstairs and ground floors.16 The beds and mattresses were filled with feathers or with straw and sometimes other plants. Margherita once wrote that she wanted to redo a mattress she had filled with poor-quality feathers.17 Another time, she told Francesco, who was in Florence, that they would send the dried vine shoots from Prato used for filling beds as soon as they could. Page 66 → They needed good weather so that the vines would dry and not be too soft. She continued, denigrating her own sex, but also making it an excuse, “If we don’t send you things exactly as you require, don’t be angry, because I am only a woman, all alone with a bunch of girls, and I have had no one here to help me.”18 Mention of women’s weakness could be a useful protection. Margherita took charge of obtaining clothing for the family, whether sewing it herself, sending it out to be sewn, or purchasing it or having Francesco do so. She reported that the gown of the young employee Fattorino had been cut and was ready to be sewn (indicating that it was to be made in Prato) and that Fattorino needed stockings, which were usually bought ready-made. She asked Francesco whether he wanted her to get them in Prato or if he would do it in Florence. She said she had sewn a gown for the servant girl Fattorina in one day. She mentioned remaking a gown of her own for her step-daughter Ginevra, although Ginevra had many other fine clothes.19 Margherita had charge of her own and Francesco’s clothes. On at least one occasion, she found the process of having someone else make them to be aggravating. The tailor had not finished the servant Pellegrino’s doublet jacket, even though the tailor had said he would; he was the worst liar there ever was. Nor had she been able to get back her overdress (cioppa); in fact, she had not even seen the tailor, although she had given him the raw cotton with which to weave the overdress and had made the sleeves for it herself. She had told the tailor’s wife that she would never again send him anything, and she emphasized to Francesco that she would not.20 Margherita and Francesco had a busy social life, and even if her interest in society was tepid, their position required that they maintain appearances worthy of their wealth.21 Since Francesco dealt in cloth along with other commodities, he was able to obtain the best. The inventories of Francesco’s possessions list the clothing they owned and indicate that the couple spent large sums of money on their wardrobes.22 If Margherita’s clothing was luxurious, Francesco’s was more so, since men were the leaders of fashion in the fourteenth century. Sumptuary laws, limiting expenditure on dress, were aimed at women, since, among other things, the expectation was that women should be modest, while men were supposed to cut a fine figure.23 The sumptuary laws, however, set generous upper limits and were poorly enforced, and there is no evidence that Margherita fell afoul of them. Both Margherita and Francesco wore the distinctive clothing style of northern Italian cities in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the layered look, with an emphasis on bright colors and multiple patterns Page 67 → and, for those who could afford it, fabrics of silk, taffeta, velvet, and fur. When fully outfitted, both men and women wore four layers, with the layers cut away at the neck, wrists, elbows, and sides, to show linings, patterns, and contrasting colors underneath.24 Garments in dark colors were lined with bright colors. (See fig. 4 for a view of late fourteenth-century dress.) Both Margherita and Francesco wore long-sleeved linen shifts next to the skin. There is no mention of other underwear. They may have slept in the shifts, or they may have slept naked, with their heads covered by nightcaps. They both also wore linen stockings (calcetti) over undersocks. Margherita’s basic item of clothing was the floor-length gown (gamurra), for indoor wear. Outside or in company, she wore the overdress (cioppa or giornea), and outdoors, she, like all adult women, wore her fourth layer, a hooded cloak. She had matching headdresses for her outfits, several sets of detachable sleeves, and several fine belts. Page 68 → Francesco wore a tunic and stockings over his shift, with a short close-fitting jacket (farsetto) on top. Young men and working men might limit themselves to these or to a short gown, but an important man like Francesco wore a long overgown (cioppa or gonnella) that was the most extravagant part of his wardrobe. Outdoors, he also wore the distinctive red

hood of the urban citizen on his head.25 Francesco valued his possessions, and Margherita was cautious about going against his wishes. She tried to be an obedient wife, unless her anger was aroused. Francesco, who traded in armor, had some of his own, and when Stefano Guazzalotti came to borrow the surcoat Francesco wore over his armor, Margherita refused to let Stefano take it, because she had not heard from Francesco about it. She told Stefano that Francesco had instructed her never to lend any part of his armor, saying that she intended to abide by that directive. Nonetheless, after she heard more about why Stefano needed it, she told Francesco, “Considering the case, I decided to overrule your order, because I thought that you would be happy that I did; it seemed to me a case in which I should agree.”26 She would overrule Francesco’s order if she thought it was the right thing to do and if she thought Francesco would agree. With a building full of circulating objects, some were bound to get lost or forgotten. One time, Margherita discovered a tunic that she was sure did not belong to them. She remembered putting two buttons on the front of Francesco’s tunic and decorating the collar, and this one had none of these things.27 Probably the most outlandish misplaced objects were the twelve rabbits the Datini received as a gift, which Lucia put in a chest thinking they were gloves.28 One hopes they were rabbit skins and not dead rabbits. Margherita also had to deal with live cats, which were more pets than mousers and more Francesco’s pets than hers. Margherita described with some sharpness a badly behaved cat that Francesco sent from Prato to Florence. If they tied the cat up, the cat went mad; if they left her free, she ran away. The members of the Florentine household had to search for the cat for a whole day. When they surrounded her, she got into the chicken coop, and Margherita was not going to let her out until Francesco came; she did not want to have to worry about the cat.29 She does not mention how the cat and the chickens dealt with each other. Saving and spending money caused some of Margherita and Francesco’s quarrels, given Francesco’s alternating moods of miserliness and extravagance; for example, according to Margherita, Francesco sometimes objected to burning Page 69 → a small candle when it was dark, while there were other times when he lit a large torch for no reason.30 Lost objects were another sore subject. When Francesco blamed Margherita for mislaying one of the surcoats he wore with armor, she claimed that she did not want to go into who was to blame, but then she did so, saying, “I’ll remind you how the matter went, since you think I am so very stupid.” He had lent it to someone and then got it back and then forgot where he put it. “I’ll leave it to you to judge whose fault that is,” she retorted.31 Margherita was always poised to defend herself and her own intelligence. Margherita was especially upset over the loss of a sapphire ring Francesco valued. She wrote that Francesco should be comforting her, instead of blaming her, knowing how unhappy she was about it. She had never in a life of frequent illness been so sick that she had wished to believe in amulets or charms, but now she would sing to all those in Hell if she could find the ring: “I would do it out of love for you, because if I were free, I would never do it, even if I had lost three times as much. Things like this happen every day, and I am not the first.”32 By saying “if I were free,” she was showing her occasional desire to remove herself from the trials of marriage to Francesco, and by saying that she would not have been as upset if she were free and had lost three times as much, she was playing down the importance of losing the ring. Another quarrel was over the sour juice (agresto, English verjuice) kept available for cooking. Francesco said he had been told that Margherita had carelessly let water get into it, even though she had a lot of women to help her avoid that: “God give you the grace to realize that I have lost all hope in you.”33 These were harsh words, and Margherita fired back: “I don’t know why you ask me about the agresto, because if I were to tell you the truth, you wouldn’t believe me.” To back her up, she called on the evidence of those who had been there with her—the servant Nanni, the apprentice Guido, and several female servants. If the agresto had gone bad, she wrote, he should blame the defective barrel, not her. Her sister Francesca could tell him that not a drop had been lost from the juice that they had sent to Florence three years ago. If this barrel had leaked, she contended, the fault was his, not hers, “because this very year I told you many times to cork it up well, and you corked it so expertly that half of it leaked out (but you stayed quiet about it that morning because it was your doing).34

Margherita and Francesco did not spend all their time in disagreement. She was involved in obtaining and caring for staples for the household—grain, flour, pigeons, wine, and oil—and that usually went smoothly. The Datini mostly bought oil but grew grain, for flour, and grapes, for wine, on their lands Page 70 → at Palco, Romita, and elsewhere. The farms in Palco and Filettole, with which Margherita had most contact, were small, but Francesco consolidated some at Romita and elsewhere, showing he was interested in rationalizing farming techniques. In both cases, the workers sometimes rented the lands and sometimes sharecropped them. A few of the workers, particularly Nanni di Martino from Palco, who became the husband of the former slave Lucia, also acted as servants in other ways.35 As for grain, Margherita mentioned the weeding and the harvesting of wheat and barley in the fields, followed by threshing the grain and gathering the straw.36 Francesco wrote to Margherita about the weeding, giving her discretion in the matter: “See to everything as seems best to you.”37 The Datini employees would take the grain to the mill to be ground, but often they did not do so immediately, storing grain in the Datini palazzo and later storing the resultant flour. When the grain contained dust, Margherita brought in a professional sifter, saying that she made sure the sifter did it carefully. She would send the sifted grain to the mill in such a way, she reported, that the oldest was used up first.38 Sometimes the Datini had to supplement the grain they grew with grain they bought. Barzalone had responsibility for large purchases, since Francesco traded in grain as he did in other commodities. However, Margherita had a role in getting grain for household use: in two letters, she told Francesco he did not need to come to Prato to buy grain, because she would take care of it.39 Grain could be scarce. Margherita wrote that she had planned to send a batch of grain intended for the Prato household to the mill to be ground, but since she could not find any additional grain for the Florentine household at a reasonable price, she was going to send the batch to Francesco in Florence instead.40 Another time, she wrote that she had been promised some grain by the hospital but that the hospital official had taken back his promise and now said the hospital had no grain to sell. The official came to the Datini residence to discuss it, and Margherita told him that if he did not wish to give her grain, he should give her the money he owed the Datini, so that she could use it to buy grain elsewhere. She assured Francesco, “I will try to get the grain if I can.”41 People’s indebtedness to Francesco helped Margherita get what she wanted. The Datini grew most of their vegetables and bought most of their meat. They also gathered frogs and mushrooms as delicacies.42 A source of protein they raised themselves was pigeon, mostly kept in a dovecote near Palco. Pigeon was a favorite food, more appreciated than chicken. Margherita wrote that Page 71 → she had sent Francesco eight pairs of pigeons and that they had also eaten seven pairs in Prato. With her customary bite, she said that she had told him there were only a few pigeons because she was not a boaster like Saccente and Fattorino.43 Sometimes they had to wait until baby pigeons grew up before they could eat them, and then she could not send any to Francesco in Florence until they did.44 Other times they had enough to sell: Francesco once suggested that she consult with Barzalone or whomever she wished about whether to sell the pigeons, and six weeks later, the birds not having been sold, Francesco wrote that she should do what seemed best to her, not mentioning consultation.45 The Datini also gave pigeons away to those whose friendship they wanted to cultivate, but it did not always work out: Francesco, in Prato, sent to Margherita, in Florence, eight pigeons that were in such wretched condition, Margherita said, that they were not good enough to be presented to anyone of note; she gave them away to the poor.46 Margherita valued charity, but in everyday life, it came after winning friends. Wine was a basic part of the Datini diet, and Margherita thought the malvasia wine they made was beneficial to her health.47 Although Francesco regularly bought and sold other people’s wine in Prato and Florence as part of his business, the Datini also made and sold their own from grapes they grew on their lands, and sometimes they gave it to friends.48 When a friend of the notary Ser Chimenti asked him to request from the Datini some Sicilian wine, which the friend had heard the Datini had, Chimenti insisted that it was enough to send wine from the flask the Datini were already drinking. However, Margherita was determined to open a new barrel: “I did it my way and opened the barrel that we will drink next and had two flasks filled from it. . . . You cannot go wrong by being on good terms with everyone.”49 The wine-making process began with cuttings of grape plants grown at Palco, at Filettole, and in other fields.50 Margherita reported that the worker Schiatta told her that unless the vine cuttings were put in correctly, they

would be lost. The way to do it, Schiatta said, was to make a little ditch around each cutting and fill it with pigeon manure. Margherita invited Schiatta to the palazzo to eat with her so that they could discuss it over the meal, indicating the wide range of people she dealt with, always on Francesco’s behalf: “I recommended our vines to him. He seems fond of you and will serve you willingly.”51 After the cultivation and harvesting of the grapes, they fermented the wine. Sometimes they had professional wine tasters come in, but Barzalone had special skills as well. Margherita, Francesco, and Niccolò di Piero also expressed Page 72 → their opinions. They had to judge whether the wine was mature enough to drink and its quality. If it was mature but of inferior quality, they reserved it for the family, selling the best wine, although they kept some good wine for company.52 The wine also had to be preserved correctly. One time, Francesco wondered if the batch they had sent to him in Florence had deteriorated since he had earlier tasted it at Prato. Margherita, protecting herself against criticism, said she did not think it had changed. She had had her doubts about it even at the original tasting but had not wanted to seem finicky.53 Francesco’s interest in Palco, a few kilometers north of the city along the River Bisenzio, extended to more than the grain and grapes produced there. He wanted a villa retreat for relaxation and for entertaining. There was already a small house there to which he invited visitors as early as 1392, and he began building an elaborate villa in 1393.54 Ser Lapo Mazzei, in jest, called Francesco “Messer the Count of Palco,” playing on Francesco’s pride in Palco.55 While it was being built, friends commented on Francesco’s unmeasured behavior, his working outdoors all day in person, ignoring heat and cold, food and drink, alongside workmen he feared would cheat him, in a state of displeasure and worry.56 Margherita was with Francesco during most of this time and thus wrote few observations about his actions. However, she said she had heard that the tax assessors were after him, and she worried that it was because he spent so much time in Palco that they thought the villa was going to be valuable enough to warrant raising his taxes. In fact, Francesco did continue to embellish it and modify it until it was worth as much as his town house, one thousand florins.57 The villa is still there to be seen, much modified, but attractive. The villa’s roof was put on in the summer of 1395, and the interior was ready to be decorated by some of the same artists who had worked on the palazzo, with their work including a frescoed tabernacle by Arrigo di Niccolò depicting a crucifix flanked by the Virgin Mary and San Giovanni.58 Once the villa was more or less completed, Francesco felt able to go away to Florence and return to his business dealings there. The couple’s letters discuss the activities that still continued at the villa, Margherita mentioning that that week she had gone to Palco two or three times a day.59 Margherita kept the key to the villa in her possession, handing it out as needed.60 She had a role in getting bricks, mortar, and lumber for projects for the villa, its gardens, and the gardens of the palazzo in Prato, the latter also being elaborated at the same time. She firmly expressed her opinions, not keeping them to herself, about brick making, buying wood, and Francesco’s behavior, even if she Page 73 → did not always get her way. Margherita enjoyed demonstrating her competence and volunteered to take on greater responsibility than many women would have done. Francesco, as a result, showed that he had confidence in her and trusted her abilities, even if his cantankerous character prevented him from telling her so. In 1394, Francesco thought it would be cheaper to make both bricks and mortar in a kiln of their own rather than buying them from Monna Melina (a woman, probably a widow, who ran a brick-making kiln), and he decided to ask an employee, Nannino, to do it.61 Francesco wanted to bring in a professional kiln man to teach Nannino to fire bricks, the kiln man in the meantime staying at the kiln site with his family. Margherita reported that she had spoken to Nannino and that he had agreed to the job. But she opposed the idea of bringing in a professional, partly because of the expense of supporting him and his family, and partly because she believed he would do a bad job of teaching Nannino, since the kiln man would want to keep the Datini business for himself and would see Nannino as a rival. She said Francesco should instead look for a local boy to be a little kiln man, a boy with experience with kilns who could be with Nannino for several months until Nannino learned. Francesco did not accept Margherita’s argument but agreed with her that he should tell the kiln man to leave his family at home, so they did not have to support them all.62 The whole plan apparently came to nothing, because letters from 1397 and 1398 show that the Datini continued to buy bricks and mortar from outside professionals.

Margherita had more success in getting her way in building an attic room at the villa. Francesco had put it in her charge, telling her, “I have written to Barzalone that he should do what you tell him. Do as seems best to you and you cannot err.”63 Generally, Margherita and Barzalone were equals, under Francesco, with somewhat different activities, but in this case, she was the superior, at Francesco’s request. The master carpenter they used was Cristofano di Ser Francia, of whom Francesco had a negative opinion, describing him as crazy, liable to destroy everything he touched, and disrespectful and disloyal. Francesco thought they should fire him and his men, but he left it up to Margherita to do what she wanted until Francesco arrived.64 When Cristofano asked for money beyond what he was owed, Margherita said that he would not have done that if he really wanted to work for them. She informed Cristofano that Francesco had told her not to give extra money to anyone, calling on Francesco’s authority to convey her own opinion.65 She nonetheless chose to keep Cristofano working for them, and a couple of years later, she recommended that Francesco treat Cristofano well. Page 74 → She thought Francesco needed to improve his own behavior in the matter. She begged Francesco to accept from people what he could get from them and not always to consume himself with changing them, advising him, “It costs too much fatigue to change people from their own nature.”66 Margherita, left in charge, had no hesitation about directing Barzalone’s purchase of wood for the attic room. She recounted that Barzalone had gone that morning to look at boards needed for it and that he had not come to an agreement about it because he had so much fear of paying too much that he did nothing. Margherita thought he was being too cautious. She asked the carpenter Cristofano di Ser Francia how much they were being overcharged for the wood, and he said by twenty or twenty-four soldi. Margherita decided not to reject the sale for such a small amount, as it would prevent the attic from being built. She sent Barzalone back there in the evening and had him buy the boards. She did it, she wrote, for a good purpose, because the attic room was needed as a place for the servant Domenica to sleep and as a place to store straw.67 More negotiations took place about the wood for the attic that Cristofano di Ser Francia was to build. Margherita wrote that she had sent for one Antonio Michochi to meet with her at the palazzo so that she could tell him what wood supports they needed for the attic. She had been told previously that he could deliver the supports immediately, but he now said that those who would bring the supports needed two days’ notice because they were in the middle of something else. Michochi told Margherita that she should realize that it was not Michochi himself who had promised the wood supports to her and that the one who had promised them could not bring them at present. However, Michochi thought it could be arranged so that Cristofano di Ser Francia would have what he needed.68 The response of Francesco, in Florence, showed his suspicious outlook: Antonio Michochi had been with Francesco three times and told him each time that Antonio’s friend had promised to bring the boards that day or the next. He instructed Margherita to tell Cristofano to watch that they did not give him bad boards. She was to make sure that the clerk Fattorino noted it all down in detail in the account book and that Cristofano did not cheat Francesco. Francesco’s explanation could be taken as his motto: “You see how things are nowadays: each man betrays the other. Keep your eyes open with everyone and you cannot err.”69 Francesco was still worrying about boards for the attic a year later, although perhaps different boards. He wrote that since Antonio Michochi had not delivered Page 75 → the boards or the supports, Margherita should send for Antonio and inform him how much Francesco had been inconvenienced. He advised that Margherita should then list other things Francesco wanted to buy from Antonio, varying the list according to what Antonio said, implying that she should give Antonio more work if he answered well.70 By 1398, the villa was complete enough for local and Florentine dignitaries to come and view it. In June, the Florentine podesta (the Florentine government representative in Prato) and his retinue went to see the villa one afternoon. Margherita reported that she and Niccolò di Piero bought a lot of sweets (with the plan of keeping any left over for themselves) and oranges and beautiful cherries. They provided white wine they had bought from a friend and some of their own white wine, as well as bread, napkins, and everything that was necessary. Niccolò di Piero, Barzalone, and other friends were there to converse with the guests. Margherita did not attend. Niccolò offered the Datini mules to the guests for transport, which they accepted with appreciation because their own mounts were in Florence.71

Villa life could be pleasant, and the Datini spent a lot of time there in later years. However, the impressive villa was also isolated enough to be vulnerable to thieves, and the Datini made sure someone slept there at all times to guard it. An employee called Montepulciano had been too frightened to sleep when he had been there alone. The servant Domenica and her family, who would sleep there later, had no such worries.72 Serious trouble had arisen in the spring of 1397, when there was an invasion by Pisan forces, which were allied with the Milanese duke Gian Galeazzo Visconti in his war against Florence. Freelance companies of mercenaries, such as the one led by the Englishman Sir John Hawkwood, were the scourge of Tuscany in the late fourteenth century.73 Palco suffered from the attentions of the condottiere Alberico da Barbiano and his men, hired by Pisa to harass the territory between Siena and Florence, and the soldiers moved through the countryside stealing wheat, cattle, and horses and taking prisoners.74 Francesco, in Florence, told Margherita, Barzalone, and Niccolò di Piero to clear all the Datini belongings from Palco and lay off the workers in order to save expense, since Francesco’s taxes were going to be raised to pay for the Florentine troops. Francesco also feared that the war would cause business to suffer so much that he and other merchants would be undone. Margherita responded that they had emptied Palco of their possessions and laid off the workers as he requested.75 Francesco’s plans sounded hardhearted, but he was actually generous at this Page 76 → time toward those in need, believing, he told Margherita, that “these are times to earn one’s way into Heaven.” He told her, “Do what you think best and don’t think about avarice: You will render God good merit here.” But he cautioned, “Watch, however, that you spend wisely.”76 The troops moved away from Palco toward Siena after two months. However, dangers in the countryside made it safer for the Datini’s life to stay centered in Prato. In any case, Prato was Margherita’s base of operations, the center from which she organized all her activities in Prato and its vicinity. These included writing and economic activities described in the following chapter.

Page 77 →

CHAPTER 6 Dictating Letters and Accounts, Collecting Loans The Datini palazzo was a place of business as well as a residence. In addition to her letters to Francesco and to sorting and delivering letters sent to various people in Prato,1 Margherita oversaw a scribal correspondence. Thus she told Francesco in 1394, when he was away from Prato for a particularly long time and unable to take care of letter writing there, “As for my secretary’s handwriting becoming worse each day, I am sorry, but you should not be surprised, because he is directed by a woman. You have left me so much to do that there would be more than enough for a man; the secretary of the Signoria never had so much to do as mine. We respond to everything as needed, but we will not be able to do it for much longer, because it is making our heads swirl, my secretary’s and mine.”2 In the above passage, she humorously uses the word chancelliere (chancellor) for her scribe, which I have chosen, for simplicity, to translate as “secretary.” By using this word, Margherita turned her writing table into an official place like the Florentine chancery or record office. She stated that, as a woman, she was less able to direct the employee or take care of correspondence than a man (and especially than a chancellor), but her comment is said rather lightheartedly, without specifying whether she thinks her deficiencies came from innate female traits or lack of practice. Most important, Margherita carried on an extensive, often daily correspondence with Francesco, usually working in the beautifully frescoed downstairs writing room. (see fig. 5). She also worked sometimes in the master bedroom, which had a nook with a desk where the scribe could sit.3 The letters between Margherita and Francesco included personal passages, but the basic purpose of Page 78 → the exchange was utilitarian. Francesco regularly sent Margherita ricordanze, or memoranda, as part of his letters, telling her what she, the apprentices, the farmworkers, and the servants needed to do in Prato, and she would then distribute tasks among them. Margherita became upset if Francesco gave her too many detailed instructions, saying that it made it seem as if he had little confidence in her. However, Francesco mostly expected her to judge, in his absence, which actions were suitable, telling her that he would be content if she did what seemed best to her.4 About 11 of Francesco’s 181 letters to Margherita are nonpersonal group letters, written not only to her but to the employees as well.5 In the same way, many of Margherita’s letters made varying degrees of use of the word noi, “we,” rather than io, “I,” with the “we” letters always referring to Francesco with the plural voi, her operative assumption being that she was writing to a group. Letter writing was basic to Margherita’s life, yet she could not read or write beyond an elementary level until the later 1390s, with other people reading letters aloud to her as well as writing letters for her. Nonetheless, as mentioned in chapter 2, she took pride in her good dictation and was determined that Francesco and others realize that her letters were in her own words and not those of others, even though she was speaking the words and not writing them.6 Her dependence on scribes can serve as a reminder that inability to carry on an autograph correspondence did not mean inability to send or receive letters, since people often had others write for them, with autograph writing and the dictation (composing) of letters being viewed as two separate skills in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. In fact, autograph writing before the sixteenth century was considered a mechanical and professional procedure, beneath the dignity of nobles and unnecessary for most laywomen.7 Even the name of the medieval ars dictaminis, the art of letter writing, which provided rules for composing good letters, implied that it was dictating or composition that was important, not penmanship.8 Those who could write well used scribes, too, when their correspondence was too large to handle personally, whether it was political correspondence or business correspondence. Although Francesco was a prolific autograph writer, he used clerks for ordinary communications, and many of Francesco’s letters to Margherita about domestic matters can be called routine. Only 43 of Francesco’s 181 surviving letters to his wife are autographed, with the rest dictated by Francesco to employees, copied by employees from his scrawled originals, or, occasionally,

composed by an employee from a list of subjects.9 Page 79 → Page 80 → Much of the correspondence Margherita sent to people other than Francesco would have been routine letters sent in his name and probably involved Margherita’s organizing the recopying of rough drafts as much as organizing the composing of original letters.10 However, Datini Online lists eighty-one surviving letters to and from Margherita herself, aside from her correspondence with Francesco, including seventy-four letters to Margherita and seven letters from her (letters to her are much more likely to have been preserved than letters from her). This figure is an underestimate, as quite a few letters written to Margherita are mentioned but no longer exist. The addresses of other letters to Margherita that survive have not her name but Francesco’s and, in a few cases, Niccolò Tecchini’s. There are also a number of letters addressed to both Francesco and Margherita. 11 Taking the eighty-one letters to and from Margherita together because of a similar mix of correspondents, there are twenty-four to and from relatives; twenty-nine to and from friends, including the domestic circle of business associates, their families, and neighbors; nine from social contacts;12 five from employees; and nine practical letters about cloth transactions and medical matters. Thirty-one of the eighty-one letters are from women. The preservation of relatively unimportant women’s letters, mostly aimed at keeping in touch or about minor practical matters, is evidence of not only the exceptionally full nature of the Datini archive but also an active correspondence among women, whether or not they could write in their own hand. Letter writing was a frequent grease used for smoothing social relations. Lack of literacy did not limit female correspondents in a society in which the personal touch was important and scribes were easily available. From the large Strozzi collection in the Archivio di Stato in Florence, one would never know that such a correspondence existed among women, because successive generations of Strozzi who collected the Strozzi manuscripts culled letters considered insignificant.13 In addition to letters, Margherita dealt with other documents. For example, at a time when she could hardly read and write herself, she showed that she could judge the quality of handwriting. At issue were three notarized documents that were supposed to have been delivered to their recipients but had not been. Francesco asked Margherita to take the documents and his letters about the documents to his business associates and discuss with them what should be done. Margherita sent two letters to Francesco about this subject on the same day, with the apprentice Fattorino’s personal voice breaking through in one of the letters. Fattorino said that when Monna Margherita saw these writings, she Page 81 → decided that only two were written well enough to pass on. Margherita had the defective letter recopied, so that it was fit to hand over. Margherita also sent Francesco advice about how to deal with other aspects of the problem.14 It is worth noting that, in this case, Margherita went in person to discuss the matter, rather than having Francesco’s partners come to her, and also that she was competent to evaluate documents by appearance rather than content, even if she could not read them (particularly because they were in Latin). In the Datini “chancellory” that Margherita managed in Francesco’s absence, account keeping was at least as important as writing.15 It was one of Margherita’s jobs to see that expenses were entered into account books about the Prato and Florentine businesses. Francesco told Margherita to have the apprentice write the expenses carefully day by day, “so that no error is made with anyone.”16 For example, Francesco instructed Margherita to make up the account for Nanni da Santa Chiara, who was part of a transport company the Datini used to take things back and forth to Florence. She should make sure that it was written each evening, in long form and not short, so that it was easily understandable: it should say that Nanni da Santa Chiara went to Florence and took such and such a thing with him and picked up such and such a thing from such and such a person, according to what Nanni told her he had done.17 Accounts about loans played a large role. Margherita wrote to Francesco that she had posted what she knew about Mastriscia’s purchases in the account book, noting, “But you did not say whether he should pay in cash and what the term of the loan is. Tell me quickly: Mastriscia says four months; is that true?”18 Such account keeping could cause Margherita worries. One time, she mentioned that she had credited five moggia of grain to Antonio di Zarino’s account, for grain he had delivered to the Datini in order to repay part of forty florins he had borrowed

from Francesco to pay his tax in Florence. However, Niccolò di Piero and Barzalone said Antonio claimed he had delivered seven moggia. Margherita told them that she had not seen two more delivered but that perhaps Francesco had unloaded the other two himself. Niccolò and Barzalone told her to inform Francesco about it so that he would know that any error was not her fault.19 Since Francesco’s business depended on careful accounting, Margherita, with Niccolò and Barzalone’s encouragement, wanted to protect herself. She wanted to be accurate not only because of concern about Francesco’s reaction but because she herself valued accuracy. Margherita received a steady stream of workaday callers, including the man who delivered the grain. One of Margherita’s jobs was counting out payments Page 82 → to manual workers and putting the money in their hands, both when Francesco was absent and sometimes when he was present. These were salary payments and small loans. Although it is impossible to know if Margherita could read and write numbers during the years when her skill with words was weak, it is likely that numeracy was more widespread in the general population than literacy, and Margherita certainly already counted with facility.20 The occasional loans made to workers raises the issue of debt collecting, the subject of the following pages. Although Francesco was generous to humble employees whose trust he wanted to keep, rarely charging them interest,21 he charged interest on numerous other loans. Lending money for profit was one aspect of his multifaceted business operations, the loans being made through the Florentine firm Francesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Company, with its Prato activities centered in the Datini palace and dealt with by Margherita when Francesco was absent.22 Lending money and charging interest was widespread in late medieval and renaissance Tuscany.23 Francesco’s attitude and Margherita’s, too, was that the borrower had made a promise that he or she should fulfill. As Francesco wrote, “Let it please God to put in everyone’s heart that they do what they should.”24 Furthermore, a loan was a favor that should be returned with a token of gratitude for having been granted the use of the money.25 In the eyes of the church, on the contrary, loans should be freely given out of charity, and any gain from such a transaction was the result of the sin of avarice (although it should be pointed out that charging interest was never illegal in civil law, only in church law). The church’s position would not soften until later in the fifteenth century and later still outside Italy.26 However, there were numerous debates about the subject among theologians, which led to a lack of clarity about what was allowable. Francesco, like most merchants, was a believer who feared for his soul and yet, at the same time, was determined to continue lending money—loans, it might be added, that from a broader economic perspective were necessary to keep the economy functioning at a time of cash shortage. Therefore, Francesco, like others, made use of techniques developed to get around usury rules. Two of these methods were primarily for business loans: the bill of exchange, purporting to be a currency transfer, but with the amount of the interest included in the exchange; and the “discretionary” loan, which skirted usury rules by having the borrower pay “at his discretion” a sum beyond the original amount. Margherita dealt with consumer loans, for which the most likely method of charging interest was simply to write an Page 83 → amount in the account book that was larger than the original loan, with the parties involved having agreed by word of mouth that the excess was interest.27 Nonetheless, the Datini sometimes mentioned the interest charge outright or hid it in accounts in such a way that it can be easily calculated.28 Francesco saw a distinction between harmful subsistence loans, with high interest charged on the backs of the poor, and working loans, money lent for business investment. Jews, as non-Christians, were allowed to charge interest, but even though, in theory, Christian businessmen were not, the courts rarely punished them for usury.29 Nonetheless, some of Francesco’s friends worried that his reputation would suffer when he opened an investment bank in Florence in 1398, which, unlike his ordinary loan business, took deposits from those who had surplus cash and lent that money to others as “discretionary” loans, that is, with disguised interest. According to his friends’ way of thinking, being a merchant who sold goods, even if he lent money on the side, was more honorable than being a banker or money changer—a common view that led big bankers like the Strozzi and Medici to be merchant bankers, who sold goods as well as lending money. Francesco’s principal defense to himself and others was one encouraged by the church: he was not acting from greed, since he was going to leave all his money to the poor.30

Nonetheless, Francesco’s conscience was uneasy. He had a strong sense of sin, and whenever things went wrong, he believed God was punishing him. It is likely that he was referring to dubious business practices and not, for example, to an illegitimate child when he wrote, “If I had done and do what I should, this would not have happened, but I have done and do what I should not, and I accept the punishment, which comes to one who does what he should not.” God was punishing Francesco for Francesco’s own good, not because Francesco deserved God’s consideration, but because of His mercy.31 Margherita’s conscience seemed clear, even though she was heavily involved with the loans. She, like Francesco, thought people should pay their debts, and perhaps that conviction was enough for her. More likely, she saved her doubts for her confessor; she certainly believed she had sins to atone for, judging by the penitential fasting she did during Lent.32 Besides, everything she did was part of her job as a loyal wife, and a wife should carry out her husband’s wishes, unless his demands were clearly wrong, and neither she nor Francesco, despite qualms, thought that was the case with charging interest. As regards debt collecting itself, Margherita had a role in developing strategies to get debtors to pay. Women had little opportunity to be players in the Page 84 → formal economy, but they could be active agents for others, as was Margherita, and thus women could have an economic impact beyond what has generally been recognized.33 The Datini were faced with many recalcitrant debtors, and, not surprisingly, the law supported the creditors, the Datini, and not the debtors. Thus Francesco asked Margherita to dispatch an associate to beg the podesta, the Florentine government representative in Prato, to send for two of their debtors and not allow them to leave until they had signed an agreement to pay what they owed Francesco. He explained that the podesta should do this because, among other things, “what I ask for is just.”34 As a woman, Margherita could not act directly in government business, but she could send others to do so. Margherita made small loans herself to needy employees. She also had a role in collecting debts when Francesco was delayed for long periods in Florence, although, in difficult cases, she could consult with Niccolò di Piero and Barzalone.35 She seemed to undertake this task with considerable energy and with greater enthusiasm than she showed for entertaining dignitaries in the Datini palace.36 Francesco told her, “Try to collect money from anyone who owes it, just as I would if I were there,”37 and, “I am pleased that Antonio di Forese gave you twenty-five florins. Solicit the rest, although I don’t think it is due until the end of this month. Have Nanni record it, and advise me if [Antonio] gives you more.”38 Margherita should perform this task, he said, “in a way that will bring you honor,”39 honor here being used in the sense of doing a job well. Francesco was ignoring the fact that many people considered such money lending dishonorable for moral reasons (based on profit, as it was, and therefore greed), especially for a woman whose efforts required associating with unrelated men. Margherita occasionally went out to collect money in person from people she knew, for example, going to Nanni di Messer Arrigo to collect money he owed for cloth he had bought.40 However, Margherita usually depended on others to go, especially the notary Ser Chimenti, who had primary responsibility for collecting debts in person when Francesco was away. Margherita struggled to keep Ser Chimenti working. When Ser Chimenti, understandably, expressed unwillingness to deal with the debtors, Margherita reassured him that if he did it this time, Francesco would do it another time, indicating that Francesco often went in person: “I told him that if no one does it, we will lose the money through our negligence. Lodovico and the other debtors gave him their word.”41 When Francesco complained that the debt collecting was going slowly, Margherita answered that she could move no faster than Ser Chimenti wished; she reminded Ser Chimenti every day.42 Page 85 → Since Ser Chimenti was dragging his feet, Francesco instructed Margherita to call some of the debtors to the Datini house, including one who owed forty florins for a payment made for his daughter’s dowry. Francesco said that Margherita should gather what money she could from them, “using the good words that you have at your disposal if you think they are needed.”43 Here and elsewhere, Francesco expressed his opinion that Margherita had a talent for persuading people with suitable words. His comments indicate that he, too, tried to phrase requests in the most effective way and that he was pleased that Margherita was adept at it—a noteworthy observation because he was generally stingy with his praise of Margherita. His attitude is also noteworthy because moralists

praised women for their silence, whereas he praised Margherita for speaking well, suggesting that in everyday life, silence was not expected, and facility at using language was appreciated.44 Margherita put forward to Ser Chimenti a strategy for seeking payment that, she said, pleased him because it gave him a good excuse for requesting money. She told Chimenti that it was best to collect the debts while Francesco was still away, because he could say that Francesco had had no opportunity to send funds for the household in Prato and that the debtors’ payments were needed to pay household expenses.45 Sometimes, though, Margherita was supposed to convey Francesco’s anger, in order to frighten a debtor. For example, Margherita was to tell one Michele that Francesco would be in Prato soon and that Michele would do well to give Margherita the money before Francesco came, because Francesco was tired of being led on with words. Margherita was to give Michele this message in the way that she thought it needed to be said, using the words she thought best.46 Margherita could personally go out and gather information about debtors, and she did so in 1394 to find out the status of Lodovico di Ser Iacopo Villani, who, although he came from a wealthy family and although Francesco sometimes found him a useful contact, nonetheless owed the Datini 150 florins.47 Lodovico had promised he would pay what he owed, and he did pay the occasional small sum, but Francesco thought he would have to take Lodovico to court to obtain the rest.48 Margherita heard that Lodovico was in prison, she thought probably for debt, and she wanted to be able to inform Francesco about the facts. She therefore went and asked their neighbor, the lawyer Messer Piero Rinaldeschi, whether Lodovico could legally be rejailed for debt once he was released. Messer Piero told her that Lodovico was not in jail for debt and that the charges against him could not be stretched to include debt. He was in prison Page 86 → because he and his brother had badly beaten up a man who had said hostile things about the rich at a Prato government council meeting; government meetings were supposed to be free of such strife.49 Apparently Lodovico considered himself to be among the rich. Francesco thought Margherita could shame Lodovico into paying by making a visit to the women in Lodovico’s family: “Speak with his wife and his sister-in-law even if you have to go to their house, and tell them about . . . the four or five ships I have at sea that contain half of what we possess, and if God does not aid us, we will be ruined.” Francesco again showed his belief in Margherita’s speaking talents: “Don’t let the good words burn your mouth.” It was best to finish the matter while the Datini were at financial risk, rather than returning to it later.50 Margherita was to use a dual strategy: the personal touch and the news that economic disaster was on the horizon for the Datini. The economic difficulty, while true at that moment, was a frequent problem in business, which here took care of itself successfully. The Datini were still lending Lodovico money in 1397, almost three years later, this time the very large sum of fourteen hundred florins. The matter was apparently left in Margherita’s hands. She, in Prato, sent a letter to the apprentice Fattorino in Florence, saying, “Remind Stoldo about the ricordanza I gave you saying that Lodovico di Ser Jacopo is to receive fourteen hundred florins for a year at 8 percent, giving the interest in advance.”51 Margherita’s message is notable for its open reference to the interest to be paid and for the fact that she wrote it at a time when Francesco was with her in Prato and could have written it himself. Neither Fattorino, Francesco, nor Stoldo mention this transaction in their letters written around this date,52 although it could probably be found in an account book—possibly with the interest charge hidden. Margherita sent a letter to Francesco several months later that may be relevant to interpreting the aforementioned ricordanza and that seems to indicate that she thought Francesco had turned the matter of Lodovico’s loan over to her, as he had the building of the attic at their Palco villa.53 She wrote that Barzalone and the notary Ser Schiatta had told her of their plan to talk to Lodovico about the money Lodovico owed Francesco; she had told Barzalone that she thought Francesco wanted her to speak to Lodovico about it. Still smarting from an insult Francesco had made about her intelligence, she went on, “Since I have such a tiny brain, I would not like to make a mistake.” She specified that she would not speak to Lodovico unless Francesco wrote another time and told her to do so.54 Page 87 → Although there is no sign that the Datini liked or sympathized with Lodovico di Ser Iacopo, there were debtors

with whom they did. Francesco willingly lent more money to people high on the social scale than he received back, as part of his cultivation of contacts.55 Furthermore, Francesco’s mild treatment of his manual workers has already been mentioned. He was also willing to delay when someone had a true expectation of receiving money that could be used to pay later, as when Francesco told Margherita to wait until one man finished selling his cloth. He was sometimes willing to take repayment in goods, such as veal or cloth.56 There are two instances from 1394 where personal relations played an important role in debt collecting. In the first, Margherita told Francesco that Ser Chimenti had seized for debt a blacksmith, a relative of one Matteo, who was, in turn, a relative of the Datini’s friend, the notary Ser Lapo Mazzei.57 Matteo denounced Ser Chimenti, claiming that Ser Chimenti had apprehended the blacksmith and other debtors without Francesco’s permission, in order to rob people for Ser Chimenti’s own profit.58 People came to tell Margherita about the incident, indicating that Matteo had fallen into disrepute in the community because of his harsh words. Those who brought the news to Margherita said that Matteo, who, like almost everyone, owed Francesco money, had recently received a great sum from Carmignano that he was not handing over to Francesco as he should, although others thought that, in fact, Matteo had very little money. Francesco did not want to demand the money Matteo owed, out of love for Ser Lapo, and Margherita opined that if the little fish, ordinary people, could speak, they would say Matteo had beguiled Francesco.59 Soon afterward, Matteo visited Margherita, claiming that his words had been misinterpreted. He had always wanted to be and continued to want to be like Francesco’s son. Margherita reported that she accepted what Matteo said, considering what he was to Ser Lapo, and answered him as best she could.60 There was also communication between Margherita and Francesco about money owed by Monna Simona Rinaldeschi, wife of the Messer Piero mentioned above. The Datini had many contacts with the Rinaldeschi, who were their next-door neighbors, and with their daughter Caterina.61 Francesco wanted Margherita to visit Monna Simona to talk about Simona’s debt to him: “When the right time comes, speak to her, as if it comes from you [from Margherita and not Francesco], in the tactful way that occurs to you.”62 In another letter, Francesco wrote, “Speak to her in a friendly manner, saying, ‘Monna Simona, Page 88 → Francesco loves your family like you are our sister and brother, . . . and thus he wants to conserve the friendship, and we should all do our duty to one another.’” Once the subject had been raised, Francesco said, Monna Simona could be expected to tell Margherita about how she planned to pay.63 Margherita replied that she had not yet had the opportunity to speak to Monna Simona, because Margherita had never found her alone so that she could discuss it thoroughly. She had touched on it a little, but not as much as she would like, because she had not had the leisure. “When I am ready, I will tell her what seems appropriate,”64 she wrote, indicating that Margherita would use her own judgment about when it would be a good time to address the subject. It is uncertain why Monna Simona owed the money, although Francesco says the debt was small. Perhaps Francesco had paid Simona in advance for cloth Simona had woven and sent to Florence for him to sell (and for which he thought she was asking too high a price). Or perhaps it was for other things she had asked Francesco to buy for her in Florence.65 The case is interesting because the financial dealings were with a wife, Monna Simona, and not with her husband, Messer Piero, showing that their finances were, to some degree, independent. The case is also interesting because Monna Simona came from one of the best (although financially strapped) families in Prato and was weaving and selling cloth for money. Monna Lapa, Niccolò di Piero’s wife, wove for the family wool company, but that situation was more to be expected, since wool was the family business.66 Margherita sewed but did not weave; however, she did not need money and had plenty of other things to keep her busy. Apparently, weaving and selling cloth was a way for even elite women to earn money working at home. Some of the passages referenced above indicate that Margherita often went to Monna Simona and Messer Piero’s house. Some also show the Datini’s fondness for Ser Lapo Mazzei. However, the people for whom Margherita had most responsibility were those that lived in the Datini palazzo, as described in the following chapter.

Page 89 →

CHAPTER 7 The Family in Prato Francesco told Margherita, “Provide for the family in ways that brings you honor,” and she took this advice to heart. She had the responsibility of organizing the lives of relatives, teenaged business employees, servants, and transient visitors. All but the last were referred to as the famiglia, “family,” in accord with the medieval and renaissance use of that word to mean something like the modern “household”1—a usage that had the benefit of rendering Margherita’s childlessness less obvious. The children of Margherita’s sister Francesca and brother-in-law Niccolò dell’Ammanato Tecchini, who lived in Florence, spent long periods in Prato, providing the kinship element basic to our modern definition of the family. After 1394, there were two surviving Tecchini children: Tommaso, called Maso, born in 1384; and Caterina, called Tina as a child, born in 1385. Childhood mortality was high, and Niccolò’s correspondence describes his and Francesca’s worry about the illnesses and then the deaths of three of the boys of whom he had been so proud in 1381: Nanni died of plague in 1383, Pippo of a fever in 1385, and Meo of a prolonged fever in 1394. Margherita was at Meo’s bedside when he died, having gone to Florence to help her sister tend him. Margherita’s implied question to Francesco about whether he would rather have children who died or no children at all was a relevant one.2 Margherita and Francesco were both eager to have the Tecchini children with them, and the Tecchini, who had financial problems, benefited from having part of the expense of child rearing taken on by the Datini. Nonetheless, the Tecchini were careful to claim ownership, thinking, correctly, that Margherita and Francesco would have been happy to keep the children forever. Sometimes Page 90 → Niccolò asked Margherita and Francesco to send the children home when they had been away too long, although the father always asked apologetically, reflecting his weak position in relation to the wealthy Francesco.3 Sometimes the Tecchini said that it was not a good time to send the children to Prato, explaining that the children were at the villa of a relative, that they were too young to ride on horseback when a carriage was not available, or, once, that Maso was infested with lice and would be going to school when he was better.4 Another time, Niccolò said that Francesca had decided not to send Tina because Tina seemed too thin (being thin like her mother, Niccolò quipped, and not cheerfully plump like her father).5 Niccolò expressed the idea that being away from home could be harmful to a child: When Tina had a problem with her feet and legs that Margherita had a doctor cure by providing medicinal rinses, Niccolò remarked, imbedding humor in his comment, “That’s what happens when you take children from their mother, but not from their father, though Francesca does not believe me. If Tina had been at home, it would not have happened.”6 Tina was particularly in demand as a companion for Margherita and was often with her. The boys spent less time in Prato: Maso and, before his death, Meo were being prepared in Florence for business careers. Niccolò Tecchini mentioned that he was sending Maso to learn arithmetic in Florence, and Meo was being educated in letter writing, judging by Niccolò’s comment that Meo could not go to Prato at the same time as Niccolò, since Meo, no more than eight, had to deal with the letters that arrived in Niccolò’s absence. 7 (Even if Francesca had had the required skills, engaging Meo in letter writing was a way to educate him for his future.) The Datini correspondence reveals more about the lives of Tina, after age seven, and Francesco’s illegitimate daughter, Ginevra, after age six, than it does about the boys. Although the girls probably were learning household skills, they seem to have had a leisurely life in Prato. They were taught to read, which will be discussed in chapter 10. Chapter 10 will also say more about the boys’ education. Apparently Tina was something of a character. One time, Margherita reported to Francesco that she had sent Tina, probably accompanied by a servant, to the baptism of the servant Domenica’s baby, to which Tina had not wanted to go on foot. The girl said that if Francesco were there, he would have let her ride. Margherita sent her on foot

nonetheless, but Tina met one of the Datini employees along the way and cajoled him into taking her there on his mule. When someone at the baptism asked Tina whose daughter she was, she said she Page 91 → was the daughter of Francesco di Marco. Margherita made one of her wry digs at Francesco, commenting that the girl was even more arrogant than Francesco. It was because Francesco kept spoiling her.8 Tina was sometimes more modest, perhaps because the wealthy Francesco and Margherita struck her as more important than her own family. When the daughter of the Florentine podesta in Prato, Strozza Strozzi, and the daughter of the Datini’s friend Ser Lapo Mazzei visited Tina at the Datini’s, staying for dinner and spending the night, the podesta’s daughter and Ser Lapo’s daughter started bragging about their families. The podesta’s daughter proclaimed she was a member of the Strozzi, and Ser Lapo’s daughter said, “If you are a Strozzi, I am a Cavigliati” (Margherita was surprised to hear this claim). However, Tina said, “I am nothing,” which Margherita found amusing, since Tina’s family certainly came from a more elevated background than Ser Lapo’s and was arguably equal to the Strozzi in terms of bloodlines, if not in terms of wealth and power.9 When Tina was nine years old, Margherita, in Prato, told Francesco, in Florence, writing tongue in cheek, “Come quickly. Tina says she wants a husband.” Tina said she did not want to be at the Datini palazzo any longer, nor did she want to return to Florence. She wanted to have her own house in Prato.10 It is not unexpected that Tina would already be thinking of marriage, because there are indications that Niccolò was trying to arrange a match for her when she was ten, although nothing came of it.11 Tina’s parents and Margherita and Francesco saw the girl’s foibles as endearing, although it would be possible to see her less favorably. (Origo describes her as a “troublesome child.”)12 Her father, Niccolò, wrote that he and Francesca had laughed about the Datini’s description of Tina’s words and deeds, saying that he knew that Francesco and Margherita could not help but love her, since God has given her a pleasing nature. He did not think love blinded him when he heard about her intelligence and goodness.13 Margherita does mention one badly behaved girl who had to be kept strictly in line in order not to disgrace herself or her family, but no one suggested such a thing for Tina or Ginevra.14 Neither the Datini nor the Tecchini accepted for their girls the harsh strictures put forward by the preachers Giovanni Dominici and San Bernardino of Siena, who recommended that children be treated as slaves, kept at work, and beaten frequently, since lenience led to sin. San Bernardino warned the father that he would let children grow up in sin if they did not fear him, although he also said that children should fear the father and love the mother. The preachers wanted the raising of children beyond babyhood to be managed entirely by Page 92 → women for girls and by men for boys. According to Giovanni Dominici, parents should avoid smiling at their children of the opposite sex, lest sexual feelings be aroused before the child was old enough to recognize them. Girls should be kept under strict surveillance and away from contact with nonrelatives, because of their easily corrupted nature. San Bernardino even suggested that if continual hard work did not dampen a girl’s animal spirits, the mother should send for a barber to remove blood from her to calm her down.15 The preachers were medieval reformers of a sort, criticizing common behavior and trying to change the way most people acted. The preachers’ strictures were contrary to the more child-friendly attitudes developing under the influence of humanism in the fifteenth century, making the Datini ahead of their time or part of an opposing trend.16 At least when in Prato, Tina had a life of enjoyment rather than work. She mixed in the world, judging by her trip to the baptism, although it can be argued that fourteenth-century standards regarded servants as family. Furthermore, the men Niccolò and Francesco, father and uncle, were involved in Tina and Ginevra’s upbringing in a kindly way. Nonetheless, the loving attitude of Tina’s relatives did not mean they thought she should be spared discipline. Niccolò wrote, “I beg you and Margherita to correct her and castigate her, since I think she has need of it.”17 He did not specify how much spanking or beating would be involved in “castigation,” and he continued in a milder vein, telling Margherita and Francesco to remind Tina that she had promised her father to be good and that he would come and take her home if he heard she was disobedient. Francesco may have been harsher with the boys than he was with Caterina. Although he indulged Tina’s brother Meo with a fine horse and bridle when he visited, Francesco also said, during an earlier, nonfatal fever of Meo’s, that he hoped the illness would wipe away the boy’s bad behavior. The remedy recommended for bad behavior in working boys, including Tina’s brother

Maso when he worked for Francesco, was severe, as discussed below.18 Males had greater opportunities but also needed greater toughness. The Datini catered to Tina when she was in Prato. They had playthings for her sent from Florence and provided her with fine clothes. Niccolò wrote, “You have made Tina so pleased with herself that I don’t marvel that she wishes you well. You have dressed her nobly, and she speaks only of Francesco and Margherita.”19 Nonetheless, Margherita warned Francesco to avoid dressing Caterina in finery beyond her station in life. When Caterina was invited to the Florentine house of Strozza di Carlo Strozzi to visit with the podesta’s daughter, Page 93 → Francesco wanted to have Caterina’s best gown sent from Prato, one decorated with silver and with a silver belt. Margherita, whose social insight was more acute than Francesco’s, thought this a bad idea, although she said she would send the dress if Francesco still wanted it, respecting, as she usually did, a husband’s right to have his wishes carried out even if they were unwise. Margherita told Francesco that the gown Caterina already had with her in Florence was good enough for the condition of her financially unsuccessful father, Niccolò Tecchini. Since Strozza’s house in Florence was next to the Datini’s house there, Margherita had been able to observe that the Strozzi girl wore a gray gown that was no better than the one Caterina had with her and that had a belt no better than Caterina’s. She advised, “I am someone who, if I had a neighbor worthy of dressing his daughter better than mine, would be ashamed to dress [mine] in a more beautiful gown than hers.”20 In 1398, Caterina was no longer the only girl who frequented the Datini palace, and no more is heard of Tina’s antics or of a girl by that name. She became Caterina, surrogate older sister to Ginevra, Francesco’s illegitimate daughter, who was seven years Caterina’s junior, and the girls spent most of their time together whether in Prato or Florence. The Datini correspondence does not mention when Margherita learned about Ginevra or how Margherita reacted, but she had accepted the girl as part of the family by June 1398.21 For most of Ginevra’s early years, she had been with her wet nurse in Montelupo, but by the time she was three, Francesco had wanted her back, and Francesco sent a messenger to that effect to Montelupo in 1395. Piero di Strenna, the nurse’s husband, wrote that he and his wife loved Ginevra as much as if she were their own, and they begged that she be treated with kindness, because she was very afraid of leaving them.22 Her whereabouts during the three years before 1398 are unknown. By December 1398, Margherita, too, loved the girl. (See fig. 6 for a depiction of Margherita and Ginevra praying together.) One time, Margherita wrote to Francesco that she did not want to go to Florence, because Ginevra, in Prato, had a sore throat and had also fallen and hurt her head. It was necessary that Margherita be there to consult with the doctor about it every day. Also, Francesco knew that Ginevra obeyed no one but Margherita, with whom Ginevra was the best girl there ever was. Others in the household said that when Margherita was not there, Ginevra refused to do as she was told, although Margherita did not believe it. Later the same day, Margherita wrote to tell Francesco that the doctor said neither the sore throat nor the head injury was serious, although Page 94 → Page 95 → Margherita had been fearful about the sore throat. She did not need to tell Francesco that she treated and considered Ginevra as if she were her own, because he already knew it.23 Francesco sent a cymbal for Ginevra and Caterina to make music, and a lot of attention was given to their clothing. Margherita exercised her sewing skills for Ginevra, as she did for Caterina, remaking her and Francesco’s gowns for the girls.24 Margherita told Francesco, a merchant who sold cloth and accessories and was interested in the details of dress, that she had decided which buttons Francesco should get for Ginevra: they should be round and white, like those on Caterina’s gray overdress (cioppa), since the jacket (gubbia) was yellow. Another time, she said to send black shoes for Ginevra and white for Caterina. Ginevra’s illegitimacy was a serious flaw, but it did not cut her off from good society, and she needed to be well dressed to meet people who visited the Datini. She associated with at least one elite girl and probably more: for example, the daughter of the important Florentine Albertaccio Ricasoli paid a visit to Ginevra at the Datini palazzo in 1401.25 Both Francesco and Niccolò Tecchini would soon be turning their attention to finding the girls husbands. There was no interest in giving them the only alternative career, that of nun. If a girl was to marry, it had to be done at a suitable (i.e., very young) age and at a suitable social level, and there were challenges in arranging matches in

both Caterina and Ginevra’s cases. Ginevra’s possibilities were limited by her illegitimacy, and Caterina’s father had lost his money, without having provided a dowry for her. It would be up to Francesco to arrange the best outcomes available in both cases, as discussed in chapter 12. The famiglia in the Datini palace also included teenaged apprentices, or fattori, who worked for the Florentine, not the Prato, company, even though they were often in Prato.26 (As mentioned, Barzalone dealt with property, not merchant activities.) The most important fattori during the period 1394–98 were Guido di Sandro Pieri, who was from Prato, and Nanni di Luca Bencivenni, called Fattorino, who was from Florence. The youths moved between Prato and Florence, with one of them always with Margherita to write letters for her. Guido and Fattorino were in their early to middle teens then and would have been younger when they started. (Fattorino was called by the nickname “Little Factor” because he was not fully grown at the time he went to work for the Datini.) Guido and Fattorino wrote letters and kept accounts. However, they were also boys-of-all-work. For example, Francesco wrote from Florence that he wanted Guido to leave Prato and go to Florence to turn his hand to Page 96 → whatever he could do, and Fattorino wrote to Francesco that he could not go to Prato at a certain time because Margherita needed him to go here and there.27 While in Prato, they did outdoor building and farming work along with the manual workers, in addition to writing and account keeping, since outdoor work was often Francesco’s greatest concern in Prato. Two letters sent by Margherita to these fattori, one to Guido and one to Fattorino, survive. She there addresses the apprentices directly rather than through Francesco. In the letter to Guido, she expressed surprise that Guido wanted her to intervene with Francesco about something, saying that she could not do it right then; she also discussed a project Guido had been doing for the Datini, and she mentioned things that he should send her from Prato.28 The letter to Fattorino resembled the ricordanze, or list of tasks to be done, that Francesco habitually sent: the tasks included bottling wine; providing a mule as a favor to a Florentine friend; sending things to Prato, including Margherita’s gloves that, she said, Fattorino had damaged; inviting a visitor to Prato and deciding which mule the visitor should ride; and giving directions about lending fourteen hundred florins to Lodovico Villani.29 Guido, who would be a longtime merchant associate of Francesco’s in Florence until after Francesco’s death, was solid and personable, but the letters give little idea of his personality. Francesco said in his will of 1410 that he had raised Guido from his youth, and he left Guido five hundred florins to invest, with the capital to be returned to the estate at Guido’s death.30 Fattorino worked for Francesco until 1399. The Datini had contact with Fattorino’s parents in Florence, obtaining wine through his father and sending a sack of chamois leather to his mother for her to insert linings.31 Fattorino’s personality comes through in the correspondence more clearly than Guido’s, although not in a positive way. Margherita described him as inclined to exaggerate and boast.32 As already discussed, Fattorino made snide comments to the Datini servants about a religious pilgrimage that Margherita had taken from Florence to nearby Fiesole without notifying Francesco. Fattorino, on being questioned by Francesco for more information both about Margherita’s expedition and about what Fattorino had said about it, told Francesco that his motive for speaking up was to avoid having Francesco shout at him for not telling. While Francesco was annoyed with Margherita, he still looked unfavorably on Fattorino for spreading “malicious gossip in his usual way.”33 These events led to the expectation that Margherita and Fattorino would not get along. When Margherita failed to send a letter to Francesco immediately Page 97 → after Francesco left for Florence, Francesco asked whether it was because she was fighting with her scribe Fattorino. She huffily denied that she was angry with Fattorino or anyone, but she felt the need to have Barzalone confirm it: Barzalone reported to Francesco that Margherita said that she would not quarrel with Fattorino, who was only a boy, like the others.34 If Francesco’s supposition was true, Margherita could be faulted for clashing in a rather undignified way with a youth,. However, Fattorino may have had cause to fear Francesco’s anger, given the punishments recommended for boys like him; being shouted at would have been the least of it. When Caterina’s brother Maso behaved badly while working for Francesco’s company in Mallorca in 1399, Francesco instructed Maso’s superior, Cristofano, to

tire himself out punishing the boy. By doing so, Francesco said, Cristofano would acquire merit from God and men. Fifteen years earlier, in 1385, Niccolò di Piero, Francesco’s partner in the wool company in Florence, wrote that if his nephew Simone, Margherita’s scribe at the time, failed to obey, Margherita and Francesco should beat him or put him in prison. When Simone, in 1405, had himself become manager of Francesco’s company in Barcelona, Ser Lapo Mazzei advised Simone how to treat Lapo’s beloved son Piero, a young fattore there: if Piero did not obey, Simone should beat him like a dog and put him in prison “as if he were his own.” This punishment did not reflect lack of love. Ser Lapo was confident such punishment would be unnecessary, because he knew his son to be a good boy. Lapo was less sanguine about the now adult Simone’s own behavior and lectured him on his disreputable way of life.35 In the fifteenth century, the humanist elite in Florence suggested kinder methods. Alberti wrote in his Book of the Family, for instance, that every father and elder should remember that rule based on force has always been less stable than that based on love, but this approach had not yet become part of the fourteenth-century ideology.36 Nonetheless, Lapo also suggested gentler methods when his son Piero was keeping accounts: whenever the boy forgot to write down a sum, he should give a coin to God; before he had given ten soldi, he would get in the habit of writing it down and would be cured forever.37 Aside from the merchants in training like Guido and Fattorino, the Datini palace was frequented by manual laborers working in building and farming, most of whom slept there only occasionally. Two men, however, had a larger presence because they acted as household servants and men-of-all-work in addition to outdoor duties. One was Nanni di Martino—the husband of Lucia after 1400—whom Francesco called “mio fattore,” mentioned in chapter 3 and below. Page 98 → The other was Bartolomeo, or Meo, usually called Saccente, “Wiseguy,” who Francesco listed as a resident in the Datini palazzo in his tax return of 1393.38 Saccente had been a farm laborer and then had a shoe-making business that failed, leaving him with the large debt for a man of his status, one hundred florins. Francesco hired Saccente as a servant, paying his debt for him and having him work it off.39 In one letter, Francesco worried that Saccente would injure his health by working too hard. Other evidence is less flattering: Margherita described him as a boaster and liar and mentioned that he had been arrested for debt several times. One time when he was arrested, he asked Margherita to lend him forty soldi so that he could be freed from prison, and then he reduced his request to 20 soldi. Margherita reported that if she saw him on the gallows, she would pay nothing for him and his lies. She could be more sympathetic: another time, she said that she was glad that Francesco was helping Saccente, for the sake of Saccente’s family and because she thought he was innocent of that charge.40 Margherita was sometimes willing to assist Saccente when he got into trouble. One time, he fled to the Datini house after being arrested, closing the entrance and refusing to exit, so that his pursuer could not catch him. Saccente apparently felt confident enough of his job at the palazzo to block the entrance, in Francesco’s absence, preventing anyone from entering or leaving. Margherita intervened on his behalf with important Prato officials, who agreed to guarantee Saccente’s safe departure from the palace if he promised to cause no further problems for eight days.41 Two female servants in the palace stand out, Lucia, already described, and Domenica, Saccente’s wife, whom Francesco described as a relative. Francesco listed Domenica and daughter Nanna as resident in the palazzo in his tax return of 1393, in addition to Saccente.42 Tina went to a second daughter’s christening in 1394; the attendance of only a little girl from the palace and not Margherita herself probably indicates Domenica and Saccente’s servile position. On the other hand, Margherita gave enough weight to Domenica’s opinion to call on her to back up what Margherita told Francesco. The Datini later considered using Domenica as an interim wet nurse for a friend’s baby in Florence. Francesco even suggested that Saccente go with Domenica, to make her more willing, but she had no milk and was not feeling well.43 Margherita mentioned the mattress where Domenica slept in the Datini palace and the sleeping place they made for her and her children at the Datini’s villa. Domenica and Saccente also had a house of their own, where she could retreat.44 One time, Domenica was arrested and kept in jail for a day, in punishment, Page 99 → Margherita

said, for Saccente’s evil ways, that is, another debt. The Datini paid the debt so that Domenica could be released.45 A letter Margherita wrote to Domenica still survives. The letter’s existence provides evidence of the widespread use of letter writing even among those who were probably personally illiterate.46 Domenica had been left in charge of domestic activities in the Datini palace when Margherita had gone to Florence. Francesco was in Prato, but Margherita preferred to communicate with Domenica rather than bother Francesco about domestic details. Margherita’s letter to Domenica discusses whether to send a girl servant, Fattorina, to help Domenica, although, she said, the girl would not be much use, as she was hardly older than Domenica’s daughter Nanna. Margherita emphasized that Domenica should be sure to live healthily so that she would have the energy to look after the house and after Francesco (perhaps implying that Domenica sometimes lived unhealthily). Margherita instructed Domenica to speak to a weaver named Marco about making tablecloths and napkins for the house in Florence, to find out when the weaver could do it. Domenica was to take good care of Monna Tinga, a sick woman the Datini had taken into the palace “for the love of God.” Margherita wrote that Domenica would be shaming the Datini if she was not attentive to Tinga’s needs, implying that an act of charity should be carried out well to be meaningful.47 In addition to the female servants, there were a couple of Prato women, Monna Ghita and Monna Ave, who served as housekeepers, managing the house in Florence when Francesco was on his own. Francesco had good relations with Monna Ghita but at one point suspected Monna Ave of stealing, though Margherita suggested that his suspicions were probably unjust.48 Another woman of the merchant, rather than servile, class, Monna Giovanna, is an interesting case because of her circumstances and because of Margherita’s interactions with her, which provide insights into gender attitudes. Monna Giovanna was the widow of Paolo Mattei, whose son Talerano was an unsuccessful businessman working in Venice. Talerano owed Francesco money, which he could not afford to pay, and Francesco, Talerano, and Monna Giovanna came to an agreement that Francesco would receive the interest from Giovanna’s investments in the Florentine-funded debt and the rent on her house, while she and her son would still keep ownership of the investments and house. To contribute to paying off the debt and to have a place to live, she went to work for the Datini, another case of working off a debt.49 Giovanna continued to be insecure about her financial position and about Page 100 → Francesco’s attitude toward her, and Margherita tried to calm her. Margherita asked Francesco to look into Giovanna’s finances to see what could be done and then to discuss his finding with Giovanna when he came to Prato. If Francesco needed advice about how to handle her, he should ask Margherita. Francesco could say he was looking into the matter at Margherita’s suggestion or that he was doing it on his own; Margherita did not care. Margherita said that though she generally advised Francesco not to get too involved with debtors, this was a different case.50 Giovanna had investments with the merchant Tommaso del Bianco in the town of Leccio, and when Giovanna heard that Tommaso had returned to Florence without telling her, she worried that Tommaso was acting behind her back in a way that would harm her interests. Margherita could say little about it except that Giovanna was always happy when Tommaso was in Leccio and that she was always sad now that he had gone to Florence. Margherita, who often felt the need to call on witnesses to back her up, said that Nanni (the trusted servant who later married Lucia) could vouch for the change in Giovanna’s mood. Margherita consoled Giovanna by saying that perhaps Tommaso just had not told her what he had done, as men do not tell women about matters that they want to keep secret, “because they recognize little firmness in us.”51 In this phrase, Margherita described men’s usual low opinion of women, perhaps accepting that the opinion was often justified or perhaps just stating it as a reality. Francesco told Margherita that he thought Giovanna was handing too much responsibility over to him and not taking enough herself. Margherita defended Giovanna by saying that Giovanna did take charge of her own business and would have gone to Leccio to find out her situation if Margherita had not advised her against it. These comments suggest that Francesco and Margherita thought a widow should take charge of her own finances and also that Giovanna had no qualms about traveling. Nonetheless, Giovanna apparently valued male advice more than Margherita’s female advice, since Giovanna asked the male servant Nanni about options for going to

Leccio, although it was a woman, Margherita, who actually gave the answer: Margherita told Nanni to tell Giovanna that there was nothing to be done that year but that Giovanna would be compensated if she just waited to see what time did for her. Francesco thought that Giovanna had not been entirely forthcoming about her debts.52 Margherita begged him not to be angry with Giovanna in a way he would repent later. She told him that everyone had the possibility of such lies within themselves and that the wise knew how to tolerate them in others, especially considering that Giovanna was a woman and that women had little understanding. Page 101 → Was Margherita referring specifically to women’s understanding of financial affairs, which often would have been true, or was she speaking more generally, no doubt excepting herself? Or was she using female weakness as a way to arouse Francesco’s condescending sympathy? She told Francesco not to be offended by Giovanna’s misrepresentation, because everyone stated things to their advantage: “Even Ginevra, who is six years old, tries to get what she wants, but she doesn’t press me too much because I keep an eye on your and my own interests. . . . I’m like the donkey driver who knows how to drive the donkey better than anyone else.”53 Margherita was confident about her own ability to maneuver and negotiate. As for more ordinary household servants, the Datini and their friends were constantly searching for female servants for each other and recommending likely possibilities, relaying information about their characters. The Datini needed many women servants in Prato, for general household work and sometimes to cook for and serve workers who received a meal as part of their pay. A series of letters in 1394 show that they considered women of all ages, from very young girls to those who were fifty or more, with young girls earning their dowries by going into service.54 They preferred the women to be unencumbered by husband and children (even though husbands and children would stay elsewhere). Slaves did not figure as large as they had in earlier years: for example, when a shipment of slaves arrived in Florence from Genoa, Francesco said he was dubious about them and preferred to search for local women.55 However, the Datini had at least one non-Christian slave: Francesco thought that the dying slave girl should be baptized, and Margherita reported that Monna Ave, Tina, and Fattorino had already done it themselves, it being permissible for laypersons to carry out baptisms in an emergency, that is, in the face of imminent death.56 Though the Datini preferred single women as servants, they sometimes hired married women, when no other possibilities arose.57 One such woman was an oddity named Monna Giuliva. Immediately after Giuliva arrived in Prato from Florence, Margherita recounted, the neighbors and her niece Tina came to watch Giuliva’s outlandish antics. Margherita described how Giuliva loved to dance and sing; there were no dances she did not know. She talked to people for no reason and burst out laughing for no reason. Giuliva seemed to have no sense. They could make fun of her as much as they wanted without her minding. Margherita said the woman was aptly named, since giuliva means “joyful, gay, cheerful.”58 Margherita commented that she would have appreciated the woman more Page 102 → twelve years earlier, at the time she and Francesco arrived back in Italy, suggesting that she herself was more cheerful then. Now, she jested, when Francesco returned to Prato from Florence, Giuliva could teach him how to smile sarcastically. 59 Margherita decided to keep Giuliva on, unless they found someone better, because she seemed to be a woman of good enough character, who was neither a drunkard nor a glutton.60 The story of Giuliva did not end there: Four months later, she had to leave because she had fallen into a depression, which suggests that perhaps she had earlier been in a manic phase.61 Margherita said one time that she thought women employees were less useful than male employees, adding to the misogynist comments she absorbed from the world around her. She was reflecting the reality that there were things women could not do, out of considerations of modesty and strength and because they were illiterate, and what she was really saying in this case was that she needed more men to help her write and do errands, rather than wanting fewer women.62 It was the women who looked after a building full of people, often including visitors, in a house that Margherita complained was like an inn.63 Caring for people living in the palace took much of Margherita’s time, but she and Francesco also had many

friends and contacts who did not stay at the Datini palace or who came only as occasional visitors. The Datini’s relations with these people form the subject of the following chapter.

Page 103 →

CHAPTER 8 Contacts and Friends Margherita wrote, “You can’t go wrong if you stay on good terms with everyone.”1 Although formal entertaining held little interest for her, she did her duty there, and she also had a wide range of informal relationships on which she set greater store. Francesco placed much emphasis on both formal and informal ties. Francesco loved to entertain at his palazzo in Prato, which was one of the main reasons he wanted such a fine dwelling. In society, he favored the jocular demeanor of a raconteur, different from the persona that usually appears in his letters to Margherita.2 She described Francesco as a man who wanted to “do honor to all of your friends,” the word “honor” here is part of a frequently used phrase, “do honor,” meaning treat others with esteem.3 In return for doing honor, Francesco wanted to receive esteem (honor). Francesco’s entertaining also had practical motives, part of an exchange of favors that he hoped would lead to support for his concerns. His extensive nonbusiness correspondence with important men was part of this project. Margherita viewed Francesco’s search for honor through entertaining with ambivalence, complaining that she and the “family” had to act like servants to visiting Florentines. In general, she thought Francesco was too eager to make new friends, at the expense of other things and of the friends he already had.4 Perhaps her frequent ill health decreased her enjoyment of society, but her health did not stop her from engaging in activities she considered more interesting, from building to debt collecting. Nonetheless, social activities were an important part of her life. When Francesco was there, he helped her set up the house for visitors, aided by servants and enjoying it more than she did. When Francesco did not arrive back in Prato in time, Barzalone would help her and Page 104 → the servants.5 The sexes were separated at these events. Judging by one description, the men dined in the courtyard loggia, surrounded by the wall paintings of “illustrious men,” while the women dined in the front rooms, which were decorated with painted fleurs-de-lis, flowers, and coats of arms.6 In Francesco’s absence, Margherita looked after visitors on her own. For example, she stayed home to be available for one woman who was arriving. In another case, she made sure that the sister of the eminent Florentine Messer Giovanni Pantichiatichi and the sister’s family spent a comfortable night at the palazzo and dined well the next day: “I wanted to do them as much honor as I knew how, even though I was able to do them little, because all the fish I could find were putrid.”7 The people that Francesco entertained most frequently in Prato were Florentine podestas, officials sent for threemonth terms by the ruling city of Florence to oversee its subject city. Although, in theory, podestas were not allowed to receive gifts, they often stayed at the Datini palace for a day or two after their arrival, until they got settled at the palace of the podesta, or for a day or two before they left. Francesco also made loans of furniture to the podestas and gave them gifts of edible delicacies, and the podestas sometimes used the Datini palace for their own social events. In return, the podestas favored Francesco in law cases that came before them (administering the law being one of their duties)—cases involving Francesco’s debtors and even involving his troublesome servant Saccente.8 In addition to the help Francesco received in Prato, Francesco hoped the podestas would act as his friends in Florence, and Margherita probably helped him gain advantage with one, when her cousin Antonio d’Attaviano Gherardini came as podesta in 1399. As a magnate, Antonio Gherardini was ineligible for high political office in Florence; however, he had a magnate’s high social status and could serve in prestigious offices outside the city.9 The letters discuss Margherita’s relationship with the wife of one podesta, Margherita (Ghita) di Vieri Guadagni, which shows more about the way Margherita begrudged the interruption of her everyday activities than it does about lack of enthusiasm for the woman herself. Margherita complained that Francesco had tied her to the podesta’s wife to such an extent that the woman would not step outside the podesta’s palace without Margherita, and “you know very well how willingly I do this, because, except for your sake, I would never set foot in that

palace.” Nonetheless, Margherita, after receiving an invitation, had visited the podesta’s wife twice that day, feeling especially obligated because the woman had had a miscarriage. She had stayed for lunch, and she would have Page 105 → stayed until evening if she had not been involved in overseeing the washing at home, which no one else could do properly. Then she returned to the podesta’s palace in the evening at dinnertime and stayed there a good while.10 Francesco wanted Margherita to continue the relationship with Monna Ghita by visiting her in Florence while Margherita was there for several months. Margherita decided to wait until the weather was better; then, she said, she would do honor to the Guadagni women in a way that would make Francesco content.11 Margherita, nonetheless, felt comfortable enough with the Guadagni to ask to borrow a horse to take a doctor to tend Niccolò di Piero’s sick son Agnolo in Prato. After the Guadagni sent Margherita a gift of venison, she thought it time to call on them, especially since she wanted to make a consolatory visit about the seriously ill daughter of Bernardo Guadagni (Bernardo and his family lived with his brother Vieri and family in a joint household). Margherita arrived too late, discovering that the child was already dead and buried; she sadly reported, “Bernardo has no more children.” She watched Bernardo mount his horse and go off very, very slowly and sadly. She passed on Francesco’s condolences and Francesco’s gratitude to Vieri for the affection Vieri had shown Francesco and for all the services Vieri had done for Francesco.12 Francesco had chided Margherita for going away to Florence without saying good-bye to the wives of the two podestas who were in Prato with their husbands at the time, Monna Ghita and the wife of Benozzo d’Andrea Benozzi. Margherita, Francesco said, should remedy the oversight by sending the women letters apologizing for not having a chance to take her leave. Margherita replied that she did not want to make her excuses by letter and that she left it to him to tell them what he thought best.13 According to Hayez’s analysis of drafts remaining in the Datini archive, Margherita’s unwillingness gave Francesco the green light to write letters to both women in Margherita’s name, composing them himself but as if she had written them. Hayez has demonstrated that Francesco sent another, more elaborate letter signed in Margherita’s name to Monna Tita, wife of Albertaccio di Ricasoli, describing a conversation Francesco had with the young Ricasoli daughter, Contessina, when the girl was visiting Ginevra at the Datini’s. Contessina was the granddaughter of Messer Rinaldo Gianfigliazzi, whom the Datini had gotten to know when he was Florentine podesta in Prato. In his letter, Francesco describes his own humorous questioning of the young girl about her lineage and other matters and praises the eloquence and quick wit of her replies. A female signature removed any impropriety that such a letter about a Page 106 → talkative little girl might have.14 Hayez rightly pointed out that Margherita lacked the literary skills and social confidence to write such a letter. Also standing out to me is the importance of a female presence in social relations. Margherita sometimes showed more interest in the Florentine elite than in the case of the podestas mentioned, especially when she had a purpose. One time, while in Florence, she did a little investigative work related to another Florentine with whom the Datini were friendly, Nofri di Palla Strozzi (not to be confused with the podesta Strozza di Carlo Strozzi mentioned previously). Although the relevant letter is cryptic, it sets the scene for a moment in Margherita’s life in which church formed a meeting place, as churches often did for women, churches being the one place outside the home where women were encouraged to go. The background story may have been a plan the Datini had of providing a wife for a friend. Their interest was caught by a young widow who lived in Nofri’s house, perhaps his daughter, and Margherita wanted to see what she looked like. Margherita reported that she had searched in all the places she could expect to find the young woman, spending an entire morning at the Church of the Annunziata, hoping the woman would come there to worship, but she did not appear. While at the Annunziata, Margherita met one Lorenza, “a relative, as you know, of Ferrardo de’ Pazzi, who, as you know, is a relative of Monna Antonia di Pistoia, at whose house Nofri is staying with his family.”15 (This discussion of kinship ties was more a Florentine characteristic than a pratese one, since Prato, a quarter the size of Florence, was small enough that the elite already knew who each other were.) Margherita wanted to take Lorenza to dine with her, but Lorenza said she was going to dine at Nofri’s. They walked together as far as the Datini’s house, and Lorenza told Margherita that the young woman in question did

not want to remarry. She wanted to withdraw from the world, devoting herself to her children and to God. She was sleeping in a chest as a penance for sin and eating so little that she seemed consumptive. Margherita told Francesco that she had already suspected this. She had not told him before because these are things that should be kept secret, implying that the young woman’s behavior was extreme enough to drive away any potential husband, even if she were persuaded to remarry. A couple of days later, Margherita wrote that an acquaintance had seen Margherita with “the woman I told you about” [Lorenza] and had asked her about their conversation. Margherita pretended she did not understand what he was talking about. When this acquaintance left Margherita, he went to talk to that “madman, you know who; I can’t speak more clearly, you know Page 107 → why.” Margherita did not want to damage the young woman’s position by spreading news of her conduct, and she also did not want her scribe to know about it.16 Margherita liked being involved in activities requiring initiative, and she had more of those in Prato than in Florence. One such activity was finding wet nurses for Francesco’s acquaintances. The Datini letters contain several examples of Margherita’s searches for nurses inside and outside Prato, which involved consulting friends in person or through agents. Although she might occasionally feel that too many demands were being made on her, she generally seemed to view looking for a nurse more positively than she did formal social engagements. These searches indicate that Margherita knew many people whom she could approach for help. The searches also indicate that fear of damaging female honor did not inhibit what she did. As mentioned, all women, except the very poor, hired women to nurse their babies.17 Finding a nurse was generally a woman’s job, although a man would sign a formal contract, if there was one. Klapisch-Zuber suggested that it was fathers who searched for nurses,18 but the Datini evidence disputes this. The following description of Margherita’s efforts may give more information about nurses than is strictly necessary in a chapter discussing social relations, but her searches are revealing about her interaction with the world.19 In interviewing potential nurses and other sources of information about them, Margherita wanted to know that the women were healthy and youthful. A woman should have fresh milk, meaning she should have given birth within the last few months, and she especially should not have recently weaned her own baby, since, Margherita thought, old milk was inferior and, besides, the mother might continue to nurse her toddler on the sly, taking sustenance away from her charge. Margherita also believed that too abundant milk was undesirable. She considered family background but said that the mother’s qualities mattered more than the father’s. Since wet-nursing was a profession always in demand, a good nurse could pick and choose her assignments and expect to receive a salary that was generous for a lower-class woman. The salary would vary according to whether the nurse lived at the house of the baby’s parents or at her own house and, in the former case, whether she had other household tasks beyond caring for the baby. Margherita warned that once a suitable nurse was found, it was important to act at once, lest someone else hire her first, and she mentioned nurses who had been lost because of the slowness of a potential employer. Margherita and, by implication, other women made verbal pacts Page 108 → with nurses and probably with nurses’ husbands or male relatives, but there do not seem to have been formal contracts signed between males as in the fifteenth-century Strozzi evidence—although, even there, it was women who found the nurses in the first place.20 One case involving a wet nurse is particularly revealing of Margherita’s role as Francesco’s agent, using her own friends and acquaintances on Francesco’s behalf. Her task was to find a nurse for the illegitimate son, aged one month, of Zanobi Gaddi, the merchant nephew of the painter Agnolo Gaddi.21 Francesco told Margherita that she should make every effort to find a nurse, because he wanted to serve Zanobi. A woman friend had already told Zanobi that as soon as Margherita knew about the matter, Margherita would not fail to act, so Margherita should act quickly to do honor to that woman and not bring shame on Francesco or herself.22 Margherita responded that even though the baby was a bastard, she would look as hard as if he were her own. To encourage a nurse to choose in the Datini’s favor, Francesco told Margherita that she should say the baby was his, implying that the baby was an infant of importance and also showing a hardened attitude toward Francesco’s potential adultery. 23 The case of Zanobi’s baby was an emergency, because the previous nurse had been dismissed. Margherita and her agents scoured Prato and the surrounding villages, leaving no friend or anyone else out of her inquiries. When

Margherita had little luck, she suggested that a temporary nurse could be hired until a better one was found. She kept looking for either a temporary nurse or a permanent one: they had found a nurse in Montemurlo with fresh milk and were keeping her in mind, but Margherita was not completely satisfied with her. She found another in Prato who had fresh milk, from a birth two months before of a baby who had died, but the woman was already acting as nurse for a dying girl. This nurse promised that if the girl died that night, as seemed likely, she would come to them after the funeral(!). Margherita heard about another possibility from Niccolò di Piero: when she asked the mother of that baby why she had removed the baby from that nurse’s care, the mother told her it was because the baby was not thriving and, besides, the nurse had only one eye. There was another woman with fresh milk whose husband was willing to have her take a temporary job, but she would not do for a permanent nurse.24 Margherita told Francesco, “If you knew the fatigue I have undergone and made my friends undergo in order to search for these blessed nurses!” When a possibility came into her hands, she then had to find out if the woman’s character and other characteristics were good.25 Francesco was critical of Margherita’s efforts, Page 109 → saying that her letters had given him false hopes; however, he also told her to provide as she thought best, so that he did not have to write about it anymore.26 Margherita decided to arrange to have Zanobi’s baby sent from Florence to Prato right away; she would look further for a permanent nurse after the baby arrived in Prato.27 She and Francesco decided to hire a temporary nurse from Prato, whose only duty was to travel to Florence and return with the baby, nursing him during the trip. They considered the servant Domenica or else the baby’s mother, a slave. Domenica had no milk, and Francesco and Margherita agreed that it would be a bad idea to send the baby’s mother on the trip. The baby’s birth was being kept a secret, and the mother would talk about her baby along the road. Also, the mother might be overly emotional about parting with her baby.28 Margherita wrote two letters about bringing the baby from Florence, each treating the subject quite differently. In the first, she said she was sending a temporary nurse, along with the nurse’s woman friend to keep the nurse company. Margherita wanted the women to travel and return the same evening, after the heat of the day had passed, but if that was too much for Pellegrino, the escort taking them, they could wait until the next day. She mentioned that the women should return as soon as possible, as they had left their two little daughters with Margherita.29 Later in the day, Margherita received a letter from Francesco, who, at his most peevish, made unfriendly and unfair comments about her failure at a different aspect of household management, even though, he wrote, he gave her many servants to help her act correctly. The juxtaposition of the two letters about Zanobi’s baby shows the way Margherita’s fits of anger were almost always in response to unjust words from Francesco. Francesco’s comments led her to fire off an angry second letter, noting that Francesco had not had the foresight to tell her in advance that the babies of the nurse and nurse’s friend were in Prato, not in Florence, and that she would have to look after them while the women went to Florence. The children had really ruined her day and that of the housekeeper Monna Giovanna. Such were the favors Francesco did for her because he did not think she was fit for anything else. In his opinion, she was capable only of scraping away the dregs. She wished Francesco could have seen them, her and Monna Giovanna, with the baby girls in their arms and with her niece Tina and the others watching. The babies screamed so much that the whole neighborhood came to look at them. She remarked dryly, “Let it be God’s wish that you keep me in so much comfort.”30 Page 110 → The next day, she said Zanobi’s baby had arrived safely. She had sent him to a long-term temporary nurse until they found a better one. Her comment about it shows how much emotional capital she had invested in the fairly simple matter of finding a wet nurse: “Let God give me grace that I receive honor from this matter, . . . since one can receive shame and not honor because of the many things that can happen. However, I will do my part, and let God do the rest.31 Human effort mattered, but it was not always enough. All of Margherita’s activities discussed so far in this chapter were on behalf of Francesco’s efforts to win and

cement friendships, and an important component of this kind of friendship was mutual assistance. The most dependable aid normally came from relatives, but Francesco had no close relatives, and Margherita’s relatives could help little. In Prato, both Margherita and Francesco had ties of affection with Niccolò di Piero, Monna Lapa, Barzalone, and, while he was alive, Monte Angiolini, but the relationships were distorted by the latters’ positions as employees. The Datini also had such friends in Prato as Messer Piero Rinaldeschi and Niccolaio Martini, trustworthy, but not involving the depth of sentiment demanded of a more exalted view of friendship.32 The characteristics that made for true friendship were much discussed in the Renaissance, and Ser Lapo Mazzei came closest to meeting that definition for the Datini, with Margherita participating in the friendship as well. Evidence for theorizing about friendship is stronger for the fifteenth century than for the late fourteenth, but Ser Lapo already showed an awareness of the issue by the turn of the fifteenth century. One characteristic of a good friendship was that it was freely chosen, which left out relatives and business associates, no matter how beloved. According to Aristotle, men chose to be friends with those of similar virtue, who enjoyed each other’s company and were useful to each other, with Cicero leaving utility out of a true friendship (an ideal difficult to achieve in Italian circumstances). Most important was virtue, that is, the requirement that friendship be between two good men, who brought with them mutual affection and mutual trust; bad men could not feel affection and could not be trusted. Some believed there could be no true friendship between man and woman or woman and woman, on the basis that women lacked the requisite virtue. However, Aristotle accepted that friendship was varied. He believed there could be lesser friendships between superior and inferior (which, in his opinion, included friendships with women).33 There were also lesser friendships that depended more on utility and enjoyment than virtue, into which category Francesco’s numerous relationships with Page 111 → important men can fit. It is not unlikely that some of the Florentine podestas failed to recognize in the nouveau riche Francesco the requisite virtue required for true friendship, and perhaps Margherita’s awareness of that attitude contributed to her wariness about spending time with them. However, Margherita’s elite genealogy helped his status. As for Margherita, a woman’s best friend was supposed to be her husband, no matter how annoying he was, and Margherita would have accepted that marriage overrode other friendships, although it did not preclude them. She also had less need for friends as contacts than Francesco did. As Hayez points out, Francesco was continually seeking new friends to help his position in the world, and Margherita, in her more limited life, associated with those who came her way during her everyday activities. Hayez does not give credit, however, to the large number of people involved in Margherita’s contacts or to her efforts to cultivate those relationships. The Datini’s friend Ser Lapo was born in Prato in 1350, making him ten years older than Margherita and about fifteen years younger than Francesco. Although Lapo came from a relatively poor family, headed by a widowed mother, a patron had sent him to Florence to study to be a notary. After holding several notarial positions, including one in the Florentine chancellery under the humanist chancellor Coluccio Salutati, whom Lapo admired, Lapo settled into a post that suited his religious and charitable outlook, that of notary for the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova in Florence, founded to serve the poor. It brought him less salary but more satisfaction than he would have earned elsewhere. Although he would serve in political office on the Florentine Signoria a couple of times, he disliked the inevitable moral compromises of government. Nonetheless, perhaps ironically, his position at Santa Maria Nuova led to association with many influential citizens, which made him useful as a political gobetween.34 In 1390, Francesco saw some notarial letters by Ser Lapo and admired his style. After previously having met Ser Lapo casually, Francesco transformed the relationship by sending a formal proffer of friendship, as was sometimes done when choosing friends.35 Francesco’s letter with the proffer no longer survives, but Lapo, in his response, accepted “with all affection and love” the offer to be Francesco’s younger brother and friend in everything. The Datini and Ser Lapo carried on a correspondence for twenty years, with 406 of Lapo’s letters to Francesco surviving, many about business, but some about religion and personal matters. There are sixteen letters from him to Margherita and two from her to him. Ser Lapo also expected Francesco to read to Margherita many of his letters Page 112 → or passages from them.36 We have to judge the relationship from letters written by Ser Lapo to Margherita and Francesco, because few of Francesco and Margherita’s letters to Ser Lapo remain, and

those from Francesco that do are notes that Francesco scrawled on the back of Lapo’s letters before sending them back to him. Ser Lapo and his wife, Tessa, eventually had fourteen children. People could have too many children as well as too few, and Tessa’s health suffered from continual pregnancies. After she nearly died, Ser Lapo said that he had resigned himself to God’s will but would have had trouble raising the children without her, “the mother being the mast of the ship.”37 Only about five of Lapo’s children survived to adulthood, children dying being another problem with having children.38 One time, Ser Lapo excused himself to Francesco for not writing, saying that Francesco would sympathize with him if he envisioned with his mind’s eye “all the burdens I have, the hospital to guide, also bringing up eight children, whom I have to dress and provide with shoes and discipline, alone without a male or female servant, with a wife who certainly has two more in her body and is not well, and all the troubles I have from contacts in Florence and everywhere.” Lapo continued, “I live happily and with many graces given by God, . . . but I have all the weight on me that I can withstand.”39 In 1396, Francesco became godfather to one of Ser Lapo’s children, named Francesco and called Checco. After that, Francesco and Margherita and Lapo and his wife referred to each other as compare and comare.40 With reason, Trexler has objected to the idea of some scholars that Francesco and Ser Lapo’s relationship was an example of a “pure” friendship.41 An expectation of mutual utility was embedded in the original offer and acted on afterward. Ser Lapo became Francesco’s notary in Florence, giving Lapo useful business, and Lapo used his contacts on Francesco’s behalf. Nonetheless, their relationship had a strong emotional content, with Lapo telling Francesco that he loved Francesco better than Francesco could imagine, that Francesco’s letters brought tears to his eyes, and that he always kept the letters in a safe place. He told both Francesco and Margherita that Francesco had cast a beneficent spell on him. These comments perhaps had an exaggerated literary and rhetorical aspect but a real emotional basis.42 The friendship between Ser Lapo and the Datini was facilitated by the fact that Ser Lapo’s mother, Monna Bartola, lived on a farm at Grignano, near the Datini villa at Palco, and that Ser Lapo and his family spent time at Grignano. It was at Palco that Ser Lapo showed his lighter side, with Margherita asking Page 113 → him “to tell Francesco some of your stories to get rid of his melancholy.”43 In another letter, written to both Francesco and Barzalone, Ser Lapo described a joking argument about some unspecified subject that he had witnessed at Palco, an argument between Francesco and Barzalone, in which Margherita supported Francesco’s points. The company, Lapo said, had pleased him so much that he had preferred to keep quiet rather than join the discussion: “I never saw, nor read, nor heard such good envy (if one can call it that) as that which reigned between you. However, the balance was not equal, because the side of Francesco and his wife outweighed that of the gentle Barzalone. Another time I will contribute my opinions, too, at least when she [Margherita] is working in conjunction with her companion, defending him with new and exquisite ways, with wrong arguments and correct ones. And there was no one to speak for the little child Barzalone, except right reason.” He finished the letter by saying that he would pass on greetings to another friend “on the part of you two and of the third [Margherita], who is more than half clever.”44 Francesco showered Ser Lapo and his family with delicacies, although Lapo cautioned him not to overdo the gift giving. He wanted theirs to be not a mercenary friendship but, rather, by implication, a friendship based on mutual virtue. Ser Lapo did not want him to be the client and Francesco the patron.45 The main thing that Ser Lapo requested from Francesco was acts of charity for needy people whom Ser Lapo met.46 However, he accepted more personal help: the Datini employees delivered letters to Lapo’s mother, Monna Bartola, reading them to her because she could not read. They delivered other things from Lapo in Florence to Grignano, where Monna Bartola and family members were staying. Margherita made visits to Monna Bartola, going with women friends and bearing food and drink, even when it was not convenient for Margherita. Francesco lent Lapo and his family horses for travel between Florence, Grignano, and Palco. When one of Ser Lapo’s sons fell ill at Grignano, Francesco offered to have the boy taken to Florence for treatment.47 Francesco also hired Ser Lapo’s son Piero and had a major role in facilitating the marriage of Lapo’s daughter. When the groom, who worked for Francesco, had demanded more dowry than Ser Lapo wanted to pay, Ser Lapo suggested that Francesco discuss the matter with Margherita, because “she is knowledgeable.” He added, “I wish she were as humble as I am proud!” 48 There

were, however, limits to the friendship, financial ones, as there often were with Francesco, not necessarily out of stinginess, but out of fear of being exploited. In 1397, Francesco advanced grain to Monna Bartola on account, which was the equivalent of lending Ser Lapo Page 114 → money for the grain, a transaction in which Margherita was involved. Several months later, Monna Bartola asked for more grain without having paid for the first batch, and Francesco became annoyed. He told Margherita to have Barzalone choose some low-quality grain to send Monna Bartola and to have the apprentice Guido read over the accounts carefully, to specify how much Monna Bartola had had and how much she should return in exchange. He said this, he wrote, not so much for the grain itself but so that it did not seem he was forgetful about what had already been sent.49 Margherita disagreed with Francesco’s attitude about the grain and tried to persuade him to act otherwise, but she accepted her husband’s wishes when he persisted, as she did when she was not angry. She reminded Francesco that sometimes it was desirable to be forgetful about a mere staia of grain when dealing with such good friends. Francesco replied to Margherita’s doubts by saying that he was not going to consider whether Margherita was right or wrong about the value of forgetting but that everyone remains content when people do their duty to each other. The bother of delivering the grain was enough without throwing away money too, and not receiving appreciation made him feel like he was being treated as a person of little worth. Monna Bartola did not make the situation easier. Margherita reported that Bartola had sent her miller to Margherita to say that Francesco had sent less grain than he had promised. Margherita told the miller that she knew the grain had been counted and valued twice and that the Datini owed Bartola no more and that was that. She did this on her own account, she said, without consulting Francesco. He could tell Bartola something different if he wanted.50 Despite small clouds, the friendship prospered. Francesco gave Ser Lapo more material help than Ser Lapo could offer in return, but he and Francesco were relative equals in the friendship in their own eyes, if not in the eyes of the world—though Ser Lapo always had a little anxiety about being sure it was so. He felt free to give Francesco unwanted advice, although with apologies: “You know that a friend has the right to tell the friend anything: otherwise, if he were afraid to, he would be a fearful friend and not a perfect one.” Ser Lapo could also criticize himself in the process: when consoling the frequently depressed Francesco while feeling depressed himself, he wrote that he knew Monna Margherita would make fun of him and say, “Doctor, heal thyself” (from Luke 4:23).51 Ser Lapo disapproved of Francesco’s greed for profit and greed for building. In his own mind, he used the affection Francesco aroused in him and the charm he found in him to offset that disapproval, but he also saw the friendship Page 115 → as an opportunity to save Francesco’s soul, a soul that both he and Francesco believed to be at risk. Ser Lapo was a deeply religious man, while being, at the same time, somewhat anticlerical and distrustful of priests and friars. He had supported the War of the Eight Saints that Florence fought against the papacy in 1375–78, in the hope that it would result in a less corrupt church.52 He was responsible for encouraging Francesco to leave his fortune to the charitable institute Francesco di Marco’s Ceppo for the Poor, but he was also responsible for seeing that it was under lay, not religious, administration. He cautioned Francesco not to think that leaving his money to charity freed him of the obligation to live religiously and morally, an idea with which Francesco was inclined to console himself.53 Ser Lapo’s letters are full of so many religious exhortations that they sometimes read like sermons. Trexler does not accept that Lapo’s “dreary moralisms” were heartfelt religious advice, but in my opinion, Francesco not only “tolerated” them, as Trexler thinks, but accepted them as needed guidance.54 Ser Lapo offered his friendship to Margherita as well, even though they were an unrelated man and woman. Their rapport began before they developed the more formal semifamilial relationship of co-godparents (compare and comare), and it was enhanced afterward. Such male-female friendships have been considered unusual by scholars looking at the Tuscan scene of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but perhaps they were less so than often assumed. Klapisch-Zuber has suggested, in one of her more extreme comments, that suspicious Florentine husbands could not imagine their wives associating with unrelated men in a nonsexual way, even as cogodparents.55 However, the Datini evidence suggests that there was no difficulty in making men and women surrogate relatives, fitting them into a family environment. It should be noted that Margherita was also friends with Barzalone, Monte d’Andrea, and Niccolò di Piero, although those relationships more to be expected, since

these men were Francesco’s employees, with whom she worked. Such others as Messer Piero Rinaldeschi, Niccolaio Martini, and, to an extent, Guido del Palagio can be added to the list of her male friends.56 Ser Lapo usually saw Margherita in Francesco’s company or in the company of Lapo’s wife and mother. Margherita occasionally visited Ser Lapo and his wife for a few days or a week at their home, which Ser Lapo described as humble but happy.57 Ser Lapo could feel a little hesitancy about seeing Margherita alone socially. One time, he told Francesco that the reason he had not visited Margherita in Florence when she was there on her own was “per vergogna,” Page 116 → which can be taken to mean “out of shyness.” Yet he did sometimes go to see her in Florence without Francesco. One time, he wrote he had not done so because he had thought she was at her sister’s; another time, he wrote that “the comare should excuse me if I have not visited her with my prattling (to say nothing of letters), as I usually do.”58 Ser Lapo’s primary reason for communicating with Margherita was often Francesco, but he also was concerned with her for her own sake, as evidenced by his concern for her soul and also by his encouraging her to learn (though he did not teach her) to write.59 Ser Lapo gave Margherita religious advice, both advice to pass on to Francesco and advice directed to her personally. In both cases, the advice expressed sentiments with which she already agreed. In one letter to her, he began a long list of suggestions about how Francesco should live and pray by telling her that “when the moment seems fruitful,” she should “encourage him to draw closer to God and then he will not fall from Heaven,” though he cautioned her to approach the subject with tact. He did not, he went on, mean that a good person must retreat from the world and give up everything, but he should be satisfied with a minimum of possessions, with the rest of his attention going to God and (perhaps this part was said with a little humor) to good friends.60 As for Margherita herself, he thought her many illnesses would make her more susceptible to God. He was certain she had been sent her afflictions “as messengers that we should not sit back . . . but, like pilgrims on our way to dying, . . . walk through the valleys and misery of this world in God’s service, raising our eyes often to the sky, where God gives us the grace of being among his elect.”61 He returned to this theme in a letter to Francesco: “I believe she [Margherita] has seen that everything is in vain except God’s service.”62 Ser Lapo, nonetheless, had a playful relationship with Margherita, even when adding a moral point. He told Francesco, “Greet Monna Margherita, although I have little reason to wish her well, because she holds me and others whom she calls notaiuoli [little notaries] as vile. I don’t know where she has gotten so high and mighty about them!” Ser Lapo went on to say that, according to Scripture, it was enough to be esteemed by God; other praise was false. Referencing another Scripture saying that man should wish to evaluate himself nude, in order to know what he was worth, Lapo contended that woman should do similarly. “Nude” he went on, was to be understood not as lacking clothing but as lacking worldly things.63 My assumption is that Margherita’s remark about notaries was either made jokingly in a discussion with Ser Lapo or in annoyance Page 117 → at the behavior of a notary other than Ser Lapo and had not been directed sneeringly at him. Ser Lapo also offered more everyday recommendations. As a man of his time, he wanted to encourage Margherita to become more like a model wife of the late fourteenth century, and he took on himself the role of mediator in Margherita and Francesco’s marriage in order to make it more successful. He told Francesco, “Let it please God that she is or seems to you to be as humble as she is wise,”64 perhaps suggesting that she should at least pretend to be humble out of deference to her husband. He explained that Margherita was in Prato with “more things to worry about than women usually have, and you are tempestuous.”65 In Ser Lapo’s opinion, Margherita’s impatience with Francesco was a cause of many of their problems, but he understood why she might feel it: “Recommend me to the one who has heard your blessed preaching for eighteen years.” Furthermore, when Francesco complained about Margherita, Lapo, referring to Francesco’s obsession with the Datini palace, wrote that “the one who wastes nine years building a lair for a crab (and we are all crabs) has little standing.”66 According to Ser Lapo, citing a popular story, Margherita was like the monk who defended himself after having drunk all the bottle; that is, if Francesco knew how much she held back in her comments, he would think her very meek.67 Lapo wanted to help: “I hope I will be . . . the one who, showing her the truth, will make her remain in peace and quiet about everything.” Failing to note that it was Francesco who kept her from peace and quiet, he continued, “although I appear insane to think to do in one sermon that which her companion has not been able to do in so many years.”68

Ser Lapo recommended Margherita to Francesco, “because she deserves it and because God has given her to you as your companion,” and he elsewhere wrote, “I recommend to you Monna Margherita and your honor,” implying that being a good husband was part of Francesco’s honor.69 Although Ser Lapo was fond of Margherita, he gave his first allegiance to Francesco, and he could call on male solidarity against Margherita. He wrote that he often carried on imagined conversations with Francesco while at home in his study, sometimes liking the comments he attributed to Francesco and sometimes not. It was good to be able to do it, he said, without the little woman adding to the drama as would happen in real life, probably referring to Margherita and indicating that she joined discussions without female deference and that she tended toward treating issues dramatically.70 Another time, Ser Lapo wrote that he was telling the truth, “even though Monna Margherita, who Page 118 → is a little malicious, would say that I am flattering you,” when he said he got almost as much delight from a letter in Francesco’s hand as when they were face-to-face, so much so that he was bothered when the address was in someone else’s hand, as this one was. He continued (writing at a time before Margherita learned to read and write well and indicating that she had some sayings she liked to repeat), “I even take comfort that the said woman does not know how to read [the letter] so that she does not have the pleasure of seeing our enjoyment. She [Margherita] makes me want to second her good saying that one should first act and then talk. She is telling the truth; and saints do that, but we sinners, who have a little goodwill, don’t want to act, but take delight in talking.”71 It should be noted that although Ser Lapo was emphasizing male solidarity at Margherita’s expense, she figured large in the above letters. Despite the insights into Margherita that Ser Lapo’s letters provide, the bulk of the material in his letters to Francesco was not about such personal matters but about the notarial work he did for Francesco.72 Furthermore, Ser Lapo was invaluable as Francesco’s political advisor, as can be seen during Francesco’s political problems in 1394. Margherita, too, had an important role in political events in 1394. Although Ser Lapo thought Margherita’s lack of humility and lack of deference caused problems in her marriage, her self-confidence proved helpful in dealing with the outer world, as recounted in the following chapter.

Page 119 →

CHAPTER 9 Political Maneuvers Francesco’s main brush with politics came early in 1394. Margherita was supportive, writing, when there was unwelcome news, “I think you must have passed a bad night and a bad day. I didn’t have a better one myself, worrying about your depressed state.”1 She also assisted him in practical ways. Some background information is necessary before turning to the events of February through March 1394 and to Margherita’s role in them. The issues involved were forced loans in Florence and forced Florentine citizenship. The Florentine prestanza, or forced loan, was the property tax levied before the well-known Catasto of 1427 was introduced. It was “forced” because all propertied citizens were required to pay it, and it was a “loan” because those who paid it received interest on their money and, in theory, were owed the capital back, although they were very unlikely to receive it. Only Florentine citizens had to pay the prestanza, and Florence, in need of money, wanted to prove that Francesco was a citizen of Florence, not Prato. The controversy was over how much time he had stayed in Florence, away from Prato. Although these concerns were small affairs in terms of the larger Florentine political scene, they had a deep impact on both Margherita and Francesco.2 Francesco had a history of disliking politics, as a waste of time and disruptor of peace. When a new, more oligarchic government took power in Florence in 1387, the correspondence between Francesco and his brother-inlaw Niccolò Tecchini shows that their main concern was that business might be disrupted, not about any political principle.3 As for Prato, the city still contained remnants of the old feuds between the Guelfs and Ghibellines, heavily mixed with personal quarrels, but Francesco avoided taking sides.4 He wanted to win friends Page 120 → from both sides for economic and social reasons and to win honor through building, not politics. When chosen in 1387 as gonfaloniere, leader of Prato’s executive body, the Prato Eight, he tried to escape office by going to Florence. In the end, he was required to serve, and Niccolò Tecchini congratulated Margherita as well as Francesco, calling her the gonfalonieressa, which has a more official ring than “gonfaloniere’s wife.”5 Francesco commented that when he finished his gonfaloniere duties, he worked on building the Datini palazzo day and night in order not to squander still more time, and he was so diligent that he always ate dinner at midnight.6 In the early 1390s, Francesco nonetheless became ensnared in politics. At that time, wars with Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan made the commune of Florence even shorter of funds than usual, and in gathering money for its burdensome expenses, Florence divided the tax requirement, the prestanza, among each of its sixteen political districts (gonfaloni). Officials in each district then decided on the amount individual residents paid, with personal relations influencing decisions. (The later Catasto of 1427 would be instituted to remedy this invitation to favoritism.)7 Francesco, as a rich outsider whose Florentine business and residence were in the Red Lion district (gonfalone Leone Rosso), provided an attractive source of funds. The Red Lion district decided to make Francesco pay a prestanza, whereas he had previously been taxed in Prato with the smaller estimo, a tax required of residents of the territory ruled by Florence.8 The challenge from the point of view of the Red Lion district was that a forced loan could only be required of Florentine citizens: Francesco was not a Florentine citizen. Therefore, the Red Lion district decided to require Francesco to become a citizen, by exaggerating the time he had lived in Florence, claiming it had been during all of 1383 and for several years at a stretch since 1390. Citizens of Prato were eligible for Florentine citizenship after living in Florence for six months, which most pratese considered a desirable privilege, since it allowed a man to hold political office, a sign of status and sometimes power.9 However, Francesco was not interested in political office and took the demand as a personal attack, writing, “I am in the greatest pain I have been in since I became a man, because of the great injury I seem to be receiving.”10 His distress was justified, beyond any concern for money, because forcing someone to become a citizen against his will was unprecedented and was not supported by law.11

I now turn to the events of February through May 1394 as revealed in Margherita and Francesco’s correspondence and Francesco’s correspondence with Page 121 → others. This correspondence outlines the Datini campaign to prove that Francesco was resident in Prato and not in Florence during the disputed years. The correspondence is sometimes hard to interpret, even when the letters from the Datini’s friends are added to Margherita and Francesco’s, because some news was communicated by word of mouth by those traveling between Prato and Florence. However, the gist was that Francesco wanted envoys representing the government of Prato to go to the Florentine Red Lion district on his behalf, in order to argue his case, with the envoys being able to stay there for as long as he wanted them there. While Francesco traveled to Florence to defend himself against citizenship and against the prestanza, Margherita stayed behind and was active in overseeing the political situation there. The couple’s relationship was quite friendly during this period, when they were working for a common goal. Margherita sympathized with Francesco’s troubles, and Francesco was interested enough in Margherita’s state of mind to ask a friend to tell her not to worry and that everything would be for the best. Her position of wife was basic to allowing her to do what she did. She received respect and attention because she was Francesco’s wife, the loyal spouse who carried out Francesco’s wishes and acted as intermediary between Francesco and their allies in Prato.12 Margherita did not act alone. She was in constant communication with a group of friends and advisors in Prato, and her interactions with them are as revealing as her interactions with Francesco. She respected the men’s knowledge and accepted their opinions, but she also felt secure in her own opinion.13 The supporters included three notaries from Prato: Ser Schiatta, Ser Chimenti, and Ser Baldo. Ser Schiatta was Francesco’s most important notary in Prato, his compare (fellow godfather), and a prominent pratese citizen in his own right, but Francesco often used the others for conducting his massive quantity of legal business.14 (Ser Lapo, discussed in chapter 8 and later in this chapter, was Francesco’s notary for Florence, not Prato.) These supporters also included Cristofano Carocci da Barberino, Francesco’s employee in Pisa and Florence and a later partner and manager of the Mallorca company. Cristofano carried news between Florence and Prato and participated in negotiations.15 Francesco’s associates in Prato, Niccolò di Piero and Barzalone, although active in pratese politics, were men rooted in their home city who lacked knowledge about Florentine affairs, so they had only a small part to play. The Datini’s most important allies in Prato included several other citizens, especially Messer Piero Rinaldeschi, Niccolaio Martini, and Messer Guelfo Pugliese. These men, like most of Page 122 → Francesco’s friends, had borrowed money from him at one time or another and had trouble paying it back, making them more enthusiastic on his behalf. Messer Piero was the Datini’s next-door neighbor (as mentioned in chapter 6), and Margherita and Francesco were also friendly with his wife, Monna Simona. The Datini took the Rinaldeschi’s daughter Caterina with them to Pistoia during the plague of 1390–91.16 Margherita had a bantering relationship with Messer Piero—one time joking about the pleasure she had in a card game she and Francesco played with him, in which she and Messer Piero had been on opposite sides—but she also sought advice from him.17 The Rinaldeschi were one of the oldest and noblest families of Prato (magnates cut off from high political office in Prato, like Margherita’s Gherardini relatives in Florence), and Messer Piero was an influential man as a doctor of law.18 However, his affairs were not prospering. When the Rinaldeschi’s daughter Caterina married a pratese banker/money changer, Stefano Cepparelli, in the spring of 1394, Margherita wrote about the marriage, emphasizing the value of the match for Messer Piero, not Caterina: “Considering Messer Piero’s condition and the possibilities available to him, I think he has done well.”19 Margherita mentioned that only she, Messer Piero, Monna Simona, and Caterina represented the bride’s side at a related formal event (probably a betrothal), because the match had not yet been generally announced. Francesco lent money for Caterina’s dowry, his purse strings perhaps loosened by the help Messer Piero was giving him in the matter of the prestanza during the same period (or perhaps the loan made Messer Piero more eager to help).20 Niccolaio Martini was a wool merchant of moderate status and an old friend of Francesco’s, rising, like Francesco, from an artisan background. He and particularly his son were involved in pratese political disputes, from which Francesco tried to stay aloof.21 Margherita visited Niccolaio when he was sick, “on your [Francesco’s] account and my own,” and wrote approvingly that when his sons went to see her in Florence, “they need little advice,

because they are their father’s sons, who were not raised in a menagerie; it seems like they come from Paris.”22 The third pratese citizen who had a significant role in helping Francesco was Messer Guelfo Pugliese. Like Messer Piero, he was from a noble magnate family and a doctor of law. But he was a difficult man, about whom Margherita complained she was ashamed to listen to his conversation during a dinner party.23 Until 20 February, the campaign to help Francesco seemed to be going well, and Francesco, in Florence, was optimistic that he could prove he had been a resident of Prato during 1383 and during the period after 1390.24 Even though Page 123 → the Red Lion district had probably already decided to require Francesco to pay the prestanza, there was enough room for maneuvering, with the help of allies, to provide hope that it would change its mind. The Datini friends needed the Prato government’s backing to demonstrate Francesco’s residence in Prato and to show that it was giving him official support. The Prato Eight’s attitude seemed cooperative, but before voting on the formal envoys who would argue Francesco’s case in Florence, it wanted to receive a petition from the Red Lion district requesting the envoys.25 On 18 February, Francesco, in Florence, wrote to Margherita, in Prato, requesting that she call together some of their supporters to arrange for interim envoys who could go to the Red Lion district and ask for a petition requesting the formal envoys. Margherita asked Niccolaio Martini and the three notaries Ser Chimenti, Ser Baldo, and Ser Schiatta to come to the Datini palazzo to decide what to do, and they determined that Niccolaio and Ser Baldo should go to Florence to ask for the petition.26 Margherita warned Francesco that the envoys should be seen as representing Prato, not Francesco personally, something he had not been careful about on a previous trip. They should dismount not at the house of the Datini’s brother-in-law Niccolò Tecchini’s but at an inn, and they should not eat or drink or talk with Francesco in public. They should only use the horses belonging to the Prato representatives, leaving the horses Francesco had provided at the inn. Francesco responded that Margherita had done and written well and that he would be careful not to use the Datini horses.27 Niccolaio and Ser Baldo were back from Florence within a day, having received the promise of a petition from the Red Lion district, and Niccolaio expected Prato to approve sending envoys to the district, because Francesco had always served Prato well. When it came to choosing the envoys for the formal presentation of Francesco’s case to the district, Francesco wanted to give weight to the group by including one of the two doctors of law, Messer Guelfo or, if Guelfo could not do it, Messer Piero. Margherita suggested that it might be a good idea if the envoys left before formal approval, in case it was refused, but the others, optimistic, thought it best to wait.28 Interestingly, the notary Ser Schiatta does not mention Margherita’s presence in the decision-making group, although the others mentioned her. For example, Ser Schiatta wrote to Francesco, “I received your letter yesterday, and right away Nicholaio Martini, Ser Chimenti, and I got together,”29 omitting to mention that Margherita was there and, in fact, had called the meeting. It is possible that Ser Schiatta also met separately with Niccolaio and Ser Baldo, but Page 124 → he was certainly present at the meeting Margherita described that day. Why did Ser Schiatta overlook Margherita’s presence? Perhaps Ser Schiatta attached less weight to her role than the others did, taking the wife’s presence as part of the background in the Datini palace—although it was probably hard to ignore her in person, since she was unlikely to have kept her ideas to herself. Or perhaps Ser Schiatta did not mention her out of concern for her modesty, related to female sexual honor. This argument is weakened, however, by the fact that Ser Schiatta knew Margherita well in other contexts and that she and her circle saw no problem with her dealing with unrelated men, especially since she was acting as Francesco’s wife and pursuing his goals. Once the formal envoys, including Messer Guelfo, went to Florence, the Datini’s goal changed from having the envoys sent to having the envoys be allowed to remain in Florence as official representatives of Prato for as long as Francesco wanted. However, conditions became less favorable to Francesco’s cause because the estimo tax was being distributed in Prato. The overall estimo amount was decided by the ruling power, Florence, although the way it would be applied to each individual was decided locally, in a way similar to the prestanza in Florence. That Florence could raise or lower the amount of tax that Prato owed gave Florence a hold over the pratese citizens, who, in fear, started turning against Francesco. The Prato Eight called a general council to vote on whether the

envoys who were in Florence should be relieved of their duties and whether they would be said to be there against Prato’s will if they stayed anyway.30 The Florentine Red Lion district had begun to talk about sending Red Lion envoys to Prato to investigate Francesco’s case. The district was interested not so much in Francesco’s claims of residency as in how much tax he had been paying in Prato. Margherita, Cristofano, and Ser Chimenti all wrote Francesco letters on 25 February, discussing the events. Margherita wrote that Niccolò di Piero, Ser Chimenti, and Cristofano da Barberino met at the Datini palazzo and that everyone gave their opinions. They discussed who in the Prato government would vote in Francesco’s favor or against him—that is, agree or disagree that he could keep the envoys in Florence in Prato’s name as long as he wanted—and whether the Red Lion district would actually send its own envoys to Prato.31 Cristofano, describing the same scene, wrote that “Monna Margherita and all of us” decided that he should draft a well-worded letter to deliver to the Prato Eight on Francesco’s behalf.32 Cristofano and Ser Chimenti both mentioned that one Ser Simone, a member of the Prato Eight, had stood up to say that he had recently been in Florence Page 125 → talking to men from the Red Lion district and believed that keeping Francesco’s envoys in Florence in Prato’s name would be Prato’s undoing: the district contained powerful men who did not want to hear words favorable to Francesco.33 Margherita agreed with Cristofano and Ser Chimenti that things seemed bad. There was no one in the Prato government who had the heart to respond in Francesco’s favor. However, she continued, the Datini’s friends should not take it badly because those against them were so strong and because it was the time of the estimo, when everyone was fearful: “I tell you my opinion: that I would hold strong . . . and keep those envoys [in Florence] as long as you have need of them.”34 Francesco, in Florence, was pessimistic. He could not help, he wrote, but be unhappy, considering the injury and wrong they were doing to him. He was accepting it as well as he could: “With the grace of God, we will have a different life than we have had until now, and this will be a lesson for all our affairs.”35 He was still thinking that someday they would lead a “better life,” one less harried and more relaxed, and that these problems might be the impetus needed for beginning it. The Red Lion district sent three Florentine envoys to Prato to investigate Francesco’s residence and tax payments. Upon hearing the communal bell ring to announce the Florentines’ arrival, Margherita went outside the Datini palace to greet them as they passed by. She had hoped to invite them inside for refreshments, but they did not enter. The Datini friends then gathered, and after Margherita told them that she had already met the envoys, they all went to Messer Piero, who, as a doctor of law, agreed to represent their case at the council meeting.36 Later in the day, Margherita went to Messer Piero’s house to find out what had happened in the meetings of the Prato Eight and the General Council. Messer Piero told her about one man who got up in the council and asked Messer Piero, “What harm can come to [Prato] from not helping Francesco and what harm will [Prato] receive from such powerful families as these if [the Red Lion district] becomes enemies of this commune.”37 Messer Piero replied that one should always aid justice, but the council was unconvinced. When Margherita got home from Messer Piero’s, she sent for a friend, Carlo di Francesco Guzzolotti, and reminded him about the friendship that there had long been between Francesco Datini and those of Carlo’s house, encouraging him and his relatives to stand behind Francesco in the council during the next day’s vote.38 But her entreaty did not help their cause. Margherita described to Francesco the way the Red Lion envoys stated in Page 126 → the council the next day that Francesco had thirty thousand florins in wealth and paid only five lire in estimo and that his close friends Messer Piero and Messer Guelfo were similarly undertaxed. The Florentines persuaded the Prato council that Francesco and his friends had been taxed too lightly and that their estimo tax should be increased. Margherita reported hearing that the Florentines were bragging in the piazza after the council meeting, about how much harm they could do to Prato. Later they were at an inn where a Datini friend heard them say, “Come to the Red Lion when you want tax concessions, keeping the burden of taxation from the prosperous, which should be borne by the poor.” The envoys boasted that the most illustrious men in the city of Florence lived in the Red Lion district and that they could do whatever they wanted. Perhaps the envoys were trying to appeal to Prato’s self-interest, but Margherita considered them “so dishonest that they have annoyed everyone in this land and especially the

important citizens.” She continued, “I write this because it seems good news for us. . . . I think it will be useful.”39 Public opinion had, if Margherita was right, gone against the Florentines, but the votes had not. Since only Margherita’s letters about the visit of the Red Lion envoys survive in the Datini archive, we cannot know if the others also thought that the arrogant behavior of the envoys was good news. Perhaps there are no letters from Messer Piero, Niccolaio, and the notaries about the visit because they feared that their letters would be intercepted and that their outspokenness would bring them harm. Francesco’s male correspondents indicated at this time that secrecy was necessary, whereas no spy would expect Margherita, as Francesco’s wife, to be neutral. The suggestion from the Red Lion district that Francesco and his friends were paying too little estimo contained a threat that Prato as a whole could be required to pay a larger overall allotment if it did not distribute taxes more efficiently. It became clear that such efficiency would require a higher estimo payment from Francesco in the future. He and his supporters realized that Francesco was going to lose financially whether he paid the prestanza or the estimo.40 Francesco’s time of low taxation in Prato was over, because he could not count on support from Prato, and his wisest course was to accept Florentine citizenship and pay the prestanza in the Red Lion district under the best conditions he could extract. His envoys returned to Prato, because they were no longer needed in Florence.41 Margherita, writing from Prato, was less forgiving of pratese fears than she had been earlier. She decided that Francesco should make the agreement in Page 127 → Florence as his friends advised and become a Florentine citizen. “The people here think they have done so much for you that you can never repay them, and they have done nothing for you,” she lamented, adding, “In my opinion, because of all the things that can happen, . . . it would be . . . better for you to be a citizen rather than a resident of the contado”42 Francesco’s case with the Red Lion district dragged on for a couple of months, and he remained in Florence. During this time, Margherita described several consultations with Messer Piero.43 She acted as intermediary with Francesco, who was too preoccupied in Florence to write many letters to friends in Prato. Margherita commented to Francesco on Piero’s great love for the Datini, saying that the more she talked to him, the more he seemed a good man. For his part, Messer Piero praised Margherita for her ability to convey Francesco’s point of view. Nonetheless, he said he wished Francesco would write to him personally, because things kept changing in Prato, and Messer Piero could be helpful if kept updated on how things were going in Florence, since he understood Francesco’s situation well. In response to Messer Piero, Francesco told Margherita, “I will tell you what happens day by day, and you will tell it all to Messer Piero.”44 Messer Piero told Margherita that if he saw Francesco, he would tell him what he thought Francesco should do. Margherita begged Messer Piero to tell it to her, which he said he would do. He did not want to write it to Francesco, “because the letter could be lost,” political fears making him discreet.45 He led her to understand that Francesco had better agree to Florentine citizenship, because people in Prato were ill disposed toward Francesco. He told her that he believed that it had been a mistake to have Prato send envoys to the Red Lion district and that Messer Piero had only accepted the idea out of respect for Messer Guelfo and Niccolaio’s opinion; Francesco could have argued his own case better in person. Messer Piero also believed Francesco had made a mistake thanking the Prato Eight for their help when he returned to Prato for a few days in early March. He would have done better to emphasize how ungrateful he thought they were, telling them that he had only wanted to avoid Florentine citizenship out of love for his native land. The Datini attention turned to men who could help them in Florence. Francesco wrote that he defended himself, “by the grace of God and of right reason and of good friends more than of reason, because there is little reason.”46 Florentine politics depended on personal relations, and his only hope was to find influential patrons. Page 128 → Margherita had already cast doubt on the support of a citizen of the Florentine Red Lion district in whom Francesco had faith, Nofri di Palla Strozzi, who was often in Prato. A boy employed by the Datini reported that he

heard two men talking, one of whom had recently dined with Nofri. The man mentioned comments Nofri had made about Francesco, which had emphasized Francesco’s great wealth and the low taxes he paid, in a way that Margherita interpreted as hostile. Margherita remarked that this was the thanks the Datini got for entertaining Nofri and other Florentines so hospitably when they came to Prato: “If we had recompense for all the money we have spent on entertaining those people, they would be the best friends in the world.”47 The young employee was new in town and did not know who Nofri’s companion was, but he saw the house into which the man turned. Margherita figured out who it was, after hearing from women to whom she talked that the man had been in political office with Nofri degli Strozzi in Florence.48 Her comment about gaining the information a donne, among women, provides an interesting picture of a female communication network. Margherita said that she told Francesco about Nofri’s comment unwillingly because it was not her custom to relay gossip to him, and she opposed anyone who did, lest it lead Francesco to seek enemies—implying that he was inclined to react with antagonism. She noted, “I do this in order to advise you, because I believe you have more confidence in him than in anyone else.”49 If Nofri was little help (although the Datini continued to maintain friendly relations with him),50 Francesco received better advice from Messer Filippo Corsini, whom Francesco, still in Florence, thanked for his help by having him entertained in Prato when he passed through the city on his way to Genoa to serve as Florentine ambassador there. Messer Filippo was accompanied by a co-ambassador and a retinue of dignitaries. He had expressed a desire to see the Datini palazzo, and Margherita, with Barzalone’s help, put the house in order and, since it was mid-March, warmed it with fires. Francesco told her to invite Messer Piero, Niccolaio Martini, Ser Schiatta, Ser Baldo, Ser Chimenti, Barzalone, Niccolò di Piero, and whomever she thought best to meet the ambassadorial party. 51 He went on, “And furthermore I was going to suggest that you thank Messer Filippo Corsini for the aid and good advice he has given me about my matter. . . . Then I thought that it is better that Messer Piero take on this task, who will know better how to say it than you.”52 Francesco’s first thought had been that Margherita would be able to thank Messer Filippo appropriately, because, as has been mentioned, he had Page 129 → confidence in her speaking abilities, but on second thought, he decided Messer Piero, the doctor of law, could do it in a more polished way. Barzalone described the visit. First, Messer Filippo and his companions toured the garden and fondaco, and Messer Piero thanked Messer Filippo for his help in such words as occurred to him. Then, they were shown over the ground floor of the house and sat in the courtyard loggia, where the Datini did honor to the visitors by serving the Datini’s own malvasia wine and two kinds of pastries. The podesta’s men arrived to invite the visitors to the palace of the podesta, and the podesta’s people were also given wine and pastries. Later, one of the men accompanying Messer Filippo Corsini, Argulio di Ser Piero Mucini, came back and chatted with Monna Margherita before going off with the ambassadors to Genoa.53 Although Messer Filippo Corsini was on Francesco’s side, Francesco’s most trustworthy friend and advisor in Florence was Ser Lapo Mazzei. For example, Messer Guelfo, just back in Florence from his time as Francesco’s envoy there, read Margherita passages from a letter Ser Lapo had sent Messer Guelfo, using the letter to praise Ser Lapo. Messer Guelfo suggested that both Messer Guelfo himself and Ser Lapo had endangered themselves politically in Florence by helping Francesco but that things would have gone worse than they had without Ser Lapo’s help.54 (They probably would also have gone better if Ser Lapo had not been away from Florence during the crucial month of February and for a month from late April to late May.)55 Ser Lapo’s role was mostly behind the scenes, leaving the foreground to Ser Lapo’s eminent friend Guido del Palagio. Guido and Ser Lapo were neighbors and shared the same religious, literary, and political outlook, but Guido was also one of the most important men in Florentine politics. Guido became interested in Francesco’s case and sympathetic to him because of Ser Lapo’s advocacy. Ser Lapo wrote that Guido’s modest goal for Francesco was that Francesco receive as little harm as possible with the most honor possible.56 The matter dragged on until the end of May. Guido del Palagio was too busy to devote all of his attention to it, and

Prato was unenthusiastic about the settlement, because it would lose Francesco’s tax payments. Messer Piero argued the case before the Prato council, pointing out the way Francesco’s fame helped Prato and, more important, that Prato should not make enemies of the Red Lion district. After various envoys went back and forth between Prato and Florence, Prato accepted its loss of tax revenue.57 Guido then made a compromise that was not to Francesco’s advantage but could have been worse: Francesco Page 130 → was to pay six hundred florins in back prestanza, which the Red Lion district claimed he should have been paying since 1383, and the district promised to assign him a settled amount of prestanza in the future, which would not be increased later. Francesco would accept being a citizen, but he would not have to pay the estimo in Prato in addition, as had been feared.58 Francesco was upset by the lack of respect with which he had been treated. The loss of money would not do them great harm, he wrote, and he was not the first to receive such an injury. For the most part, he had been slandered out of envy, and there was no shame for him in that, but there was shame in his being treated as a worthless man, a vermin on the chests of other men.59 Margherita responded, “I don’t know what to say about our matter except that God does what is for the best of the body and soul.”60 Francesco placed developments into a punitive religious framework: “If I had done and do what I should, this would not have happened; but I have done and do that which I should not, and I must bear the penalty. . . . I deserve this and worse, . . . pain and harm and fatigue and shame.” Nonetheless, he noted, “God does this . . . for my greatest good, not because I merit it, but because of His most holy mercy.”61 He commented to Margherita at the end of his long letter, “I have told you many things so that you know about everything and so that I can give vent to my depression with you.”62 Francesco owed heavy prestanza payments for the rest of his life (and they did increase, despite the wording of the compromise). Scholars who have looked into them conclude that they were no more than Francesco could afford.63 A prestanza was a loan that earned interest, so it was not all loss. Also, he had company: other important Prato citizens, including Barzalone, Messer Piero, and Messer Guelfo, paid the prestanza too, although without the extra six hundred florins required of Francesco. They accepted it as a penalty for having Florentine citizenship, which they wanted. For Francesco, however, the whole episode had been traumatic, not only because of the money, but because he had not been treated with respect. Margherita had a role in encouraging Guido del Palagio’s friendship with Francesco. Margherita dictated two letters to Ser Lapo in April 1394 in which she recommended Francesco to Guido. At that point, the agreement between Francesco, the Red Lion district, and Prato had been worked out in principle but not yet finalized. There was still more for Guido and Ser Lapo to do. The Datini attached importance to Margherita’s letters to Ser Lapo as part of their political strategy, judging by the fact that copies were kept. No other copies of letters from Margherita to Ser Lapo survive, although she wrote him other letters.64 Page 131 → Margherita’s second letter to Ser Lapo is the most interesting. She wrote in it, “Even though I am a woman, I understand how much we owe to Guido.” Her phrase was partly an expected modesty topos for women, in a relatively formal letter aimed as much at Guido as at Ser Lapo, and partly an acceptance of a gender hierarchy that she sometimes ignored in the heat of the moment.65 If Guido had not intervened, she went on, either Francesco would have had to leave this land, or, if he had stayed, his life would have been worth little. Margherita recognized that this grace came first from God and then from Guido, and she would consider from now on that she was still living as Francesco’s wife because of Guido. She had confidence that Guido would give such good advice to Francesco that they could live with no more worry than usual about the possessions God has lent them. Somewhat selfishly, she asked God to give Guido a long enough life so that he could bring the matter to conclusion.66 She went on to request that Ser Lapo remind Guido of the promise Guido had made to her during a visit to Prato: that he would come to stay with the Datini in Prato again, this time with his family. Guido would recall the occasion when he had agreed to another visit, Margherita noted, which took place while he and she were talking in the best downstairs room of the Datini palazzo, the room with two beds. Now she hoped Guido and his wife and Ser Lapo and his wife would come to Prato for Holy Week. The men could go into Florence during the weekdays

to do anything needed for Francesco’s matter, and then they could return to Prato and to the women for Easter.67 She told Ser Lapo that she would have written a letter personally to Guido containing this invitation but that she did not know how to do it in a way worthy of Guido. She would let Ser Lapo tell him, because she knew well that Ser Lapo was the reason she and Francesco had Guido’s friendship.68 Margherita’s invitation to Guido was made with Francesco’s encouragement and probably at his suggestion. Francesco wanted her to do it directly, in a letter addressed to Guido in her own name, again showing the importance a woman’s letters could have in the Tuscan social world. Francesco offered to send her a model letter to help her, but she refused the offer.69 In a previous invitation, in September 1392, a year and a half earlier, Guido had at first agreed that he and his wife would come to Prato for the festivities surrounding the annual viewing of Prato’s holy relic, the Virgin’s belt. At that time, Ser Lapo had spoken to Guido and also to Guido’s wife about the invitation. The wife, very embarrassed (vergognossi), was speechless when Ser Lapo faced her with the promise Guido had made to Monna Margherita. Lapo explained Page 132 → to Francesco that the wife was as shy (vergognosa) as a young girl. She always dressed like an old woman, even while young and beautiful, and she never went to fairs such as that of the Virgin’s belt: “She is a marvel. In no way will she nor other women of that house go to see the fair at this time.”70 The woman’s attitude about going to the Datini’s in spring 1394 for the more sedate occasion of Holy Week never appears because Margherita sent her letter to Ser Lapo to his farm at Grignano, where she thought Lapo was staying, but he had already left for Florence. By the time he received it, Guido had gone on a diplomatic mission to the Count of Virtue, that is, Duke Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan. Rather than Guido and his family going to Prato, the Datini went to Guido’s the following September, judging by Guido’s joking comment that Margherita had shown exceptional wifely obedience in being willing to go to Guido’s house during such a rainstorm.71 Margherita continued to be in contact with Guido when she was in Florence without Francesco. She turned to him when she needed to borrow a horse, and a couple of letters, one by Ser Lapo and the other by Francesco, mentioned that Guido had plans that would please her, probably about social events.72 In 1399, she was gratified when Guido invited her to dine with his family, although Francesco suggested she turn down the invitation, given her problematic health. It would be insulting to Guido if she had to cancel at the last minute after he went to a lot of trouble preparing. Margherita decided not to go and instead sent a third of a deer for Guido and his family to eat, with a note saying she was sure Francesco would want her to do it if he were in Florence. She finished by briefly recommending herself to Guido and to all the women in his house, commenting to Francesco about the autograph-writing skills she was still developing in 1399, “I did not say more, because one who does not speak well should say little.”73 The first of the eloquent letters that Margherita dictated to Ser Lapo in 1394, dated 10 April, was responding to one of Lapo’s, in which he had said he felt so close to the Datini that he did not worry about asking Margherita to have a letter delivered to his mother’s house. Margherita took this as an opportunity to tell him she was happy to do whatever she could for Ser Lapo’s honor and profit. Even if Francesco had lost out in the matter of the prestanza, Francesco had gained just as much by developing his friendship with Ser Lapo. She considered herself to be like Ser Lapo’s younger sister and loved him like an older brother. She asked Ser Lapo to recommend Francesco to Guido and other friends; she would not recommend Francesco to Ser Lapo, as she knew there was no need. Page 133 → Ser Lapo described to Margherita the reception of what he praised as “her humble letter” of 10 April. When it arrived at Lapo’s house, he was at the dinner table, “and Monna Tessa, my wife, was there. Between my laughter and my delight, I was so transformed that my wife was consumed by the wish to hear what you had written, and after I read it to her, she was amazed at the talent God has given you. And I went immediately to Guido and put it in his hand, as that seemed the most affectionate way to recommend your and my Francesco to him.”74 Since Guido hardly figures in this first letter, one can wonder why Ser Lapo gave it to Guido, and even if the date

is correct; perhaps the second letter, that of 13 April is being discussed. However, the dating of the letters seems right. The explanation must be that by praising Ser Lapo for his help, Margherita was indirectly praising Guido. Also, Guido apparently liked and admired Margherita from previous meetings, giving her an important role in the positive feelings Guido had for Francesco. In Florence, help and support came through friendship, and Ser Lapo would have realized that her letter would encourage Guido to work harder on Francesco’s behalf. The matter of the prestanza and citizenship came early in the Datini’s friendship with Ser Lapo, and Lapo did not yet know Margherita or what to expect from her as well as he would later. His response may also have shown a little surprise that Margherita, a woman and wife, wrote such a letter, boldly interposing herself into his and Francesco’s relationship and into the prestanza case. Perhaps that is why he calls it her “humble letter,” to indicate that she was not overstepping the bounds of propriety. (The bolder letter of 13 April would have been even more likely to provoke such a reaction.) However, even if Margherita’s letters were a little unusual, they fell within the rules of good behavior and were done with her husband’s support. Margherita, in Prato, sent the letter of 10 April to Lapo via Francesco in Florence. Margherita’s sister Francesca Tecchini, who lived in Florence, was at Francesco’s when the letter to Ser Lapo arrived. According to Francesco, Francesca was disappointed when Francesco did not open the letter for her to see it, preventing her from finding out whether Margherita was as good at composing letters as Francesco said. Francesco told Margherita to send Francesca a letter of her own, so as to prove that Margherita was not a country bumpkin just because she was staying in the countryside (Prato), away from Florence. Francesco, an old hand at letter writing, gave Margherita advice about composing the letter to Francesca. His suggestions (below) could make the reader wonder if Francesco had done the same for Margherita’s letters to Ser Lapo; however, Page 134 → that seems unlikely, since no paper trail remains about it, as it would have done under the circumstances, with Francesco being in Florence and Margherita in Prato. Margherita had just been building on the talent for persuasive speech that Francesco had noted during debt collecting. In the case of the projected letter to Francesca, Francesco said that Margherita should honor Francesca as her older sister but also write in an entertaining way. Francesco did not mind, he said, if Margherita made a joke at his expense: “Tell her that your husband allows you too much presumption and lets you sometimes stray from the good path, but say it in a way that you do not shame me and in a way that makes her laugh.”75 Margherita, Francesco was saying, could joke about his lax control—perhaps in encouraging her to send letters to an unrelated man, Ser Lapo—but she should present it as a matter of Francesco’s choice, in such a way that his authority as husband was not undermined. Francesco was unusually friendly in the passage quoted above, the challenge of dealing with the prestanza having softened Francesco and Margherita’s relationship for the time. Both he and Ser Lapo also realized that Margherita took pride in her dictation and liked hearing it praised, and Francesco was willing to do that in this case. However, Margherita wanted to be able to read and write letters herself as well as dictate good letters, and soon after this episode, she began working to improve her reading and writing skills, as discussed in the following chapter.

Page 135 →

CHAPTER 10 From Partial Literacy to Full Literacy When Francesco complained that Margherita did not write him often enough or fully enough, she responded that she could not do more because she often lacked a scribe.1 “If I knew how to write,” she explained, “I would do as you say.”2 She then began to apply herself so that she could improve her skills. This chapter looks at Margherita’s progress from partial to full literacy. I here use the term partial literacy to encompass a hierarchy of skills: the ability to read a little but not write; the ability to read well but not write; the ability, in addition to reading, to sign one’s name but do no more; and the ability to write whole sentences inexpertly, with reading usually taught before and separately from writing.3 Full literacy can be defined as the ability to read and write well. In her quest for full literacy, Margherita started from a high level of partial literacy: she could read somewhat, and she could write full sentences, though poorly. In several letters sent in the summer of 1395, Margherita excused herself to Francesco for her unsatisfactory reports by describing the activities that kept her scribe Fattorino away from letter writing: farming and building, going back and forth to the villa at Palco, caring for the mules. She noted to her husband that Fattorino returned very late in the summer evenings, “as you must know since you are familiar with the routines of those who work outdoors.” Then Fattorino had to eat dinner, and there were also other letters to be dealt with, aside from Margherita’s to Francesco. Margherita did not mention account keeping, which was also one of Fattorino’s duties. Furthermore, Fattorino was not always willing to return to read and write for Margherita if he was at Palco, where he could spend the night to be ready for the next day’s labor there.4 An argument moralists gave against women’s literacy was that it Page 136 → would take them away from their household tasks.5 In Margherita’s case, letters were part of her household tasks. Margherita’s inability to write her own letters needs an explanation, because she could already write to some extent. Although it was previously believed that Margherita only began to learn to write in 1396, Hayez discovered a badly drafted letter from 1388 (seven years before the above remark), which has been authenticated as being in her hand (see fig. 7).6 This letter leaves much room for improvement. It is nearly illegible, with meandering lines, sometimes squeezed together and sometimes far apart, demonstrating a poor grasp of page layout. Some of the blotches on the page come from damage over time, but most are Margherita’s own ink blots. This letter makes clear why writing was considered a mechanical skill as much as an intellectual one. In addition to the formation of characters, writing involved cutting the quill pen, mixing the ink, and applying the ink evenly,7 and Margherita probably emerged from her foray into letter writing covered in ink. Nonetheless, it shows that she was partially literate at quite a high level; the letter may be unattractive and difficult to read, but she was capable of stringing together many sentences. Margherita’s mother, Dianora Gherardini Bandini, wrote autograph letters, which, while not highly literate, were superior to Margherita’s 1388 effort,8 and it would be surprising if Dianora had not taught her daughters at least the basics. Margherita’s sister Francesca could not write, according to her husband, but such skills can atrophy if not used.9 Francesca may have turned all writing over to Niccolò Tecchini, a prolific correspondent; also, maybe she knew how to write a little. Probably, what Margherita meant when she said “If I knew how to write” was “If I knew how to write with ease and competence.” Both the Strozzi and Datini sources refer to preparing boys to write letters at the merchant level as teaching them to write, although the boys were already partially literate, having learned the fundamentals earlier in childhood. At the time when the apprentice Simone was already penning Margherita’s letters for her, Francesco commented, “I am pleased that Simone has learned and is learning to write.”10 Alessandra Strozzi wrote about her youngest son, Matteo, aged eleven, who was preparing to go to work in a merchant company abroad, “I have taken him out of abacus [arithmetic] school, and he is learning to write.” Matteo explained to his brother, in a letter he penned himself, “I have been going to a teacher who is teaching me to write, because until now I have been writing at home, and I realize that I am not forming my letters

well.”11 From this point of view, knowing how to write implied good penmanship, good placement of words on the page, and good composition. Page 137 → Margherita’s letter to Francesco of 1388 does not seem to have been written for any particular reason. Coming a few months after the birth of his first illegitimate child, it is, however, a little more open about Margherita’s feelings of being neglected and unappreciated than are her other letters. She was staying at the house of her sister Francesca and brother-in-law Niccolò Tecchini, where the only scribe was Niccolò, and perhaps she chose to write herself as best she could rather than confide her feelings to Niccolò. The quality of Margherita’s Page 138 → letter may have suffered from having been written on her lap and with poor implements. Maybe she could have done better under better conditions, but she clearly felt the need to improve. That Margherita wrote this letter makes it possible that she wrote other letters in the 1380s and early 1390s that have not been preserved because they were not written to Francesco, the preserver of letters. There are a few suggestive comments in letters she sent. In 1384, she enclosed two letters addressed to her mother, Dianora, in a letter to Francesco, asking him to give them to a woman friend who was going to Avignon to transport. “Tell her to take good care of them; I would not have the heart to redo them in a year,” she wrote, perhaps indicating more effort than required for a dictated letter, or perhaps only referring to the delicate phraseology needed for dealing with her difficult mother. In a passage from 1393, Margherita’s brother-in-law Niccolò mentioned to Francesco that Margherita’s sister Francesca could not write (as mentioned above), but the passage included more: “We received . . . the letter Margherita sent Francesca, and since Francesca does not know how to write, it is up to me, Niccolò, to take up the escutcheon and answer for her.” The wording raises the possibility that Niccolò knew Margherita could write or even that Margherita’s letter was autograph; otherwise, it seems gratuitous to mention what would have been well known about Francesca. In a less likely passage, Margherita told Francesco, “This morning . . . I sent you a letter in Stoldo’s hand and two in my hand,” but she was probably referring to “hand” loosely, to describe letters she dictated.12 While the above examples provide possible but unprovable evidence of autograph penmanship, Margherita was working to improve her reading by 1395 and her writing by 1396. She would have been extremely unusual in doing this as an adult woman, since weak skills were normal and accepted for women of the Tuscan urban elite in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.13 There were a few highly educated women in Italy, so expert at reading and writing that they were specialists in classical humanist studies, but they were the daughters of nobles or of learned men, not members of the mercantile patriciate.14 Not everyone approved of female literacy. Two earlier fourteenth-century moralists who mentioned the subject saw such accomplishments as suitable only for rulers and nuns: Francesco da Barberino advised that while the daughter of an emperor or crowned king should learn to read and write because she would need these skills, the daughter of a merchant or common man should instead learn every household accomplishment; nor would he praise her for Page 139 → reading and writing. He added, “I even condemn it.” Paolo da Certaldo told fathers to put their daughters to learning sewing and not reading, because it was not good for girls to know how to read unless they were going to become nuns.15 Nonetheless, female literacy increased by the end of the fourteenth century and after, and Giovanni Morelli, in his Ricordi, discusses literate female relatives with admiration, in one passage citing them as unusual, but in another mentioning them as possessing expected skills.16 By the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, religious figures like Giovanni Dominici, Archbishop Antonino Pierozzi, and Bernardino of Siena were encouraging women’s devotional reading, while at the same time warning them not to use their abilities in order to read Boccaccio’s stories or chivalric tales (thus implying that some women did). Vespasiano da Bisticci expressed similar recommendations for the well-trained girl later in the fifteenth century.17 Klapisch-Zuber and Miglio emphasize that reading and writing were male monopolies from which women were deliberately shut out, as they were from many male activities. Writing, in particular, went against the moralists’ view that silence was one of the most important female virtues.18 Miglio even says, at one point, that female writers like Alessandra Strozzi and Margherita Datini were “transgressive,” although she adds that they may not

have realized it.19 However, it seems to me that the most common attitude toward women’s literacy in the everyday world was not hostility as such, but, rather, reflected the opinion that reading and writing were practical matters to be used for practical careers and therefore unnecessary for the housewife. Margherita’s desire to improve her reading and writing long after childhood raises questions about her motives. Although the reason Margherita chose to read and pen her own letters was partly in order to avoid depending on scribes in her demanding correspondence with Francesco, that is not the whole story. She also wanted to be able to participate more usefully in merchant activities, as part of the job she took seriously, that of merchant’s wife. Furthermore, Margherita wanted to demonstrate her abilities. Although secure in a social background superior to Francesco’s, Margherita was at a disadvantage because of her failure to produce the heir he so desired and also because of her lack of dowry and her highborn but impoverished birth family’s continual need for his financial help.20 To offset her weaknesses, Margherita strove to be an efficient and intellectually competent woman. Examples have been cited of the anger she showed when Francesco seemed to be undervaluing her intelligence,21 and improved literacy was one way of demonstrating her intelligence to herself and Page 140 → others. Most important, for a time, Margherita seems to have found developing her reading and writing skills to be an exciting challenge. The Datini correspondence indicates that ability to read, while not universal, was reasonably widespread among women in their circle.22 Margherita’s mother, Dianora, even had a small library (appropriated by Francesco after Dianora died), which indicates that Margherita came from a literate background.23 Women were more likely to know how to read than write (although Dianora could do both), since reading was taught separately from and before writing when the latter was taught at all.24 Margherita’s niece Tina was learning to read at age eight while at the Datini palazzo. Tina would already have learned to sound out letters and syllables from a tavola, a sheet of parchment or paper usually attached to a board, which introduced the earliest steps toward reading. (In the English-speaking world, this device was called the hornbook.) She went on to read the Psalter, a collection of devotional readings, sometimes but not always including the Psalms mentioned in its name, which was the standard elementary textbook of the time.25 When Tina finished the Psalter, Margherita asked Francesco to send the girl a book containing the seven penitential psalms and the Little Office of Our Lady, with clear lettering to help a beginning reader.26 This request referred to what is often known as a book of hours. Called the “Little Book of Our Lady” in the Datini sources, it contained prayers and biblical texts based on the liturgy of the hours in monasteries.27 The Psalter and the “Little Book of Our Lady” obviously had both devotional and educational purposes. They were often in Latin, and while it seems logical that the Datini versions used in teaching reading would have been in Italian, they may have been in Latin, since Latin, quite close to Italian, was often preferred in elementary texts because of the lack of fixed Italian spelling in that era.28 Tina’s parents wanted her to continue to improve her reading. Four months after Margherita provided Tina with a “Little Book of Our Lady,” Niccolò said he wanted his daughter sent home so that she could learn to read better there. Tina was still working on her reading the next year, when Niccolò sent her a book, from home to Prato, and said he was pleased that she wanted to read.29 Some years afterward, Francesco also thought his daughter, Ginevra, should learn to read. In 1399, he recorded that he had dispatched Ginevra, aged seven, for reading lessons with a female teacher, Monna Mattea, who lived in Santa Maria Novella quarter, where Francesco, Margherita, and Ginevra lived when in Florence. He noted that he handed Ginevra a shiny new gold florin to take personally to the teacher. To me, this presents an image of Ginevra taking the Page 141 → coin proudly and with a sense of responsibility about the task of delivering it. Francesco also mentioned paying for a teacher for Ginevra while the Datini were in Bologna, although he did not say for what subject.30 No mention is made of teaching writing to either Caterina or Ginevra, but they may have learned later. Neither girl went to school with other children. The chronicle writer Giovanni Villani mentioned girls attending school in fourteenth-century Florence, but they would have been artisan girls and probably attended at a very elementary level. In the fifteenth century, elite girls started to go to convent schools, but in the fourteenth century, they did not mix with other children, even other girls, in classrooms.31 By June 1395, Margherita, too, was making an effort to read, and Francesco told her sententiously, “Provide for the family in a way that does you honor, and do not spend so much time reading that you do the other things

badly; organize other things well, and when you have finished you can read as much as you want.”32 He was not opposed to her reading, just to any neglect of work, and he provided her with candles so that she could read in the evening.33 She would have read the psalter as a child and was ready for the “Little Book of Our Lady,” about which Ser Lapo advised her, “Don’t forget the beautiful principle of reading often about the Virgin.”34 For a time, Margherita used other people’s copies of the book, including one owned by a woman, Monna Diana (who had an extra copy), and one from her sister Francesca.35 Margherita waited to possess her own until she could have a fine volume done according to her specifications, with, as in Tina’s copy, good lettering, large and understandable. Ser Lapo was instrumental in obtaining the book, although Francesco paid the slightly more than five florins that it cost.36 Ser Lapo wanted Margherita to have a fine cover made for it, to honor the Virgin, just as Margherita would want a fine gown made for herself. Books of hours were often beautifully illustrated and illuminated, and Margherita’s probably was one of those. Such decorations, combined with Ser Lapo’s comment about richly dressing the Virgin, demonstrate an attitude that has led some to see books of hours as valuable objects more than true reading matter. However, there is no doubt that Margherita and Tina used theirs for reading practice, as well as for saying the hours.37 Ser Lapo used legible printing in his letter to Margherita about the book cover, because Margherita’s skills were still undeveloped.38 She would need to progress further if she wanted to read Francesco’s letters, which had been read aloud to her until then. Since the printing press had not yet been invented, all reading was done from manuscript books and documents. Books were written Page 142 → in gothic lettering, while correspondence was written in a variety of scripts, with Italian merchants using mercantesca.39 A comment by Domenico di Cambio, a business partner of Francesco’s in Florence, provides insight into how Margherita practiced: “As for what you say about Monna Margherita learning to read: you say that she knows how to read well the Little Book of the Office of Our Lady and that recently she tried to read one of my letters and could not do it. I don’t marvel at it; it’s like a priest who cannot say Mass except from his own book. If she wants to learn to read merchant letters tell her that she must study a month to do it like she has studied six months in her book.”40 Going from books to letters involved not only the ability to deal with the personal idiosyncrasies of letter writers but also the ability to read script as opposed to the gothic lettering that was taught first.41 Domenico di Cambio had particularly clear handwriting, probably the reason Margherita had started with his letters when she decided to learn to read letters. As time passed, Margherita went on to harder hands, which included Francesco’s when he was not being careful. Francesco helped Margherita interpret his letters by having clerks recopy those he had scribbled in his own hand, although he could not always do so. One time, he wrote, “I have added another page to the end of this letter, written carelessly, and since Nanni is not here I cannot have him copy it. Read it as best you can.” Elsewhere Margherita, when she did not want her assistant, Ser Lapo’s son Peraccino, to read what Francesco wrote, told Francesco, “If you want to write me about this [confidential] matter, please have Guido do it, because I can read his writing easily.”42 Here it should be mentioned that men had trouble with bad handwriting too. One time, Ser Lapo apologized to Francesco for a letter he had written with his son perched on his knee. He said that if Francesco could not read it, he should have one of the clerks do it for him, the assumption here being that Francesco might not want to spend time deciphering it.43 Margherita would have gone on to read other books, even if the Datini letters give such activity little mention. They would have included religious books. In a letter to Margherita, Suora Chiara Gambacorte suggested religious reading, “now that I hear that you can read.” Also, Ser Lapo referred to a book of the writings of Saint Francis that he had lent to the Datini, in terms of Margherita having put it away rather than in terms of her reading it; he wanted it back for his children because it was easy reading. Margherita would at least have had contact with it, and given her religious proclivities, she might have read it. A few years later, it was still in her possession, and Ser Lapo said she could give it Page 143 → away if she no longer wanted it.44 Margherita could also have read the books in the library of Dianora, her dead mother, which Francesco kept in the Florentine house, as well as the books Francesco had collected himself. The clearest suggestion of Margherita’s further reading came in 1399, when Margherita, in Florence, asked Francesco, in Prato, to send her several books.45 Francesco showed less interest in Margherita’s learning to write than he did in her learning to read. All references about her writing letters come from Ser Lapo in 1396. If Francesco did mention it, his comments have not

survived. In April 1396, Ser Lapo told Margherita that he had heard how well she had learned to write, which was a marvel at her age, when others were forgetting what they knew rather than learning new things. (Margherita was thirty-six at this point.) In letters of September and December, Lapo asked Francesco to have Margherita write to him so that he could see how her writing was progressing.46 When Margherita began to write autograph letters in 1396, she started, to some extent, from the beginning. Although, based on its overall attributes, her letter of 1388 has been authenticated as autograph by experts,47 she later formed several of her characters differently. Ser Lapo Mazzei almost certainly was not her teacher, contrary to Origo’s suggestion.48 Origo’s opinion probably grew out of a comment by Lapo in a letter to Francesco: “I pardon my student [Margherita], whom I taught, for not answering my letter, since I know she is busy with preparations for Christmas.”49 This remark can easily be taken to mean that Ser Lapo had a role in teaching Margherita to write. However, Ser Lapo also called Francesco his student in religious matters, and putting Lapo’s phrase in that context makes it likely that he was thinking of Margherita as his student in religion.50 Other evidence suggests that Ser Lapo did not teach Margherita. A perusal of the Datini correspondence shows that Margherita and Ser Lapo spent very little time together, not enough for him to teach her to write. While he could have given her a list of characters for her to copy for practice, he apparently did not, since Ser Lapo wrote in the handwriting of a notary, whereas Margherita’s script was in the merchant style—rounded, with broad letters. (Notaries were taught to write in Latin in a delicate script that carried over to their vernacular writing.)51 Casting further doubt on Lapo’s role in teaching Margherita is a letter in which Lapo asked Francesco whether Margherita had chosen to write in the style of a nun (i.e., in a gothic script) or in another style, suggesting that he did not know which she had chosen.52 All in all, it seems likely that Margherita reached full literacy through practice, building on what she already knew, Page 144 → rather than learning through formal lessons. Perhaps she used one of the models available for teaching the young, since the way she formed her letters does not exactly match that of any of Francesco’s clerks or that of Francesco himself.53 These writing models were directed at boys, and Margherita would have learned in the way boy apprentices learned. Knowing how to write better did not mean that Margherita gave up using scribes. There are no surviving autograph letters by her from 1396 to February 1399, when her autograph letters begin. During that time, she sent eighty-six surviving scribal letters. The best evidence of her writing from these years, aside from Ser Lapo’s comments, come from account keeping, especially the following remark: “I received this evening . . . from Mastriscia thirty lire, and I wrote nothing in the main account book, but I wrote in his own book that I had received the money, at the bottom of the account as is customary, and I also put it in my notebook that I keep for expenses. Tell me if you wish to have written in the main account book, ‘Francesco and Stoldo have received the said thirty lira,’ as at other times, or how you wish it done.”54 Why are there no autograph letters from the time Ser Lapo was commenting on her writing? Partly, circumstances encouraged Margherita to keep on using scribes when writing to Francesco: she spent those years in Prato, where she was closely involved in the numerous time-consuming activities already described and where she had at her disposal people who could act as her scribes (even if not always as readily as she wanted). Partly, it is a matter of preservation, if she wrote to people other than Francesco. Despite Lapo’s complaints about her failure to write to him in her own hand, she almost certainly did so at least a few times.55 However, Lapo did not usually keep letters, one time going so far as to tell Francesco to throw away, once Francesco had read it, a letter Lapo had proudly sent on to Francesco to demonstrate the writing skill of Lapo’s beloved son Peraccino.56 The few surviving letters from Francesco to Ser Lapo exist because Ser Lapo returned Francesco’s original to him with Ser Lapo’s own message added as a response. Even if Lapo had tried to keep Francesco’s letters, they would have been lost over the centuries. The Datini collection, aside from Francesco’s letters to business partners and employees, contains almost entirely letters to Francesco and his circle and not Francesco’s letters to other people. As for Margherita’s autograph letters from 1399, they were all written in Florence, twenty-one to Francesco and one to her brother Bartolomeo. Unlike in Prato, her responsibilities in Florence corresponded more to traditional Page 145 → household duties, since the business, managed by Stoldo di Lorenzo, was located elsewhere, giving her more leisure to improve her writing. Their house in Florence at this time, two stories high and located in the

Red Lion district, was rented, as were all the Datini houses in that city. The best room was decorated with painted designs, and there were four or five other rooms for sitting or sleeping, including Francesco and Margherita’s bedroom. It also had a kitchen, a room for baking bread, a kitchen attic where chickens were kept, and a storeroom for wine.57 A servant or two (sometimes Lucia) and sometimes a housekeeper (Monna Ghita or Monna Ave) aided Margherita in her duties there, although a housekeeper mostly took over only when Margherita was in Prato. In one of Margherita’s autograph letters, she noted that the Florentine house was in order, except that it needed a little tinware and another mortar. She asked Francesco to send her a mortar from Prato, but only if there was an extra one; she did not want an insufficient number in Prato, which shows her continued interest in the Prato household.58 Prato also continued to show its presence in her life in the stream of people who went back and forth between Prato and Florence, for whom Margherita had to provide in the Florentine house. The important duty of taking care of correspondence persisted, involving the writing or dictating of her own letters to Francesco and of other letters that needed to be answered or to be sent on to Francesco. There was no scribe easily available except for her ten-year-old assistant, Ser Lapo’s son Peraccino. When Peraccino first came to work for Margherita, she tested his skills by having him write a letter to Francesco in her name. When he did it in an uncertain, uneven hand, she told Francesco that she would make the boy learn to write well enough for the merchant workplace.59 In the meantime, she began sending only autograph letters to Francesco, gradually polishing her own skills through practice, just as boy apprentices did. She wrote most of the letters before midMay, at which time Francesco joined her, and the 1399 correspondence then ceased except for a short time in November. She wrote two more letters in November (see fig. 8 for one of them), her best efforts. Francesco had taken on Peraccino as an apprentice in Florence, and since Margherita was in Florence and Francesco in Prato, much of the responsibility for Peraccino fell on her. Florentine boys aiming at a merchant career finished their elementary schooling around ten, having learned the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic in a way similar to girls, although many fewer girls than boys had the chance to do so. Like Margherita’s niece Tina, boys finished the tavola and the Psalter and then went on to another book or two, possibly the Page 146 → “Little Book of Our Lady” (although that may have been more common for girls) or else one such as the Fior di virtù(Flower of virtue), an exposition of virtues and vices. Unlike girls, boys usually learned reading and writing in an elementary school classroom. They would then go to abacus school for a year or two, to learn business arithmetic, while continuing to improve their writing skills, whether at home, at school, or on the job. Boys who were going into the professions furthered their education by studying Latin language and literature. However, Latin secondary schooling was something of a luxury (although it would become common for a reasonably educated man by the sixteenth century), delaying paid work.60 Since Ser Lapo had many children, he wanted to prepare them for their future as soon as possible. Ser Lapo, although from a poor family, had himself taken the Latin route in order to become a notary, but he had had a patron to help pay for it. Of his three surviving sons, one became a goldsmith, one a silk merchant, and one, Piero (or Peraccino), a merchant.61 The day after Peraccino acted as Margherita’s uncertain scribe, Margherita told Francesco in her autograph letter, “He has one thing you will like; he can read well. As far as writing, don’t be surprised that he cannot write straight, as he is still learning arithmetic, but he seems to me to be of a condition that he will learn when he is taught, and that will be as soon as you are here.”62 She then Page 147 → wrote twenty-two letters in her own hand. Her nine letters written up to early April 1399 show that she had trouble—perhaps more than average—in creating straight lines, and her spacing of lines and margins was crooked until then, although it improved thereafter. She used some of the abbreviations that were part of writing conventions, but she only started using capital letters after her first five letters. Throughout the series, her spelling remained more dialectical and phonetic than the men’s, even though the men too wrote in the Tuscan Italian of the era.63 She used no punctuation at the end of her sentences, but neither did Francesco. Others used the slash (virgule) to end a sentence and even at every breathing space; only the more cultivated Ser Lapo sometimes used periods as well as slashes. As for form, it is apparent that Margherita was making an effort day by day to follow merchant standards increasingly closely. Theorists attempted to discuss merchant letter writing as a variant of the ars dictaminis, or the medieval art of letter writing, but the approaches were too different to make this enlightening. Some of

Francesco’s letters follow an intermediate form between the ars dictaminis and the merchant form that was developing, which Hayez calls the “courtly” letter. Perhaps better described in English as the social letter, it aimed at communicating with friends rather than business associates—especially with high-status friends.64 However, Margherita’s goal was to write a good letter in merchant style. Ars dictaminis letters were not normally dated, but Margherita, following the merchant tradition, wrote, at the top of the page, “In the name of God” (al nome di dio), followed by the month, day, and year. The use of exact dating by merchants reflected not only a desire to keep precise track of their correspondence but also a special interest in numbers and time compared to other social groups, and Margherita shared in this outlook.65 Significantly, the Datini’s friend Ser Lapo, a well-educated and somewhat literary man, but not a merchant, often failed to date his letters, probably seeing it as less formal and friendlier. Margherita, like those around her, skipped the salutation, whereas it was one of the most important aspects of the ars dictaminis, which gave particular attention to the relative social status of writer and recipient. (The courtly letter had a short salutation, as did Margherita’s mother’s letters sent from Avignon, putting hers in the courtly category.) Omitting the salutation in merchant letters was customary among people who corresponded often in the comparatively egalitarian merchant world. It could also be a sign of intimacy, judging by Page 148 → the first letter Ser Lapo wrote to Margherita, in which he explained the lack of salutation and lack of declaration of goodwill (the exordium of the ars dictaminis) by saying, “I write . . . in the domestic style, because I have decided to . . . leave aside the prefaces and prologues that are used among strangers.”66 As a notary, Lapo was well informed about the conventions of letter writing, but he sometimes chose not to use them. Instead of a salutation, Margherita, like the men, began by mentioning the letters she had recently sent and received, and she also ended the letters with the customary Idio ti [vi] guardi (“may God watch over you”). The narrative portion of merchant letters normally went over the subjects mentioned in letters received and added any new subjects, in both cases using separate paragraphs for separate points. This pattern made merchant letters more of a conversation than ars dictaminis letters, which have been described as closer to speeches.67 However, Margherita’s autograph letters in the early months conveyed the information she wanted to communicate much less effectively than the men’s did, indicating that her scribes had earlier improved the form of her letters, even if they had taken down her words as she spoke them. Margherita’s first letters were not divided into paragraphs. Then, in April 1399, she began to indicate paragraphs. However, upon reading the text of the eight letters from 7 April through 3 May (rather than judging them only by appearance), it becomes obvious that she was often dividing her paragraphs inaccurately. She knew that a paragraph normally began with a large letter written to the left of the text, but she did not understand its relation to meaning, and she began paragraphs in the middle of an idea and even in the middle of a sentence.68 On 6 May, she used paragraphs correctly; she backslid on 7 May; and then, in her three remaining letters—from 8 May, 2 November, and 4 November—her paragraphs were correct. Nonetheless, Margherita’s struggle with paragraphs in 1399 indicates that she was striving to learn a correct writing style and that she eventually did. Margherita’s first eight autograph letters, written up until mid-April, are short. One reason for this, she explained in February, was her expectation that Francesco would arrive any day and that she could inform him about the news in person. By April, it was clear he had been delayed, and he complained that she was not telling him enough although he had given her a scribe (Peraccino, an inadequate scribe).69 Probably because of Francesco’s comment and because of her increasing facility, her letters became longer. Francesco’s complaint reveals a lack of interest in whether Margherita wrote in her own hand or used a scribe, as long as she provided him information. Page 149 → Ser Lapo worried about his son’s education and asked Francesco to remind Margherita to be sure that the boy practiced his arithmetic an hour each day, so that he did not forget what he had learned.70 Some months later, in early 1400, Ser Lapo sent Peraccino back to abacus school.71 He was rather apologetic about doing so, saying that it was good for boys to vent their craziness among other boys. Peraccino, later called Piero, would return to the

Datini businesses in a couple of years, to work for Francesco’s company in Barcelona. After Peraccino left her, Margherita wrote one scribal letter to Francesco before the couple traveled together to Bologna for the year in order to escape the plague. When they returned, she used a scribe for her letters to Francesco, although she probably wrote to others in her own hand. Explaining to Francesco why she had not written in early 1403, Margherita said that each time she had sent a messenger to the house of her brother-in-law Niccolò Tecchini to request that he come and write for her, he had not been at home. 72 Margherita’s last surviving autograph letter comes from 1402 and is written messily, although still much better than her letter of 1388. Maybe she was losing the knack of writing as well as she had at the end of 1399 or, probably, lying in bed limited her: she explained that she was writing while sick in bed, with no one in the house to write for her, and that she did not want to send out for a comparative stranger to do it, because men always like to criticize women.73 Her comment implies that she expected to use a scribe when possible and also that there might be gossip if she received a comparative stranger as scribe while she was lying in bed. Apparently, autograph letter writing had taken effort, and she no longer cared to make the effort if she could avoid it. She had achieved what she needed to achieve. Nonetheless, her improved literacy still had an impact on her life, because when in Florence, Margherita could easily read letters as they arrived, in order to decide what needed to be sent on immediately to Francesco in Prato.74 Margherita’s writing centered around Francesco’s interests as well as around her own goals. However, Margherita was a Florentine by origin, with personal connections and property considerations of her own there. They were not entirely removed from her role as Francesco’s wife, but in their case, she was the mediator between him and her relatives and between him and her property claims, as is seen in the following chapter.

Page 150 →

CHAPTER 11 Margherita and Her Relatives In May 1399, Margherita sent a harsh letter to her destitute brother Bartolomeo that demonstrates the way her unpaid dowry was a sore point in her relations with her birth family—although it exaggerates her unwillingness to ask Francesco for help: “You know that, unlike Domenico’s other children, I never received anything from him. And the last time you were in Florence, you took possessions and money away with you, unlike many brothers who would pawn themselves to help with their sister’s dowry, as they ought. . . . You and my mother have blocked me from daring to ask Francesco to help you in your need, because you have not done what you should toward Francesco nor toward me. I am well and have what I want, and I would want to share it with you and my other relatives; but as you know I have nothing of my own.”1 This chapter provides the context for Margherita’s attitude toward Bartolomeo, describing all aspects of her kinship relations. Margherita’s dowry or lack thereof figured large in these matters. Although her own kinship ties were somewhat separate from her role as Francesco’s wife, they were also connected to it. Francesco, like most people, valued the in-law tie and was supportive and helpful about her kin, softening the hard edges of Margherita and Francesco’s relationship. Margherita had many relatives in Florence, where she was raised until she was fourteen and where she often spent time once back from Avignon. However, her active relationships were almost all through the female line. Scholarship on the Florentine family has emphasized the importance of the casa, or “house,” among the elite or aspiring elite. Composed of the group of relatives related through the male line and linked by a common surname, with dowried Page 151 → daughters marrying out, this family form was the ideal whenever demographics, finances, and good feeling permitted, but circumstances did not always allow it.2 The casa Bandini had disappeared in Florence, cut off by the participation of Margherita’s father, Domenico, in a plot against the government. Outside Florence, the only remaining male of the family was the feckless Bartolomeo, who lived in Avignon and Fondi, the other brother, Zanobi, having died young. In Florence, the surviving Bandini, aside from her sister Francesca, included her father’s sister Giovanna, widow of Salvestro di Cantino Cavalcanti, and the Piaciti, the large family of another of Domenico’s sisters, Caterina.3 Such female and maternal relatives were significant even when the casa flourished, but they were even more so when it did not. As for the branch of the Gherardini magnate casa from which Margherita’s mother, Dianora, came, its members had to live outside Florence because of the political disrepute arising from Pelliccia Gherardini’s part in the plot against the government. Whereas Margherita’s father had been executed, the Gherardini only had to stay away from Florence. Dianora had four brothers and a sister who survived her, most of whom resided in Val di Greve in the Chianti and made their livings as landowners, often sending wine to Margherita and Francesco. Francesco, the diligent correspondent, was in touch with them by letter and had some financial dealings with them. Margherita also saw them from time to time.4 Dianora was not close to her siblings and depended on in-laws instead. Her brothers certainly did not volunteer to help her when she needed help in the late 1380s. Margherita’s closest relative in Florence was a female, her sister Francesca. She and her family—her husband, Niccolò dell’Ammanato Tecchini, and their children, Caterina (Tina) and Tommaso (Maso), are touched on frequently in this book,5 but a more complete description is in order here. Francesca and Niccolò had married by 1374, before Margherita’s mother, Dianora, and her other children had gone to Avignon.6 Francesca would have been at least five years older than Margherita, and Niccolò was older still: Margherita said she would “ask his opinion as she would a father’s,” and Bartolomeo, who was about Margherita’s age, said he considered Niccolò to be like a father.7 Margherita and Francesca had a warm relationship, and Margherita often stayed with Francesca and Niccolò when she was in Florence, as Francesco did sometimes too.8 Fourteen letters from Francesca remain, mostly short and

mostly asking for help with Niccolò’s financial problems; two suggested solutions for Margherita’s infertility. 9 Once, when Margherita and her sister Francesca Page 152 → quarreled, Margherita appeared bereft, feeling cut off from all family ties.10 Little about Francesca’s personality is revealed in the letters, while Niccolò’s large correspondence, containing clever sayings that have been quoted in previous chapters, tells more about him. Niccolò came from a well-to-do but small family. 11 In the fourteenth century, Niccolò’s father and uncle had served on the Florentine Signoria three times between them, including in the important position of gonfaloniere of justice. However, the Tecchini left little mark in Florence after the fourteenth century. Some of them migrated to Perpignan. A cousin, Piero di Matteo, had gone native in Perpignan, taking the name Tequi Pere, and Francesca and Niccolò’s son Tommaso would settle in Perpignan with these relatives after a time spent working for Francesco’s company in Spain.12 In Florence, Niccolò had a brother and a sister. The brother went by the name Filippo Ammannati, and the name of his son Ammannato would be drawn for the Signoria in 1427, although he was already dead. Filippo Ammannati’s brother said that the family had been resident in the Florentine Red Lion gonfalone for three hundred years—although clearly not always with the surname Tecchini.13 Niccolò served once on the Signoria in 1378, at the time of the War of the Eight Saints against the pope. 14 Niccolò’s political career was cut off when the oligarchical Guelf party, which had opposed the war, regained influence after the war and proscribed Niccolò from holding office. Niccolò never held high office again, and in later years, as the government became increasingly oligarchical, he seemed apolitical, only interested, like Francesco, in how politics affected trade.15 Niccolò and Francesca provide an example of an affectionate, if traditional, marriage—affectionate in comparison to the Datini’s. In one place, Niccolò contrasted the two marriages, writing, “I have a very simple relationship with Francesca. I want what she wants and so I comport myself.”16 Elsewhere, he emphasized his dominance as well as his contentment, “I always have the reins in my hand, so I have no need to pull on the teeth. She is my wife, and as my wife I love her, which is enough for her and for me.”17 One time, suggesting that Francesco paid too much attention to Margherita’s opinion, Niccolò said that he was not one of those who believed anything a woman said except when it was to his advantage, which happened rarely.18 The latter comment may have been an attempt at heavy-handed masculine humor; there is no evidence of what Francesca thought about the matter. However, Niccolò did send Francesca one rather harsh letter, criticizing her Page 153 → lack of judgment, after she stayed too long at the Datini’s in Prato when he needed her back in Florence to sign papers.19 Niccolò’s early letters to Francesco show him as rather ostentatiously pleased with his and Francesca’s fertility and way of life, compared to the Datini’s—although he always expressed this in a humorous fashion.20 But life would strip him of his confidence. In the early period, Niccolò and probably Francesco Datini, too, used the intimate tu, but by 1385 they both called each other by the respectful voi, as status considerations became more ambiguous.21 In any case, Niccolò never had qualms about politely telling Francesco to count his blessings, when Francesco complained about his lot.22 Niccolò was a moderately successful businessman until 1392, with his trading mostly centered in Pisa, where he spent periods of time. He also carried on some business in his home city of Florence. In 1383, he worked for a time in Francesco’s Florentine company, and in that year, Niccolò and Francesco had plans to set up a partnership together. But Niccolò had another partner whom he did not want to desert, and the subject never arose again. Nigro suggests that Francesco realized that Niccolò lacked the business acumen of the partners on whom Francesco came to depend: Manno degli Agli in Pisa, Stoldo di Lorenzo in Florence, Bartolomeo Cambioni in Florence, and Luca del Sera in Spain and, later, Florence.23 The first blow to Niccolò’s finances came in 1392, to his Pisan investments, as a result of Pisan politics, that is, because of Pisan hostility toward Florentine rule. Giovanni d’Appiano, the strongman of the anti-Florentine faction in Pisa, moved closer to Florence’s enemy, the conquering Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan, in an attempt to throw off Florentine control, and Florentine businesses in Pisa, including Niccolò’s, were sacked. 24 Niccolò had no fault in this disaster, except perhaps for showing a lack of awareness. Manno degli Agli, Francesco’s partner in Pisa, had seen what was going to happen and had moved all of the Datini business into the shop of a

Pisan merchant and thus out of danger. Margherita’s sister Francesca sent two letters on the subject, one to Francesco and one to Margherita, suggesting that she had expected more sympathy from the Datini for the Tecchini’s losses, considering the adversity and fatigue Niccolò had suffered in his person and possessions. 25 Her criticism was premature, since Francesco was instrumental in getting back much of what Niccolò had lost in Pisa. 26 Francesco took seriously the role of kinsman and brother-in-law, and he was also fond of Niccolò and his family. Responding a month later to what must have been an unusually affectionate letter from Francesco, Niccolò Page 154 → wrote, “I see in what a good and beautiful way you describe the love you have for me and my family . . . and, faced with unexpected events, you as a concerned relative want to . . . help.”27 Niccolò said he was so obligated that he would never forget it, and he prayed that he deserved it. After another loss in 1394,28 things got much worse for Niccolò in 1397. His business partner and employees in Pisa cheated him of his share of the profits, so that he could not afford to pay a promissory note that he had signed in Florence, and he was legally declared a bankrupt. Margherita’s sister Francesca described to Margherita the Tecchini’s condition: the bankruptcy judgment had come nine months previously, leaving them with no money, and they had to sell their belongings at a loss to live; no relative or friend had helped them except Francesco, let God give him long life and let God remind him of her family. Francesca wished she could tell Margherita about it face to face to make her understand what had happened.29 Margherita’s letter to Francesca told her that, according to Francesco, Niccolò should never have signed the promissory note without consulting Francesco first. Francesco had also said, Margherita wrote, that Francesca should show the Tecchini’s accounts to Francesco. Perhaps Francesco was advising Francesca to do this with Niccolò’s permission, or perhaps he was advising Francesca to act behind Niccolò’s back, going against moralists’ recommendations about how a good wife should behave. Francesca was, nonetheless, a loyal wife and defended Niccolò by saying that what had happened was so unpredictable that Niccolò could not have known it would happen.30 Nonetheless, Niccolò’s failure to realize that his employees were cheating him implies a lack of vigilance. It would never have happened with Francesco, who, on the contrary, erred on the side of excessive suspicion and got rich in the process. Francesco wanted to help the Tecchini, and it appears that he was present at the sale of the Tecchini’s household goods.31 Margherita described the Tecchini’s situation: Niccolò owed five hundred florins in the bankruptcy settlement, of which Francesco paid two hundred florins and arranged that other relatives pay three hundred. Francesco had also arranged that Niccolò keep his house, so that Francesca and their daughter Caterina would have a place to live. Having wealthy relatives who were willing to help, as good relatives were supposed to do, staved off destitution. Niccolò also tried to earn some money as a broker (sensale), and according to Margherita, Francesca would have to earn her living too, though Margherita does not say through what means.32 Both Niccolò and Francesca’s health declined under the strain of the bankruptcy, and they are Page 155 → described thereafter as old and sick.33 Niccolò provides evidence that as many or more merchants failed in business as those who, like Francesco, succeeded. Margherita’s brothers and other brother-in-law were also economic failures. Before Niccolo’s financial problems consumed him, he was a great help in the issues surrounding Margherita’s mother’s house and Margherita’s dowry, two related cases in which property disputes undermined kinship. As a woman, Margherita’s direct involvement in negotiations was less than Francesco and Niccolò’s, and she often disappears from the record. Nonetheless, as important parts of Margherita’s life, they deserve description. Margherita had rights in the substantial house in Florence owned by her mother, Dianora Gherardini Bandini, located in Santo Spirito quarter and worth approximately four hundred florins. It was the house in which Margherita grew up, so Margherita would have had affection for it. Dianora had originally promised this house to Francesco as a backup dowry for Margherita, if her sons did not earn the money in another way.34 There is conflicting evidence on whether the house came with Dianora as her dowry or whether she received it in compensation for her dowry when her husband’s property was confiscated, dowry property being protected from a husband’s debts. However, the latter seems most likely, which would make it originally a Bandini house.35

Dianora comes across as overbearing and manipulative, and neither Margherita nor the other Florentine relatives had a good relationship with her. However, she had had a hard life, giving her reason to begin a letter to Margherita and Francesco, “Dianora, in enough distress, prays God to keep you in His love.”36 Her husband had been executed and his property confiscated, leaving her with five children to bring up. Her beloved son Zanobi died in debt, and she lacked the income to avoid going further into debt herself.37 Aside from the house, she owned shares in the Florentine-funded debt and part of a farm, but the money from those was not enough to live on.38 Dianora and her sons had not paid Margherita’s dowry or that of the slightly older sister Isabetta, who lived in Avignon, whereas Francesca, the eldest daughter, had received a full dowry of seven hundred florins, a good amount in that period.39 Margherita’s older brother Zanobi had made an attempt to pay her dowry, saying in 1376 that he still owed Francesco three out of the four hundred florins agreed on. However, he soon died in debt to Francesco, without a marriage contract having been signed—the idea having been that a contract could wait until Zanobi gathered the necessary funds. After Zanobi’s death, Francesco offset the one hundred florins Zanobi had paid against Zanobi’s Page 156 → overall debt, with the effect that no dowry was recognized as having been paid. Dowry and nondowry funds were usually considered separate, but Francesco’s behavior can be considered marginally ethical since no contract agreeing to a dowry had been signed.40 In a letter of 1385, written to Francesco shortly after Zanobi’s death, Dianora stated that she realized friends and relatives were saying she favored one daughter, Francesca, over the others, Margherita and Isabetta. It was not her wish to deprive Francesco of the dowry he was owed. She loved all her daughters equally, but matters were not equal. She had thought that, with Zanobi’s assistance, she could do for her other daughters what she had for Francesca, but she could not.41 (Here it should be said that her assumption was that her younger son Bartolomeo would not be much help.) Dianora continued, “I cannot find peace after the death of such a fine son. . . . My conscience bothers me because I believe he died because he was trying to please me, by doing for my daughters more than he was able and because of his regret at not succeeding in doing more, and I have this on my conscience, this knife in the heart.”42 Dianora’s comment that Zanobi’s health had been undermined by his attempts to earn money to pay his sisters’ dowries could be taken to imply that she thought the sisters were indirectly responsible for the death of Zanobi, her favorite child. It points up the attitude that weakened daughters’ position in the family. Family property was seen as belonging to the male line, and the dowries owed to daughters, often a substantial part of a family’s wealth, were seen as subtracting from family property. Yet a family’s social prestige demanded that dowries suitable to the family’s social level be given, creating pressure on those who were to provide the dowry. Dianora had entrusted the care of her Florentine house to the recently married Francesca and Niccolò when she went to Avignon in 1374, leaving them to rent it out, keep it in good repair, and perhaps pay the tax on it, the latter becoming a matter of dispute.43 When Margherita and Francesco returned to Italy in December 1382, Dianora considered moving to be near them. However, her daughter Isabetta, the third sister, had married Jacopo Girolli, a Florentine based in Avignon, and Dianora considered the marriage between Isabetta and Giacchi, as she often called him, to be problematic. She would not move to Florence unless Isabetta and Jacopo settled there too, not wanting Isabetta to be in Avignon “alone.”44 Dianora would later write to Francesco that she needed money partly so that Giacchi remained in peace with Isabetta.45 Margherita was not the only one to have trouble conceiving a child. Isabetta and Giacchi had no Page 157 → children until they had been married for eight years, perhaps because they were not together the whole time, a possibility if Giacchi was waiting for the dowry. The couple eventually had one son, Arnaldo, who would grow up to be a notary in Avignon and would have later contacts with the Bandini group in Prato and Florence.46 Margherita’s brother Bartolomeo described Isabetta as being poor in worldly goods but a good person respected by everyone in Avignon, with a good son.47 Francesco had a low opinion of Jacopo Girolli, no matter what Isabetta’s merits. Francesco and Jacopo had worked together at times, and although Jacopo had accompanied the Datini back to Italy from Avignon, Francesco found him untrustworthy.48 Jacopo was an unsuccessful apothecary, or dealer in drugs, who traveled around Italy in the mid-1380s trying to drum up business and failing to do so. Francesco discouraged Margherita from entertaining him in Prato, although the Datini would later help Jacopo financially, paying his passage back to

Avignon. One time, Margherita reported that Jacopo had visited her, looking sad and in a bad state, and Margherita felt sorry that Francesco had told her not to invite Jacopo to eat or to sleep, even though she admitted, “I know you are right.” She had a bad day after Jacopo told her, with tears in his eyes, that he had nowhere good to stay. “However,” she assured Francesco, “I am not prepared to ignore any of your orders, neither for him nor for anyone in the world, nor burden you more than you yourself wish, because I have so much confidence that you will do what needs to be done.”49 Margherita wrote this early in her correspondence with Francesco, when she still called Francesco by the respectful voi rather than the intimate tu. She was less inclined to argue with him than she would be later, but she would continue to value Francesco’s judgment. When Dianora changed her mind about moving to Florence, she wanted the household goods that she had left with Francesca, goods she had had formally evaluated at 135 florins, to be sent to her, as well as two trunks of valuable clothing and fabrics that she had sent to Florence in anticipation of returning there.50 The Florentine relatives delayed sending her trunks, because they wanted to use the contents to help pay the tax on the house. Dianora and Niccolò argued about who had agreed to pay the tax, which led to a heated exchange in which Niccolò told Dianora that her daughter Francesca believed Dianora was trying to intimidate her and that he thought Dianora’s behavior showed that she did not love her children.51 Niccolò treated Dianora much more rudely than he did Francesco and Margherita, as Dianora did him. Page 158 → Dianora was thinking of selling the house, but she needed the permission of the heirs, her children, to do so. When she sent a power of attorney to be signed by her daughters’ husbands as representatives of their wives, Margherita reported that she had replied to Dianora that for no one in the world would she want to lose any property coming to her.52 In Florence, family property, including dowry property, descended to the sons, not the daughters, but daughters had rights in it—the right to live there if necessary and the right to inherit if the sons died.53 Margherita had claims that were greater than usual, since the house was supposed to have gone to her unpaid dowry. The Datini’s relations with Dianora worsened when Dianora refused a request Francesco made to rent the house for his business, even though he said he would pay rent like anyone else. She wanted him to buy it instead. Dianora sent a letter to Margherita about her plan, probably not daring to write to Francesco about it, since he was still owed the house as dowry. Writing, “You know all the pain I have had in this world,” she requested that Francesco buy the house for four hundred florins and pay all expenses relating to it, with the proviso that Margherita’s brother Bartolomeo could buy it back if he wanted. She played on family feelings, indicating that keeping it in the family rather than letting it go to strangers would be for the consolation and honor of them all. She also played on Margherita’s obligation for obedience as a daughter: “I hope that you will act in this and other things as a good daughter should, and I tell you that I have confidence in you. Please beg Francesco to do it.”54 Francesco, Niccolò, and the others were offended by Dianora’s request that Francesco buy the house, and they did not answer her letter. This led Dianora to present a petition to the Florentine government to allow her to sell the house without permission of the heirs. The petition may also have included a complaint about Niccolò not sending her trunks. Niccolò sent Dianora an angry letter, saying, among other harsh words, that she had brought shame on the family. After defending herself on the grounds of poverty, she finished her response by reducing what she asked for the house, asking that they send her three hundred florins for the house and that they also send her two chests; if they did not, Niccolò, Francesco, and her daughters would be the cause of shortening her life. If Zanobi were alive, she wrote, she would not be in these straits.55 Dianora was dead within a month, after a long illness. Jacopo Girolli reported to Niccolò that it had pleased the Lord to call Dianora to Him on 10 May and remove her from the pains and tribulations of this world.56 To Margherita’s brother Bartolomeo, Jacopo wrote that Monna Dianora’s Florentine house now Page 159 → belonged to Jacopo and Isabetta and not to Bartolomeo, Dianora’s son, because Dianora’s will left Isabetta her heir, as well as leaving two hundred florins (which Dianora did not have) to Jacopo. Everyone in Avignon, Jacopo said, knew that he and Isabetta had great bother and expense from Dianora’s illness, and the house was their recompense. Maintaining that it was a lie that she had gotten money from Francesco’s Avignon company, as

Niccolò and Francesco claimed, Jacopo reported that the company manager, Boninsegna, never even asked how Dianora was doing during her illness and gave nothing when Jacopo asked him for some aid in her honor on the day of her burial. However, by the grace of God, he said, Dianora was held in such high esteem that she was buried with as much honor as anyone who died in Avignon in the last hundred years.57 (Francesco’s point of view would have been that he had helped Dianora by having her attended in her illness by Maestro Naddino, the doctor from Prato practicing medicine in Avignon, and also that his business partners in Avignon had lost patience with Dianora when she stopped by their office too often asking for favors.)58 Jacopo could not understand, he continued, why the Florentine relatives were against the terms of Dianora’s will, according to which the house clearly belonged to Jacopo and Isabetta. He asserted that Niccolò was not owed anything, because he had received a dowry from Francesca, and that some people said Francesco had gotten the equivalent of a dowry from Zanobi, although Francesco did not admit it (Jacopo was referring, with some exaggeration, to the money Francesco had switched from dowry to debt repayment). Jacopo contended that Bartolomeo had no right to the house, because of what he owed Jacopo, since, according to Jacopo, Bartolomeo and Zanobi owed Jacopo more money than the house was worth, from a previous business venture. Furthermore, Isabetta was owed a dowry of six hundred florins, and the house could be used to cover that.59 This letter expressed Jacopo and Isabetta’s opinion, but in Florence, sons almost always won out in inheritance.60 Therefore, according to the Florentine relatives, Bartolomeo, as his parents’ son, was the legal heir of the house, no matter what Jacopo said. A year or two older than Margherita, making him about thirty in 1388, Bartolomeo had always been considered an irresponsible ne’er-do-well. However, he was beginning to establish himself as a gentleman farmer in Fondi, near Gaeta, and had just been betrothed by the hand of a Count Maso, the count’s involvement indicating it was a good match.61 It is interesting, given the usual Florentine attention to marriage arrangements,62 that little is said about who the bride or her family were. It is probably a sign not of Page 160 → disapproval of the bride but, rather, of how out of touch Bartolomeo was with his relatives. Bartolomeo always signed himself “Bartolomeo di Domenico Bandini of Florence,” but he only corresponded with his relatives every few years, when he had a particular motive. Bartolomeo reported, inaccurately, that he had heard that Jacopo Girolli had sent an agent to seize the property belonging to Bartolomeo’s father. Bartolomeo complained that he had always been treated badly by life and now was treated even worse by death. He argued that his rights should be respected, considering that he was his father’s son and not a bastard. Bartolomeo soon felt encouraged when the knowledgeable Francesco reassured him that Jacopo and Isabetta’s claim would not hold up and could be ignored.63 The Datini and Tecchini considered the house to belong to Bartolomeo, calling it “Bartolomeo’s house,”64 and rented it out, with Francesco renting it for his business for a time.65 In between betrothal and marriage, Bartolomeo went briefly to Florence, having decided to sell the house, for the benefit of himself and his sisters and to pay back taxes.66 Before any sale took place, the Bandini relatives received a shock. Dianora, in her need, had sold the house to members of the papal court in Avignon, Orlando di Ser Bartolo Chiarmatesi and his wife, for three hundred florins.67 It seems that Jacopo and Isabetta, with whom Dianora lived in Avignon, did not know about the sale, although Bartolomeo would later claim that they did. Dianora had friends at the papal court whom she visited when well enough, and she might have negotiated in secret, knowing that her daughter and son-in-law would be opposed. The sale would have shown some desperate duplicity on her part, since she had left Isabetta heir without mentioning that the house was not included in the inheritance.68 Or the duplicity may have been on Jacopo and Isabetta’s part, if they knew about the sale and only later turned against Orlando. In any case, Orlando brought a law case in Florence demanding the restitution of the house, with Niccolò arguing on behalf of the Bandini relatives, claiming that Monna Dianora, ill and dying, had been duped by Orlando and his wife into selling it for less than it was worth. Niccolò also wanted Francesco to add that he was owed the house as dowry, but Francesco did not want to address that issue.69 Francesco wrote to Stoldo di Lorenzo, his partner in Florence, that he would make no claim to the house on his own behalf but was content to provide money to fight for it in court in the service of Bartolomeo and Margherita and all the others to whom the house could descend. However, Francesco also Page 161 → wanted to maintain

good relations with Orlando, whom he knew, and he asked Stoldo to tell Orlando that he understood Orlando’s position but was obliged to support his in-laws, since according to God’s word, one should not meddle in in-laws’ affairs except for their benefit, or else He could lay a vendetta against the family.70 The case failed to go in the Bandini relatives’ favor, although they believed they would have succeeded if it had been better argued. Bartolomeo had delayed in sending a suitable power of attorney, Francesco was in Pistoia, and Messer Filippo Corsini, the eminent lawyer who was theoretically on their side, actually favored Orlando. The verdict was a compromise: whoever paid three hundred florins to Orlando and his wife could have the house; in the meantime, the various claimants would share the rent received.71 Since no one but Francesco could afford the three hundred florins, the issue dragged on for more than fifteen years. Orlando transferred his claim to the house to another member of the papal court, Messer Bindo Fiesolano, and Isabetta and Bartolomeo joined forces in combating Messer Bindo. Isabetta had an important part in negotiations with Messer Bindo in Avignon, and Bartolomeo did what he could in both Avignon and Florence, always with some help from Francesco.72 In 1392, the problem of Margherita’s dowry and Monna Dianora’s house had touched on each other in another way. Margherita must have known about it, but, although the case was about her as well as Francesco, she, in Prato, did not participate. Husbands were required to pay a tax on their wives’ dowries, and someone denounced Francesco to the relevant tax office, the gabella dei contratti, claiming that he had not paid a tax on the dowry he had reputedly received from Margherita. The tax office, always seeking money, claimed that Francesco must have received a dowry of one thousand florins—because Francesca had brought seven hundred florins to Niccolò, a less wealthy and less successful man—and that Francesco must pay accordingly (although Francesco noted to Stoldo that the Bandini did not even possess one thousand florins at the time of his marriage to Margherita). Francesco could not produce documentary evidence about his marriage, which the tax office found hard to believe, given the Florentine propensity and especially Francesco’s propensity to keep records, and they thought that there must be a signed marriage contract hidden somewhere.73 Niccolò Tecchini testified in front of the tax officials that Francesco had never received a dowry, making his argument according to a script Francesco had provided him. Niccolò argued (ignoring the extent he was beholden to Page 162 → Francesco) that his truthfulness could be counted on because Margherita was his wife’s sister; if the dowry had existed, he and his wife would want Margherita to receive her due, that is, formal recognition of the amount of the dowry, so that she could receive it back in widowhood.74 Francesco, Niccolò said, had the right to take Monna Dianora’s house as Margherita’s dowry, and Niccolò had encouraged him to do so, but Francesco had not wanted to be involved in a lawsuit against the other sister, Isabetta, who, according to this version of the story, was also to have the house as her dowry. Although Niccolò presented the facts in a rather one-sided way, his statement that Francesco had never received a dowry was accurate in essentials.75 Ser Lapo Mazzei spent a whole morning at the tax office, “as if it were a tax on the dowry of a king,” and spoke to friends who could help. Perhaps he was expressing doubt about the truth of Francesco’s story when he said that he was surprised that Francesco had not made up a dowry for Margherita himself, as was sometimes done by a groom for a desirable but impecunious bride. The answer, of course, was that Francesco had been expecting the dowry to be paid.76 In his letter to Stoldo, Francesco admitted that he had been remiss in not paying the tax on the one hundred florins he had received, but he had thought he could wait until he received all the dowry.77 Now he realized he would have to pay, because if he did not, he would be put on the Florentine list of bad debtors, with financial and political penalties. Francesco wanted a compromise that would let him pay tax on less than one thousand florins dowry. He wanted it to be on two hundred florins, but the decision was that he had to pay a tax on a dowry of five hundred florins, plus a fine for lateness. Meanwhile, under Florentine law, the person who had denounced him received a fourth of the amount of the tax.78 Francesco would continue to feel angry up to the time he made his will, where he stated categorically that he had received no dowry for Margherita.79 This lack of dowry was humiliating for Margherita, since a woman’s dowry was a sign of honor, and although the dowry was under the husband’s control during the marriage, a woman’s

expectation that she could control it in widowhood lessened her sense of dependence on the husband. Margherita’s complete financial dependence on Francesco irked her, but she blamed her mother and brothers, not Francesco. Margherita’s attitude toward her brother and the dowry became clear during a visit Bartolomeo made to Tuscany in May 1399. When Margherita, in Florence, heard that Bartolomeo had suddenly appeared unannounced at the Page 163 → Datini palace in Prato, her fears were aroused. She begged Francesco, in Prato, not to bring Bartolomeo to Florence until she consulted with Niccolò and others to ascertain that the government could not arrest Bartolomeo for failure to pay taxes on the house. “You know how this city operates, you understand my meaning,” she wrote, the meaning probably being that Bartolomeo, the son of a man executed for treason, would be a particular target. It would be the last thing they needed, she continued, for Bartolomeo to be arrested. She noted that Francesco was a wise person and should take what action he thought best. In the meantime, she would find out the situation as soon as she could and would inform him.80 As a tax delinquent, Bartolomeo should have applied for a safe conduct (bollettino) before entering Florentine territory, but, oblivious, he had not thought to do so.81 Margherita—indicating that she was in touch with Gherardini relatives when they came to Florence—described how Nanni di Ceci Gherardini had told her that when his father became ill after entering Florence without permission, he was unable to get a retrospective safe conduct (probably because of unpaid taxes), and the Signoria kept him under guard during the four months he lay ill.82 Margherita wrote three surviving letters to Francesco and one to Bartolomeo on the subject of Bartolomeo’s visit, in which, among other things, she touched several times on the subject of her lack of dowry. This visit came when she was perfecting her autograph writing. Her earlier autograph letters had been stilted, but these showed that she could write at length and with disorganized eloquence when her emotions were roused. The letters to Francesco were somewhat overlapping in subject, so I mostly treat them here as one narrative. In her second letter written after hearing that Bartolomeo was in Prato, she told Francesco that she and Niccolò had clarified Bartolomeo’s position. Niccolò had gone to the tax office to gather information and had found that Bartolomeo had a debt with the commune of Florence for two hundred florins from three years ago until the present and had not paid any tax during that time. (Margherita left it to Niccolò, a man, to go to the tax office, although women did sometimes go.)83 In any case, Margherita told Francesco to “watch carefully that no one puts their hand on him [Bartolomeo], because he can be arrested both there [in Prato] and here [in Florence].” She proposed that Francesco should show Bartolomeo the letter and tell him from Margherita that she did not want him to embarrass either himself or the rest of them, explaining, “God has given me the grace of putting this thought [about the unpaid taxes] Page 164 → into my mind, which I might not have thought of otherwise.” She had problems enough, she said, without seeing Bartolomeo in prison.84 Francesco responded that he had not considered the financial implications of Bartolomeo’s visit and that the matter could have had a bad end if Margherita had not been in Florence to forestall Bartolomeo. Bartolomeo had told Francesco nothing about why he was in Tuscany except that he wanted to go to the Sant’Antonio shrine to carry out a vow on behalf of his sick son: “You know what he is like. I do not insist on hearing more information than someone wants to give me. . . . Let God have everyone act well.” Francesco continued with a wry comment on Bartolomeo’s reputation: “However, Bartolomeo is, as always, Bartolomeo.”85 Francesco enclosed a letter from Bartolomeo to Margherita and Francesca, no longer extant, in which Bartolomeo asked for help and to which Margherita sent a rather bitter reply, a section of which is quoted at the beginning of this chapter. She continued her letter by saying that she recommended Bartolomeo to Francesco as much as she could; aside from that, she could do nothing. She wrote that she and their sister Francesca took pleasure in hearing from him and were sorry they could not see him, but his circumstances made it impossible: “We beg you, Francesca and I, that you please not put us in danger. The consolation of our being together could turn to great pain.”86 Bartolomeo responded in a long letter to his sisters, defending himself against some of Margherita’s criticisms. Overlooking the fact that, according to law, the male heir was required to provide a dowry for his sister, he said he

did not know why she would complain about his and Monna Dianora’s actions toward her. He admitted that when he was in Florence the other time, he took away money that was saved in the Florentine-funded debt (Monte comune) and also household goods, but he argued that Margherita could reproach him only because he did not tell her. By this comment, Bartolomeo meant that the money and goods were his, as the male heir, again ignoring the obligation to use money and goods to pay a dowry. He said he did not tell her because she did not need it, whereas his wife and family had so much need.87 Bartolomeo commented that according to Margherita, she did not dare open her mouth to Francesco on behalf of her relatives, because Francesco had already done so much for them, particularly for Niccolò and Francesca. “I would wish that I and your relatives were not in need,” he wrote, “but it is impossible to remedy what fortune chooses.” The reader might think that Bartolomeo was taking the easy way out by blaming his problems on fortune rather Page 165 → than his own efforts. However, he went on to describe how fortune really had beaten him down. The violent and ruthless mercenary military leader Count Giovanni da Barbarino had laid waste Bartolomeo’s lands in Fondi, doing damage costing two thousand florins and undoing ten years of work. The count destroyed or stole the animals that were Bartolomeo’s main source of income and his hope of advancing his condition. He still had the land and some vines, but it was not enough to live on. He thanked God, who had given him a wife who knew well how to face bad fortune and also had given him three children, one male and two female, of whom he was proud.88 Bartolomeo had, as he already said, left home to go to fulfill a vow to Sant’ Antonio. However, he now revealed that he had also left home in order to improve his finances, and he broached a subject in this letter to Margherita that he had hesitated to mention to Francesco in person. The coming year was 1400, a Holy Year for the papacy. The Roman court would be a perfect place to earn money, with many people going there, as Francesco must realize. With Francesco’s help and for both their profit, Bartolomeo could tire himself out in Rome in order to aid his children.89 The papal court was seen as much as a lucrative place to earn money as a religious center. Margherita’s letter to Francesco from 3 May, after she had read Bartolomeo’s letter, showed more sympathy for Bartolomeo than her letter to Bartolomeo had, and she showed herself more willing to request help from Francesco for Bartolomeo than she had admitted to Bartolomeo. Francesco had asked her why Bartolomeo had told Francesco nothing about the destruction of his lands. Margherita thought it was because Bartolomeo was ashamed of being poor and old and in need. Francesco was right that Margherita would always be sad about Bartolomeo’s affairs, as long as she lived. She wished she thought Bartolomeo was capable of looking after himself. Bartolomeo had told Margherita that he had a beautiful wife and that she was also good and kind, and Margherita was as sorry for her as for him. She begged Francesco to see that Bartolomeo left Florentine territory for Pisa as soon as possible, because if he were arrested, the problem would fall on them. She asked Francesco to pay for Bartolomeo’s trip, providing him with money and not expecting him to walk, given his poor health. She hoped Francesco would do it as an act of charity if he did not see it as a familial obligation. “I won’t believe I am alive,” she asserted, “until he is outside this territory.”90 Francesco hustled Bartolomeo out of Prato and then had his company in Pisa arrange for Bartolomeo’s passage to Avignon. Bartolomeo was in Avignon Page 166 → a month later and in Fondi a few months after that.91 Stoldo had read Margherita a passage describing what Francesco had done for Bartolomeo, and she was grateful. She asked Francesco “to return here as soon as you can. It will give great pleasure to one who wishes you well. . . . Let God give us and me the grace to appreciate it.”92 The Holy Year 1400, which had raised Bartolomeo’s business hopes, turned out to be an unfortunate one for him and for most of Italy. There was a serious outbreak of plague, and Bartolomeo’s wife and children died in Fondi soon after he arrived home.93 Many friends and business associates in Prato and Florence would also die, as will be seen in the next chapter. The Datini went to Bologna for a year, where they escaped infection, and they were able to return home unimpaired, but without ever being restored completely to their previous way of life. The following chapter considers the Datini’s year in Bologna and the couple’s last years together after their return.

Page 167 →

CHAPTER 12 Margherita and Francesco, 1400–1410 Margherita’s comment to Francesco just after they returned from the year in Bologna sums up her attitude toward him in his last years: “I remind you . . . that, in my opinion, you need to do two things: one is to act in a way that is pleasing to God, and the other is to spend what little time you have left acting so that God gives you the grace of returning to Him what he has lent you.”1 By her second comment, Margherita meant that Francesco should continue his merchant activities in order to provide funds for the charity he was establishing, conceived with Ser Lapo’s help in the late 1390s, outlined in an early form in his will of 1400, and refined further in his will of 1410 until it became the Ceppo dei Poveri di Francesco di Marco, or Francesco di Marco’s Ceppo (charitable institute) for the Poor.2 Under Florentine law, wives were rarely the principal heirs of husbands, and in this case, Margherita was very pleased with Francesco’s choice of principal heir.3 The decade of 1400–1410 began with a serious epidemic of plague in Prato, Florence, and elsewhere. Bologna was free of plague, and on 27 June 1400, Francesco and Margherita traveled to Bologna to escape it, accompanied by eleven other people, including several from their domestic circle—Francesco’s daughter, Ginevra; the apprentice Guido; the servants Nanni di Martino and Lucia, now married; Nanna, the daughter of the servants Domenica and Saccente—and some male friends and associates from Prato and Florence. The journey took two days, with Nanni di Martino riding Francesco’s valued horse while everyone else, including Francesco, went on mules.4 The Datini would remain in Bologna for slightly over fourteen months. Before leaving, Francesco had written to Margherita’s uncle Bartolomeo Gherardini, Page 168 → who was living in Bologna, to ask if Margherita and Francesco could stay at Bartolomeo’s house while the house Francesco had rented was prepared for residence. Bartolomeo replied that it would have been a great honor to have them there if he lived in a better house but that his house was not worthy of their presence. However, he would do anything else he could to help them, and later correspondence shows they remained on very good terms.5 (There was also a family of Florentine merchants called Gherardini in Bologna with whom Francesco traded, but they were not related to Margherita’s relatives.)6 Francesco continued his labors, directing his business by letter from Bologna.7 However, he and Margherita had a busy social life, often arranging dinners for friends and acquaintances. Other Florentines had arrived to escape the plague, and there was also a group of Florentine exiles, all giving the Datini access to high-level society. Margherita’s attitude toward this entertaining is not known. However, she would have been pleased to receive her aunt Caterina Piaciti (her father’s sister) and her cousin Chiaramonda.8 Florence’s wars with Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan continued. While Bologna had been on Florence’s side, it was uncertain that it would continue to be so, and Florence looked at Bologna with distrust. The Florentine government, controlled by the conservative Guelf party, had exiled its critics (including most of the Alberti, Ricci, and Medici families), and members of the exile group who were in Bologna were plotting to return to power in Florence. Francesco came under suspicion because of his friendship with some of the exiles and because of his enraged reaction to another round of high taxes that the Florentine government issued to pay for the war against Milan. Francesco still resented his obligation to pay the prestanza property tax placed on him in 1394, when the Florentine government had forced citizenship on him, and each new round of taxation aroused him again.9 Ser Lapo wrote Margherita a letter explaining Francesco’s problem: “Not having had a letter from Francesco recently, I worry that he is not well. Let God help him in health and otherwise. If he is in good health, tell him to watch with whom and where he speaks.” It had been reported to the Otto di Guardia, the office in charge of Florentine security, that Francesco, in Bologna, had criticized the Florentine government in front of three other Florentines, when Francesco had heard about his latest tax bill. A friend of Lapo’s who was present at the Otto di Guardia meeting in Florence told Lapo in secret about what had been said in the meeting, and Lapo thought

Francesco should learn about this potentially threatening fact.10 He told Margherita, “Tell him about it at a suitable place and Page 169 → time, in such a way that he does not become more upset.”11 Why did Ser Lapo choose to tell Margherita to warn Francesco about the problem rather than do it himself? Perhaps he really was worried that Francesco was sick, or perhaps he considered a letter to her to be more private and less likely to be read by others, since she could now read script without help and since a lot of Francesco’s mail was being read by his employees. More likely, Ser Lapo feared that the news would exasperate the easily angered Francesco and lead him to more politically unwise comments, and Lapo thought that Margherita could introduce the subject tactfully, at the right moment. Ser Lapo was showing appreciation of her diplomatic skills. He also made an unstated assumption that Margherita and Francesco’s relationship was mostly a friendly one at this time, despite Francesco’s grumbling about Margherita in at least one letter to Ser Lapo.12 A few days later, Lapo wrote to Francesco, “I expect Monna Margherita told you something about what has happened,” and he gave Francesco more information. He did not think one little mistake would put Francesco in peril, given Francesco’s otherwise good reputation, although Ser Lapo’s friend in the Otto di Guardia worried about it. Francesco should just be careful not to make any more anti-Florentine statements.13 Ser Lapo enclosed a sample letter Francesco could send to the Otto di Guardia as an apology, but Lapo doubted that Francesco needed to send it, and Francesco probably did not.14 A few days later, Lapo wrote to Francesco, referring jokingly to ancient Roman history, that “enough has been said about the matter of the rebel [Francesco] accused by Scipio Africanus [the accuser].”15 Any worry about Francesco’s political problem in Florence disappeared among a flood of bad news from Florence and Prato. The plague was rampaging there and elsewhere, although Bologna remained relatively free of it. The worst period was the summer of 1400, but it continued for months afterward. Ser Lapo, in the midst of the dying at his job at the hospital of Santa Maria Nuova and also among his own family and friends, reported that two hundred died on one July day.16 Businesses and government offices were closed.17 In July, Francesco’s old friend, associate, and relative Niccolò di Piero died in Prato, and Manno dell’Albizzo degli Agli, manager of the Pisan company, died in Pisa. Ser Lapo’s daughter Antonia was sick unto death, although she later recovered. Two of Ser Lapo’s sons died in August (including the eldest, in whom Lapo had had high hopes), and another died in October. Bartolomeo Cambioni, manager of Francesco’s bank in Florence, died, and at the end of the month, Barzalone was so sick that they administered last rites, although he eventually recovered. In Page 170 → September, Guido del Palagio, friend of Ser Lapo and the Datini, died.18 Margherita’s brother Bartolomeo lost his wife and children during that summer (as mentioned in chap. 11), so the plague also hit at their location further south, near Forlì and Gaeta.19 The death that affected Margherita most was that of her sister Francesca. Although it was not directly from the plague, it came from the lingering effects of the plague. In August, Francesca wrote her last letter to her “most dear sister” and “most sweet sister,” saying she had suffered from the plague, with fever and stomach pains and a swollen body, all of which lasted three days, and that she had needed five weeks to recover afterward. She said she had been willing to die and thought God had kept her alive because of Niccolò and Caterina’s tears. She finished her letter by listing all the people they knew who had died.20 Niccolò reported that their daughter Caterina comported herself valiantly, looking after Francesca day and night. Francesca’s weakness continued. The following March, Niccolò wrote that Francesca was making the effort to purify herself by going to church but was very debilitated and diminished in her person. The next month, he wrote that she had a chest ailment, the pain of which was making her unable to sleep. In June, Francesca went to Siena to recuperate, and a few days later, Niccolò heard that Francesca was dead: he wished God would take him too. 21 In answer to Ser Lapo’s condolences, Francesco reported that he had comforted Margherita and that she was at peace, considering what her sister’s condition had been.22 The Tecchini’s daughter Caterina wrote letters to Francesco and Margherita expressing her sorrow, addressing them as “father” and “mother.” For Margherita, Caterina said, losing Francesca must be like losing a second mother (indicating Francesca’s greater age compared to Margherita and that Francesca’s relation to Margherita had been somewhat motherly).23 In the meantime, Francesco continued to feel hostile toward Florence, because still more tax payments were levied

for emergencies resulting from the Milanese wars. Francesco, who could work from anywhere, considered moving to Venice. Margherita’s view about such a change would have been unenthusiastic. Ser Lapo encouraged Francesco to return to Florence, reminding him that he was a Florentine in his mother’s womb, a resident of the Florentine contado—that those who created him did not choose to do it in Provence or Burgundy. Lapo thought Francesco complained more than was reasonable, which was not the mark of a wise man, and should instead think about the poor and needy. As to whether Lapo was correct, Lapo advised Francesco to ask Monna Margherita: a knowledgeable person like Margherita knew that it was Page 171 → better that Francesco recognized God, who had given Francesco so much but had never promised not to take it away.24 In the summer of 1401, as the return to Florence was being considered, Margherita fell ill, although not with the plague.25 Lapo’s letters during the summer gave attention to Francesco’s safe travel, because political and economic conditions made travel dangerous.26 In a comment unfavorable to Margherita, Lapo said he was sorry that Francesco had to drag the unwell Margherita along with him, which would make the trip more burdensome. In fact, it was decided that they should travel separately.27 Francesco had a difficult journey home, with his horse becoming ill and other problems. He and Margherita met in Prato when he returned slightly later than she did. At the time, she later reported, she did not tell him how worried she had been. When she went to Florence to get the Florentine house in order, she sent a long letter expressing her feelings, showing a loving attitude. Part of this fluent and well-composed dictated letter was cited at the head of this chapter to express Margherita’s overall point of view. It outlines two things that she hoped would shape Francesco’s behavior for the rest of his life: acting in a way that is pleasing to God, and using the little time remaining to him to work to return to God what God had lent him.28 It seems that Margherita preferred to tell Francesco what she was thinking by letter, so that she could do it in an organized and effective way. Margherita also wrote of hearing that the sick horse had died. She was sad not for the money lost but for Francesco’s sake, because she had been told that Francesco was very upset about it. She determined, however, that she and Francesco should praise God for their safe return; in particular, she praised God for allowing Francesco to come back safely to her. Nonetheless, Francesco’s arrival had saddened her for several reasons, although she had not wanted him to notice it when she was in Prato. If he had thought about it, she noted, he would have realized that she was not happy, because she feared that Francesco’s anger at his troubles would cause him to endanger his soul.29 (She seemed to suggest that Francesco was not very observant of her demeanor.) Elsewhere Margherita expressed a somewhat similar philosophy for herself in order to help her get through life, in this case contained in a poorly drafted autograph letter written when she was sick in bed. It was a philosophy by which she tried to live, even if she did not always succeed. She wrote, again making her points in binary terms, “I take pleasure in two things in this world, that is, to accept with peace what God does to us, and the other is that, for a person who has a family, not to wish Page 172 → for more from them than God grants and to take pleasure in them.”30 The sentence ends with a cryptic reference to shame, which seems to recommend avoiding shaming family members by finding fault with them. In any case, she was trying to resign herself to disappointments she had received from Francesco and others close to her. The Datini had nearly nine years of married life remaining after this letter, until Francesco’s death in 1410. (See fig. 9 for a depiction of Margherita and Francesco praying together in the later years of their marriage.) Francesco was about sixty-five in 1401 and getting to be an old man, and Margherita was forty-one. During the years 1401–7, Margherita spent her time in Florence (hardly going to Prato, if at all), with Francesco traveling regularly between Prato and Florence until 1403. They were together as much as apart, but they were apart often enough to correspond.31 Margherita, in Florence, had less to report than when she had been in Prato: the subjects of taking care of the house and family persisted, there were always things to be sent back and forth, and she also still worried about Francesco’s unhealthy way of life. In 1403, Francesco’s health declined, and he stayed with Margherita in Florence, with no letters being needed. In 1406, he felt well enough to go to Prato, where Margherita soon joined him and where they passed Francesco’s last years, from 1407 to 1410, with only a spate of letters from Francesco’s last months, in early 1410. All in all, in its later years, Margherita and Francesco’s relationship seems to have gone more smoothly than

earlier, and as Francesco weakened, he depended on Margherita more. Margherita’s frequent use of the formal voi rather than the intimate tu might indicate a greater emotional distance in these years, but it is just as likely that it indicated the respect due to a man of Francesco’s advanced age. The couple had become more diplomatic with each other, papering over disagreements. One time, Margherita told Francesco, referring to a contentious matter, “I won’t say more about this, because I would be saying something that does not please you.”32 However, Margherita’s words could still have an edge. When she referred to the bad era in which they were living, saying that the time would come when they would have to economize whether Francesco wanted to or not, she remarked that she liked nothing better than to avoid unnecessary expense, which always displeased her, and that many people spent as if their money would never vanish33—a dig directed at Francesco’s spending on large things, if not on small. Francesco answered her with restraint, saying that he would not respond about bad times requiring people to economize, because if he did, he would say something that displeased her. His Page 173 → irritation showed later in the letter: he said that she did not need to tell him about bad times; he had noticed it some time ago without her telling him.34

Margherita worried, more altruistically, that Francesco might die without having properly taken care of his soul.35 She was relieved when he began to turn his attention to religion. Margherita and the rest of the Datini circle admired the sermons of the charismatic Dominican preacher Friar Giovanni Dominici, and Francesco became assiduous in his attendance at the sermons.36 Francesco was influenced in matters of religion not only by Margherita and Ser Lapo but also by Niccolò Tecchini, who, while he was Francesco’s inferior in wealth, was his superior in religious devotion. For example, when the Datini invited Niccolò and Francesca Tecchini to Prato for Easter a few years earlier, Niccolò had refused, saying that he and Francesca made a habit of taking communion on Page 174 → Easter and that “it seems to me and to her that it is better to be alone on the day we take communion.”37 Niccolò was close to Friar Giovanni Dominici, who visited Francesca in her illness, and Niccolò had introduced the friar to Francesco.38 Dominici was critical of church wealth and church hierarchy, which appealed to Ser Lapo, Niccolò, and the Datini, who, while pious, distrusted the worldliness of the institutional church. Dominici was an advocate of the Bianchi, or “Whites,” a mass penitential movement that traveled through Italy in 1399, with the aim of ending feuds and bringing peace. Political and religious authorities saw the Bianchi as a threat to law and order, and Venice had expelled Dominici for refusing to desist from praising the Bianchi from the pulpit, at which point he was welcomed back by his native Florence.39 When Bianchi groups formed in Tuscany, Francesco and twelve friends and employees joined the enormous band of pilgrims, donning the distinctive white robes of penitents and walking barefoot. Bearing a crucifix, the Datini group traveled over nine days from Florence to Arezzo and back again, praying, accusing themselves of their sins and scourging themselves, and sleeping outside on some nights and in monasteries on others. Francesco had made sure to bring adequate, if simple, food and supplies, so their asceticism did not include fasting.40 Niccolò Tecchini was part of the group. Neither Margherita nor any of the other wives participated. There were women among the Bianchi, but they were mostly poor and humble, perhaps making it unlikely that propertied women would go along; also, Margherita’s health was often bad. Although Margherita left no comments about the Bianchi, she would have approved of them, judging from the religious attitudes she showed elsewhere.41 Margherita was pleased at Francesco’s increasing attention to religion, but she did not want him to neglect his merchant business, in contrast to earlier years when she had encouraged him to slow down or retire. The likely reason, as I suggested above, was that his wealth was destined for charity after he died and that charity would be an important contribution to the welfare of his soul as well as to his earthly reputation. Francesco’s work had taken on greater importance for her than it had earlier, when she had helped him amass wealth for its own sake. After the Datini returned from Bologna, Margherita thought that Francesco was spending too much time away from the Florentine business, with long stays in Prato for no useful purpose. Francesco had closed down the wool and dye businesses in Prato after Niccolò di Piero’s death, and the Datini had no Page 175 → major building going on there until 1407: painters and sculptors were working on decorating the house and villa and various

churches, but Francesco did not have to be there often to oversee it.42 The harvesting of crops was his main activity in Prato, which left him feeling extremely busy, but Margherita thought it only brought him unnecessary worry. When Francesco went to Prato with two company employees, she reminded him that he was wasting not only his own but also their time.43 When Francesco left Luca del Sera in charge in Florence, she cautioned Francesco that Luca was doing all the work alone, staying at the business all day and into the night, writing and doing everything else Francesco usually did. In her opinion, Francesco would be badly off if Luca quit. Since there was enough work in Florence to keep all four men busy, she advised, “It is better that you free yourself there and come here soon, if you do not have much to do there, which I don’t believe you have.”44 The shock of the deaths from plague of several of Francesco’s partners, combined with his increasing age, had led Francesco to cease expanding his businesses. After Manno degli Agli, Andrea di Bonanno, and Bartolomeo Cambioni died during the epidemic of 1400, he did not renew the Pisa and Genoa companies or the Florentine bank.45 Nonetheless, the three Spanish companies—in Valencia, Barcelona, and Mallorca—flourished, as did the Florentine company and the Avignon company. In Avignon, Francesco’s longtime partner Boninsegna, a man known for his selfless nature, had died, and Boninsegna’s widowed daughter-in-law, less selfless, sued Francesco in the Florentine merchant court for underpaying Boninsegna; the case must have had merit, as Francesco had to give her one thousand florins. Meanwhile, Boninsegna’s successor, Tommaso di Ser Giovanni, carried on the Avignon business without interruption.46 A big change came at the Florentine company in 1404. Francesco fired his longtime managing partner Stoldo di Lorenzo. The specifics of the final break are not known, but Stoldo had long been considered a difficult man, rather greedy and not completely honest. He was replaced by Luca del Sera, a Florentine who had worked in the Genoa company and then in Barcelona before returning to Florence.47 As Francesco neared the end of his life, Ser Lapo commented that Luca’s presence would allow Francesco to withdraw from worldly concerns.48 Francesco did slowly withdraw from business, but, contrary to Ser Lapo’s hope, Francesco failed to concentrate on religious observance alone: Francesco occupied himself with arranging marriages and entertaining high-level dignitaries. In 1403, Francesco married his niece Caterina, aged eighteen, to Luca del Page 176 → Sera. Luca, about thirtyfive years old and a hardworking and intelligent man, was an excellent match. (Caterina is discussed in chapter 7 under her childhood name of Tina.) Luca came from an old and respected Florentine family that was exempt from paying taxes because of a service an ancestor had done for Florence in 1202. Although he had an illegitimate daughter by a slave in Spain, the girl was far away, and her existence did not detract from Luca’s reputation as a model citizen; he later provided the daughter with a dowry and husband.49 Caterina’s relatives had been in an agony of worry about finding her a husband, something that had to be done at a suitable level before a girl reached twenty. Her father, Niccolò Tecchini, had neither the resources nor the energy to help: at the death of his wife, Francesca, Niccolò had given up the family home, which left Caterina essentially homeless, obliged to stay with the Datini and other relatives.50 Caterina’s brother Maso used the fact that he had a sister to marry as a reason for seeking advancement while he was working for Francesco in Mallorca.51 Maso expressed his concern most vividly in an emotional letter he wrote to Caterina when she was only fourteen, soon after their father’s bankruptcy (the letter was so overwrought that the Datini, who had received it first, decided not to give it to her). “I promise you,” Maso wrote, “that if I have a crust of bread I will never abandon you until death.” Although their parents were in pain and sorrow, he went on, the parents should nonetheless think of giving Caterina a companion for a pleasant life “and for the salvation of your body and soul.”52 The reference to “body” may mean an established social position or else avoidance of the risks of illicit sex. The mention of the “soul” could refer to the sin that would result from the unmarried body. The phrase “for the salvation of your body and soul” implies an ethical dimension to a woman’s marriage that would not have been applied to a man’s marriage. From this point of view, an unmarried woman was a danger to herself and others. Niccolò described Caterina as tall and beautiful, and Maso told Francesco that Caterina was now of an age and size at which husbands were found for girls, “which is a subject of great concern to God.”53 Maso put the matter in Francesco’s hands, and a Tecchini cousin in Perpignan, Piero Tecchini (Teque Per), for whom Maso went to work in 1400, also entrusted Caterina’s marriage to Francesco.54 Caterina and Maso were lucky to have an older

and rich relative willing to take charge; at the time of Margherita’s marriage, Margherita’s brother Zanobi had the whole weight on him, without the resources to deal with it. Margherita would also have been deeply interested in the marriage, but the marriage negotiations do not appear in her correspondence, since Margherita and Francesco were together at that time. Page 177 → A girl needed a dowry to marry, and Niccolò could not provide one. Francesca had brought Niccolò a dowry of seven hundred florins, but that had been lost. A wife’s dowry could not be confiscated for a husband’s debts, but she could sign it away voluntarily to help her husband, and Francesca had probably done so, perhaps at the time Niccolò had been impatient for Francesca to leave Prato and return to Florence to sign papers. 55 Their Perpignan relative Piero contributed two hundred florins,56 and Florentine relatives may have helped as well. However, Luca’s finances were and would continue to be intertwined with Francesco’s, so that a slight adjustment in what he was paid would be equivalent to a dowry. The arrangements Francesco made for the new company he formed in 1404 suggests this idea. The company had a total capital of six thousand florins, of which Francesco invested three thousand himself, while Luca and another partner invested fifteen hundred each. But half of Luca’s capital was provided by Francesco, to “give advantage to his [Luca’s] person,” no doubt in recognition of Luca’s talents and with the idea of giving Luca a large role in management, but likely also in recognition of his marriage.57 Francesco had transferred Luca from Spain to Florence with the wedding in mind, and it took place in Florence in May 2003. Barzalone wrote a congratulatory letter to Margherita. He was pleased because of “the good it can bring her and you, done at such a time and in such a way as to bring the salvation of soul and body.”58 According to Barzalone’s view, Caterina and Margherita, not Luca, had received all the advantage from the match; also, the benefit to Caterina’s “soul and body” is here mentioned again. Caterina and Luca would have a daughter in 1408—called Dianora, perhaps after Caterina’s maternal grandmother, Dianora Gherardini Bandini—and they later had two sons.59 Although Francesco left five hundred florins in his will to supplement the dowries of each daughter that Luca might have, Francesco did not mention Caterina by name in the will.60 Caterina, called Monna Caterina in letters, also appears only rarely in Luca’s extensive correspondence of 1410–11—when Caterina was sick or when she wanted baby clothes sent between Prato and Florence. There is also discussion of baby Dianora’s health.61 No evidence remains of the boisterous little Tina whom Margherita described in 1395.62 Because we lack Caterina’s personal correspondence, it is not possible to know whether that character still existed. Nor is it possible to know about the quality of Caterina and Luca’s marriage. However, Luca’s letters show him to have been a perfectionist, impatient with anyone who made mistakes: “I can’t help but complain when I see things go as they should not.”63 He also had a rather restrictive idea about the role of women, as will be mentioned further in chapter 13.64 Page 178 → Caterina’s marriage was not the only one important to the Datini. Ginevra needed a husband, and given her illegitimacy, finding the right one would be a challenge. Illegitimate daughters could usually be found husbands, but at a step down socially from their legitimate sisters;65 as Francesco’s only child, however, Ginevra was in an unusually privileged position. In 1406, Ser Lapo wrote a couple of letters about the search for a husband for Ginevra. She was fourteen, and Francesco thought she was too young. However, Ser Lapo suggested that marrying her later would come with risks, probably thinking that Francesco, old and unwell, might die, which would harm her chances. Someone in Florence had suggested a match to Ser Lapo, but it would have meant Ginevra moving away, which Lapo opposed: he repeated a saying, “Better a neighbor with five than one far away with ten.”66 Francesco took Ser Lapo’s advice about a local marriage and decided on Lionardo di Ser Tommaso di Giunta, a much younger second cousin of his old partner Niccolò di Piero di Giunta and a distant cousin of his own. Lionardo’s father had died poor, and Niccolò di Piero had become Lionardo’s guardian, so the marriage was an insider arrangement.67 Six years earlier, in 1400, Lionardo’s relatives had considered giving Lionardo a wife

because he had bad habits, the idea being that marriage would settle him down. He was still showing disobedience in 1404, but the marriage went forward without any problems being mentioned again. Since Niccolò di Piero referred to Lionardo as a mere boy in 1400, Lionardo would have been in his early to middle twenties by 1406.68 When a friend congratulated Francesco on the marriage, Francesco felt the need to explain his modest choice of a husband for Ginevra: he had received several requests for Ginevra’s hand in marriage, not out of respect for her, but because of Francesco’s money; he preferred to give her to someone who would not feel scorn for her illegitimacy and would not be ashamed to have children by her.69 Francesco gave Ginevra a dowry of one thousand florins, only 161 florins of which were in cash (which was not unusual), the rest being in donora, or gifts, that is, fine clothing, fine fabrics to make more clothing and furnishings, chests to contain them, and other things. Lionardo agreed that no object in it could be sold, pawned, or mortgaged without Francesco’s permission. The formal promise to marry, called the impalmamento because the families of the bride and groom shook hands on it, took place in Prato’s San Francesco Church on 24 April 1407. Lionardo and his family and Francesco and his close companions participated in the ceremony, in the presence of many guests from both Prato and Florence.70 Neither Ginevra nor Margherita attended, since it was, by tradition, an all-male affair. Luca del Sera, Barzalone, and Ser Lapo sent an announcement Page 179 → written in Ser Lapo’s hand and addressed to Margherita but really directed at Ginevra: “Know, Ginevra, that your good father has today sworn that you are the bride of Lionardo di Ser Tommaso, a good youth of good appearance. . . . Praise God and pray for your loving father. Recommend us to Monna Margherita.”71 Hayez suggests that the address on the letter named Margherita because it would have been improper for men to write directly to a young unmarried girl to whom they were unrelated.72 The actual wedding, involving the exchange of rings, is not mentioned in the correspondence. However, Francesco noted details of the lavish wedding party in his accounts, including Ginevra’s fine and expensive attire and the extravagant meal provided. Its most noteworthy aspect, from my point of view, is that Margherita performed a symbolic act done by the bride’s mother at meal’s end, putting a florin in the bride’s shoe to wish the couple riches. As the surrogate mother, she then placed a child in the bride’s arms and handed the child another florin, indicating wishes for both fertility and riches.73 The prioress of the Convent of San Niccolò, of which the Datini were patrons, wrote to Francesco praying that God and San Niccolò would give him a male grandchild. 74 After the party, Ginevra went to her new home, Lionardo’s nearby house, but the young couple became very much part of life in the Datini palazzo. Although most of Lionardo’s relatives were merchants, Lionardo had not been brought up to be a merchant or perhaps had not shown aptitude for it. He worked for Francesco, but mostly doing general tasks—helping Francesco with the upkeep of Francesco’s property and other such things. Ser Lapo told Francesco that someone had criticized Francesco for not giving Lionardo a real career, to make him worthy of a finely raised girl like Ginevra.75 Although it did not happen during Francesco’s lifetime, Francesco left Lionardo more responsibility when he died.76 Francesco’s last years were enhanced by the opportunity to consort with and entertain dignitaries in Prato, which necessarily involved Margherita. The culmination came in 1409–10, shortly before Francesco’s death, on occasions that Francesco apparently felt were the high points in his life. Important men visited Prato because of the presence in Prato Cathedral of the sacred relic known as the Virgin’s Belt, because Francesco had a house fine enough to accommodate visitors, and because he was rich enough that they could hope for loans. Since Margherita and Francesco were mostly together, we hear about these doings only for the few days they were apart. Nonetheless, some background must be given, since the Datini were part of significant events. The main figures supported by Florence and Prato were Louis II of Anjou—a Page 180 → member of the French royal house and claimant to the throne of Naples against Florence’s enemy, the sitting king of Naples, Ladislaus—and the antipope Alexander V (antipopes being those not accepted as popes by the church in the long run). The Florentine-backed Council of Pisa elected Alexander as pope in 1409 and deposed the two previous popes, Benedict XIII and Gregory XII (centered in Avignon and Rome, respectively), in order to heal the scandalous schism in the church that had begun in 1378 and had resulted in two competing popes. Benedict and Gregory refused to step aside, but Florence and Prato firmly supported Alexander, who soon died and, by the time

of Francesco’s death, was replaced by John XXIII. There would be three popes from 1409 until the Council of Constance in 1414.77 The alliance of Alexander and Louis II was cemented at the Datini palace in November 1409, and the visitors came again in July 1410.78 Francesco was very partisan, proclaiming, “Let God . . . destroy that ingrate [Ladislaus] who refuses to recognize God.”79 In early January 1410, Alexander’s papal court was staying in Pistoia, not far from Prato, and several of the prelates and court dignitaries visited the Datini in Prato. Francesco decided that he was too ill to receive the visitors in person and retreated to Florence, leaving Margherita in charge of entertaining them. Most attention was given to the expected arrival of the eminent French cleric and theologian Pierre d’Ailly, who held the titles of bishop of Cambrai and bishop of Le Puy and was later named cardinal of Cambrai by the antipope John XXII. The Datini called d’Ailly the cardinal of Pau, as I will too. Like his protégé Jean Gerson, d’Ailly supported the idea that the church should be ruled by a general council that could make and unmake popes, and he had been instrumental in convening the Council of Pisa.80 The conciliar point of view would lose force a few years after Francesco’s death. The Council of Constance in 1414 declared Gregory the true pope and Alexander an antipope, but in January 1410, Alexander was pope. Margherita expected the cardinal of Pau any day, and major preparations were needed, since he traveled with a retinue of forty or fifty people. Francesco, haunted by the feeling that he had not done enough when King Louis had visited the previous November, directed Margherita to “act in such a way that I receive honor and that the cardinal receives honor from me,” and Margherita responded somewhat sharply, “It is not necessary to summarize how we will do honor to the cardinal. . . . Everything will be done in a way that brings them honor.”81 The visitors had to be provided with grain and stalls for their horses. Page 181 → The cardinal was bringing his own cooks (a fact offering interesting insight into customs for semiofficial visits), so Margherita had only to provide the ingredients for their meals. She had calves killed in advance for veal and obtained chickens to be killed later. Wine was important, and Barzalone and Ginevra’s husband, Lionardo, tasted the wines available, several being Datini vintages. They chose the best reds and whites for the cardinal and slightly lesser ones for the cardinal’s companions. One of the reds would not keep well, so Margherita decided to give it to God—that is, to the poor—if it was not used.82 The cardinal sent messengers saying he would come the next day, when he sent another message that he would come the next day, and so on. It is striking how poor communications were between the nearby cities of Pistoia and Prato, with many false rumors about when the visitors would arrive and what was delaying them. Margherita wrote, “This waiting from hour to hour is the greatest fatigue and torment.” She feared the veal would go bad. They made a plan about which friends to distribute the meat to in Prato and Florence if the cardinal delayed further. When she heard that it would be another day, she asked the butcher if the meat would last, and he said yes.83 The cardinal and his retinue finally arrived on 9 January. Margherita noted wryly that the food was all ready for his cooks, so the cardinal did not have to spend any money. He and his party expressed appreciation for the Datini’s hospitality, went the following day to view the Virgin’s Belt, and left. Margherita told Francesco that they could now return to the other tasks he wanted them to do.84 During this week, Margherita acted as a good wife, managing her husband’s affairs. She did not express her opinion of Francesco’s rather sycophantic attitude toward the dignitaries. She did reveal a few reservations about the motives of churchmen. She mentioned that people from the pope’s court kept coming through Prato from Pistoia, asking about Francesco, but she suspected that they were only thinking of their own needs. She was glad that Francesco was in Florence, so that he could avoid talking to a bishop who said he wanted to discuss a law case but who really only wanted money.85 Although she, too, may have been flattered by such high-level guests, she may just as likely have agreed with the disapproval expressed by Ser Lapo and Luca del Sera about Francesco’s worldly ambition, particularly inappropriate for a person his age—an ambition, Luca noted, that would only lead to Francesco spending money.86 For the Datini circle, Alexander presented a hope of church reform, although it was not realized. As for the king,

Louis gave Francesco the right to add the royal lily of France to his coat of arms, and Francesco set great value by Page 182 → such emblems. It is true that the privilege was in return for a loan of one thousand florins, but perhaps Francesco viewed it as a sign that he was joining the big leagues, since all the important Florentine bankers made loans to princes and prelates.87 The Datini received another benefit from their prestigious contacts, a benefit that would have pleased Margherita: the cardinal of Pau promised to be godfather to Ginevra’s first child. Ginevra is mentioned only once in Margherita and Francesco’s January correspondence: Francesco said that if Margherita needed cash, she should get it from Ginevra, who apparently had a supply.88 Ginevra’s husband, Lionardo, is mentioned frequently and had an important part in all the preparations for and activities of the cardinal’s visit. Perhaps it was considered unsuitable for a young woman to be involved with so many strangers, or perhaps she was living quietly because she was eight months pregnant. Ginevra’s baby girl, Lapa, was born in February, and d’Ailly was godfather by proxy, rather than in person.89 The baby soon died, but Ginevra was young and could expect to have others. Maybe she was already pregnant again the next year, when Margherita, in Florence and still exercising a mother’s prerogative, sent Ginevra permission to attend the ceremony of the Virgin’s Belt in Prato, as long as Ginevra returned home right after the belt was shown.90 If Ginevra was pregnant then, the baby did not survive, and no surviving child is on record as having been born until 1420, at least ten years later.91 There probably were miscarriages and infant deaths in between. Ginevra’s childbearing was more successful than Margherita’s, but only slightly. Francesco was seventy-five in 1410, a great age for the era. At the end of July, he fell seriously ill for twenty days, suffering from kidney stones, urinary problems, a great thirst, and a high fever, but with his mind still clear. He dictated his will to Ser Lapo on 30 July and died on 24 August.92 Margherita was now a widow.

Page 183 →

CHAPTER 13 The Widow, 1410–23 Luca del Sera, stationed in Florence and the chief executor of Francesco’s will, wrote to the executors in Prato, “I am pleased that Monna Margherita reads each letter, so that she is advised of all that is being done, and similarly Barzalone and Lionardo.” Elsewhere Luca commented, “I am glad that Monna Margherita and all the executors read everything that I write, so that there will be no betrayals or falsehood among us.”1 Francesco had named five executors: Luca del Sera; Margherita; Barzalone di Spedeliere; Ginevra’s husband, Lionardo di Ser Tommaso; and Ser Lapo Mazzei. Ser Lapo, busy with many other things, was less involved, and Luca was more involved. There were many limitations on women in the legal sphere, but Margherita could serve as executor, essentially a private, rather than public, matter. In the course of her duties in that role, she signed legal documents, something she had rarely done before, although, even as executor, Margherita needed a male cosigner to back up her signature.2 Like most wives, she was not Francesco’s principal heir. In Tuscany, heirs were usually the nearest male kin, with widows owed only their dowries, anything more being out of the husband’s choice.3 These inheritance practices affected many women, since husbands were often much older than wives, leaving many widows. In Francesco’s case, his principal heir was his charity, the Ceppo for the Poor. Francesco had dictated his will on 31 July 1410 to Ser Lapo Mazzei. It is worth discussing in some detail, as it provided the guidelines for the rest of Margherita’s years. Six friars from San Francesco witnessed it, as well as Barzalone, Francesco’s employee Francesco (Checco) Naldini, two Prato notaries, and “others.” During the next few days, Francesco also added three codicils to Page 184 → further express his aims.4 Women’s legal disabilities prevented Margherita from serving as a witness, but she may well have been present, included among the “others.”5 The bulk of Francesco’s estate went to Francesco di Marco’s Ceppo for the Poor. (Francesco also left Margherita well provided for, as discussed below.) The term ceppo, meaning “tree stump” literally but also “alms box,” was often used as a name for charitable institutions. Francesco and Ser Lapo had worked out his institution’s general organization and included directions about it in Francesco’s will of 1410, but there is no evidence that any practical steps had been taken in Francesco’s lifetime or that Margherita had any part in the plans, although she might have, in conversation. The Ceppo’s goal was to make charitable contributions to the worthy poor of Prato. After various changes over the centuries, its funds still survive in the twenty-first century, and it continues its charitable activities, specializing in helping newborns in poor families.6 Francesco’s Ceppo was to be located in the Datini palazzo and to include not only all the rooms and decorations within the house but also the garden and houses facing the palazzo from across the street. There was to be no altar in it, lest the church should gain rights over it. This provision showed fear not only that the church might waste the money on frivolity rather than helping the poor but also, at least as much, that Francesco’s Ceppo could lose its individual identity if it were incorporated into other church concerns. The most devout of the Datini circle, Ser Lapo, shared this anticlerical attitude, but it was a very partial anticlericalism, since Francesco left many bequests to churches and monasteries, as Ser Lapo encouraged him to do.7 The will stated that the executors, including Margherita, were to be the overseers of all Francesco’s goods, collecting money from debtors and from gifts and interest payments and using the money collected to buy property for the Ceppo.8 The executors were to have independent authority that could not be contravened by the Ceppo officials, the commune of Prato, or anyone else. The will specified that they could go beyond what was written in it, since the pain Francesco was suffering during his illness may have caused him to forget something.9 For the next year or more, until the Ceppo was well established, Margherita was to live in the Datini palazzo and receive visitors who came from Florence and elsewhere on Ceppo business.10 The Ceppo was to be under the

protection of the Prato government and also, more loosely, the silk guild in Florence. Four officials, or rectors, were to be elected annually for one-year terms by the Prato Page 185 → General Council, and twelve men or their heirs were to attend the elections or at least be notified of them. The twelve men included Barzalone, Lionardo di Ser Tommaso, Messer Piero Rinaldeschi, Messer Torello Torelli (a doctor of law who was important in Ceppo affairs), Martino di Niccolaio Martini, and Francesco’s poor relative Chiarito di Matteo Chiariti. As a woman, Margherita would not expect to be present at these elections.11 The trading firm that Francesco had with Luca del Sera was to continue for five years after Francesco’s death, in order to earn more profits for the Ceppo to use for the poor. Luca, who would have preferred to begin trading on his own immediately, was unhappy with this limitation but nonetheless worked diligently on behalf of the Ceppo. Luca and another business partner were the only executors for this business section of the will.12 The first nine months after Francesco’s death were the most active for the executors. There were executor offices in both Prato and Florence, with Luca, in Florence, being the most important figure, carrying on an active correspondence with the Prato executor office and having the overall managerial role. In Prato, many of the everyday duties were carried out by Checco Naldini, an employee rather than an executor, in consultation with the notaries Ser Baldo and Ser Amelio and the doctor of law Messer Torello Torelli. The executors’ correspondence between Florence and Prato is the main source for finding out Margherita’s activities, since only two letters from her and five addressed to her survive from her widowhood. She would have written and received other letters, but since they were not kept in the Datini archive, they have disappeared.13 Although Luca was efficient, he often took a peevish tone, complaining when things did not go according to his specifications.14 One time, he criticized Barzalone and the other executors in Prato for not keeping good enough records “as needed for the salvation of the Ceppo and to act as they should toward the deceased”—incidentally showing the kind of reverence that grew up around Francesco after his death. Luca stated that he would talk to Monna Margherita about the problem when he went to Prato, indicating that she was the one he thought should be consulted on behalf of all the executors in Prato.15 Margherita’s personal qualities went some way to overcoming the reputed defects of her gender. One of the most important tasks the executors had was to choose painters to carry out a plan to paint sixteen scenes from Francesco’s life on the front of the Datini palazzo, portraying outstanding events from his merchant career and from his charitable and religious life. Although such a plan might have been Page 186 → unacceptably egocentric if Francesco had done it himself, it was acceptable for the Ceppo to do it as a tribute to its founder. Luca, Ser Lapo, and Messer Torello were responsible for planning the scenes to be painted, and it would not be surprising if Margherita was consulted too.16 A competition was held to choose from among the best painters, who had to paint a coat of arms for the Ceppo as examples of their work. A contract was signed with six of them in early November, with the painters staying in one of Francesco’s neighboring houses to eat and sleep and prepare their work while they were in Prato. In November, the painters began executing geometric patterns on the upper part of the house; the painting then stopped for the winter; and in the spring, they finished the depictions of Francesco’s life, which have since disappeared. One of the surviving reconstructed underdrawings (sinopia) depicting Francesco’s charities includes a drawing of a woman helping him, believed to be Margherita.17 In November, Margherita appears in the record: Luca told Checco Naldini, “I am advised that the painters came, and it seems me to be neither honest nor good that Monna Margherita should have them to dinner at her table.” Luca was suggesting that it would be harmful to Margherita’s reputation for her to entertain the painters on her own as she planned, showing an outlook that would tend to limit a woman’s activities. Dunlop points out that Margherita was only repeating the way she and Francesco had entertained painters twenty years before, so Luca’s attitude was probably related to Margherita’s position as a widow on her own. But Luca, the frugal merchant, was at least as concerned with saving money as with Margherita’s reputation, in a way that would have made his mentor Francesco proud in Francesco’s more penny-pinching moments. Luca wrote that the painters were already being given all the bread and wine they needed as part of their payment, as well as money for meat: “It is not as if it were for a wedding feast or because they are dying of hunger.” Luca wanted Barzalone, Lionardo, and the other officials to discuss the matter with Margherita. Luca was tired of always being the one on whom everything fell,

including the most unpleasant tasks. Luca expressed his position as always being the Saracen in the piazza, referring to a game in which other players shot at a player designated as “the Saracen,” the target of all blame.18 Margherita has left some other traces of her activity as executor. She intervened personally at the Florentine executors’ office to assure that the former slave Lucia, Ginevra’s mother, received her inheritance, when it had not been forthcoming. The executors were also in charge of most religious bequests. According to Francesco’s will, Margherita was to sell all her own and Francesco’s Page 187 → clothing and give the proceeds to the poor. (The assumption being that she would not need the same clothing now as before becoming a widow.) Luca mentioned that he and Margherita had been discussing the gift of torches to San Domenico Church and that she ought to be here for the presentation. She also did something for a celebration of the Feast of the Annunciation, on the Ceppo’s behalf.19 Francesco had instructed in his will that a mural be painted at San Niccolò, a convent of Dominican nuns, according to instructions given to Margherita and the other executors, who, Francesco said, knew his intentions better than anyone else. The subject was Saint Dominic’s miracle of the bread, with Dominic seated at a table with his disciples. Margherita and Barzalone objected when a panel painting was planned, although Luca, Ser Lapo, and the other executors agreed to it. She told them that Francesco had wanted a frescoed mural. She and Barzalone got their way, and the fresco still exists, with small figures of Margherita and Ginevra praying in the foreground (see fig. 6 in chap. 7). The exact date it was painted is uncertain, although it would have been after 1415. The figures are quite stylized, with Margherita wearing the habit of a Dominican tertiary for the occasion (though not in real life) and with Ginevra shown as a little girl, although she was a married woman by then. Ginevra is also shown with yellow hair, whether realistic or not.20 Francesco had long wanted a tabernacle, or roadside chapel, built at the crossroads on the way to his lands at Romita, outside Trinità gate. Marble for it was in place by 1413, and Margherita had the Tabernacle of the Romita completed by about 1418. The painting there by Piero and Antonio di Miniato shows Margherita and Francesco kneeling together in prayer (see fig. 9 in chap. 12). No record remains of what Francesco had intended the painting to include, but the prominence Margherita takes in the picture of the couple suggests her participation.21 Although the Ceppo had temporary rectors from the time of Francesco’s death, it began to take its full form from about the spring of 1411, with the election of regular officials starting about the time the facade of the Datini palazzo was finished. Barzalone and Lionardo, among others, would serve as Ceppo officials over the years, sometimes with terms longer than the one year originally expected. Margherita’s relations with the Ceppo mainly involved recommending people she thought to be worthy of the Ceppo’s charity.22 Her finances were also tied to the Ceppo, as were those of Ginevra and Lionardo di Ser Tommaso. Many widows of the time lived in poverty, but Margherita remained wealthy. Francesco left her one hundred florins a year, paid to her for life by the Ceppo; Page 188 → the usufruct, or income for life, on several pieces of land in the area called the Romita; payment for a house in Prato and a house in Florence; appropriate furnishings for the houses, to be chosen by her; and use of the garden at l’Olmo. The Ceppo would pay her taxes. Francesco stated that since Margherita brought no dowry, he was acting generously in his bequests to her (although she certainly deserved recompense for all her work over the years). He penalized her if she remarried, as was normal practice in husbands’ wills: in that case, she would receive only a total of five hundred florins. Francesco never mentions the Bandini name, referring to Margherita as the daughter of Domenico di Donato of Florence, whether because of a residual memory of her father’s disgrace or, more likely, because of his lack of enthusiasm for the Bandini family.23 Margherita’s financial position was quite straightforward. Sometimes a widow’s inheritance could lead to quarrels among heirs. Disagreement could arise not only between stepmothers and stepchildren but also between mothers and their own children, if the mother wanted to take her dowry to remarry or to live separately. Disagreement could also arise over usufruct, or life interest, in the husband’s estate, if the husband chose to favor his widow at the expense of other heirs. Since Margherita lacked dowry and children, had no desire to remarry, and thoroughly approved of Francesco’s making the Ceppo his heir, there was little opportunity for disagreement. By contrast, Ser

Lapo told Francesco some years earlier about a widow whom, he thought, was making unfair demands by requesting a complete life interest in the revenues. He asked Francesco to discuss the matter with Margherita, “because, even though she is not a man, she is so shrewd,” to see if something could be done to prevent it.24 Ser Lapo expressed the usual male misogyny but admitted that there were exceptions, like Margherita. Francesco also had another family member to provide for, Ginevra. If Ginevra had been a boy, Francesco would very probably have had the boy legitimated by the courts and made his heir, but neither Francesco nor most people thought that was a possibility for a daughter, especially in the case of such a large estate.25 Instead, he willed to “a certain woman now married,” for her lifetime, one thousand florins that he had invested for her “in secret” at the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova, with the fruits (i.e., the interest) going to her support or, according to a similar passage in his will of 1400 (when Ginevra was still a child), for her education and support.26 Ginevra also had the right to share Margherita’s house in Florence and the garden at l’Olmo in Prato. After Francesco’s death, Ginevra’s money came under the control of the Page 189 → Ceppo, which paid Ginevra the interest on the money invested. In his will of 1400, Francesco had reduced the amount of her inheritance if Ginevra married without permission, but in his will of 1410, after she was married, he showed more tolerance toward her behavior than men usually did toward their female relatives. Francesco did not require that she lead an “honest” life in order to receive her money, and he provided her future daughter(s)—even if “natural,” that is, illegitimate—a dowry of five hundred florins. Expectations were lower for Ginevra, since she was illegitimate herself. Why did Francesco avoid mentioning Ginevra’s name in his will? It seems a futile gesture, since everyone knew she was Francesco’s illegitimate daughter—a fact to which the executors would later legally testify to cement her financial claim.27 Probably, it was done to protect her heirs in future generations, when her illegitimacy would have been forgotten. Francesco also left Ginevra’s husband, Lionardo, five hundred florins to invest for five years in Luca del Sera’s company, with the capital to be returned after that period. The investment proved successful, because Lionardo received two hundred florins in 1517 as profit on that investment. Francesco specified in his will that Lionardo could not use Ginevra’s money without her permission, but assuming, at the same time, that, as a wife, she would give her husband that permission, he directed that her money should be deposited in Lionardo’s account, as was usual for a wife. Although Lionardo was one of the will’s executors, he served as such at a slightly lesser level than the others, judging by the way Francesco had the Datini’s favorite doctor in later years, Lorenzo Sassoli, replace Lionardo in one instance in a nonmedical matter that required choice and discretion.28 However, Lionardo would be important in Ceppo affairs. While still living at the Datini palazzo in 1410, Margherita began to think ahead to where she would live in Prato when the Ceppo took over her longtime home. She decided she wanted to rent the villa at Palco and the adjoining farmlands at Filettore. Messer Torello, who was negotiating the matter, said she deserved Palco more than anyone else. But Luca, addressing Margherita directly in his letter as executor, told her, as he said he had told her before, that he thought it was more property than a widow needed, especially since she planned to spend a lot of time in Florence and already had land in the Romita. (He would not have said the same thing about the housing of a widowed man.) Nonetheless, Margherita did live at Palco off and on for the rest of her life, at one point having another house, separate from the villa, built there for her residence.29 In January 1411, the executors and the Ceppo gave Margherita control of her Page 190 → inheritance.30 She then started buying property, as demonstrated by the account book kept by the Ceppo and devoted to her transactions. The book shows profits from the sale of crops, suggesting that she kept a close eye on her farmlands. She also lent money to local people. While the details of her land purchases are vague, it is clear that she was making an effort to add to her income, buying about ten properties from 1412 until 1419. When she did not have enough money to pay for the lands, which cost between a high of three hundred florins and a low of eighty-seven, she borrowed the money from the Ceppo, repaying it out of rents and sale of crops. It is hard to know how many lands Margherita owned at any one time or to what degree she owned them outright, because her land purchases were so intertwined with the Ceppo: the Ceppo claimed the right to take back the lands bought with borrowed money, paying her what she was owed, and she also chose to sell some lands back to it at times.31 This close relationship with the Ceppo

fit in with Luca’s expectation that the lands would ultimately return to the Ceppo, as indicated by his comment “I am pleased that Monna Margherita bought the land that you mention, because I believe that her intention, after her death and that of her brother Bartolomeo, is to return the land to the Ceppo, and so I encourage her.”32 Luca’s comment indicates that Margherita’s brother Bartolomeo was again a player in her affairs. He had moved from Avignon to Florence and Prato. He came a few months after Francesco died, in early March 2011, but the relevant date was not Francesco’s death but that of the Bandini’s aunt Giovanna. Monna Giovanna left Bartolomeo an income of twenty-five florins a year—the interest on 450 florins that Giovanna had invested—as well as all her household goods, which left him comfortably off, when combined with other money that began to come in from Fondi and elsewhere. Giovanna, well over seventy, had been very ill in Florence in the months after Francesco died. She had been unhappy that Margherita, occupied with executor duties in Prato, delayed coming to see her. However, Margherita was in Florence when Giovanna died.33 Bartolomeo had been living in Avignon since 1400, after the death of his family in the plague and the destruction of his lands in Fondi. He supported himself with a job at a tax office that brought him just enough to live on, although he had hopes of regaining some money from his lands in Gaeta and Fondi, with Francesco’s help, and from the sale of a farm in Cantagallo held jointly with Monna Dianora’s brother Rinieri Gherardini.34 Bartolomeo’s obsession was to gain possession of the house that had belonged to his mother, Dianora, and he worked toward that goal both in Avignon and Florence. It is the main subject of over thirty long, repetitive, and often self-pitying letters he sent Page 191 → to Margherita, Luca del Sera, and Francesco between 1401 and 1410.35 When Margherita, who thought Bartolomeo was acting in an undignified matter about the house, told him that he should watch his honor and that of his relatives, he responded that he was poor in worldly goods but not to the extent that he would bring shame on himself or his relatives.36 In Avignon, Francesco’s company helped Bartolomeo deal with Messer Bindo Fiesolano, who had by then claimed ownership of Dianora Bandini’s house.37 In Florence, Margherita, as well as their cousin Bindo Piaciti, had an important role in dealing with the Florentine aspects of the possession of the house.38 Families not only shared honor; they helped each other maintain the financial underpinnings that made honorable behavior easier. Bartolomeo finally gained the title to the house in 1409, and he promptly sold it for 450 florins to Bindo Piaceti, sharing some of the profits with his sister Isabetta in Avignon, according to an agreement they had made. The house had been kept in the family after all, as the relatives preferred.39 Once Bartolomeo was living in Prato and Florence, there are no signs of the peculiarities he had shown earlier,40 although the sources are limited. Bartolomeo became an important part of Margherita’s life, along with Ginevra, Lionardo, Luca, and Caterina. Bartolomeo cosigned documents with Margherita, as was required for a woman, and helped oversee the art project that Francesco had ordered in his will at the Convent of San Niccolò. Bartolomeo also rented the Palco villa for a time.41 In 1411, Margherita, Bartolomeo, Ginevra, and Lionardo went together to Pisa for a month to escape yet another plague outbreak, renting a house in Pisa and taking furniture with them.42 Bartolomeo was part of Luca and Caterina’s worlds too, judging by Bartolomeo’s role in arranging a wet nurse and clothing for their infant daughter, Dianora.43 Bartolomeo died in 1419 in Prato. The funeral cost over fifty-four florins, so he was buried in some state. He made a will that was left in the possession of the friars of San Francesco in Prato. His main legatee was Ser Arnaldo Girolli in Avignon, son of Isabetta, the sister of Margherita and Bartolomeo. Arnaldo received the twenty-five florins a year that Bartolomeo had inherited from their aunt Giovanna and other monies. Arnaldo was left the twenty-five florins partly because he was Giovanna’s residual heir, after Bartolomeo and then after Isabetta, who was also dead by 1419.44 Financial and other ties continued between the Bandini relatives in Avignon and Tuscany, even if they rarely saw each other. Meanwhile, Margherita was approaching sixty and spending most of her time in Florence. The house she rented there was in the same district as Luca and Caterina’s. Caterina, aged thirty-five, died in 1420, which, along with a serious Page 192 → illness Margherita suffered in 1419, may have encouraged Margherita to get her affairs in order.45 On 24 February, Margherita left two donations inter vivos to the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova (see fig.

10 for a view of the hospital about this time). Each donation was recorded twice, with slightly different information.46 They form a kind of will, showing Margherita’s outlook and position at the end of her life, and I will discuss them in detail, referring to them as Donations A, B, C, and D. Page 193 → Donation A is written in a fine hand in one of the hospital’s books of wills. It fits unobtrusively on two pages, sharing the top of the first page and the bottom of the second with other wills, and it was not considered worthy of putting in the index of testaments at the beginning of the book. Margherita is referred to simply as the widow of Francesco di Marco of Prato, merchant and Florentine citizen, and as the daughter of Domenico di Donato Bandini.47 The Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova had no reason to give special attention to Francesco or his widow, quite a contrast to the reverence in which Francesco was held in Prato. At one point, it had seemed as if Santa Maria Nuova’s attitude would be otherwise: in 1400, Francesco had planned to leave the hospital half his fortune, and in his will of 1410, he left the hospital in charge of one thousand florins to be used to build the Florentine orphanage that became the Ospedale degli Innocenti. However, the 1400 inheritance never materialized, and in 1419, Santa Maria Nuova transferred the one thousand florins for the orphanage to the silk guild in Florence, the hospital having decided that the amount it had received was inadequate for the purpose and, furthermore, that the purpose was a distraction from its primary mission.48 In Donation A, Margherita left the hospital a couple of lands, all the household goods and clothing she would own at the time of her death, and all her monies and credits, with the exception of some she was keeping aside. She left money for Ginevra to be dressed in black; that she left no one else such money is a sign that Caterina was dead when the donation was designated.49 Donation A was drafted by the notary Ser Ugolino Peruzzi, who, on the same day, wrote Donation B, much more carelessly, in his notarial book. Donation B is almost exactly the same as Donation A, except for one important point: Donation B says that Margherita wanted to be buried in Francesco’s tomb, in San Francesco Church in Prato; Donation A makes no mention of a burial site. The omission may indicate that Margherita was in the process of changing her mind about where she wanted to be buried, since she was ultimately buried in Santa Maria Novella Church in Florence.50 It was probably a sign that she had grown away from her life in Prato and out from Francesco’s shadow. The above were not the only donations she made to the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova that day. Donations C and D are noted in the hospital’s book that listed monies that came into the hospital’s possession. In Donation C, Margherita gave the hospital another five hundred florins “for the love of God and for the sake of her soul and the souls of her dead,” with the condition that the hospital pay her thirty gold florins a year to live on. The rector of the hospital, along with Bindo Piaciti and Luca del Sera, gave their agreement to her donation. Page 194 → The money came from sums deposited in Luca del Sera’s company.51 A few pages later, another entry, Donation D, about the same donation, indicates that the five hundred florins was a kind of loan of money to invest: when Margherita died, the hospital was to give three hundred of the original five hundred florins to Luca del Sera and his sons by the deceased Caterina, Giovanni and Francesco, with the remaining two hundred florins of the principal investment going to Arnaldo, the son of Margherita’s deceased sister Isabetta.52 Granting money to invest with the stipulation that the principal later be returned to the donor’s heirs conformed to a pattern that Francesco followed in his will, with money he bequeathed to Lionardo di Ser Tommaso, Guido di Sandro, and others to be returned to the Ceppo after varying periods of time.53 For Margherita’s donation to have been a profitable investment for the hospital, Margherita probably would have had to have lived for quite a while. Margherita died somewhat over two years later—whether that was enough for the hospital to profit or not. An addition at the end of Donation A notes that on 23 June 1423, Dominican friars from the Monastery of Santa Maria Novella collected from the hospital papers relating to property Margherita had not included in the donation and took the documents to Santa Maria Novella, where they were placed in the cupboard where wills were kept.54 According to Guasti in Mazzei, Margherita made her will a day later, asking to be buried in Santa Maria Novella Church among her relatives.55 Margherita’s only living close relatives were Caterina’s boys, her great nephews; her nephew Arnaldo; her cousin

Bindo; and, most important, her stepdaughter Ginevra. Margherita would not have learned that Ginevra died in childbirth in Prato the day after Margherita died in Florence. Ginevra was buried in the habit of a Franciscan tertiary and in the company of her dead baby girl. Still alive were Ginevra’s daughter Brigida, six years old, and her husband, Lionardo, who himself was dead by 1427. Brigida was brought up by guardians, who, according to the Catasto of 1427, destroyed her inheritance, but she married into a respectable Prato family nonetheless.56 Despite all these deaths, chronic ill health, and her childlessness, Margherita probably passed away thinking that she had lived a life to be proud of, carrying out her job as a competent wife and continuing it as a competent widow. As a woman of strong faith, she would have hoped to meet her dead husband and dead relatives in Heaven.

Page 195 →

Conclusion This is a book based on letters, especially the 244 letters from Margherita Datini to Francesco Datini and the 181 he sent to her, written from 1383 to 1410 and mostly sent between Prato and Florence. Such a large correspondence by a woman and between husband and wife is unique for that early time period. The correspondence is not without its limitations as a source, since it was composed in conditions that lacked privacy, often being written and read by Francesco’s employees. Nonetheless, the couple was quite outspoken, providing a clear idea of Margherita’s distinctive personality, her marriage to Francesco, and Margherita’s many activities. The letters are especially revealing when they are set in the context of other sources, as they are in this study. One of my goals has been to bring to life Margherita, her world, and the events and people therein. The other goal has been to consider the principal themes related to gender that influenced Margherita: the marriage relationship, her activities as wife, limitations on and possibilities available to women, the subject of female honor, Margherita’s path to full literacy, and her relations with people, both her own relatives and her contacts through Francesco. Religion, a recurrent theme in a time of high mortality, permeates the chapters of this book but is not usually treated here as a topic by itself. Both the discussion of Margherita and the discussion of gender have been facilitated by the detailed evidence contained in the letters. They emphasize one case, shedding light on the attitudes and actions of a woman living in a merchant environment. However, my hope is that my findings can shed some light on the lives of other women in Italy and also beyond, since the role of wife had similarities in different places and times. My most important observation might well apply to wives elsewhere: Page 196 → the pride Margherita took in carrying out well the job of wife, separate from her problematic personal relationship with Francesco.

Marriage: General Considerations and the Datini’s Specific Case Historical writings about Florentine and Tuscan marriage in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance emphasize the weak position of wives in the family. One cause of this weakness was not applicable to Margherita: KlapischZuber and Chabot analyze the way the extreme bias in favor of patrilineal ties in propertied families lessened the status of female members and of the married couple.1 Francesco, however (and much to his regret), had no patrilineal relatives, and Margherita’s patriline had been destroyed by exile and confiscation of property. Another source of women’s weak position, the subordination of female family members to males, did form the boundary of Margherita’s life. Her case illustrates that, nonetheless, the wife was not necessarily a passive and submissive figure, contrary to what Klapisch-Zuber suggests in her writings on gender. Margherita’s family had chosen her husband for her, which was the way almost all girls in late medieval and renaissance Italy received husbands, including, later, Margherita’s niece Caterina and Margherita’s stepdaughter, Ginevra; the only alternative career, that of nun, was not considered. Whether marriage brought happiness or otherwise, a girl needed a husband for the sake of her “body and soul,” as Tommaso di Niccolò Tecchini stated (quoted in chap. 12), with the phrase giving to female marriage a moral dimension not present for male marriage. People normally looked among their acquaintances for marriage partners, and the Bandini and Francesco lived in the area of Avignon inhabited by other Tuscans, who mostly knew each other and could evaluate each other. Francesco and the Bandini’s choice was influenced by the weighing of Francesco’s wealth against the high but dispossessed status of Margherita’s family. It was also influenced by sociable ties that led to an informal agreement between Francesco and Margherita’s widowed mother, Dianora, about Margherita’s dowry and to a related business agreement. Margherita, aged fifteen, was a passive bystander but probably was not displeased with the result. The first three chapters of this book deal with Margherita and Francesco’s marriage more than with wifely activities. In the early years, in Avignon and then in Italy, the couple seems to have been happy enough, with Francesco’s letters showing a patient and loving attitude until about 1386. According to the Page 197 → approved husband-wife interaction, the man, Francesco, had the right to tell the wife, Margherita, what to do, but, as wife,

Margherita had the right to persuade Francesco to live a healthier and more religious life, and Margherita made liberal use of that right. Margherita, however, increasingly disapproved of Francesco’s excessive devotion to work and his inability to ease up, whether in business or building, while Francesco, for his part, became increasingly irritated by Margherita. By 1389, exasperation and anger often predominated in the couple’s letters, giving their marriage a troubled particularity that went beyond the generic husband-wife role. The words Margherita used, when compared to Francesco’s, show something about her character and about their relationship. Although Francesco was peevish when in a bad mood, he held forth in a jocular way when in a good mood. Margherita was mostly earnest, her occasional humor being of the sarcastic sort. While she was usually self-confident, reflecting a belief in her own intelligence and in her superior family background, she was also defensive, at least partly because of her failure to produce children. Margherita’s approach was reactive. She wanted to demonstrate the respect due to a husband but then would lose patience. When Francesco was friendly, she was friendly, too, and tried to go along with his wishes. When he criticized her, she stood up for herself fiercely, showing none of the patience and humility that moralists advocated for women. She expressed her anger in colorful passages that make her letters attractive to the modern reader. However, by 1400, after more than twenty-three years of marriage and toward the end of Francesco’s life, the relationship between Margherita and Francesco stabilized. They became more forbearing and less openly critical of each other, and the balance of power shifted somewhat away from Francesco, as he, twentyfive years older than Margherita, felt his age. A core problem in the Datini’s relationship was that Margherita never bore or even conceived a child, whereas childbearing was one of a wife’s principal duties. Margherita’s infertility was accompanied by monthly bouts of severe pain at the time of her periods, probably the result of what is now called endometriosis. She and her relatives were still trying remedies—medical, religious, and magical—when she was in her thirties, after nearly twenty years of marriage, but to no avail. Margherita consoled herself and Francesco through religion, by emphasizing that their situation was God’s will, that it was useless to count on anything in this short earthly life, and that the Datini had at least escaped the common sorrow of children dying. Francesco consoled himself with two sexual flings that resulted in illegitimate Page 198 → children: a boy who soon died, born in 1387 and the son of a servant, and a girl who survived, Ginevra, the daughter of a slave, born in 1392. (Both of Francesco’s transgressions came when he and Margherita were together, not apart, perhaps partly a reaction to the friction between them.) As was expected when a man valued the child, Francesco freed the slave and found husbands for both mothers, the husbands being men at a lower social level who were given dowries. Unwanted babies often went to orphanages, but Francesco very much wanted his. Nonetheless, even when the child was accepted by the father, illegitimacy removed inheritance rights and was a black mark on future reputation. Fathering an illegitimate child was considered a slight moral defect, but a husband could do so without substantive punishment, and it was even seen by some as a sign of virility, whereas if a married woman from the propertied classes was known to have a relationship outside marriage she would have been exiled from society. It was generally expected and a matter for jokes that an attractive servant or slave would be a target of the master’s lust and that the wife would be jealous. Poaching on another man’s employee roused greater anger. In an age before divorce, the wife mostly had to put up with her husband’s philandering. The births left Margherita feeling humiliated and embittered, even if she came to love Ginevra. Nonetheless, she still was emotionally tied to Francesco, the center of her life since she was sixteen. Sometimes, her attitude toward him was almost that of a mother looking after a recalcitrant boy, even though she was twenty-five years younger than Francesco. Occasionally, she suggested that marriage was a kind of bondage, although one she undertook willingly.

Margherita’s Role as Wife Margherita was most fully involved in a multitude of tasks during the years 1394–98, when she lived entirely in Prato. She accepted that the husband should be in charge, but Francesco’s frequent absences, his lack of close male relatives to replace him, and his diverse concerns gave her more responsibilities than most wives, to the

extent that she can be called a “deputy husband.” Even though Margherita’s occupations were unusually varied, she in no way appeared anomalous to those around her. Her activities fit the pattern of acceptable behavior for a wife, and I suggest that the idea of “wifehood as a profession” may be applied to other wives in medieval and early modern times.2 Wifehood was a generally recognized role that allowed a woman to act in ways that went beyond the commonplace, Page 199 → as long as she was doing it on behalf of her husband. From a modern perspective, Margherita lacked the opportunity to choose her own path, but from her own perspective, she felt pride at the way she navigated her responsibilities, much as employees of a modern company feel satisfaction in doing their jobs well, while not disputing the employer’s superior position. As her letters make obvious, her wifely duties did not suppress her strong individuality. Wives had their own independent, although subordinate, sphere, which could give the wife a sense of importance, distinct from the state of relations with the husband. Margherita’s childlessness probably acted as an incentive for her to carry out her other wifely duties energetically. Her failure at childbearing, however, is not the whole story, because she took pleasure in exercising the skills involved in carrying out her tasks. Although Margherita’s personal character made her enjoy demonstrating competence, we cannot assume that her attitudes and activities were unlike those of other wives, since only the detailed nature of the Datini correspondence allows us to follow what she thought and did more closely than we can do for other women.

Honor and Limitations on Women The historiography about late medieval and renaissance Italy stresses the preoccupation with female sexual honor, that is, chastity, which limited female autonomy, since an unchaste reputation damaged not only the reputation of the woman herself but that of her family. Klapisch-Zuber strikingly expresses this widespread point of view in her essays relating to gender.3 The Datini sources show a broader definition of honor for women as well as men. In its basic sense, “honor” referred to receiving respect and showing respect, but it also referred to Margherita and others, both female and male, carrying out their jobs capably, that is, honorably, without the shame that arose from ineptitude and lack of effort. It touched on morality because honor resulted from doing what one should, even in everyday matters. Margherita sought to gain the kind of honor that came from competence and dutifulness and to avoid its opposite. She was very little limited by the vulnerable female sexual honor and shame that has often been portrayed as preventing Italian women of the era from associating with men to whom they were not related. In fact, when Francesco said that Margherita should act with honor, he meant that she should carry out well the tasks assigned her, which included, in one case, talking to their debtors, unrelated men. People admired modesty in Page 200 → a woman and praised extreme bashfulness (vergogna), but the latter was more appreciated in young girls than in mature women. Margherita, protected by being Francesco’s wife and by her own respectable behavior, could almost always go where she wanted and do what she wanted. Her tasks involved meeting many workmen, with whom she associated on easy terms, with no threat to honor, although they most often came to her at the Datini palace rather than her going to them. She was also able to cultivate a friendship with an unrelated man, Ser Lapo Mazzei, without threat to honor. The original relationship was between Ser Lapo and Francesco, but Margherita and Lapo’s subsequent friendship developed as a kind of familial extension, based on the godparent relationship and also on Lapo’s desire to help save Margherita and Francesco’s souls. Although Margherita was not seriously inhibited by considerations of honor, she had to act within other constraints placed on women. Women could not witness a will or take part in any official political action, and they needed a male cosigner when signing documents. They were rarely the principal heirs of the family estate (which passed in the male line, except for dowries), and they were often absent from public and private events, even from aspects of their own marriages. Also, individual female names were frequently omitted from the record, as has long been noted for genealogies.4 In his will, Francesco left money for the daughters that Luca del Sera and Margherita’s niece Caterina might have, but only Luca’s name is mentioned; Caterina’s name appears nowhere in the will, even though Francesco was close to Caterina. Furthermore, Margherita herself repeated the frequent misogynistic comments of the time in her letters: that women were more likely to lie than men, that they could not be trusted to keep secrets, that they lacked understanding. However, such negative ideas did not prevent a woman

like Margherita from acting decisively: in fact, Margherita and the men around her did not believe these views applied to her. For example, Ser Lapo Mazzei told Francesco that he should consult Margherita “because, even though she is not a man, she is so shrewd.”5 This book’s chapters demonstrate the interplay between limitations on women and the spaces in which they could act.

Margherita’s Activities Margherita’s many activities are most fully described in chapters 4–6, which deal mostly with the period when she was living entirely in Prato. They show Page 201 → that Margherita was the relative equal of Francesco’s two main associates in Prato, Barzalone di Spediliere and Niccolò di Piero, with each of the three having somewhat different responsibilities that fell separately under Francesco’s overall direction. Chapter 5 discusses Margherita’s household concerns, broadly defined. Her work in Prato included a wife’s normal duties—overseeing or participating in washing and cooking, clothing residents and looking after their health, and looking after the household possessions—with the difference that she provided for both the Prato and Florentine houses. Some of Margherita’s activities fell outside what was commonly expected for a wife, although they would probably be found not unusual if more sources as detailed as the Datini correspondence were available: these include animal care, overseeing farming, buying grain, sending grain to the mill to be ground, wine making, wine tasting, and overseeing carpentry and other work on the villa. All of Margherita’s activities were done at Francesco’s behest and were part of her acting as a good wife. However, she did not hesitate to express her opinions, which were not always the same as his. Francesco, for his part, had confidence in what she did, turning over responsibility to her, even if his irritable personality led to more criticism than praise. The wife of a man as immersed in business as Francesco naturally had ties to that business. Even at the beginning of the marriage, in Avignon, Margherita helped Francesco by sewing helmet linings. Francesco paid her for her work, and she was also allowed to keep her profits separate from her husband’s and insisted on controlling them herself. Years later, in Prato, Monna Simona Rinaldeschi kept her debts as well as her profits separate from her husband’s, when, although from an elite family, she wove cloth at home for sale in Florence. These cases raise questions about account keeping between husband and wife. In 1385, when Francesco was in Pisa and Margherita stayed in Florence on her own, living above the business, she was more removed from it than she would be later. Even so, she kept the keys to the trunks in which business documents were locked, and she offered Francesco general advice and commentary on events in the Florentine company. She was more actively involved in Prato, where she had the task, from soon after her return to Italy, of counting out the payments for the workers and putting the money directly into their hands, in addition to keeping the household keys. After 1391, Francesco centered the Prato aspects of his Florentine company in the Datini palace, and Margherita, even before she could write well herself, organized letter writing and account keeping with the help of apprentices. Page 202 → While Francesco was in Florence for an extended period, Margherita acted as his principal agent in seeing that loan payments were collected from debtors. Although she usually depended on a male associate to go out to the debtors, it was her job to tell the associate and others what to do about the loans. She created strategies to get what the Datini wanted from the debtors, and when meeting with them face to face, she used the talent the usually critical Francesco believed she had for persuasive argument in order to further the Datini cause. Margherita took charge of one particularly striking loan, fourteen hundred florins at 8 percent interest to Lodovico di Ser Iacopo. The loan is notable because Margherita took charge of such a large outlay, although no doubt with Francesco’s approval; because she made no attempt to hide the interest charge, despite the church’s disapproval of charging interest; and because it shows that, even though she was a devout Christian, charging interest did not bother her. The evidence for this loan is in a memorandum she sent to the apprentice Fattorino. She would not have been involved in making and signing formal agreements for this and other loans, since, as previously mentioned, women needed a male guardian to cosign for them and since her literary skills were still weak. She acted informally, in the role of Francesco’s wife, but this process points out the opportunities women had in informal

settings if not in formal ones. For most of her marriage, Margherita had a negative view about Francesco’s obsessive and tireless dedication to work. She thought that he should spend more of his time leading a well-balanced life, including more attention to religious observance. When Francesco reached his seventies, however, Margherita began to encourage him to continue to devote himself to business. She wanted him to earn as much money as he could before he died, because he was leaving his wealth to his charity, the Ceppo for the Poor. Margherita had always been worried about Francesco’s soul, and she believed that it would be beneficial for his soul if he left the Ceppo a lot of money, negating some of his bad deeds with a good one.

The Quest for Full Literacy One of the most interesting things about Margherita is her effort to improve her reading and writing in her thirties. These efforts grew out of personal ambition and were separate from her role as Francesco’s wife. Nonetheless, Margherita’s letter writing was facilitated by the environment in which she lived as Francesco’s Page 203 → wife. The Datini correspondence is so large because—leaving aside matters of preservation, largely Francesco’s achievement—letter writing was an everyday occurrence in the merchant milieu, especially for men, but also often for women. Business was carried out by letter, but so were social relations. Correspondence was a frequently used lubricant smoothing social ties, and eighty-one letters to and from Margherita aside from her correspondence with Francesco survive—letters to and from relatives, friends, acquaintances, and employees. Lack of literacy did not limit women, since scribes were easily available and since the personal touch, as represented by letters, whether autograph or not, was valued. Thirty-one of Margherita’s letters were to and from women, providing evidence of an active correspondence among women. Margherita’s job as wife required her to read and write through scribes, providing her with more incentive to improve her skills than women who lacked those duties. The common view that reading and writing were useless for a wife, a waste of time that would be better spent on household duties, did not apply to Margherita, for whom they formed part of those duties. It was characteristic of her that she prided herself on good composition even in her scribal correspondence, as indicated by her annoyance at Francesco when he suggested that she had not worded a particularly fluent letter herself but had sent the scribe’s words. She was already semiliterate by 1388 and probably before, reading and writing at a low level, but by the 1390s, she worked to attain full literacy in a way that few adult women would have bothered to do. There was little pressure for her to improve, since expectations for literacy were slight for women of the Italian mercantile elite in the late fourteenth century. One of Margherita’s motives was convenience, the desire to avoid depending on scribes, who were not always readily available. She also wanted to do it in order to prove that she could, judging by the way she returned to using scribes in her letters to Francesco once she had mastered the challenge. Reading was taught usually before writing or sometimes without writing being taught at all. (Margherita’s niece Caterina and Margherita’s stepdaughter, Ginevra, received lessons in reading, but writing was not mentioned.) Margherita began by mastering books written in the standard gothic lettering of the era, afterward mastering letters in the merchant script. Then she turned to writing. Domenico di Cambio and Ser Lapo Mazzei encouraged her in her efforts, although evidence contradicts Origo’s notion that Ser Lapo taught her to write. Francesco had encouraged her reading but was indifferent to whether she wrote Page 204 → with scribes or in her own hand, as long as she sent the news he wanted. Margherita’s path to full literacy was self-motivated. When she developed the desire to write, she looked at letter writers around her who could serve as models, and she began to improve her own skills through practice. Her circumstances in Florence in 1399 encouraged Margherita to undertake her most productive period for letter writing. She had more leisure to work on her skills then, because she had fewer responsibilities there than she did in Prato. In Florence, she was assisted by Ser Lapo’s very young son Peraccino, who was just learning to write and for whom she acted as coach, helping him build up his proficiency, a relationship that provided her with an inducement to work on her own writing. Once Lapo’s son left and once she had learned what she had set out to

learn, she returned to using scribes in her letters to Francesco. She very likely penned letters to others that have not survived, but she never became accomplished enough for writing to come as easily to her as it did to Francesco, whose problem was an inability to set his pen aside.

Relationships with People aside from Francesco In addition to Margherita’s other concerns, she lived a life filled with people, partly through her role as Francesco’s wife and partly through her own kin. Within the Datini household, there were relatives, servants, apprentices, and often guests, and the use of the word famiglia, “family,” for what we now call “household” made Margherita’s childlessness less obvious. Margherita’s niece Caterina (Tina), who often stayed with the Datini, and Margherita’s stepdaughter, Ginevra, represented the genealogical ties in the Datini “family.” The girls were treated with indulgence, contrary to harsh child-rearing advice of the time, and Margherita helped oversee their reading instruction. The boy apprentices received more discipline than the girls (although the boys’ punishment was a man’s job), and they, as males, had a much more extensive education in reading and writing, in order to prepare them for merchant careers. Margherita’s relatives in Florence and Avignon brought her both support and problems. Her Florentine sister Francesca Tecchini and Francesca’s husband, Niccolò, parents of Tina, gave Margherita emotional support, whereas she had less friendly relations with her relatives in Avignon. As her husband, Francesco participated in her kinship concerns, and his financial and other help to her relatives softened his and Margherita’s relationship. Two areas of Page 205 → contention arose between the Bandini relatives in Florence and those in Avignon: quarrels over the valuable Florentine house left by Margherita’s mother, Dianora, and over Margherita’s dowry, which had never been paid. Since a dowry gave a woman status as well as money, Margherita’s lack of dowry detracted from her position. Francesco and her brother-in-law Niccolò managed the legal aspects of the quarrels with the Avignon relatives, but Margherita negotiated behind the scenes, as did the female Avignon relatives who were her adversaries, her sister Isabetta, and, earlier, in the matter of the dowry, their forceful mother, Dianora. As for nonrelatives, Margherita regularly associated in Prato with Francesco’s business associates and their wives and with neighbors. She also participated in the continual round of entertaining at the Datini palazzo, an activity beloved by Francesco but for which she felt little enthusiasm, seeing it as interrupting more important activities. Wives were expected to take part in social events, with no threat to honor. The importance Francesco attached to a female presence can be seen in the letters addressed to the wives of acquaintances that he wrote in Margherita’s name when she failed to write herself. Men dominated the social world as elsewhere, but women were an indispensable part of it, required for its smooth functioning. Margherita’s interest in people outside her immediate circle increased when she faced a challenge. She became involved in Francesco’s unsuccessful attempt to avoid Florentine citizenship and the prestanza tax that resulted from it. In February 1394, while Francesco was dealing with the matter in Florence, Margherita, in Prato, called together and met with his pratese supporters and discussed plans of action. She received respect and attention from the men because she was acting as a loyal spouse, carrying out Francesco’s wishes—although Ser Schiatta’s failure to mention her presence at a meeting may mean he considered a wife’s presence to be unimportant, or, with female honor in mind, he may have been respecting Margherita’s modesty. She served as intermediary with the others when Francesco lacked the time to write to them individually, and her reports to Francesco showed insight into the political scene in Prato. She made use of a female network of acquaintances to find out information about a possible ally. She further contributed to the cause by sending eloquent dictated letters to Ser Lapo Mazzei, aimed indirectly at Guido del Palagio, with the implication that letters were helpful to Francesco. Some years later, Margherita’s brother Bartolomeo arrived in Florentine territory, and her response further demonstrated her understanding of politics. Page 206 → Unlike Francesco, she realized that Bartolomeo was liable for arrest if he entered Florence without a safe conduct and that he had to leave. As Margherita phrased it, she thanked God for giving her the grace to put the danger into her mind. On a more mundane level, it can be said that her family history made her aware of the particular threats to the Bandini, and she had discussed a similar case with one of her Gherardini relatives who had come to town.

The number of Margherita’s contacts could not compete with Francesco’s manifold connections, but she interacted with many people. For example, she searched all over Prato, interviewing numerous possible nurses, in order to find a wet nurse for the baby of one of Francesco’s acquaintances, and, as previously mentioned, she talked to debtors and workmen. Those she dealt with in Prato were mostly more local and more humble than those Francesco preferred to cultivate, but they were extensive, and they aroused her interest more than did entertaining at the Datini palazzo.

The Widow Francesco died in 1410, aged about seventy-five, and this book’s last chapter discusses Margherita’s life as a widow. With the end of Margherita and Francesco’s correspondence, it is necessary to depend on less revealing sources. Francesco left Margherita as one of his five executors, and except for Luca del Sera, she was the most active among them. As a woman, she could carve out a space by applying herself and demonstrating good judgment. In Prato, she took seriously the work of keeping up with the extensive executor correspondence that Luca sent from Florence, and she furthered Francesco’s religious legacies. When she disagreed with other executors about the mural in the Convent of San Niccolò, she carried her point. Although the Ceppo for the Poor was Francesco’s principal heir, he left Margherita well off financially, and, with help from the Ceppo officials, she increased her wealth by investing in land, rather than sitting back comfortably, living off income. Widows, although usually having more autonomy than wives, suffered some limitations. Margherita did not face the poverty that many widows did, but as a widow, she was supposed to be in semimourning. In his will, Francesco indicated that he expected her to give up her fine clothes for the more subdued attire of a widow, and Luca del Sera thought that she did not need a fine house as a widow (although she rented one, nonetheless). Luca also thought that she Page 207 → should not invite to her table the painters who decorated the palace’s facade, for the sake of her modesty, although Luca’s motivation also included a desire to save money. Female sexual honor was not as sensitive as has sometimes been thought; nonetheless, sexual honor was an issue for women in a way it was not for men. After ten years of widowhood, Margherita spent her last three years in Florence, choosing to be buried among her relatives in Santa Maria Novella Church, not with Francesco in Prato. She had retired from the role of wife. Her donations to the Florentine Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova showed her twin concerns, the financial welfare of her remaining relatives and the spiritual welfare of her own soul and the souls of her dead. Even though her life as Francesco’s wife was no longer in the forefront of her concerns and though she did not intend to lie beside him in death, she would have included Francesco’s soul among those who were to benefit spiritually from her charitable giving. She would not have overlooked the welfare of the soul about which she had worried for so many years. In summary, the numerous letters, both scribal and autograph, that Margherita and Francesco exchanged over a period of twenty-five years provide a detailed look at the life and attitudes of one late fourteenth-century Tuscan woman, while introducing us to her distinctive and vivid personality. People have said to me that they were interested mainly in Margherita’s “real” letters, meaning her autograph letters, but, in fact, her scribal letters are equally real in content, describing her doings and outlook in similar ways as in the autograph letters. Such detailed sources about a late medieval and renaissance woman are rare because females inhabited the domestic sphere, which is less well documented than the public sphere. Women were also less likely to be literate than men; and what they had to say was generally given less importance than what men said and so was not preserved. The Datini letters provide subjective insight into one wife’s outlook, which might have parallels with that of wives elsewhere, although Margherita’s personality was her own. They also describe Margherita’s many activities, indicating that a woman, although limited by law and custom, had more scope for action in practice than would be surmised by the restrictive laws under which she lived. Page 208 →

Page 209 →

Appendix Cast of Characters Dates of deaths are given only for those who died by 1399.

Margherita’s Closest Relatives Domenico di Donato Bandini, Margherita’s father, executed in Florence for treason in 1360. Dianora Gherardini Bandini, Margherita’s mother, died in Avignon in 1388. Zanobi Bandini, Margherita’s brother, died in 1386. Bartolomeo Bandini, Margherita’s brother, lived in Avignon, Fondi, Florence, and Prato. Francesca Bandini Tecchini, Margherita’s older sister, lived in Florence. Niccolò dell’Ammanato Tecchini, Francesca’s husband by 1374, lived in Florence. Tommaso di Niccolò Tecchini, Francesca and Niccolo’s son, called Maso, born in 1384. Caterina Tecchini, Francesca and Niccolo’s daughter, called Tina in childhood, born in 1385, married Luca del Sera in 1403. Isabetta Bandini Girolli, Margherita’s sister, lived in Avignon. Jacopo Girolli, Isabetta’s husband, lived in Avignon, sometimes called Giacchi. Arnaldo Girolli, Isabetta and Jacopo’s son. Page 210 → Ginevra, Margherita’s stepdaughter, Francesco’s illegitimate daughter, born in 1392, married Lionardo di Tommaso di Giunta in 1409.

Other Bandini Relatives Caterina di Domenico Bandini, Margherita’s aunt, married to Gherardo Piaciti, lived in Florence. Their children Bindo and Tommaso Piaciti and other siblings, Margherita’s cousins, lived in Florence. Giovanna di Domenico Bandini, Margherita’s aunt, widow of Silvestro di Cantino Cavalcanti, lived in Florence. Chiaramonda di Aldobrandino Bandini, Margherita’s first cousin, widow of Francesco di Giovanni Asini, lived in Florence.

Gherardini Relatives Cione (Pelliccia) di Bindo Gherardini, Margherita’s maternal grandfather, died in the mid-1380s. Bartolomeo, Rinieri, and Amideo di Pelliccia Gherardini, Margherita’s uncles, lived away from Florence. Nanni di Ceci Gherardini a distant cousin with whom Margherita had contact, lived away from Florence.

Antonio d’Attaviano Gherardini, a distant cousin with whom Margherita had contact, a podesta in Prato, lived in Florence.

Francesco’s Relatives in Prato Piero di Giunta del Rosso, Francesco’s guardian and, later, partner in the wool and dye business, died before 1390. Niccolò di Piero di Giunta, Francesco’s partner in the wool and dye business. Monna Lapa, Niccolò’s wife. Agnolo di Niccolò di Piero, son of Niccolò and Monna Lapa, Francesco’s partner in the wool and dye business. Page 211 → Lionardo di Tommaso di Giunta, married Francesco’s illegitimate daughter, Ginevra, in 1409. Cristofano di Mercato di Giunta, married Ghirigora, mother of Francesco’s illegitimate son born in 1387. Chiarito, Francesco’s poor relative.

Other Associates in Prato Monte Angiolini, Francesco’s partner in his personal company in Prato, died in 1390. Barzalone di Spedaliere, replaced Monte Angiolini as Francesco’s partner in his personal company in Prato in 1390. Ser Chimenti, Ser Baldo, and Ser Schiatta, notaries who helped with Francesco’s legal needs in Prato. Messer Guelfo Pugliese, a doctor of law and friend in Prato. Niccolaio Martini, an old friend and supporter of Francesco. Messer Piero Rinaldeschi, a doctor of law and the Datini’s neighbor. Monna Simona Rinaldeschi, Messer Piero’s wife. Caterina Rinaldeschi, Messer Piero and Monna Simona’s daughter. Messer Torello Torelli, a doctor of law important in Francesco’s legal affairs at the end of Francesco’s life.

Francesco’s Business Associates Based Outside Prato Bartolomeo Cambioni, Francesco’s partner in his Florentine bank. Boninsegna di Matteo, managing partner in the Avignon company. Cristofano di Bartolo Carocci, often called Cristofano da Barberino, worked for Francesco’s companies in Pisa and Spain. Domenico di Cambio, Francesco’s partner in a silk company in Florence. Manno dell’Albizzo degli Agli, Francesco’s partner in Pisa. Stoldo di Lorenzo, Francesco’s partner in Florence until 1404. Luca del Sera, Francesco’s partner in Genoa and Spain and, later, his principal partner in Florence, married

Caterina di Niccolò Tecchini in 1403. Page 212 →

Principal Scribes Who Wrote Margherita’s Letters Simone Bellandi, Francesco’s apprentice who was Margherita’s scribe in 1385 and continued advancing in Francesco’s companies for many years. Guido di Sandro Pieri, Francesco’s apprentice who was Margherita’s scribe in 1394–99 and continued advancing in Francesco’s companies for many years. Nanni di Luca Bencivenni, called Fattorino, Francesco’s apprentice who was Margherita’s scribe in 1394–99 and worked for Francesco until 1399. Piero di Ser Lapo Mazzei, Margherita’s helper in 1399 and, later, Francesco’s employee in Spain.

Friend to Both Margherita and Francesco in Florence and Prato Ser Lapo Mazzei, originally from Prato, Francesco’s notary for Florentine matters.

Francesco’s Influential Florentine Friends and Contacts Albertaccio and Tita Ricasoli. Guido del Palagio, important political figure and friend of the Datini through Ser Lapo. Nofri di Palla Strozzi, problematic supporter of Francesco. Strozza di Carlo Strozzi, served as Florentine podesta in Prato. Vieri Guadagni, served as Florentine podesta in Prato. Ghita di Vieri Guadagni, Vieri’s wife.

Servants and Slaves Barolomea, a middle-aged slave who was with the Datini until 1388. Ghirigora, a servant girl, the mother of Francesco’s illegitimate son born in 1387, married to Francesco’s relative Cristofano del Mercato. Page 213 → Lucia, the slave mother of Francesco’s daughter (Ginevra), later freed and married to the servant Nanni di Martino. Nanni di Martino, a trusted servant and also a sharecropper at Palco, later married to Lucia. Meo, called Saccente (Wiseguy), a difficult servant. Domenica, a servant and Saccente’s wife, mother of Nanna, a girl who went with the Datini to Bologna. Monna Giovanna, an upper-level servant who worked for the Datini in 1398 to pay off her son’s debt to Francesco. Page 214 →

Page 215 →

Notes Introduction 1. For the fourteenth century, see Passerini’s “Dora Guidelotti del Bene” and Guzzetti’s “Donne e scrittura,” the latter on the letters of Caturuza da Pesaro. There are only three letters from Caturuza, but Guzzetti analyzes them thoroughly, teasing out background information and elements of Venetian dialect. Cherewatuk and Wiethaus’s Dear Sister includes articles on fourteenth- and fifteenth-century letters from both inside and outside Italy. For the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries (stopping at about 1550, because studies become quite numerous, and leaving out all literary letters), see, for Italy, Medici, Lettere; Strozzi, Lettere; Crabb, Strozzi of Florence; James, “Marriage by Correspondence”; Swain, “Excellent and Singular Lord”; Nico Ottaviani, “Me son Missa”; Zarri, Per lettera. For a brief survey of Italian women’s letter writing from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries, see Doglio, “Letter Writing.” For England, see Paston Letters. Harris’s English Aristocratic Women makes much use of women’s letters from the preTudor period. Couchman and Crabb’s Women’s Letters includes articles from a range of countries in the relevant time period. 2. M. Datini, Letters. 3. M. Datini, Per la tua Margherita. 4. M. Datini, Lettere di Margherita; F. Datini, Lettere; Mazzei, Lettere (hereinafter cited as Mazzei). 5. James, “Woman’s Work” and “Woman’s Path to Literacy”; Valori, “L’onore femminile.” 6. Byrne, “Reading the Medieval Woman’s Voice” and “Crafting the Merchant Wife’s Tale.” 7. Other articles by Hayez are cited in later notes, as relevant. The Palazzo Datini a Prato is divided into three parts. The first part of volume 1 deals with the palazzo during Francesco’s lifetime, and the second part deals with his charity, the Ceppo for the Poor. Volume 2 contains relevant documents.Page 216 → 8. Part 1 of Melis’s Aspetti has a detailed study of Francesco’s business career, with side comments about his personality. Nigro’s Francesco di Marco Datini includes many articles about Francesco’s businesses. Nanni’s discerning Ragionare highlights Francesco’s character and business relationships based on the Datini correspondence. For Sapori’s attitude, see Cassandro, “Aspects,” 11–12. 9. Brucker, Florentine Politics, 44–45; Becker, Florence in Transition, 2:6, 25; Nigro, Francesco di Marco Datini; Byrne, “Francesco Datini”; Hayez, “Rire.” 10. See Palazzo Datini, 1: part 2; Guasti in Mazzei, proemio, iii–vii; Melis, Aspetti, part 1; Hayez, “L’Archivio Datini.” The Ceppo of Francesco di Marco is part of the Fondo Ceppi, which includes documents on several other charitable institutions, often called Ceppi, that are separate from Francesco’s. I will cite only Francesco’s Ceppo. 11. For some comments on this matter, see Daybell, “‘I Wold Wyshe” and “Letters”; Schneider, Culture of Epistolarity, 28–37; Duby and Braunstein, “The Emergence of the Individual.” 12. Scott, “‘Io Caterina.”

Chapter 1 1. For a description of this plot and Domenico’s part in it, see Brucker, Florentine Politics, 185–87. Brucker’s account is based on information in the chronicle of Marchionne di Coppo Stefani and on the judicial documents that Brucker analyzed. On Cione Gherardini, called Pelliccia, see Klapisch-Zuber, Retour, 316–19. Francesco’s letter to Monna Piera in which he announced his marriage to Margherita also mentions the plot and Domenico’s fate, without making value judgments (Francesco to Piera di Pratese, 28 Aug. 1376, Archivio di Stato di Prato, Fondo Datini). Hereafter, it can be assumed that all my citations of letters come from the Archivio di Stato di Prato, Fondo Datini (ASPo Datini), unless otherwise stated. I will cite ASPo Datini for account books and other documents. See n. 9 for the Bandini’s Ghibellinism. 2. The timing of the Bandini’s arrival in Avignon and the fact that Francesca was already married in Florence can be deduced from the following letters: Dianora Gherardini Bandini to Francesco Datini, 13 Mar. 1386, 12 Apr. 1387; Maestro Naddino d’Aldobrandino Bovattieri to Francesco, 6 Nov. 1395, in

Hayez, “Expérience de migrant,” 526–27 (letter 40). These letters indicate that Dianora left Florence in 1374, when Margherita would have been fourteen. Through correspondence, Jérộme Hayez helped me to understand this chronology. 3. For papal Avignon, see Mollat, Popes. 4. The first mention of Zanobi in Francesco’s account book is for 12 Oct. 1375, ASPo Datini 32, 161v. 5. There is conflicting evidence about Francesco’s age. I am assuming that Margherita was correct when she said he was fifty in 1386, which would have made him born in 1336, even though she may have been calling him “fifty” loosely (Margherita to Francesco, Page 217 → 23 Jan. 1386). I hereafter cite only Margherita’s name for her letters to Francesco, with the assumption that her letters are to him unless otherwise specified. On Francesco’s age, see also Cavaciocchi, “Il vezzo del mercante.” 6. See Francesco to Piera di Pratese, 28 Aug. 1376; Francesco to Francesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 21 May 1392. 7. For factors involved in choosing a wife or husband, see Crabb, Strozzi. For the usual age of marriage in early fifteenth-century Tuscany, see Herlihy and Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans. Age of marriage would not have changed much between the later fourteenth century and early fifteenth century. There is a considerable bibliography on marriage in Italy in the late medieval and early modern periods. For example, see Dean and Lowe, Marriage in Italy, 1300–1600; Murray, Marriage in Premodern Europe: Italy and Beyond. 8. Francesco to Piera di Pratese, 28 Aug. 1376. Monna is the honorific used for all married or widowed women, the equivalent of our Mrs. It was also sometimes written as Mona but is rarely written so in the Datini sources. 9. On the Gherardini, see n. 1. As for the Bandini, Bartolo Bandini was gonfaloniere of justice in 1301 and also prior in 1318, 1320, 1323, and 1325. Also serving as gonfaloniere were Bartolo di Bernardino in 1308 and Bandino di Bartolo in 1345. The three brothers Domenico, Aldobrando, and Vicenzo di Donato all had their names in the purses as eligible for office, but Donato and Aldobrando, accused of Ghibellinism, were not allowed to serve, and Aldobrando and Vicenzo were dead by the time of the coup of 1360 (ASF Tratte). 10. For Francesco’s comment that he received no dowry, see F. Datini, Testamento. For the romantic interpretation, see Mazzei, proemio, xxxliv–v; Melis, Aspetti, 48. 11. On the house, see chap. 11. For money borrowed from Francesco around the time of the marriage, see references in ASPo Datini 3 and 34. 12. For Francesco’s 1392 description of the events surrounding these arrangements, see Francesco to Francesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 21 May 1392. That letter refers to the document as having been written in Dianora’s hand. For Dianora’s autograph writing, see 9, 136, 140 below; Crabb, “If I Could Write.” See chap. 11 below for more on Dianora’s house and Margherita’s dowry. 13. The lack of greetings from Margherita in Francesco’s letters to Monna Piera until September 1377 indicate that the couple did not yet live together. After that, Francesco regularly conveyed her greetings. 14. Mazzei, proemio, xxxv. 15. Francesco’s father’s will was written by the notary Ser Rinaldo di Binduccio da Prato, and it and other family information is described in Mazzei, proemio, xii. 16. For evidence disputing Boccaccio’s comment and the comment itself, see Wray, Communities in Crisis, 103–7. For the Datini traveling to escape the plague, see chaps. 3 and 12 below. 17. For Piero di Giunta’s guardianship, see Quaderno di Piero di Giunta del Rosso per l’amministrazione dell’eredità di Marco Datini, 1348–1365, ASPo Datini 214.1.Page 218 → 18. Francesco’s thirty-five letters to Monna Piera di Pratese Boschetti, written between 1371 and 1381, demonstrate his affection for her. This affection is particularly apparent in the letters of 5 February 1376 and 27 September 1376. 19. Alessandra Strozzi and her relatives, members of an elite fifteenth-century family, do not usually mention specific genealogical relationships with relatives they discuss, although the family was the subject of much genealogical analysis later on. See Crabb, Strozzi. 20. See Frangioni, “Avignon”; Mazzei, proemio, xviii–xxiv; Origo, Merchant, part 1, chap. 1. 21. For Origo, see Merchant, 20–29. For the letters to and from Piera di Pratese and Niccolozzo di Ser Naldo Binducchi, see ASPo Datini Online and the citations below. 22. ASPo Datini 214.1. See chap. 11 below for more on the house. 23. Niccolozzo Binducchi, 28 Mar. 1372.

24. Niccolozzo Binducchi, 20 June 1381. 25. Niccolozzo Binducchi, 12 Jan. 1375 and 7 Mar. 1376, combining two similar passages. See also Niccolozzo and Monna Piera di Pratese, 16 Aug. 1375. 26. Niccolozzo Binducchi, 12 Jan. 1376. 27. Niccolozzo Binducchi, 20 Sept. 1375. 28. Piera di Pratese, 6 Mar. 1376. On brides described as merchandise, see Crabb, Strozzi, 189–90. 29. For descriptions of Avignon in this period, see Mazzei, proemio; Frangioni, “Avignon”; Origo, Merchant, part 1, chap. 1; Mollat, Popes. 30. I am grateful to Jérộme Hayez for this and other information about the layout of Avignon in the Datini’s time, information I took advantage of during a visit to Avignon. 31. Hayez, from Avignon himself, has found little or no Provençal influence in Dianora’s letters, mostly written in her own hand. 32. Niccolò Tecchini, 28 Feb. 1382. 33. Niccolò Tecchini, 10 Dec. 1381. 34. Niccolò Tecchini, 28 Dec. 1381. 35. For Francesco’s later description of Margherita’s working while others played, see Francesco to Cristofano Carocci da Barberino, n.d. [1401] 9142552. All letters in ASPo Datini have index numbers, but I only give them when there otherwise might be ambiguity, such as when they lack identifying information or when there is more than one letter from the same day. 36. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 28 Feb. 1382. 37. Francesco to Piera di Pratese, 28 Aug. and 27 Sept. 1376. 38. Francesco to Piera di Pratese, 17 July 1379; Monte Angiolini to Francesco, 20 Apr. 1380. The story of these girls is told several times in the sources; see, for example, Guasti in Mazzei, proemio. 39. Francesco to Monna Piera, 20 Jan. 1380. For Francesco’s attitude toward religion, see 14, 33, 38, 130 below; Byrne, “Francesco Datini.”Page 219 → 40. Margherita frequently mentions her beliefs. See especially 47–48. 41. Niccolozzo to Francesco, 20 June 1381. 42. On fifteenth-century Florentine godparents, see Crabb, Strozzi of Florence, 30–31, 206; several essays by Klapisch-Zuber, especially in the volume La Maison et le nom; Haas, “Il mio buon compare.” The comare relationship also had a role in the Datini’s relationship with Ser Lapo Mazzei and his wife (see 115 below). 43. See n. 42. 44. Monte Angiolini to Francesco, 4 Oct. 1379. 45. Monte Angiolini to Francesco, 21 June 1381. 46. Monte Angiolini to Francesco, 29 Apr. n.d. [1382] 316535. 47. On Niccolò and Francesca’s children, see chap. 7 and elsewhere. It is unclear whether Tommaso was the youngest of these original boys or born slightly afterward, that is, whether all four of the boys died or only three. 48. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 2 July and 19 Aug. 1381. 49. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 24 Mar. 1382; Niccolozzo Binducchi, 12 Oct. 1380. 50. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 2 Aug. 1381; Niccolozzo Binducchi to Francesco, 29 Aug. and 12 Oct. 1380, 20 June 1381. 51. For the activities of Francesco’s Avignon company, see Melis, Aspetti, 135–72; Frangioni, “Avignone.” 52. Niccolozzo Binducchi, 28 Mar. 1372, 12 Aug. 1380, 12 Jan. 1375. 53. Guasti in Mazzei, proemio, xxviii–xxx; Frangioni, “Avignone,” 253; Origo, Merchant, 30–32. 54. Mollat, Popes, 59–63. 55. A statue in Prato with the main scenes of Francesco’s life on its base includes a relief of Francesco’s audience with the pope. 56. ASPo Datini 4, 242.

Chapter 2

1. Margherita, 23 Jan. 1384, as discussed in this and the following paragraphs. This and later quotations from Margherita’s letters are based on Rosati’s transcriptions in M. Datini, Lettere di Margherita, and also on M. Datini, Per la tua Margherita, which is based on Rosati’s transcriptions. 2. For examples, see 13 above and 37 below. 3. On Bartolomea and slaves, see below. On Ghirigora, see 36–38, 41–42 below. 4. For Francesco’s business arrangement in the period immediately after he returned to Italy, see Cassandro, “Aspects”; Nigro, “Francesco and the Datini Company.” 5. On his newly international wholesale approach, see Cassandro, “Aspects,” 11. 6. On the palazzo and other building activities, see especially chaps. 4–5 and Palazzo Datini. For a discussion of the interchangeability of the terms meaning “palace” and Page 220 → “house” for large houses in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Florence, see Musacchio, Marriage and Family, 66–67. 7. On Prato, see Prato, ed. Braudel; Fiumi, Demografia; Klapisch-Zuber, “Demographic Decline.” For the population of Prato in the later fourteenth century, see Prato, 993. For Florence, see Najemy, Florence, 100. 8. For the phases of construction, see Cerretelli, “Il bel Palagio.” 9. For Francesco’s wool company in Prato and the role of Piero di Giunta, his son, and his grandson in Francesco’s Prato business, see Melis, Aspetti, 94; Ammannati, “Wool Workshops.” 10. For more on Niccolò di Piero and his wife, Lapa, see chap. 4. For Monna Piera’s death, see Monte Angiolini to Francesco, 1 Feb. 1384. For the tomb being built for her, see Margherita, 27 Feb. 1385. 11. For Francesco’s personal company in Prato, see Melis, Aspetti, 281–94. On the Angiolini, see Prato, 128, 653, 660. 12. On the Florentine and Pisa companies, see Melis, Aspetti, 173–224; Nigro, “Francesco and the Datini Company”; Berti, “Pisa Company.” 13. On Pelliccia Gherardini’s old age in Florence, see Klapisch-Zuber, Retour, 337 n. 27; Dianora Bandini to Francesco and Margherita, 24 Mar. and 5 Oct. 1383, n.d. 6000153. 14. See chaps. 11 and 13. 15. For more on this ideology, see chap. 4. 16. Francesco to Monte Angiolini, 26 Apr. 1384; Monte to Francesco 16 and 17 May 1384; Niccolò Tecchini to Monte Angiolini, 20 May 1384. 17. Monte Angiolini to Francesco, 16 and 17 May 1384; Maestro Naddino Bovattieri to Francesco, 15 Aug. 1395, in Hayez, “Expérience de migrant,” 529 (letter 42). For more on Naddino’s letter, see 46–47 below. 18. For the widely varying medieval views of female physiology, see Cadden, Meaning of Sex Difference; Jacquart and Thomasset, Sexuality and Medicine. 19. See Ballweg, Endometriosis; Encyclopedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, endometriosis; Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, endometriosis. 20. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 30 Jan. 1385; Margherita, 7 Feb. 1385. 21. Francesco, 23 Feb. 1385. I hereafter cite only Francesco’s name for his letters to Margherita, with the assumption that his letters are to her unless otherwise specified. This and later translations from Francesco’s letters are based on Cecchi’s transcriptions in F. Datini, Lettere. 22. Francesco, 23 Feb. 1385. 23. Francesco, 23 Feb. 1385. 24. Margherita, 16 Jan. 1386. 25. Margherita, 27 Feb. 1385. 26. Margherita, 27 Feb. 1385. See chap. 4 for a wife’s duty. See also Francesco to Monte Angiolini, 8 and 14 Mar. 1385. 27. Francesco to Monte Angiolini, 13 Mar. 1385.Page 221 → 28. On the lack of privacy, see 4–5, 25, 195. 29. This information has been garnered from the correspondence between Francesco and Monte Angiolini in March through May 1385, which can be found on ASPo Datini Online. 30. Lapa di Niccolò di Piero to Margherita, 9 Apr. 1385. For the other letter, see 14 May 1385. 31. Margherita, 16 Jan. 1386. For Francesco’s deciding against her going to Pisa, see his letter of 19 Jan. 1386. 32. For Francesco’s “dove foè vita di chani,” see Datini, Francesco di Marco and Co. to Datini, Francesco di Marco and Co. in Pisa, 6 Apr. 1386, published in Melis, Aspetti, 174.

33. Margherita, 28 Jan. 1386. 34. On Simone and his misbehavior, see Ser Lapo Mazzei’s letters to Simone Bellandi in Mazzei 2:219–33; Nanni, Ragionare, 97–204. 35. For her being sold, see ASPo Datini 199, 205. 36. For more on slaves, see chap. 3. For relevant studies on slavery, see, for example, Origo, “Domestic Enemy”; Epstein, “Slaves in Italy”; Zanelli, Le schiave; Cherubini, Servitori, chap. 7. 37. Margherita, 17 Dec. and 27 Feb. 1385; Francesco, 23 Feb. and 10 Mar. 1385. 38. Margherita, 16 Jan. 1386. For Francesco’s comment, see 19 Jan. 1386. On Bartolomea as pazza, see Margherita, 20 Feb. 1388. 39. Margherita, 28 Jan. 1386, as noted by Hayez (“L’Archivio,” 166) and Alberti (Family, 209–10). In “Giannozzo and His Elders,” Najemy sets Giannozzo’s comments in the context of humanist trends and father-son relations without changing their basic meaning for women. See chap. 6 for Margherita’s relation to Francesco’s business. 40. Margherita, 20 Jan. 1386. 41. Margherita, 20 Jan. 1386. On Boninsegna and Tieri, see Nanni, Ragionare, 173–77. 42. Francesco, 22 Jan. 1386. For Piero di Filippo’s later unsuccessful career, which was nonetheless better than it would have been if he had not had important relatives, see Hayez, “Il migrante,” 177. 43. Margherita, 20 Jan. 1386. 44. Margherita, 17 Dec. 1385. See Polecritti, Preaching Peace. 45. Francesco, 22 Jan. 1386. On the change from violent vendetta to more peaceful methods, see Muir, “The Double Binds.” 46. On vendetta, see Muir, Mad Blood Stirring; Polecritti, Preaching Peace. On the violent ways of Margherita’s branch of the Gherardini, see Klapisch-Zuber, Retour, 316–19. 47. Margherita, 20 Jan. 1386. 48. Margherita, 20 Jan. 1386. On female literacy, see chap. 10. 49. Francesco’s six long letters addressed to Piero di Filippo and the Florentine company, written between 12 and 22 Jan. 1386, are all about business and not very critical of Piero. For an example of a long letter that was written while Francesco stayed up in the night and that was not limited to business, see Francesco to Cristofano Carocci da Barberino, Page 222 → n.d. [1401] 9142552. For such a discursive letter that Francesco sent to Margherita, see 8 May 1394. 50. Murphy, Rhetoric; Camargo, Ars dictaminis. 51. Margherita, 23 Jan. 1386. 52. Margherita, 23 Jan. 1386. 53. Francesco, 22 Jan. 1386. 54. Margherita, 23 Jan. 1386. 55. See chap. 6. 56. Margherita, 16 Jan. 1386. 57. Margherita, 30 and 28 Jan. 1386. 58. Margherita, 28 Jan. 1386. 59. Margherita, 23 Jan. 1386. 60. For the husband’s right to discipline his wife and other aspects of the husband wife relationship, see chap. 4. For the relationship between the spoken word and words written in letters, see Schneider, Culture of Epistolarity, 28–37. 61. Margherita, 20 Jan. 1386. 62. Margherita, 28 Jan. 1386: “Ma ss’io fossi singnore, io ti chaverei di tanti pensieri.” See also Margherita, 20 Feb. 1388 9392781. 63. Francesco to Monte Angiolini, 14 Feb. 1385. 64. Francesco, 22 Jan. 1386. 65. For more on this subject, see 38, 130 below. 66. Margherita, 30 Jan. 1386. 67. Margherita, 2 Jan. 1395: “Del dormire techo Barzalon mi piace.” 68. Francesco to Francesco di Marco and Co. in Florence, 25 Oct. 1390 309391; Francesco, 16 Dec. 1385. 69. For more on this subject, see 69 and 70.

70. Margherita, 23 Jan. 1386. 71. Francesco, 22 Jan. 1386. 72. Francesco, 19 Jan. 1386. For another promise to be a “different Francesco,” see 125 below. 73. Francesco to Piera di Pratese, 22 Mar. 1372. 74. Francesco, 19 and 25 Jan. 1386. 75. Margherita, 28 Jan. 1386. 76. Margherita, 30 Jan. 1386. 77. Nigro, “Francesco and the Datini Company,” especially 238; Cassandro, “Aspects,” especially 11. 78. Margherita, 5 Apr. 1386; Francesco, 15 Apr. 1386.

Chapter 3 1. Niccolò Tecchini, 9 Sept. 1387. 2. ASF Catasto, 1383, terra di Prato, as reproduced in Mazzei, proemio, xlv. On Ghirigora Page 223 → being among those who accompanied the Datini back from Avignon, see Melis, Aspetti, 52. 3. Margherita, 23 Jan. 1385; Francesco, 23 Feb. 1385. 4. Ghirigora would have conceived the child in December 1386 or January 1387. Francesco’s wide-ranging correspondence as well as the lack of letters between Margherita and Francesco during these months indicates that Margherita and Francesco were both in Prato during this time. 5. See chap. 4. 6. For illegitimacy and its ramifications, see Kuehn, Illegitimacy. 7. See Gavitt, Charity and Children. 8. On the marriage, see ASPo Datini 199, 14r, 15v, 73v, 74v. On Cristofano thinking the dowry was inadequate, see Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 12 Oct. 1387; Francesco to Stoldo di Lorenzo, 11 Oct. 1387 410042. 9. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 12 Apr. 1387. For his possible disapproval of the pregnancy, see 4 Apr. 1397. 10. Margherita, 31 Mar. 1387. 11. ASPo Datini 199, 123v. 12. Niccolò Tecchini, 9 Sept. 1387. 13. See 33, 130; Francesco, 12 May 1394. 14. Honor is an important theme of this book, discussed most fully in chap. 4 but considered whenever it seems relevant. For the relationship between honor and religion, see Cohen and Cohen, Daily Life, chap. 6; Polecritti, Preaching Peace, especially 164–78. See also Peristiany and Pitt-Rivers, Honor and Grace. For disapproval of concubinage and second households in fifteenth-century Florence, see Kuehn, Illegitimacy. For second households as a sign of success among aspiring nobles in sixteenth-century Verona, see Eisenach, Husbands, Wives, and Concubines, especially chap. 4. 15. See Piattoli, “Un mercante del Trecento e gli artisti,” 11:426. 16. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 9 Feb. 1388. 17. Margherita, 20 Feb. 1388. 18. Margherita, 20 Feb. 1388. 19. On wet-nursing, see Klapisch-Zuber, “Blood Parents and Milk Parents”; Gavitt, Charity and Children, 164–55, 227–42, 280; Shahar, Childhood in the Middle Ages, chap. 4; Fildes, Wet Nursing. 20. Niccolò di Piero, 2 Feb. 1388. 21. Monte Angiolini sent four letters to Francesco about the baby’s illness, all on 4 and 5 Mar. 1388. For the advice the doctor gave Francesco, see Francesco to Monte Angiolini, 5 Mar. 1388 4401. 22. For the details on the baby’s death and burial in this and the following paragraph, see Monte Angiolini to Francesco, 5 Mar. 1388 312318 and 312319. 23. ASPo Datini 199, 166v. 24. Niccolò di Piero to Francesco, 28 Sept. 1390. 25. Niccolò di Piero to Francesco, 30 Sept. 1390.Page 224 → 26. For these financial matters, see Hayez, “Francesco Datini et Ser Bartolomeo Levaldini,” 107–9.

27. Francesco to Checco Angiolini, 25 July 1390; Francesco to Messer Piero Rinaldeschi, 27 Aug. 1390. On sleeping several people to a bed, with two or more beds in the room and separate beds for men and women, see Francesco to Francesco di Marco Datini and Co., 25 Oct. 1390 500340; Francesco, 16 Dec. 1385; Margherita, 2 Jan. 1395. 28. Francesco to Francesco di Marco and Stoldo di Lorenzo, 24 Oct. 1390 500340, 25 Oct. 1390 108327. 29. Francesco’s correspondence indicates that he and Margherita were mostly together in Prato in 1391–92. 30. ASF Catasto, 1393, terra di Prato, as described in Mazzei, proemio, xliv. 31. For some examples through 1394, see Margherita, 20 and 23 Oct. 1389; Margherita, 18 Feb., 8 May, and 22 Oct. 1394; Francesco, 22 Aug. and 22 Oct. 1389. Other mentions of Lucia will be cited in later notes as relevant. 32. Bindo Piaciti to Francesco, 16 Dec. 1394. 33. For Margherita’s comment about the slave Giovanna, see 23 Aug. 1389. 34. Letters of 1391 from Francesco to Francesco Datini and Co.: 6 Apr. 500379, 13 Apr. 500382, 17 Apr. 500383, 20 Apr. 500384, 25 Apr. 500386. 35. Francesco to Francesco Datini and Co., 13 Apr. 1391 500382; Beata Chiara Gambacorti to Francesco, Mazzei 2:326 and Brambilla, Padre mio dolce, 101–2. 36. Margherita, 19 Aug., 24 Nov., and 4 Dec. 1398; Margherita, 17 Mar. 1399. 37. For Byrne’s comment, see “Mothering,” 47. For Ser Lapo’s comment, see Mazzei 1:353. 38. Francesco, 21 Aug. 1398. 39. ASPo Datini 557, 79v, 106v, 107r, 158r, 159r. 40. Francesco to Francesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 17 Nov. 1392 109174; Francesco to Francesco Datini and Manno d’Albizzo Agli and Co., 18 Nov. 1392 304740, 24 Nov. 1392 400421. 41. Margherita, 18 Feb. 1394, 8 May 1399, 8 Apr. 1400; Francesco to Andrea di Bonanno, 12 and 15 May 1393. 42. Margherita, 2 and 3 Apr. 1394. 43. On Ginevra, also see later chapters. 44. The notarial act, drafted by Ser Lapo Mazzei, is reported in Mazzei, proemio, xlvii. 45. On Nanni being called “mio fattore,” see Melis, Aspetti, 284. For the phrase “our Nanni,” see 22 May and 24 Oct. 1397. On the Datini’s trust in him, see Margherita, 22 May and 24 Oct. 1397; Margherita, 19 and 24 Nov. and 1 and 3 Dec. 1398. 46. Margherita, 27 Feb. and 19 Nov. 1398. On the Datini and cats, see below 47. Margherita, 8 Apr. 1400. 48. For the quote, see ASPo Datini 235, 58r. For Ser Lapo thinking Francesco spent too much on Lucia, see 10 Feb. 1400, Mazzei 1:353. 49. For the provision in the will of 1400, see Mazzei, proemio, xlvii. For the provision Page 225 → in Francesco’s will of 1410, see F. Datini, Testamento, 278. For the return of Lucia’s dowry to Nanni when she died, see ASPo Ceppo 430, 89v. Nanni’s farming activities and payments to Lucia from Francesco’s will are well documented in scattered entries in ASPo Ceppo 329, 430, 1175, 1176, 1180, 1183, 1439. 50. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 18 Apr. 1393. 51. Francesca Tecchini to Margherita, 7 Sept. 1393. See also Francesca’s letter of 16 Sept. 1393. 52. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 23 Apr. 1395. 53. Margherita, 25 Nov. 1397. 54. Maestro Naddino Bovattieri to Francesco, 15 Aug. 1395, published by Hayez in “Expérience de migrant,” 529 (letter 42). 55. Margherita, 23 Jan. 1395. 56. Margherita, 23 Jan. 1395. 57. Margherita, 18 May 1402. 58. For pilgrimages, see below and 54 For sermons, see 173–74. On the rosary, see Margherita, 5 June 1395. On the effects of fasting, see Margherita, 5 Apr. 1397. 59. Margherita, 3 Dec. 1398. 60. The details here and in the following paragraph are from Margherita, 5 Apr. 1386.

Chapter 4 1. Mannini’s “La costruzione del mito” discusses the various images of Margherita and Francesco and includes fine reproductions. Most of the images come from well after Francesco’s death, including the painting by Filippo Lippi depicting Francesco Datini with the officials of his charity, the Ceppo for the Poor. For the study of Francesco’s bones, see Pardini, “Le ossa.” For Margherita suggesting that she was a large woman, see Margherita, 27 Oct. 1397. James and Pagliano’s edition of Margherita’s letters uses a reworked version of Margherita’s image in La Trinità for their cover. 2. Francesco, 5 Apr. 1397. 3. Margherita, 26 Aug. 1389, 7 Apr. 1399. 4. Francesco, 7 June 1395. 5. Margherita, 8 June 1395; see also 3 Dec. 1398. 6. Margherita, 28 Aug. 1389. 7. Francesco, 28 Aug. 1389; Margherita, 5 June 1395, 22 Aug. 1398. 8. Margherita, 2 and 3 Dec. 1398; see also 25 Aug. and 29 Nov. 1398. 9. The six Tuscan writings about relations between wife and husband used here include three from the fourteenth century and three from the fifteenth. The advice all follows the same general pattern. The three from the fourteenth century are Avvertimenti di maritaggio, Paolo da Certaldo’s “Libro di buoni costumi”, and Giovanni Dominici’s pedagogical treatise on how to care for the family (see Debby, Rhetoric, 128–48). The three from the fifteenth century include Bernardino da Siena’s Le prediche volgari Page 226 → (see Debby, Rhetoric, 128–48), Cherubino da Siena’s Regole della vita matrimoniale, and Book 2, 98, and Book 3, 206–29, of Alberti’s Book of the Family. 10. See Avvertimenti. 11. Margherita, 29 Nov. 1398. 12. Margherita, 3 Dec. 1398. 13. See, for example, Margherita, 2 Dec. and 20 Mar. 1398. 14. See Elizabeth Cohen, “To Pray, To Work.” See n. 9 above for moralists’ writings. 15. For the term “deputy husband,” see Ulrich, Good Wives, part 1. In English Aristocratic Women, Harris discusses the wide-ranging activities of aristocratic women and uses the term “subordinate agent.” Harris’s term certainly applies to Margherita and to male employees like Barzalone di Spedaliere and, before him, Monte Angiolini, but I like the way the term “deputy husband” places emphasis on the marriage relationship. On Margherita’s controlling the keys, see Hayez, “L’Archivio,” 166–67, which Hayez bases especially on Margherita, 28 Jan. 1385 and 2 Nov. 1399. 16. Valori also makes this point in “L’onore femminile.” 17. Kuehn, Illegitimacy, 87–88. 18. For example, Margherita, 29 Nov. 1398. 19. Margherita, 1 Sept. 1395; Francesco, 11 Apr. 1398, 27 Mar. 1397. 20. Barzalone to Francesco, 4 Nov. 1394; Fattorino (Nanni di Luca Bencivenni) to Francesco, 3 Feb. 1397; Margherita to Guido Pieri, 19 Sept. 1399. 21. Margherita, 23 Aug. 1398. 22. Margherita, 21 July 1395. 23. There is a large bibliography addressing female honor as chastity in the Mediterranean region. Elizabeth Cohen discusses the subject well in “To Pray, To Work.” A different approach is taken in essays showing the negotiability of female honor, where weaknesses can be overlooked in exchange for other benefits, such as smaller dowries. See Elizabeth Cohen, “Honor and Gender” and “No Longer Virgins”; Ruggiero, “Più che la vita caro.” For the fluidity and overlap of the categories of wife, concubine, prostitute, and, occasionally, nun, see McGough, “Raised from the Devil’s Jaws,” chap. 1. 24. Margherita, 24 Aug. 1389, 2 and 3 Apr. 1394, 24 Feb. 1403. 25. See Valori, “L’onore femminile,” especially 71. Paolo di Certaldo, who mostly saw women as lightminded and needing male control, recognized female self-control, nonetheless, by saying that a good woman had “vergogna in sé” (329), an internalized sense of shame, which is a similar idea to Valori’s. 26. See 84–86. 27. Valori, “L’onore femminile,” 76–82.

28. For the workers, see Margherita, 31 Mar. 1387; for reading the long letter, 9 May 1394; for her staying home while sick, 16 Mar. 1397. 29. Barzalone to Francesco, 21 July 1395. 30. This trip to Fiesole was in June 1395: the relevant letters are Margherita’s from 3, 4, 5, and 8 June and Francesco’s from 4 June. 31. Francesco, 1 Apr. 1394.Page 227 → 32. Margherita, 7 May 1399. For the way she organized an employee’s tasks so that, she said, no time would be lost, see Margherita, 2 Dec. 1398. 33. See Hayez, “Io non so scrivere,” especially 73–74. For the treatment of time in fourteenth- and fifteenthcentury Prato, see Nigro, Il tempo liberato, 15–28 and app. 1. 34. Margherita, 26 Aug. 1389. For her inability to stand loud noises when ill, while still dictating letters, see Margherita to her sister Francesca, 19 June 1396. 35. Margherita, 5 Apr. 1397 1401796. 36. Barzalone to Francesco, 21 June 1396. 37. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 14 May 1389. 38. Margherita, 7 Apr. 1397. 39. James, “Woman’s Work,” 60. 40. See chaps. 9–10. 41. On Francesco’s shouting, see Domenico di Cambio, 16 Jan. 1390. On Francesco’s making a habit of shouting at his employees, see Cassandro, “Aspects,” 12. 42. For evidence of this, see Margherita, 8 June 1395, 8 Apr. 1399. However, Margherita’s letter of 2 May 1399 refers to Francesco’s small bed (lettuccio tuo) in a room on the ground floor. 43. Margherita, 13 Aug. 1395; for letters in which she comforted Francesco, see also 23 Jan. 1395, 8 June 1397. 44. Margherita, 30 Oct. 1394. 45. Margherita, 2 Nov. 1399. 46. Margherita, 6 and 9 May 1394. 47. Hayez, “Rire,” 420–21. Interestingly, in this context, Alessandra Strozzi, a woman, used many proverbs and ironic observations, which can be interpreted as backing up her self-confident authority in the role of mother. See Crabb, “How to Influence,” 38–40. 48. Margherita, 18 Aug. 1389. 49. Margherita, 22 Aug. 1398. 50. Margherita, 22 Aug. 1398. 51. Dominici in Debby, Rhetoric, 128–48; Paolo da Certaldo, “Libro di buoni costumi,” 276. For the expectation of love and companionship, see Ser Lapo to Francesco, 23 Sept. 1394 (quoted in the text that follows); Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 12 Apr. 1387, 28 Feb. 1382. 52. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 23 Sept. 1394, 9 Jan. 1396, Mazzei 1:74, 134. The translations of Ser Lapo’s letters throughout this book are based on Mazzei’s Italian. 53. Domenico di Cambio to Francesco, 16 Jan. 1390. 54. Barzalone to Francesco, 2 Mar. 1395. 55. For relations between parents and children, see chap. 7. 56. Except where footnoted, the general statements about Margherita’s relations with Niccolò di Piero and Barzalone are based on impressions from my perusal of the sources. 57. For reports on Margherita’s behavior, see Niccolò di Piero to Francesco, n.d. [1384]; Barzalone to Francesco, 21 July 1395. 58. Margherita, 2 Nov. 1399.Page 228 → 59. The exception was her quarrel with the apprentice Fattorino. See n. 30 and 54. 60. On Monte’s death, see Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 14 Mar. 1390. 61. The differences in their responsibilities can be observed in their respective correspondence. See Melis, Aspetti, 61–72, for Francesco’s properties. 62. See chap. 6. 63. Margherita, 22 July 1395 (also referenced at 74 below), 8 Aug. 1395, 25 Apr. 1399. 64. For the remark, see Barzalone to Francesco, 22 June 1392; this whole short letter is humorous. For

Barzalona’s writing in a philosophical vein, see Barzalone to Francesco, 18 Feb. 1394. 65. Barzalone to Francesco, 4 July and 6 Oct. 1399. 66. For Niccolò di Piero and Agnolo di Niccolò’s role in the wool business, see Melis, Aspetti, 281–94; Ammannati, “Francesco Datini’s Wool Workshops.” 67. Margherita, 1 Dec. 1398. 68. Barzalone to Francesco, 21 June 1396. 69. Niccolò di Piero to Francesco, 6 Oct. 1390. 70. Francesco, 8 Apr. 1399. 71. Margherita, 6 June 1398. 72. Margherita, 6 May 1394, 2 May 1399. 73. On Margherita wanting to be buried in Prato, see Margherita to her sister Francesca, 19 June 1396. On her being buried in Florence, see chap. 13 below. 74. In letters of 9 Apr. and 14 May 1385 and 12 June 1388, Lapa used voi. In her letter of 18 Oct. 1401, she used tu. 75. For Francesco’s art patronage in Prato and Tuscany, including Prato’s San Francesco Church, see Brambilla’s detailed treatment in Padre mio dolce, xvii–xlvii. See also Piattoli, “Un mercante”; Mazzei 2: app. 2. 76. On Francesco and his relatives before him being buried in San Francesco Church, see Byrne, “Francesco Datini,” especially chap. 5. 77. Monte Angiolini to Francesco, 27 Sept. 1385. 78. Francesco to Monte Angiolini, 12 July 1384 3961; Piattoli, “Un mercante,” especially 11:416–25. 79. On the Datini palace and related buildings, as described below, see the impressive recent book Palazzo Datini a Prato. See also Cavaciocchi, “Merchant and Building.” For the palace’s interior, see chap. 5 below. For Margherita’s annoyance, see her letter of 22 Aug. 1398. 80. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 15 Apr. 1392, Mazzei 1:25 81. Margherita, 22 Aug. 1398.

Chapter 5 1. Margherita, 6 June 1398, 5 June 1395. 2. The internal arrangements and decoration described in this and the following Page 229 → paragraphs are those present from 1391–1407, at which point Francesco bought an adjacent building, adding more rooms. See Cerretelli, “Il bel Palagio,” 48–51, for diagrams of the rooms in the palace. The interior of the palace is discussed in several articles in volume 1 of Palazzo Datini: those by Ceretelli, Preyer, Mavarelli, and Masseti, as well as Romagnoli’s “La decorazione” and “Gli ambienti.” It can also be deduced from the “Inventari di beni” published in Palazzo Datini, 2:578–628 (ASPo Datini 215/1, 236/8; ASPo Ceppo 1618). See also Cavaciocchi, “Taste for Living”; Dunlop, Painted Palace; Bastianich, “Illustrious Man”; Origo, Merchant, 245–50. For the sleeping arrangements of young male and female servants, see Palazzo Datini: in volume 1, Marcheschi’s “In Prato” and Ceretelli’s diagram (51); in volume 2, the aforementioned “Inventari de beni.” 3. On this quarrel, see Cavaciocchi, “Francesco Datini and the Painters.” 4. Origo, Merchant, 252. 5. Origo, Merchant, part 2, chap. 1, also describes Margherita’s household activities, but in less detail. 6. Margherita to her sister Francesca Bandini Tecchini, 19 June 1396. 7. Margherita, 2 Dec. 1398. 8. Margherita, 28 Aug. 1395, 17 Dec. 1385. 9. Margherita, 18 Feb. and 29 Mar. 1394, 23 and 25 July and 28 Aug. 1395, 21 May 1397; Francesco, 19 Feb. and 8 Apr. 1394, 21 May 1397. 10. Margherita, 1 Sept. 1395. 11. Margherita, 21 Mar. 1397 1401789. 12. Margherita, 16 Mar. and 1 Apr., 21 Mar. 1401788 and 1401789, 6 June and 25 Oct. 1397. On Lucia baking bread, see Margherita, 8 May 1399; Francesco, 8 May 1399; Francesco to Francesco di Marco

Datini and Andrea di Bonanno and Co., 12 and 15 May 1393. 13. Margherita, 25 Oct. 1397. 14. Margherita, 29 March 1397. 15. Margherita, 7, 8, 11, and 28 May 1394; Francesco, 8 May 1394. 16. Margherita, 3 Dec. 1398. 17. Margherita, 29 Nov. 1398. 18. Margherita, 2 Dec. 1398. 19. Margherita, 12 Mar. 1394, 21 July 1395, 6 June 1398. 20. Margherita, 2 Dec. 1398. 21. For their social life, see chap. 8. 22. Origo describes the clothing in Merchant, 285–89, based on ASPo Datini 215/1. This inventory has now been published in Palazzo Datini, 2:581–87. 23. For fashion as a masculine pursuit, see Stuard, Gilding the Market, chaps. 3–4, especially pp. 34–35, 91–92. See also Frick, Dressing Renaissance Florence, 186. Writings on sumptuary laws include Hughes’s “Sumptuary Law” and “Regulating Women’s Fashion” and Rainey’s “Dressing Down.” 24. On clothing fashions, see Stuard, Gilding the Market, especially 1, 20, 43; Frick, Dressing Renaissance Florence, especially 159–67.Page 230 → 25. Origo, Merchant, 285–89. 26. Margherita, 2 Dec. 1398. 27. Margherita, 2 Dec. 1398. 28. Margherita, 8 Feb. 1394. 29. Margherita, 8 June, 1395. Other letters from April, May, and June 1395 discuss cats. 30. Margherita, 31 Mar. 1387. 31. Margherita, 31 Mar. 1397. 32. Margherita, 25 Nov. 1397. 33. Francesco, 22 Aug. 1398. 34. Margherita, 22 Aug. 1398 1401849. 35. For Nanni, see chaps. 3 and 7. On farming on Datini properties, see Origo, Merchant, 269; ASPo Datini 236, inventory of Francesco’s real estate, Apr. 1307. On mezzadria (sharecropping), see Pinto, Il contratto. 36. Margherita, 3 Apr. 1394; Margherita, 21, 22, and 25 July 1395; Margherita, 3 Apr. and 5 May 1397; Francesco, 18 Mar. 1397. 37. Francesco, 3 Apr. 1397. 38 Margherita, 29 Mar. 1397. 39. Margherita, 15 Apr. 1394 1401751, 17 Mar. 1394. For Barzalone buying grain, see Barzalone to Francesco, 4 Nov. 1394. 40. Margherita, 29 Mar. 1397. 41. Margherita, 10 Mar. 1394. 42. Margherita, 1 Apr. 1397. 43. Margherita, 21 July 1395. 44. Margherita, 22 May 1397. 45. Francesco, 18 Mar. and 8 May 1394. 46. Margherita, 8 June 1395. 47. Margherita, 28 and 29 Nov. 1398. 48. On buying and selling their own and other people’s wines, see Margherita, 23 Feb. 1394, 9 Apr. 1394, 14 Apr. 1394, 9 May 1394, 28 Apr. 1394, 13 Aug. 1394, , 21 Oct. 1394. 49. Margherita, 23 Feb. 1394. 50. Margherita, 14 Feb., 10 Mar., and 1 and 8 Apr. 1394. 51. Margherita, 17 Feb. 1394. 52. Margherita, 23 Feb., 10 Mar., and 24 Oct. 1394; Margherita, 11 and 12 Apr. 1398. 53. Francesco, 5 May 1394; Margherita, 6 May 1394. 54. On the villa, see Cavaciocchi, “Merchant and Building,” 154–55 and nn. 141–54. 55. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 27 Dec. 1395, Mazzei 1:130–31. 56. Francesco and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co. to Francesco, 8 Nov. 1393 300145; Niccolò Tecchini to

Francesco, 19 June 1394; Ser Lapo to Francesco, 24 Jan. 1396, Mazzei 1:137–40. 57. Margherita, 18 Mar. 1395. For the figure of one thousand florins, see the inventory of Francesco’s property published in Melis, Aspetti, 61–71.Page 231 → 58. For the painting by Arrigo di Niccolò, see Palazzo Datini, 1: 101, fig. 11. For paintings at the villa, see also Cavaciocchi, “Merchant and Building”; Bastianich, “Illustrious Man,” 130. 59. Margherita, 1 Sept. 1395. 60. Francesco, 22 July 1395. 61. On Monna Melina, see Cavaciocchi, “Economics of Building,” 180–81. 62. Margherita, 10 and 12 Mar. and 29 Apr. 1394; Francesco, 5 Mar. 1394. 63. Francesco, 23 July 1395. 64. Francesco, 6 Feb. 1394. 65. Margherita, 18 Feb. 1394. 66. Margherita, 29 June 1396. 67. Margherita, 22 July 1395. 68. Margherita, 22 July 1395. 69. Francesco, 23 July 1395. 70. Francesco, 28 Oct. 1397. 71. Margherita, 6 June 1398. 72. Margherita, 16 Mar. 1398. 73. On the mercenaries, see Caferro, John Hawkwood and Mercenary Companies. 74. Origo, Merchant, 274–77. 75. Francesco, 20 Mar. 1397 6300104 and 6300105; Margherita, 21 Mar. 1397. 76. Francesco, 23 Mar. 1397.

Chapter 6 1. See, for example, Margherita, 10 and 17 Mar. 1394; Margherita, 2, 29, and 30 Apr. 1394; Margherita, 9 May 1394. 2. Margherita, 15 Apr. 1394 1401751. 3. There is little evidence about the location of her letter writing. In her letter of 31 March 1399, she mentioned that she dictated to Guido “in sala” which probably referred to the downstairs scrittoio, because she used the same words elsewhere for the merchant workplace (Margherita, 18 Feb. 1399). On the upstairs scrittoio della camera di Francesco, see Hayez, “L’Archivio Datini,”142–45. 4. See, for example, Margherita, 5 June 1395, 8 May 1394; Francesco, 18 Mar. 1394, 23 July 1395. 5. This figure is based on my counting. 6. See 30 and 133–34. The information in this paragraph and the following paragraphs also appears in my article “If I Could Write.” 7. On writing being seen as an unnecessary and overly manual skill for nobles, see Petrucci, “Introduzione”; Cardini, “Alfabetismo”; Plebani, “Nascita”; Harris, English Aristocratic Women, 35. 8. On the ars dictaminis, see Murphy, Rhetoric; Camargo, Ars dictaminis; Henderson, Page 232 → “Erasmus.” For the standard medieval practice of dictation, with a growing trend toward autograph writing, see Petrucci, “Introduzione.” 9. On the number of autograph letters Francesco sent to Margherita, see F. Datini, Lettere, 28. On his having good copies made for her, see Francesco, 31 Mar. 1397. 10. Margherita, 12 Mar. 1398; ASPo Datini Online and ASPo Datini 10891 and 10892. 11. The social contacts include the letter to the podesta Bellozzo (or, rather, his wife) that Hayez has shown to be in Francesco’s handwriting. See 105. 12. ASPo Datini Online and ASPo Datini 10891 and 10892. 13. This comment about the Strozzi is based on an investigation, with a special interest in women’s letters, of the Carte Strozziane for the fifteenth century. See Crabb, “How to Influence,” 32 n.27, for discussion of how Alessandra Strozzi’s letters came to be preserved. 14. Margherita, 18 Mar. 1395 1401905 and 1401906. This incident took place in Florence but can be

expected to be like what would have taken place in Prato. 15. For more on Margherita and account keeping, see chap. 10. 16. Francesco, 21 May 1397. 17. Francesco, 20 Feb. 1394. On the transport company, see Cavacciochi, “Economics of Building, 188–89. 18. Margherita, 20 Nov. 1398. 19. Margherita, 20 Nov. 1398. 20. Account book ASPo Datini 199: scattered references from 141 to 196. It is likely that Margherita did this habitually when she was in Prato and that other account books would provide further evidence. 21. Nigro, “Banking Company.” See also Melis, Aspetti, chap. 4. 22. Margherita’s role is evidenced below. On Stoldo’s role, see Nanni, Ragionare, 177–84. 23. Aside from the Datini sources, information on lending in this paragraph and later is based on Goldthwaite’s Economy; three articles by Nigro, “The Merchant and His Wealth,” “Banking Company,” and, to a lesser extent, “Francesco and the Datini Company”; Marshall’s Local Merchants; and de Roover’s Rise and Decline, especially 10–13. 24. Francesco, 30 Mar. 1394; see also 21 July 1395. For Margherita, see 17 Mar. 1394 and below. 25. Francesco, 30 Mar. 1394. 26. Goldthwaite, Economy, 584–94, 410–11. On the church’s position, see also Noonan, Scholastic Analysis. 27. See n. 22. 28. For discussion of this subject, see below and Nigro, “Banking Company.” 29. Goldthwaite, Economy, 586. 30. Nigro, “Banking Company.” 31. Francesco, 12 May 1394. 32. For Margherita’s attitude toward loans, see below. See chap. 3 for Margherita’s religious Page 233 → outlook. See especially chap. 2 for her efforts to improve Francesco’s religious behavior. 33. See James, “Women’s Work,” especially 57, which points out that the informal economy, as a whole, has been undervalued by scholars, resulting in undervaluing the economic role of women. For the legal position of women, see especially articles by Kuehn that describe women’s liabilities while at the same time recognizing that they had some “personhood”: “Daughters, Mothers, Wives, and Widows,” “Understanding Gender Inequality,” and “Cum Consensu Mundualdi.” See also Cohn, Women in the Streets; Crabb, Strozzi. 34. Francesco, 3 Apr. 1394. 35. Francesco, 28 Mar. and 3 Apr. 1394, 20 Mar. 1397. 36. For her attitude toward entertaining, see chap. 8. 37. Francesco, 19 Mar. 1396. 38. Francesco, 17 Feb. 1394. 39. Francesco, 19 July 1398. 40. Margherita, 6 July 1398. 41. Margherita 17 Mar. 1394. 42. Margherita, 2 Apr. 1394. 43. Francesco, 3 Apr. 1394. For more on Margherita’s persuasive powers, see below. 44. See Strocchia, “Learning the Virtues,” especially 20–21; Miglio, Governare l’alfabeto, 32–33. 45. Margherita, 17 Mar. 1394. Francesco suggested a similar approach to Margherita (21 July 1395), so her method in 1394 may or may not have originated with her. 46. Francesco, 4 Apr. 1397. 47. Fiumi, Demografia, 502; Margherita, 1 Apr. 1394. 48. Margherita, 18/19 Mar. 1394; Francesco, 18 Mar. 1394; Barzalone, 4 Feb. 1395; Margherita, 28 Aug. 1395. 49. Margherita, 10 Mar. 1394. 50. Francesco, 18 Feb. 1394. 51. Margherita to Nanni di Luca Bencivenni (Fattorino), 4 Jan. 1397. 52. I checked on ASPo Datini Online. 53. See 73–75. 54. Margherita, 31 Mar. 1397.

55. See, for example, Margherita, 1 Dec. 1398 1401863. 56. See, for example, Margherita, 17 Mar. 1394. 57. On Ser Lapo, see especially chap. 8. 58. Margherita, 27 Mar. 1394. 59. Margherita, 27 Mar. 1394. 60. Margherita, 1 Apr. 1394. 61. See 42, 85, 87–88, 122. There are five letters from Simona to Margherita and one to Francesco on ASPo Datini Online: two about Simona’s daughter Caterina when Caterina Page 234 → was in Pistoia with the Datini, one an invitation to Caterina’s wedding celebrations, one an invitation to Margherita to accompany Simona to a spa, and one asking Margherita to buy things for Simona in Florence. The letter from Simona to Francesco asks him to deliver a letter to Simona’s brother. 62. Francesco, 12 May 1394. 63. Francesco, 11 May 1394. 64. Margherita, 12 May 1394. 65. Margherita, 18 Mar. and 29 Apr. 1394; Francesco, 18 Mar. and 26 Apr. 1394. On Francesco obtaining things in Florence for Monna Simona, see, for example, 6 and 8 May 1394, 3 June 1395. 66. On Lapa’s weaving, see 6 June 1398.

Chapter 7 1. Marcheschi (“XXIII bocche,” 209–11) analyzes the use of the word famiglia in the Datini circle. See also Flandrin, Families; Laslett, Household, especially the introduction. The technical term for the people overseen by Margherita would be coresident domestic group, but the Datini clearly used the word famiglia for this group. 2. See 2 and 19 Aug. 1381. 3. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 13 Oct. and 18 Nov. 1393, 2 Oct. 1395. 4. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 24 July 1387, 6 Aug. 1393. 5. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 18 Dec. 1393. 6. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 18 Nov. 1393. 7. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 6 Aug. 1393, 15 Aug. 1389. 8. Margherita, 14 Feb. 1394. 9. Margherita, 28 May 1394. 10. Margherita, 15 Apr. 1394. 11. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 11 Dec. and 28 Jan. 1396. 12. Origo, Merchant, 195. 13. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 7 Aug. 1392, 14 Dec. 1393. 14. Margherita, 24 Feb. 1403. This girl may have been one of the daughters of Francesco’s poor relative Chiarito—girls for whom Francesco was providing dowries—given the control Francesco assumed over her behavior. 15. On the preachers’ attitudes, see Debby, Rhetoric, 128–48; Batista, L’educazione, 34–37, 141; Bernardino da Siena, Prediche volgari, especially 1:185–86, 205. 16. Klapisch-Zuber, “Childhood,” 94–116. 17. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 27 Sept. 1395. 18. Francesco, 15 April 1386. 19. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 7 Oct. 1392. 20. Margherita, 20 Mar. 1398. 21. Margherita, 5 June 1401834 and 6 June 1398. These letters show that Margherita was providing clothes for Ginevra, as a member of the family.Page 235 → 22. Piero di Strenna to Francesco, 8 Aug. 1395. On Ginevra’s babyhood, see also 43–44 above. 23. Margherita, 1 Dec. 1398 1401862 and 1401863. See also Francesco and Margherita’s letters of 22 Jan. 1403. 24. Margherita, 6 June 1398; Francesco to Francesco and Stoldo di Lorenzo, 24 Aug. 1392 109144.

25. Hayez, “Rire,” 418–21. 26. They signed fixed contracts, usually for a year at a time (Nigro, “The Merchant and His Wealth,” 81). 27. Francesco to Guido Pieri, 10 Sept. 1399; Nanni Bencivenni (Fattorino) to Francesco, 6 Mar. 1398. 28. Margherita to Guido Pieri, 19 Sept. 1399. 29. Margherita to Nanni Bencivenni (Fattorino), 4 Jan. 1397. On the loan to Lodovico Villani, see 85–86 above. 30. For the bequest, see F. Datini, Testamento. Guido, still in his twenties, died of plague only a year after Francesco. For his death, see ASPo Datini 1118 9300314. 31. Nanni Bencivenni (Fattorino) to Francesco, 4 and 15 Nov. 1396, n.d. Dec. 1396, 4 Feb. 1397 133629; Margherita to Nanni Bencivenni (Fattorino), 4 Jan. 1397 1402968. 32. Margherita, 21 July 1395. 33. See 54; Margherita, 3, 4, 5, and 8 June 1395. The quotation is from 4 June. 34. Margherita, 21 July 1395; Barzalone to Francesco, 21 July 1395. 35. Francesco to Cristofano Carocci, 23 Aug. 1398; Niccolò di Piero to Francesco, 9 Apr. 1385; Ser Lapo Mazzei to Simone Bellandi, 15 Jan. 1404, Mazzei 2:235. For Lapo’s criticisms of Simone in his letters to Simone, see Mazzei 2:218–37, especially 235 (15 Jan. 1404). 36. Alberti, Family, 88–89. 37. Lapo to Cristofano Carocci, 16 Mar. 1406, Mazzei 2:241. 38. ASF Catasto, 1393, terra di Prato, as described in Mazzei, proemio, xliv. 39. Marcheschi, “XXIII bocche,” 213; Stoldo di Lorenzo to Francesco Datini, 4 Jan. 1392 9142349. 40. Francesco, 1 Apr. 1394; Margherita, 27 Sept. 1395, 1 Dec. 1398, 8 May 1399. 41. Margherita, 23 July 1395. 42. Mazzei, proemio, xliv. Saccente died in the plague of 1400, and Francesco, in his will of 1410, left Domenica some land and the house in which she was living with a barber, possibly either a new man or a relative (F. Datini, Testamento). 43. Margherita, 5 and 8 June 1395; Francesco, 21 Aug. 1398; Margherita, 21 Aug. 1398. 44. Margherita, 26 Feb. and 22 Oct. 1394, 22 July 1395, Barzalone, 21 July 1395. 45. Margherita, 28 Nov. 1398. 46. See chaps. 6 and 10 on letter writing. 47. Margherita, 14 Apr. 1393; Francesco’s tax return of 1393, in Mazzei, proemio, xliv. 48. On Monna Ghita, see Francesco, 4 Apr. and 8 May 1397; Margherita, 8 May 1397. On Monna Ave and her possible thievery, see Francesco, 18, 20, and 23 Mar. 1397; Margherita Page 236 → 21 and 22 Mar. 1397. On Ave’s earlier gossip causing a quarrel between Margherita and Francesco, see ch. 4, 52–53 above. 49. Marcheschi, “XXIII bocche,” 212. 50. The information in this and the following paragraphs comes from Margherita, 1 Dec. 1398 1401862 and 1401863, 3 Dec. 1398. 51. Margherita, 1 Dec. 1398 1401862. 52. Although no letters from Francesco about Monna Giovanna remain from early December, he made quite a hostile comment about Giovanna and her finances a few months later (Francesco, 8 May 1399). 53. Margherita, 3 Dec. 1398. 54. Letters in ASPo Datini for February through May 1394 are particularly detailed, because Francesco, in Florence for a long period, had to deal with such things by letter rather than in person. For girls earning their dowries as servants, see Klapisch-Zuber, “Childhood.” 55. Francesco, 8 May 1394. 56. Margherita, 22 Mar. 1395. 57. Margherita, 3 Mar. 1394; Margherita, 2, 9, 14, and 15 Apr. 1394; Margherita, 6 May 1394, 21 Jan. 1395, 11 Nov. 1397; Francesco, 29 and 30 Apr. and 5 and 8 May 1394, 13 July 1397. 58. Margherita, 9 May 1394. 59. Margherita, 9 May 1394. 60. Margherita, 11 May 1394. 61. Margherita, 8 Aug. 1394. 62. Margherita, 12 Aug. 1395. 63. Margherita, 12 Aug. 1395, 22 Aug. 1398.

Chapter 8 1. Margherita, 23 Feb. 1394. 2. Hayez, “Rire.” 3. Nanni Bencivenni (Fattorino) to Francesco, 2 Apr. 1395. On other uses of onore, see chap. 4, 52–53. 4. Margherita, 8 Feb. 1394, 3 May 1399. 5. Barzalone to Francesco, 6 Mar. 1394. 6. The information about the men and women dining separately and where they dined refers to one event only, 11 Nov. 1409, but probably was true for other events. The source is a private e-mail communication from Jérộme Hayez. The more colorful details are from Dunlop, Painted Palaces, 39. 7. Margherita, 1 Apr. 1394. 8. Hayez, “Rire.” On the debtors, see 83–88 above. On Saccente, see 98 above. 9. For Antonio Gherardini as podesta, see Hayez, “Rire.” For the political history of Page 237 → the magnates and the frequency with which they held the provincial office of podesta, see Klapisch-Zuber, “Les acteurs politiques,” especially 227–35. 10. Margherita, 6 June 1398. 11. Francesco, 27 Feb. 1399; Margherita, 27 Feb. 1399, 5 Apr. 1399. 12. Margherita, 8 Apr. 1399 1401927, 9 Apr. 1399. 13. Margherita, 17 Feb. 1399. 14. Hayez, “Rire,” 418–21. 15. The details in this and the following paragraph are from Margherita, 3 May 1399. For another woman, Alessandra Strozzi, who went to the Church of the Annunziata to observe a potential bride, as well as for a discussion of the importance of whom was related to whom, see Crabb, Strozzi, chap. 8. 16. Margherita, 6 May 1399. 17. See 40. 18. Klapisch-Zuber, “Blood Parents and Milk Parents.” See the discussion of Fiammetta Strozzi’s search for nurses in Crabb, Strozzi, 210. See also Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 14 Oct. 1385. 19. For this and the following paragraph, see Margherita, 21 Jan. 1395, 22 Mar. 1395, 5 and 7 Apr. 1397, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 25 Aug. 1398; Francesco, 19 Aug. 1398; Niccolò Tecchini, 22 Mar. 1395; Francesca Tecchini, 15 June 1398. 20. Margherita, 21 Aug. 1398 1401848, 22 Aug. 1398 1401847; Niccolò Tecchini, 14 Oct. 1385; Crabb, Strozzi, 31–32. 21. Margherita, 19 Aug. 1398. On the Gaddi family, see Cadogan, “Social Identity.” 22. Francesco, 19 Aug. 1398. 23. Margherita, 21 Aug. 1398 1401847, Francesco, 19 Aug. 1498. 24. Margherita, 19 Aug. 1398, 21 Aug. 1398 1401848. 25. Margherita, 21 Aug. 1398 1401847. 26. Francesco, 21 Aug. 1398. 27. Margherita, 19 Aug. 1398. 28. Margherita, 21 Aug. 1398 1401847; Francesco, 21 Aug. 1398. 29. Margherita, 22 Aug. 1398 1401849. 30. Margherita, 22 Aug. 1398 1401850. 31. Margherita, 23 Aug. 1398. 32. On relations with Margherita’s relatives, see chap. 11. For Messer Piero and his family, see chaps. 6 and 9; for Niccolaio Martini, see chap. 9. 33. See Dale Kent, Friendship. For a fifteenth-century discussion, see Alberti, Family, part 4. The following discussion is based on these ideas. 34. For Ser Lapo’s background, see Mazzei, proemio. 35. In Public Life (146–47), Trexler mentions two other cases formally involving Francesco in friendships, although the friendships never became as close as the one with Ser Lapo. 36. Mazzei 1:277, 304.Page 238 → 37. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 6 Dec. 1408, Mazzei 1:134–53. 38 For the illnesses and deaths of Lapo’s children, see Ser Lapo, 30 Oct. 1399, 21–26 Feb. 1400, Mazzei

1:223, 358. On Lapo’s son Peraccino, or Piero, see chap. 10 below. 39. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 28 Sept. 1398, Mazzei 1:206. (I have translated Ser Lapo’s amici as “contacts” because I think that meaning fits better the usage suggested in this chapter.) 40. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 4 Aug. 1396, Mazzei 1:151–52. 41. Trexler, Public Life, 132–33. Trexler offers an insightful treatment of the relationship (132–58), but he sees the relationship as more unequal than I do, largely because he does not recognize the strength Ser Lapo gained from his role as spiritual mentor (see below). On the friendship between Ser Lapo and Francesco, see also Dale Kent, Friendship, 64–71. 42. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 9 Jan. 1396, 1 Jan. 1399, 12 July 1394, Mazzei 1:134, 213, 60; Lapo to Margherita, 10 Apr. 1394, Mazzei 2:179. 43. Margherita to Lapo, 10 Apr., 1394, Mazzei 2:179. 44. Lapo to Francesco and Barzalone, 29 May 1398, Mazzei 1:197. 45. For gifts, see, for example, Margherita, 8 May 1394; Francesco, 25 May 1394. Trexler (153–54) deals well with Lapo’s attitude toward receiving gifts. See also Kent, Friendship, 70–71. 46. See, for example, Lapo to Francesco, n.d. [1395], Mazzei 1:105–7; Margherita to Lapo, 17 Jan. 1399. 47. Margherita, 8, 12, and 26 May, 21 Dec. 1395; Nanni Benciveni (Fattorino) to Francesco, 1 Apr. 1396. 48. For Ser Lapo’s son Piero (called Peraccino) working for Francesco, see chap. 10. On the marriage of Ser Lapo’s daughter, see Lapo to Francesco, 22 and 29 Jan. and 21–26 Feb. 1400, Mazzei 1:337, 339–40, 358. For the comment about Margherita, see Lapo to Francesco, 29 Jan. 1400, Mazzei 1:340. 49. Francesco, 12 Apr. 1398. 50. Margherita, 12 Apr. 1398; Francesco, 12 Apr. 1398; Margherita, 14 Apr. 1398. 51. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 9 Jan. 1395, 24 Nov. 1400, Mazzei 1:131, 307. 52. Brucker, Florentine Politics, 303. 53. Ser Lapo to Francesco, n.d. [1399], Mazzei 1:1227. For more on leaving the Ceppo under lay control, see chap. 13 below. 54. Trexler, Public Life, 139. 55. Klapisch-Zuber, “Au péril des commères.” 56. On these men, see chap. 9. 57. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 17 May 1408, Mazzei 2:195. 58. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 2 June 1395, Mazzei 1:93–95; 14 Nov. 1397, Mazzei 1:185. 59. See chap. 10. 60. Ser Lapo to Margherita, 17 Jan. 1398, Mazzei 2:187–88. 61. Ser Lapo to Margherita, 31 July 1396, Mazzei 2:31.Page 239 → 62. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 4 Feb. 1399, Mazzei 1:215–17; see also 24 May 139, Mazzei 1:149. 63. Ser Lapo to Franceso, 14 July 1398, Mazzei 1:202. 64. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 15 Sept. 1394, Mazzei 1:71–72. 65. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 9 Jan. 1396, Mazzei 1:134. 66. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 23 Sept. 1394, Mazzei 1:74; 17 Dec. 1400, Mazzei 1:316–19. On Lapo’s belief that Margherita’s impatience was one of her principal problems, see Lapo to Francesco, 4 Feb. 1399, Mazzei 1:215. 67. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 15 Sept. 1394, Mazzei 1:71–72. 68. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 23 Sept. 1394, Mazzei 1:74. 69. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 9 Jan. 1396, 21–26 Feb. 1401, Mazzei 1:134, 360. 70. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 1 Jan. 1399, Mazzei 1:214. 71. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 12 July 1394, Mazzei 1:60–61. On her reading, see chap. 10. 72. Trexler summarizes these activities well in Public Life, 131–39.

Chapter 9 1. Margherita, 25 Feb. 1394. 2. For the Florentine situation discussed in this and the following paragraphs, see Kent and Kent, Neighbours, chap. 1: ii, iii, especially 56–62; Ciappelli, “Il cittadino fiorentino e il fisco,” 823–44. Ciappelli

says that Francesco may have paid a few earlier prestanze without fuss, but the documentation is inconclusive. 3. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 2, 18, and 24 May 1387. 4. For factional politics, see Hayez, “Levaldini,” 90–119. On the pratese government, see Reveggi, “Protagonisti e antagonisti”; Pampaloni, “L’autonomia pratese.” 5. See Melis, Aspetti, 55; Niccolò Tecchini, 15 Dec. 1386. Prato’s executive body, similar to Florence’s Signoria, was the Otto Defensori del Popolo, here and hereafter called the Prato Eight. 6. Francesco to an unidentified recipient in an unidentified place, 16 Feb. 1387 9300607, as quoted in Melis, Aspetti, 55. Melis says the recipient was Ser Lapo, but the date is too early to fall under the period of their relationship. For another statement in which Francesco proclaimed his lack of interest in political office, see Francesco to Messer Giovanni di Gherardo and others, 31 Jan. 1387, as cited in Ciappelli, “Il cittadino fiorentino e il fisco,” 840. 7. On the Catasto of 1427, see Herlihy and Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans. 8. See n. 2. 9. Looking at information on prominent pratese families, it seems that most of them had become Florentine citizens by the fifteenth century: see Fiumi, Demografia, 463–65. 10. Francesco, 20 Feb. 1494. 11. Kent, Neighbours; Ciappelli, “Il cittadino fiorentino e il fisco.” 12. Margherita, 25 Feb. 1394; Francesco to Cristofano Carocci, 26 Feb. 1394.Page 240 → 13. Margherita 25 Feb. 1394. 14. On Ser Schiatta, whose full name was Mei Schiatta di Ser Michele, see Hayez, “Levaldini,” 83. 15. On Cristofano di Bartolo Carocci, often called Cristofano da Barberino after his hometown, see Nigro, “Francesco and the Datini Company”; Orlandi, “Catalonia Company”; Nanni, Ragionare, 189–97 and passim. 16. On Monna Simona, see 87–88. For Caterina in Pistoia, see 42; Francesco to Messer Piero Rinaldeschi, 27 Aug. 1390. 17. For the game, see Margherita, 2 and 4 Nov. 1399. For her seeking his advice, see chap. 6. 18. On the Rinaldeschi and Messer Piero, see Fiumi, Demographia, 463–65. 19. Margherita, 15 Apr. 1394. It was probably a betrothal rather than a wedding; Florentines and pratese often used the word meaning “marry” to mean “betroth,” and the lack of festivities seems to indicate a betrothal. As for the groom, Stefano Cepparelli described himself in his many later letters to Francesco as tavoliere. See ASPo Datini Online. The Cepparelli were a well-established merchant family. See Fiumi, 345–46. As an aside, according to Fiumi, one of their members was the model for the unpleasant usurer Ser Cepperello in the first story of the first day in Boccaccio’s Decameron. 20. On Messer Piero’s borrowing money from Francesco to pay part of Caterina’s dowry, see Piero Rinaldeschi to Francesco, 27 Apr. 1394. 21. Hayez, “Levaldini.” 22. Margherita, 21 July and 29 May 1395. 23. Margherita, 8 Feb. 1394; Hayez, “Levaldini,” 114–15. On the Pugliese, see Fiumi, 456–60. Messer Guelfo was the patron who had financed Ser Lapo’s notarial studies. 24. Francesco, 13 and 18 Feb. 1394. 25. Francesco, 18/19 Feb. 1394; Margherita, 19 Feb. 1394. I am choosing to use the word envoy rather than ambassador in my translation because ambassador, though reflecting the original, seems better suited for a representative to a city or country rather than to a district within a city. 26. Margherita, 18 Feb. 1394. 27. Francesco, 20 Feb. 1394. 28. Niccolaio Martini to Francesco, 19 Feb. 1394; Margherita, 20 Feb. 1394. 29. Ser Schiatta to Francesco, 20 Feb. 1394. 30. The information in this paragraph comes from the letters of 25 Feb. 1394 cited below. 31. Margherita, 25 Feb. 1394. 32. Cristofano Carocci, 25 Feb. 1394. 33. Cristofano Carocci, 25 Feb. 1394; Ser Chimenti, 25 Feb. 1394. 34. Margherita, 25 Feb. 1394.

35. Francesco, 24 Feb. 1394. 36. Margherita, 27 Feb. 1394 1401729.Page 241 → 37. Margherita, 27 Feb. 1394 1401730. 38. Margherita, 27 Feb. 1394 1401730. 39. Margherita, 28 Feb. 1394. For Margherita’s using the word “dishonest,” see also 27 Feb. 1394. 40. Ciappelli, “Il cittadino fiorentino e il fisco,” 840. 41. Francesco, 27 Feb. 1394. 42. Margherita, 21 Mar. 1394. 43. Margherita, 5, 21, and 27 Mar. 1394. Except for the quotations, this paragraph and the following one offer an overall summary of Messer Piero’s somewhat overlapping comments. 44. Francesco, 1 Apr. 1394. 45. Margherita, 21 Mar. 1394. 46. Francesco, 26 Feb. 1394. 47. Margherita, 8 Feb. 1394. 48. Margherita, 8 Feb. 1394. 49. Margherita 8 Feb. 1394. 50. See Ser Lapo to Francesco, n.d. [1394], Mazzei 1:80. 51. Francesco, 5 Mar. 1394 6000918 and 6000919; Barzalone to Francesco, 6 Mar. 1394. 52. Francesco, 5 Mar. 1394 6000919. 53. Barzalone to Francesco, 6 Mar. 1394. 54. Margherita, 27 Mar. 1394. 55. Ser Lapo’s absence (he was in Genoa) is apparent from his letters from this time. 56. Lapo to Francesco, 2 Mar. 1394. 57. On Messer Piero’s arguments, see Margherita, 27 Mar. 1394. Many letters from late March, April, and May written by Margherita, Francesco, Ser Schiatta, and Ser Chimenti mention pratese envoys. 58. Francesco, 20 Mar., 2 and 3 Apr., and 12 May 1394. 59. Francesco, 12 May 1394. 60. Margherita, 6 May 1394. 61. Francesco, 12 May 1394. For a discussion of what Francesco thought his sins were, see 33, 38, 83 above. 62. Francesco, 12 May 1394. 63. Ciappelli, “Il cittadino fiorentino e il fisco,” 843–44; Molho, Florentine Public Finances, 94–97. 64. On Margherita’s writing other letters to Ser Lapo, see chap. 10. 65. Margherita to Ser Lapo, 13 Apr. 1394: “Perch’io sia femina io chonoscho bene quello che noi siamo tenuti a Ghido.” 66. Margherita to Ser Lapo, 13 Apr. 1394. 67. Margherita to Ser Lapo, 13 Apr. 1394. It is unclear from Mazzei whether this woman was Guido’s wife or the widow of his dead son. I refer to her herein as Guido’s wife.Page 242 → 68. Margherita to Ser Lapo, 13 Apr. 1394. 69. Margherita, 14 Apr. 1394. 70. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 5 Sept. 1392, Mazzei 1:34. 71. Guido del Palagio to Francesco, 17 Sept. 1394, Mazzei 2:338–39. 72. Margherita, 8 Apr. 1399; Ser Lapo to Francesco, 14 Apr. 1396; Francesco, 24 Apr. 1399. 73. Margherita, 22 Mar. and 8 Apr. 1399. 74. Ser Lapo to Margherita, 10 Apr. 1394, Mazzei 2:178–79. 75. Francesco, 10 Apr. 1394. The proposed letter, if written and sent, no longer exists.

Chapter 10 1. Much of the content of this chapter is also found in my article “If I Could Write.” I have provided more detail here in some instances and left out some details in others, as well as making a few other modifications. Part of that article is also incorporated into chap. 6.

2. Margherita, 1 Sept. 1395. 3. On reading being taught before writing, see below and n. 24. 4. Margherita, 21 July 1395; Barzalone to Francesco, 21 July 1395 1400186; Margherita, 12 and 28 Aug. 1395. 5. See nn. 13 and 15. 6. Hayez found the misplaced letter, dated 20 Feb. 1387/8, in the ASPo Ceppi collection. The paleographer Armando Petrucci and others have authenticated it as being in Margherita’s hand. It is now part of the ASPo Datini collection. 7. Thomas, “Meaning of Literacy.” 8. Dianora’s three autograph letters are 23 Apr. 1383 6000158, 5 Oct. 1383 6000153, and 14 Aug. 1384 6000155, identified as autograph by internal evidence. For her apologizing for no longer being able to write in her own hand, because of problems with her hands, see 7 June 1385 302454v. For an image of her autograph writing, see Crabb, “If I Could Write,” 1189. 9. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 24 Jan. 1393. 10. Francesco, 22 Jan. 1386. 11. Alessandra Strozzi to Filippo Strozzi, 24 Aug. 1447, and Matteo Strozzi to Filippo Strozzi, 29 Mar. 1448, in Strozzi, Lettere di una gentildonna, 6, 24. See also Crabb, Strozzi, 104–5, 110, 115. 12. Margherita, 23 Feb. 1384; Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 24 Jan. 1393; Margherita, 22 Jan. 1395. 13. For good modern studies of female education and literacy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with an emphasis on Florence, see Bryce, “Les Livres des Florentines”; Strocchia, “Learning the Virtues”; Miglio, “Leggere e scrivere il volgare,” “Scrivere al femminile,” and Governare l’alfabeto; Klapisch-Zuber, “Le chiavi fiorentine”; Kaborycha, Page 243 → “Copying Culture.” On the literacy of Italian women for the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see Grendler, Schooling; Zarri, Per Lettera. 14. See King and Rabil, Her Immaculate Hand”; King, Women of the Renaissance. 15. Barberino, Reggimento e costumi, 10, 15, 19: “anzi lo biasmo”; Certaldo, Libro di buoni costumi, 126–27. Miglio (“Leggere e scrivere,” 362) cites both. 16. Bryce (“Les Livres des Florentines, 134–35) points out the selective use of the former statement to demonstrate the rarity of women’s literacy, while ignoring the latter. 17. Vespasiano, “Alessandra de’ Bardi.” 18. On silence, see Strocchia, “Learning the Virtues,” especially 20–21; Miglio, Governare l’alfabeto, 32–33. 19. Klapisch-Zuber, “Le chiavi Florentine,” 775–78; Miglio, “Leggere e scrivere,” 364–65. In “Scrivere al femminile,” Miglio softens her comments. For a discussion of Klapisch-Zuber’s attitude, see Bryce, “Les Livres des Florentines,” 133–34. 20. On her family, see chaps. 1 and 11. 21. See 30–31, 109. 22. This and the evidence presented on the following pages show that Margherita’s niece Tina and her stepdaughter, Ginevra, could read to at least a certain level. Dianora could read as well as write (Dianora to Francesco and Margherita, 5 Oct. 1383, 6000153v). Margherita’s sister Francesca could probably read (4 June 1395). Margherita mentioned that the mother and daughter of one of Francesco’s employees was able to read (20 Jan. 1386). The woman who lent Margherita the Book of Hours may or may not have been able to read it (see n. 35 below). Ser Lapo’s mother had to have letters read to her, and Ser Lapo read passages from the Datini letters to his wife, probably because she could not read (Margherita, 12 May 1394; Ser Lapo to Francesco, 16 Nov. 1395, Mazzei 1:77; Ser Lapo to Margherita, 10 Apr. 1394, Mazzei 2:178–79). 23. Hayez, “L’archivio Datini,” 145. 24. On reading being taught before writing, see Strocchia, “Learning the Virtues”; Cressy, “Levels of Illiteracy”; Spufford, “First Steps in Literacy”; Thomas, “Meaning of Literacy.” 25. On these first two phases of education, see Grendler, Schooling, 142–61; Black, Humanism. 26. Margherita, 21 Mar. 1394. 27. On the “Little Book of Our Lady,” see Bryce, “Les Livres des Florentines,” 140–42; Grendler, Schooling, 353–54. On other Italian books that were sometimes read after the Psalter, see Grendler, Schooling, 275–305. 28. Bryce, “Les Livres des Florentines,” 140–41; Black, Humanism, 40–41.

29. Margherita, 21 Mar. 1394; Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 30 July 1394, 22 and 27 Sept. 1395. 30. For Florence, see ASPo Datini 559, 23v; Mazzei, proemio, xlv. For Bologna, see Quaderno di Bologna, ASPo Datini 1123, 27. 31. Villani’s statement is controversial, more because of the numbers cited than because Page 244 → of the mention of gender. Black (“Education and the Emergence of a Literate Society,” 18–19) accepts the high numbers given; Grendler (Schooling, 70–74) does not. As for the inclusion of girls, Kaborycha (“Copying Culture,” 60) suggests that Villani’s wording is vague and may have included girls learning at home as well as school. On fifteenth-century convent schools, see Strocchia, “Learning the Virtues.” 32. Francesco, 2 June 1395. 33. Nanni Bencivenni (Fattorino) to Francesco, 14 Oct. 1396. 34. Ser Lapo to Margherita, 31 July 1396, Mazzei 2:184–85. 35. Margherita, 13 Aug. and 26 July 1395; Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 12 and 17 Sept. 1395. 36. Margherita, 12 and 13 Aug. 1395; Ser Lapo to Francesco, 27 and 30 Sept. 1395, Mazzei 1:112–14; Ser Lapo to Margherita, 13 Nov. 1395, 31 July 1396, Mazzei 2:181, 185; Francesco to Stoldo di Lorenzo, 21 Sept. 1395 9300066; Nanni Bencivenni (Fattorino) to Francesco, 14 Oct. 1396 133603. 37. For Ser Lapo’s comment, see Ser Lapo to Margherita, 13 Nov. 1395, Mazzei 2:181. Bec (Les Livres des Florentins) did not count books of the Virgin in his survey of books owned by Florentines, because he considered them to be precious objects rather than reading material. Bryce (“Les Livres des Florentines,” 140–42) disputes Bec’s view, as does my evidence. See also Miglio, “Un mondo a parte.” 38. Ser Lapo to Margherita, 13 Nov. 1395, Mazzei 2:181. 39. On mercantesca, see below. 40. Domenico di Cambio to Francesco, 21 Oct. 1396. Origo (Merchant, 226) cites part of this passage. 41. See Brown, Guide to Western Historical Scripts, 88–89 and 122, for gothic book hand, and 126–27, for the introduction of humanist Italic script, which had not, however, begun to replace gothic textura in the fourteenth century. Petrucci (“Reading and Writing Volgare”) discusses the evolution of different kinds of writing and books in Italy, including the merchant script, mercantesca. On the ability or lack of ability to read different scripts, see Thomas, “Meaning of Literacy”; Daybell, “‘I Wold Wyshe My Doings.” 42. Francesco, 31 Mar. 1397; Margherita, 6 May 1399. 43. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 12 Oct. 1394, Mazzei 1:76. 44. Beata Chiara Gambacorte, Holy Week, 1396, in Mazzei 2:320 and Brambilla, Padre mio dolce, 110; Ser Lapo to Francesco, 30 Oct. n.d. [1399], Mazzei 1:223; Ser Lapo to Francesco, 4 Feb. 1407, Mazzei 2:108. 45. For Dianora’s library, see above. Melis (Aspetti, 92–93) summarizes evidence of the books Francesco owned or was acquainted with. For Margherita’s asking for books, see 18 Feb. 1399. 46. Ser Lapo to Margherita, 8 Apr. 1396, Mazzei 2:183; Ser Lapo to Francesco, 22 Sept. and 4 Dec. 1396, Mazzei 1:154, 159. 47. See n. 6. 48. Origo, Merchant, 227.Page 245 → 49. For Ser Lapo’s calling Margherita his pupil (discepola), see Ser Lapo to Francesco, n.d. [mid-Dec. 1396], Mazzei 1:163. 50. For Lapo calling Francesco his discepolo, somewhat humorously, see Ser Lapo to Francesco, n.d. [early 1395], Mazzei 1:80. The remark about Margherita was also slightly humorous. 51. On the merchant script, mercantesca, see Petrucci, Writers and Readers; Miglio, “L’altra metà della scrittura”; Grendler, Schooling, 23–27; Crabb, “How to Influence.” For the notarial script, see G. Niccolaj, “Alle origini della minuscola notarile italiana.” For an example of Ser Lapo’s writing, see Crabb, “If I Could Write,” 1193. 52. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 4 Dec. 1396, Mazzei 1:159. For an example of a nun’s letter, see Suora Filippa to Margherita, n.d.. [1385], ASPo Datini 10892 6000178. 53. For example, the CD of Margherita’s letters, Per la tua Margherita, contains, in its didactic section, a notebook of writing exercises, reproduced from ASPo Datini 174 ins. 14. 54. Margherita, 16 Oct. 1398. 55. For Ser Lapo’s expectation that she would be writing to him, see Ser Lapo to Francesco, 15 Dec. 1400, Mazzei 1:316. 56. Ser Lapo to Francesco, n.d. [1408], Mazzei 2:129.

57. ASPo Inventario 1400 236.2. 58. Margherita, 9 Apr. 1399. 59. Margherita, 18 Feb. 1399. 60. Grendler, Schooling. 61. Florentine Catasto of 1427, Florentine Catasto Online, under “Mazzei.” 62. Margherita, 19 Feb. 1399. 63. For example, she regularly wrote the syllable gli as gni, which some less educated men did too. 64. In “Io non so scrivere,” Hayez, basing his analysis on letters in ASPo Datini, presents a comprehensive discussion of the form of merchant letters (including differences from the ars dictaminis and from other types), which provides a background to following paragraphs. See also Brambilla, “La rhetorica epistolare,” in Padre mio dolce, lxxvi–cxiii; Brambilla, “Il formulario epistolare.” On the ars dictaminis, see Murphy, Rhetoric; Camargo, Ars dictaminis; Henderson, “Erasmus.” 65. In “‘Io non so scrivere” (72–74), Hayez considers the implications of the way merchants dated their letters and made references to God. 66. Lapo to Margherita, 8 Apr. n.d. [1394], Mazzei 2:178. 67. Hayez, “Io non so scrivere,” 41. 68. For her most strikingly incorrect use of paragraphs, see Margherita, 7 April 1399 1401924, 2 May 1399 1401928 (misdated as 2 Jan.), and 3 May 1399 1401929 and 1401930. In these letters, she followed the form for new paragraphs at the left-hand margin, but she began them in midsentence. 69. Francesco, 3 Apr. 1399.Page 246 → 70. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 7 May 1399, Mazzei 1:221. 71. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 26 Jan. 1400, Mazzei 1:233. 72. Margherita, 17 Feb. 1403; see also Francesco, 13 Feb. 1403. 73. Margherita, 12 Sept. 1402 140194. 74. Margherita, 30 Apr. and 15 May 1402.

Chapter 11 1. Margherita to Francesco, but directed to Bartolome Bandini, [3 May] 1399 1401930. 2. For more on the casa, see Crabb, Strozzi of Florence, chap. 1. 3. For Margherita’s aunt Giovanna, see 9, 24, 42, 151, 190–91. As for the Piaciti, Caterina married Gherardo di Bindo Piaciti, and they had several children, including Bindo and Tommaso. The Piaciti were a wealthy merchant family, but they did not hold political office in the fourteenth century (Catasto Online, Tratte). Perhaps they too had been tarnished by the plot of Domenico Bandini and Pelliccia Gherardini against the government. The children of Tommaso Piaciti held office in the fifteenth century, when that plot would have been forgotten. The Piaciti married into elite families: the Corsini, Bini, Massinghi, Pitti, and Zati, according to ASF Carte Sebregondi 4180. The remaining Bandini also associated with Chiaramonda, widow of Francesco di Giovanni degli Asini, the daughter of Domenico Bandini’s brother Aldobrandino. On Chiaramonda, see 160. For Bindo Piaciti, see 42–43, 191, 193–94. 4. See Klapisch-Zuber, Retour, especially 316–19. Francesco’s correspondence with Margherita’s Gherardini relatives is in ASPo 1092. There are about sixty letters, many short. 5. On their children, see the discussions later in this chapter and in chaps. 7 and 12–13. 6. See chap. 1, n. 2. 7. Margherita, 2 Feb. 1385; Bartolomeo Bandini to Francesco, 16 Nov. 1402. 8. Margherita, 7 Apr. 1397. 9. For Francesca’s letters, see ASPo Datini Online, under “Francesca di Domencio Bandini, donna di Niccolò Tecchini.” For her suggestions on behalf of Margherita’s fertility, see chap. 3 above. 10. Margherita, 31 Mar. 1397. Thinking Francesca had insulted her, Margherita temporarily cut off relations. 11. For Niccolò’s sister, see ASPo Datini 133939. On Nicolò’s brother Filippo, see Margherita, 26 Jan. 1403; Hayez, “Il migrante” (discussing the correspondence Filippo carried on with Francesco under the name of Filippo Ammannati). For Filippo’s son Ammannato being chosen for high office in 1427, see ASF

Tratte. 12. For Francesco’s business correspondence with Piero di Matteo Tecchini and later with Piero di Giovanni Tecchini in Perpignan, see ASPo Datini Online. For Maso Tecchini’s correspondence with Francesco during Maso’s early years in Perpignan, see 19 Feb., 28 Mar., 25 May, 20 June, and 18 Dec. 1402; 10 Jan., 28 Apr., 10 May, and n.d. 1403.Page 247 → 13. Hayez, “Il migrante,” 183 and n. 138. 14. Catasto Online, Tratte. 15. Brucker, Florentine Politics, 321. Niccolò was not a “new man,” since he came from a family with long and prosperous Florentine roots. On the war, see Brucker, Florentine Politics; Najemy, 151–55. 16. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 21 Feb. 1388. 17. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 28 Feb. 1382. 18. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 16 May 1389. 19. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesca Tecchini, 31 Dec. 1393. 20. See 16. 21. Origo (Merchant, 194) sees Niccolò’s change from using tu to voi as a sign of Niccolo’s weakening position in relation to Francesco and describes his attitude as “humble.” No letters from Francesco to Niccolò survive from the early time of their relationship, but presumably Francesco as well as Niccolò used tu at that time. Overall, only two letters from Francesco to Niccolò remain (700001 from 1385 and 6200106 from 1395), and both refer to Niccolò as voi. 22. Insert in Margherita, 20 Jan. 1403; see also 18 Feb. 1387, 19 June 1394. 23. Nigro, “Francesco and the Datini Company,” 232–33, 242. 24. Francesco to Francesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 30 Jan and 31 Jan and 1 Feb. 1391; Berti, “Pisa Company,” 297. 25. Francesca Tecchini to Margherita, 1 Nov. 1392; Francesca Tecchini to Francesco, 1 Nov. 1392. 26. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 1 Nov. and 16 Dec. 1392. 27. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 16 Dec. 1392. 28. Francesco, 1 Apr. 1394. 29. Francesca Tecchini to Margherita, 5 Nov. 1397. 30. Francesca Tecchini to Margherita, 5 Nov. 1397. 31. Francesco, 23 Oct. 1397. 32. Margherita to Francesco, but directed to Bartolomeo Bandini, 3 May 1399 1401930. 33. Niccolò Tecchini to Margherita, 10 May 1396; Margherita, 12 Mar. 1398; Niccolò Teccini to Francesco, 10 Apr. 1400; Ser Lapo to Francesco, 25 Aug. 1400, Mazzei 1:264. 34. Francesco to Francesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 21 May 1392 109117. 35. Although Niccolò Tecchini once referred to it as the casa Gherardesca in a letter to Francesco (13 Dec. 1386), Bartolomeo mentions that it came to him through his father (Bartolomeo Bandini to Francesco, 13 and 19 Oct. 1388). Also, after Dianora died, it would pass to the next in line, Bartolomeo, and Giovanna Bandini Cavalcanti, sister of Bartolomeo and Margherita’s father, had to sign away her rights before it could be sold (Bartolomeo Bandini to Francesco, 8 May 1389), indicating she had been left tornata, or right of return or support in the parental home in widowhood, as was usual with noninheriting female family members. For more on tornata and on women taking their husbands’ confiscated property as dowry, see Crabb, Strozzi, especially chap. 2. 36. Dianora Bandini to Margherita and Francesco, 14 Aug. 1384.Page 248 → 37. On Zanobi’s finances, see below and chap.1. 38. On Dianora’s other property, see Margherita to Bartolomeo Bandini, 4 May 1399; Bartolomeo Bandini to Rinieri di Pelliccia Gherardini, 19 Feb. 1405. 39. On the sisters’ dowries or lack thereof, see below. 40. Zanobi Bandini to Francesco, 28 Apr. 1377; Francesco to Fancesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 21 May 1392 109117. 41. Dianora Bandini to Francesco, 7 June 1385. 42. Dianora Bandini to Francesco, 7 June 1385. 43. Dianora Bandini to Francesco, 1 Apr. 1387; Dianora to Niccolò Tecchini, 31 May 1386; Maestro Naddino Bovattieri to Francesco, 6 Nov. 1395, in Hayez, “Expérience de migrant,” 526–27 (letter 40).

44. Dianora Bandini to Francesco, 7 June 1385; see also Dianora to Francesco and Margherita, 8 May 1384. 45. Dianora Bandini to Francesco, 5 Oct. 1387. 46. Dianora Bandini to Francesco, 8 Feb. 1388; Jacopo Girolli to Niccolò Tecchini, 15 May 1388; Lionardo di Ser Tommaso to Ser Arnaldo di Jacopo Girolli, 28 May 1419 1402417. 47. Bartolomeo Bandini to Margherita and Francesca Tecchini, 20 June 1399, with cover letter addressed to Niccolò Tecchini. 48. Francesco to Monte Angiolini, 6 Apr. 1385; Melis, Aspetti, 52. 49. Margherita, 23 and 30 Jan. 1386. 50. Dianora Bandini to Francesco, 13 Mar. 1386. 51. Dianora Bandini to Francesco, 3 May 1386. 52. Margherita, 27 Feb. 1385. 53. In most other Italian cities, daughters had the right to share their mother’s dowries with the sons, so here is an example of the law being less favorable to women in Florence than elsewhere. See Cohn, The Cult of Remembrance. 54. Dianora Bandini to Margherita, 28 Mar. 1387. 55. Dianora Bandini to Niccolò Tecchini, 6 Apr. 1388. Jacopo Girolli implied that she complained to the Signoria about the chests as well as the house (Jacopo Girolli to Bartolomeo Bandini, 11 June n.d. [1988] 131685). 56. Jacopo Girolli to Niccolò Tecchini, 15 Apr. 1388. 57. Jacopo Girolli to Bartolomeo Bandini, 11 June n.d. [1388] 131685. See also Jacopo Girolli to Francesco, 15 July 1392. 58. For Maestro Naddino and Monna Dianora, see Hayez, “Expérience de migrant,” 510 (letter 19); Maestro Naddino to Monte Angiolini, 16 Apr. 1388. For Dianora’s denial that Francesco’s business partners gave her money, contrary to what Francesco and Niccolò Tecchini said, see Dianora Bandini to Niccolò Tacchini, 6 Apr. 1388. 59. Jacopo Girolli to Bartolomeo Bandini, 11 June n.d. [1388]. 60. On inheritance, see Crabb, Strozzi, especially chap.1. 61. Bartolomeo Bandini, 19 Oct. n.d. [probably 1388]. 62. See Crabb, Strozzi, chap. 8.Page 249 → 63. Bartolomeo Bandini to Francesco, 13 and 19 Oct. 1388. 64. Francesco to Francesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 30 Jan. 1391 108335, 11 Feb. 1391 108337. 65. For example, Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 11 May 1390, 30 June 1390. 66. Bartolomeo Bandini to Francesco, 8 May 1389. 67. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 29 Dec. 1390, 20 Jan. 1391. Some sources mention three hundred francs, the currency of Avignon; the currencies seem to have been largely equivalent, since other, similar sums are mentioned in both florins and francs. 68. For Dianora’s friends at the papal court, see Dianora Bandini to Margherita and Francesco, 5 Oct. 1383. For Bartolomeo’s later claim that Jacopo and Isabetta knew about the sale all along, see Bartolomeo to Francesco, n.d. [1400] 9293157. 69. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 11 Jan. 1391. 70. Francesco to Francesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 26 Jan. 1391 108334; see also Francesco to Stoldo di Lorenzo, 30 Jan. 1391 410038. 71. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 27 Feb., 22 Apr., 9 Nov. 1391. 72. There are numerous letters on this subject, most by Bartolomeo Bandini in correspondence with Francesco, Margherita, or Luca del Sera, continuing until Bartolomeo gained possession of the house in 1409 and then sold it. See 190–91. 73. Bernocchi, “Sulla presunta dote.” For the comment to Stoldo, see Francesco to Francesco di Marco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 21 May 1392 109117. 74. Francesco to Francesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 21 and 28 May 1392. 75. Francesco to Francesco and Stoldo, 21 May 1392. 76. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 28 and 20 May 1392, Mazzei 1:28, 27. For some cases in which husbands provided dowries for brides, see Crabb, Strozzi, 188.

77. Francesco to Francesco Datini and Stoldo di Lorenzo and Co., 21 May 1392. 78. Bernocchi, “Sulla presunta dote.” 79. F. Datini, Testamento, 285–86. 80. Margherita, 2 May 1399 6300383. 81. Margherita, 3 May 1399. 82. Margherita, 3 May 1399. 83. Crabb, Strozzi, 56. 84. Margherita, 2 May 1399 1401928. 85. Francesco 3 May, 1399. 86. Margherita to Francesco, but directed to Bartolomeo Bandini, 3 May 1399 1401930. 87. Bartolomeo to Margherita Datini and Francesca Tecchini, n.d. 131964. This letter is undated but written soon after Margherita’s letter. Its label says Bartolomeo sent it from Avignon, but internal evidence suggests that he wrote it just as he was leaving Prato to go Pisa, about 3 May, before proceeding from Pisa to Avignon. Margherita’s letter to Francesco of 3 May suggests that she had already read Bartolomeo’s letter. 88. Bartolomeo to Margherita and Francesca, n.d. 131964. On such mercenaries, see Caferro, Hawkwood and Mercenary Companies. 89. Bartolomeo to Margherita and Francesca, n.d. 131964.Page 250 → 90. Margherita, 3 May 1399 1401929. 91. Francesco, 8 May 1399; Bartolomeo Bandini to Francesco, 20 June 1399. 92. Margherita, 6 May 1399. 93. Bartolomeo Bandini to Francesco, 22 Aug. 1400, 16 Nov. 1402.

Chapter 12 1. Margherita, 24 Sept. 1401. 2. For more on the Ceppo, see chap. 13 and this book’s introduction. 3. On wives’ inheritance, see Crabb, Strozzi, chaps. 1–2 and appendixes. 4. Quaderno di Bologna, ASPo Datini 1123.3. 5. Bartolomeo Gherardini to Francesco, 13 June 1400. Bartolomeo and Francesco’s friendly relations during the following year and a half can be seen in Bartolomeo’s letters: ASPo Datini 6100578, 6100557–60, 6100562. 6. For these other Bolognese Gherardini, see Roberto Greci, “Datini Correspondence,” 434–40. 7. For a summary of Francesco’s business activities in Bologna, see Greci, “Datini Correspondence,” 434–40; Quaderno di Bologna, ASPo Datini 1123.3. 8. Francesca Tecchini to Margherita, 4 Aug. 1400. The Quaderno di Bologna also includes references to their social activities. 9. For the Florentine regime in this period, see Najemy, Florence, especially chaps. 6–7; Brucker, Civic World. 10. Ser Lapo to Margherita, 15 Oct. 1400, Mazzei 2:188. 11. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 17 Dec. 1400, Mazzei 1:319. 12. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 20 Oct. 1400, Mazzei 1:282.” 13. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 23 Oct. 1400, Mazzei 1:287–89. 14. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 30 Oct. 1400, Mazzei 1:297. 15. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 6 July 1400, Mazzei 1:243–44. 16. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 6 Aug. 1400, Mazzei 1:249–50. 17. Mazzei 1:244–88. 18. For the death of Bartolomeo Bandini’s family, see Bartolomeo Bandini to Francesco, 22 Aug. 1400, 16 Nov. 1402. 19. Francesca Tecchini to Margherita, 4 Aug. 1400. 20. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 29 Mar., 10 and 16 Apr., and 13 and 18 June 1401. 21. Francesco to Ser Lapo, 29 June 1401.

22. Caterina Tecchini to Francesco, 19 July 1401; Caterina Tecchini to Margherita, 30 July 1401. 23. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 25 Aug. 1401, Mazzei 1:440–42. 24. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 2 July 1401, Mazzei 1:425–27. 25. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 27 May and 2 July 1401, Mazzei 1:406–9, 425–27; Ser Lapo to Francesco, 30 June 1401, joined to the end of Francesco’s letter to Ser Lapo of 29 June 1401, Mazzei 1:423–25.Page 251 → 26. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 20 Aug. 1401, Mazzei 1:439–40. 27. Margherita, 24 Sept. 1401. 28. Margherita, 24 Sept. 1401. 29. Margherita, 24 Sept. 1401. 30. Margherita, 12 Sept. 1402. 31. Twenty-six of the thirty-nine letters from these years come from 1402 and early 1403. Francesco’s location can be determined from his almost daily correspondence with Barzalone when they were apart, since Barzalone was always in Prato. Letters to and from Margherita show her presence in Florence. The list of letters between Margherita and Francesco in Cecchi’s edition of Francesco Datini’s letters is also helpful. 32. Margherita, 17 May 1402. 33. Margherita, 25 Apr. 1402 1401938. 34. Francesco, 27 Apr. 1402. 35. Margherita, 17 May 1402; see also 3 Aug. 1406. 36. Margherita and Niccolò’s comments about Dominici’s sermons are found in Margherita, 18 and 22 Jan. and 21 Feb. 1403, letters penned by Niccolò. On Dominici as preacher, see Debby, Rhetoric, especially chaps. 1–3, chap. 7, and Debby’s Appendix for examples of his sermons. Letters Dominici wrote to Francesco are found in Mazzei 2:332–39 and Brambilla, Padre mio dolce, 165–72. Brambilla includes information on the letters as well as the letters themselves and provides all of Francesco’s correspondence with religious figures. 37. Niccolò Tecchini, 10 Apr. 1389. 38. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesco, 10 Apr. 1401, 22 Jan. 1403; Giovanni Dominici to Francesco, 29 Jan. 1401, in Mazzei 2:333 and Brambilla, Padre mio dolce, 168. 39. Mazzei, proemio, cviii, cvix; Debby, Rhetoric, 15–28. 40. Francesco describes the trip in one of his account books, ASPo Datini 598. 41. See especially 47–48. For more on the Bianchi, see Bornstein, Bianchi of 1399. 42. For the wool business and Francesco’s building activities, see Ammanati, “Wool Workshops”; Cavaciocchi, “Merchant and Building.” 43. Margherita, 12 Sept. 1402; Francesco, 14 Sept. 1402; Margherita, 17 May 1402. 44. Margherita, 3 Aug. 1406. 45. Melis, Aspetti, 74–75; Cassandro, “Aspects,” 36; Berti, “Pisa Company,” 305. 46. Mazzei 2:42 n. 2; Fragioni, “Avignone”; Nanni, Ragionare, 173–77. 47. On Stoldo, see Nanni, Ragionare, 177–84; Nigro, “Francesco and the Datini Company,” especially 235; Melis, Aspetti, chap. 4. On Luca, see below. 48. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 1 Dec. 1409, Mazzei 2:163. 49. On Luca, see Nanni, Ragionare, 185–89. On Luca’s illegitimate daughter, see ASPo Ceppi 320: 6, 24, Oct. 1415. In the Catasto of 1427, Luca claimed that he did not to have to pay tax. I thank Brenda Preyer for the reference that explains why a patriotic act freed the del Sera family from taxes, demonstrated in the will of Lorenzo di Anfrione Lenzi, 1506, ASF Notarile 21073, 82v. 50. Niccolò Tecchini, 8 June 1401; Margherita, 17 May 1402.Page 252 → 51. Tommaso Tecchini to Francesco, 10 Apr. 1401 133156. 52. Tommaso Tecchini to Caterina Tecchini, 11 Mar. 1399. 53. Niccolò Tecchini to Margherita, 3 Aug. 1401; Tommaso Tecchini to Francesco, 20 Dec. 1400. 54. Tommaso Tecchini to Francesco, 25 May 1402. 55. Niccolò Tecchini to Francesca Tecchini, 31 Dec. 1393. 56. Tommaso Tecchini to Francesco, 5 May 1402. 57. Melis, Aspetti, 205, quoting Francesco, ASPo Datini 599, 104–5: “rendere vantaggio alla persona sua.” 58. Barzalone to Margherita, 24 May 1403: “chon salvamento dell’anima e del corpo.”

59. See chap. 13. 60. F. Datini, Testamento. 61. Luca del Sera to Francesco, 24 and 30 Apr. 1409, ASPo Datini 340, 868, 874; Luca del Sera to the executors, 27 Oct. 1410, 29 Nov. 1410, 9 Jan. 1410/11, 19 Mar. 1419/11, ASPo Datini 1118. 62. See 90–91. 63. Luca del Sera to the executors, 3 Dec. 1410, ASPo Datini 1118. 64. See especially 186, 189. 65. See Crabb, Strozzi, 86–88; Kuehn, Illegitimacy. 66. Ser Lapo to Francesco, n.d., Mazzei 2:64–(quotation from 67). 67. Tommaso di Giunta had written to Francesco for help when Tommaso was sick, probably of the plague (17 Oct. 1390). For Niccolò di Piero’s guardianship, see ASPo Datini 1170, istrumenti e scritti 169-1410. 68. Niccolò di Piero di Giunta to Francesco, 1 Feb. 1400; Antonia di fu Biagio di Giunta to Francesco, 29 Aug. 1404. 69. Niccolò Compagni to Francesco, 24 Nov. 1406, also cited in Origo, Merchant, 201. 70. Information about Ginevra’s marriage arrangements comes mainly from Francesco’s account book, ASPo Datini 603 Memoriale B, 163–72. For the stages involved in cementing a marriage, see KlapischZuber, “Zacharias, or the Ousted Father,” especially 185–87. 71. Luca del Sera, Barzalone, and Lapo Mazzei to Margherita, 24 Apr. 1407. 72. Hayez, “Rire,” 415. 73. Origo describes this party in full in Merchant, 203–5, based on ASPo Datini 603 Memoriale B, 163–72. See also Mazzei, proemio, xlvi. 74. Suora Antonia Baroncelli, n.d., ASPo Datini 6300392. 75. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 19 July 1408, Mazzei 2:127–28. For some of Lionardo’s tasks, see 181–82 below. 76. See chap. 13. 77. Mazzei, proemio, cxxvii–cxxx, and 2:157–60; Lewin, “Cum Status Ecclesie”; Mundy, “Conciliar Movement.” 78. Mazzei, proemio, cxxvii–cxxx, and 2:157–60.Page 253 → 79. Francesco, 3 Jan. 1410 6000948. 80. On d’Ailly, see Encyclopedia Britannica 2008 Ultimate Reference Suite. 81. Francesco, 5 Jan. 1410 6000950; Margherita, 5 Jan. 1410 1401872. 82. Francesco, 3 Jan. 1410 6000948; Margherita, 4 Jan. 1410 1401871. 83. Margherita, 6 Jan. 1410. They were waiting for the visitors throughout the series of letters from 3 Jan. to 9 Jan. 84. Margherita, 9 Jan. 1410. 85. Margherita, 4 Jan. 1410 6300688, 5 Jan. 1410 1401873. 86. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 10 Nov. 1409, Mazzei 2:157–60; Luca del Sera to Francesco, 14 May 1410. 87. Mazzei, proemio, cxxvii–cxxx. 88. Francesco, 3 Jan. 1410 6000948. 89. Mazzei, proemio, xlvi. For a letter from d’Ailly agreeing to do so, see Mazzei 2:335. 90. Margherita to Ginevra, 27 Oct. 1410 6300464, separate insert in executor documents, ASPo Datini 1118. 91. The Catasto of 1427 mentions a daughter Brigida, aged six at that time. See 194 below. 92. F. Datini, Testamento.

Chapter 13 1. Luca del Sera to the executors, 2 Dec. 1410, 12 Sept. 1410, ASPo Datini 1118. The extensive correspondence from the Florentine executors’ office addressed to the Prato executors’ office was all by Luca or was in Luca’s “voice,” even if he, as executor, sometimes used the third person or used a scribe. I subsequently cite Luca’s name along with “executors” when the comment has a personal aspect, citing only “executors” for less personal comments.

2. For examples of documents she signed with a male cosigner, see ASPo Datini 1118, 7 May 1412 9300361; ASPo Ceppo 430, 166v. For women’s legal limitations, see n. 5 below. On her previous activities that touched on legal matters, see chap. 6. 3. On women’s inheritance, see Crabb, Strozzi; n. 5 below. On various aspects of Italian and Florentine widowhood, see Crabb, Strozzi and “Typical”; Klapisch-Zuber, “Cruel Mother”; Chabot, La dette des familles, “Lineage Strategies,” and “Widowhood and Poverty”; Kuehn, “Daughters, Mothers, Wives, and Widows”; Chojnacki, “Getting Back the Dowry. 4. F. Datini, Testamento (hereinafter Testamento). Francesco made an earlier will in 1400, before going to Bologna. In it, the Ceppo shared the inheritance with the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova in Florence, and Margherita’s position of executor would have been weaker, because instead of having overall executors, the executors’ duties were divided for different aspects of the will, among a larger number of people. Guasti publishes most of the Latin version of the 1400 will in Mazzei, proemio, cx–cxv.Page 254 → 5. Mazzei 2:273 n. 2: “ed altri.” For women’s legal disabilities, see, in addition to the sources cited in n. 3 above, Kuehn, “Daughters, Wives, Mothers, Widows” and “Cum Consensu Mundualdi”; Crabb, Strozzi; Cohn, Women in the Streets. 6. See this book’s introduction. 7. Testamento, 289–90, 364. For Ser Lapo and Francesco’s attitudes toward church control, see Mazzei, proemio, xcviii. 8. Testamento, 296. 9. Testamento, 307–10. 10. Testamento, 305. 11. Testamento, 289–94. 12. Testamento, 288–89. For Luca’s disappointment, see Luca del Sera and Co. to Cristofano Carocci and Co., 23 Aug. 1410 603446 and 603447. 13. Margherita to the Rettori del Ceppo, 20 Jan. 1415; Margherita to Barzalone, 11 May 1418. The five letters directed to Margherita come from 1411, soon after Francesco’s death, a time when the executors were active. Hayez (“L’Archivio Datini,” 169) makes the point that Margherita would have continued to carry on a bigger correspondence, given her fairly extensive correspondence with others in addition to Francesco during his lifetime, which I have discussed in chap. 6. Other references to Margherita’s activities are cited in these notes as they arise. 14. Luca, executors, 2 Dec. 1410. 15. Luca, executors, 10 Sept. 1410. 16. The information in this and the following paragraphs about the paintings is based on Piattoli, Rivista d’Arte, 12:115–50. 17. Helas, “Il ciclo pittorico,” 155 and fig. 1. 18. Luca, executors, 4 Oct. 1410, as cited in Piattoli, Rivista d’Arte, 12, 120. For Dunlop’s comment, see Painted Palaces, 41. For Francesco’s earlier quarrels with painters, see Cavaciocchi, “Francesco Datini and the Painters.” 19. Executors, 28 Mar. 1414; Testamento, 285; executors, 27 Oct. 1410; executors, 27 Mar. 1411. 20. Testamento, 281; Piattoli, Rivista d’Arte, 12, 125. Francesco called it a “pancali” in his will, which would normally mean a decorated cloth to cover a bench, but it is clear that Margherita interpreted it as a frescoed mural. 21. Mazzei 2:426 and 1:106–7. 22. For Barzalone and Lionardo serving terms as Ceppo rectors, see ASPo Ceppo 1175, 320. For Margherita’s charitable choices, see, among many examples, those in ASPo Ceppo 320. 23. Testamento, 285–86, 306; for “Margherita di Domenico di Donato,” see 307. 24. Ser Lapo to Francesco, 30 Dec. 1400, Mazzei 1:327. 25. On illegitimate children as heirs, see Kuehn, Illegitimacy. On daughters as heirs, see Crabb, Strozzi. 26. Testamento, 283–85. For the passage from the will of 1400, see Testamento, 283–85 Page 255 → n. 2. On the house and garden, see Testamento, 306, 283. For another example of money being invested with the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova, see 188 below. For Santa Maria Nuova as a depository for invested money, see Goldthwaite, Economy, 424–25. 27. Luca, executors, 9 Dec. 1410; ASPo Ceppo 430, 166v.

28. Testamento, 284, 288; ASPo Ceppo 430, 71v, 72 and 1182, 181. 29. Executors, 2 and 24 Dec. 1410; ASPo Ceppo 1183 7/8, 1439 6v, 1659 12v; executors, 25 Sept. 1415. 30. Executors, 22 Jan. 1410/11. 31. ASPo Ceppo 1183. 32. Luca, 22 Mar. 1411. 33. ASF Notarile 11497, 53, 54; executors, 28 Feb., 3 Mar., and 3 and 27 Oct. 1411. 34. Bartolomeo Bandini to Margherita, 8 Mar. 1410, 4 Nov. 1404, 14 Jan 1406; Bartolomeo to Luca del Sera, 5 Sept. 1404, 29 May 1406. 35. See ASPo Datini Online, many letters from Bartolomeo Bandini, 7 Feb. 1400/1 to 9 Mar. 1409/10. 36. Bartolomeo Bandini to Margherita, 8 Mar. 1410. 37. For Francesco’s help in Avignon, see Bartolomeo Bandini to Margherita, 4 and 18 Nov. 1404. 38. Examples of Margherita and Bindo Piaciti working together on the matter can be found in Bartolomeo’s letters to Luca del Sera from November 1404. 39. Guasti in Mazzei 2:149 and nn. 3–4. 40. For Bartolomeo’s earlier reputation, see chap. 11. 41. For examples of Bartolomeo cosigning documents, see executors, 1 May 1412; ASPo Ceppo 430, 166v. For his role in art patronage and for his renting Palco, see Mazzei 2:427; ASPo Ceppo 430, 158. 42. Expenses for this trip and some other expenses are noted in the account book 1191.10, called “Bartolomeo di Domenico Bandini e Lionardo di Ser Tommaso di Giunta, 1411–1415,” but kept by Bartolomeo. 43. ASPo Datini 1191.10, 10v, 6, 6, 7v. 44. ASPo Ceppo 1183, 8, 9, 18. For reference to Bartolomeo’s will, see ASPo Ceppo 323, 6; for Giovanna’s will, see ASF Notarile 1197, 53, 54. 45. They all lived in the district of San Michele Bertaldi. On Margherita’s illness in 1419, see ASPo Ceppo 1183, 15v. On Caterina dying, see below. 46. ASF Ospedale di Santa Maria Nuova 70: 55, 55v; ASF Ospedale di Santa Maria Nuova 4472, Entrati delle pigioni della chasa e dei fatti delle possessioni . . . e di danari . . . depositi . . . allo spedale, 9, 13v; ASF Notarile 16660, Ser Ugolino Perozzi, 34. On the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova as a depository of money, see Goldthwaite, Economy, 424–25. See also Henderson, Renaissance Hospital, especially chap. 2, parts 2.3 and 2.4. 47. ASF Ospedale di Santa Maria Nuova 70: 55, 55v. 48. Mazzei, proemio, cx–cxv; Testamento, 275–76; Gavitt, Charity and Children, chap. 1, especially pp. 54–55.Page 256 → 49. ASF Ospedale Santa Maria Nuova 70: 55, 55v. For her purchase of land at Aliciana, see ASPo Ceppo 1183:12, 13v. 50. ASF Notarile 16660, Ser Ugolino Perozzi, 34. On her burial in Santa Maria Novella, see below. 51. ASF Ospedale Santa Maria Nuova 4472: 9: “per lamore di dio e per lanima sua e dei suoi morti.” 52. ASF Ospedale Santa Maria Nuova 4472:13v. 53. On investment legacies left by Francesco, see Testamento. On legacies left by others to the hospital, see Goldthwaite, 434–35; Henderson, Renaissance Hospital. 54. ASF Ospedale Santa Maria Nuova 70: 55, 55v. 55. In Mazzei, proemio, cxxxvii n. 2, Guasti says that Margherita’s will, which I have not been able to find despite considerable searching, was drawn up by Ser Tommaso di Pieragnolo di Cioni, a notary working for the church and convent of Santa Maria Novella. This notary is not one of those whose briefs have been collected in ASF Notarile. I was unable to find the will in Prato, in any of the ASF Ospedale Santa Maria Nuova documents, or in ASF Diplomatico, Acquisto Santa Maria Novella. 56. On Ginevra’s death, see ASPo Ceppo 345 H, 1423–24. On Brigida, see Mazzei and Fiumi, Prato. The Catasto of 1427 indicates that Luca del Sera was living at that time with a second wife, Tommasa, and with two sons, Giovanni and Francesco, his sons by Caterina. The daughter Dianora must have died. If she had married, Margherita would have mentioned her name.

Conclusion

1. See Klapisch-Zuber’s essays, especially “Cruel Mother”; Chabot, La dette des familles. 2. See Ulrich, Good Wives; Harris, English Aristocratic Women. 3. See especially Klapisch-Zuber, “Cruel Mother.” 4. See, for example, Klapisch-Zuber, “Le travail géneologique.” 5. See chap. 13.

Page 257 →

Bibliography Archival Sources Some of these are now online. Archivio di Stato di Prato (ASPo) Fondo Ceppi. A collection of documents about charitable institutions, including the Ceppo dei poveri di Francesco di Marco, Francesco’s Ceppo for the Poor. Fondo Datini. Available online via the ASPo home page. The images can only be accessed using Microsoft Explorer. Archivio di Stato di Firenze (ASF) Acquisto eraldico Ceramelli Papiani Carte Sebregondi Catasto, 1427. Available online via all search engines. Catasto, 1433 Diplomatico, Santa Maria Novella. Available online via the ASF home page. Notarile antecosimiano Ospedale di Santa Maria Nuova Priorista Mariani Tratte of Office Holders. Available through the Florentine Catasto online.

Published Primary Sources Alberti, Leon Battista. The Family in Renaissance Florence: I Libri della famiglia. Translated by Renée Neu Watkins. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1969. Page 258 → Avvertimenti di maritaggio. Edited by Francesco Zambrini. Imola: Tipografia Galeati, 1852. Barberino, Francesco da. Reggimento e costumi delle donne. Edited by Giuseppe E. Sansone. Rome: Zauli, 1995. Bernardino da Siena. Le prediche volgari. Edited by Ciro Cannarozzi. 2 vols. Pistoia: Pacinotti, 1934. Catherine of Siena. Letters. Edited and translated by Suzanne Noffke. Tempe, AZ: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2000. Certaldo, Paolo da. “Libro di buoni costumi.” In Mercanti scrittori, edited by Vittore Branca, 3–99. Milan: Rusconi, 1986. Cherubino da Siena. Regole della vita matrimoniale. Edited by Francesco Zambrini and Carlo Negroni. Bologna: Commissione per testi di lingua, 1969.

Datini, Margherita. Le Lettere di Margherita Datini a Francesco di Marco (1384–1410). Edited by Valeria Rosati. Prato: Cassa di Risparmio e di Depositi, 1977. Datini, Margherita. Margherita Datini: Letters to Francesco Datini. Edited and translated by Carolyn James and Antonio Pagliaro. Other Voices Series. Toronto: Iter and Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2012. Datini, Margherita. Per la tua Margherita: Lettere di una donna del ’300 al marito mercante. Prato: Archivio di Stato di Prato, 2002. Compact disc. Datini, Francesco. Le Lettere di Francesco Datini alla moglie Margherita (1385–1410). Edited by Elena Cecchi. Prato: Storia Pratese di Storia Patria, 1990. Datini, Francesco. Testamento. Translated into Italian in Mazzei, Lettere, 2:273–310. Also translated into English in Byrne, “Francesco Datini,” Appendix, 339–77. Marchionne di Coppo Stefani. “Cronaca fiorentina.” In Rerum italicum scriptores, edited by Niccolò di Rodolico, vol. 30, part 1. Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1903. Mazzei, Ser Lapo. Lettere di un notaro a un mercante del secolo XIV con altre lettere e documenti. Edited by Cesare Guasti. 2 vols. Florence, 1880. Medici, Lucrezia Tornabuoni. Lettere. Edited by Patrizia Salvadori. Florence: Olschki, 1993. Nico Ottaviani, Maria Grazia, ed. Me son Missa a scriver questa letera . . . : Lettere e altre scritture femminili tra Umbria, Toscana e Marche nei secoli XV–XVI. Naples: Ligouri, 1996. Passerini, Guia. “Dora Guidelotti del Bene: Le Lettere (1381–92).” Letteratura italiana antica 4 (2003): 101–59. The Paston Letters. Edited by Norman Davis. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958. Strozzi, Alessandra Macinghi. Lettere di una gentildonna fiorentina del secolo XV ai figluoli esuli. Edited by Cesare Guasti. Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1877. Vespasiano da Bisticci. “Life of Alessandra de’ Bardi.” In Renaissance Popes, Princes, and Prelates: The Vespasiano Memoirs; Lives of Illustrious Men of the Fifteenth Century, edited and translated by William George and Emily Waters, 445–62. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Villani, Matteo. Cronica. Edited by Francesco Gherardi Dragomanni. Florence, 1846. Page 259 →

Secondary Sources Ammannati, Francesco. “Francesco di Marco Datini’s Wool Workshops.” In Nigro, Datini, 489–514. Ballweg, Mary Lou. Endometriosis: The Complete Reference for Taking Charge of Your Health. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 2004. Bastianich, Tanya. “An Illustrious Man and His Uomini Illustri: Francesco di Marco Datini and the Decoration of His Palace in Prato.” DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, 2000. Batista, Giuseppina. L’educazione dei figli nella regola di Giovanni Dominici (1355/6–1419). Florence: Pagnini and Martinelli, 2002. Bec, Christian. Les Livres des Florentins (1413–1608). Florence: Olschki, 1984. Becker, Marvin. Florence in Transition. 2 vols. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967.

Bernocchi, Mario. “Sulla presunta dote di Margherita Datini.” Prato, Storia e arte 12 (1971). Berti, Marcello. “The Pisa Company: A Difficult Political Context.” In Nigro, Datini, 281–320. Black, Robert. “Education and the Emergence of a Literate Society.” In Italy in the Age of the Renaissance, 1300–1550, edited by John Najemi, 18–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Black, Robert. Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Tradition and Innovation in Latin Schools from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Bornstein, Daniel. The Bianchi of 1399: Popular Devotion in Late Medieval Italy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. Brambilla, Simona. “Il formulario epistolare e una curiosa lettera di ser Bartolomeo a Francesco Datini.” Part 2 of “La maison des fantộmes: Un rècit onorique de ser Barolomeo Levaldini, notaire de Prato et correspondant de Francesco Datini,” by Simona Brambilla and Jérộme Hayez. Italia medievale e umanistica 47 (2006): 129–92. Brambilla, Simona. Padre mio dolce: Lettere di religiosi a Francesco Datini. Rome: Direzione generale per gli archivi di stato, 2010. An electronic version is now being prepared at http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/index.php /cosa-facciamo/pubblicazi-oni/cerca-nelle-pubblicazioni. Brown, Michelle P. A Guide to Western Historical Scripts from Antiquity to 1600. London: British Library, 1993. Brucker, Gene A. The Civic World of Early Renaissance Florence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Brucker, Gene A. Florentine Politics and Society, 1343–1378. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962. Page 260 → Bryce, Judith. “‘Les Livres des Florentines’: Reconsidering Women’s Literacy in Quattrocento Florence.” In At the Margins: Minority Groups in Premodern Italy, edited by Stephen Milner, 133–61. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005. Byrne, Joseph P. “Crafting the Merchant Wife’s Tale: Historians and the Domestic Rhetoric in the Letters of Margherita Datini.” Journal of the Georgia Association of Historians 16 (1996): 1–17. Byrne, Joseph P. “Francesco Datini, ‘Father of Many’: Piety, Charity, and Patronage in Early Modern Tuscany.” PhD diss., Indiana University, 1989. Byrne, Joseph P. “Reading the Medieval Woman’s Voice: Reflections on the Letters of Margherita Datini.” West Georgia Review 25 (1995): 5–13. Byrne, Joseph P., and Eleanor A. Congdon. “Mothering in the Casa Datini.” Journal of Medieval History 25 (1999): 35–56. Cadden, Joan. Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Cadogan, Jean K. “The Social Identity of Agnolo Gaddi and His Family: A Florentine ‘Success Story.’” Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschiche 74, no. 2 (2011): 153–76. Caferro, William. John Hawkwood: An English Mercenary in Fourteenth-Century Italy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Caferro, William. Mercenary Companies and the Decline of Siena. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Camargo, Martin. Ars dictaminis, ars dictandi. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1991. Campbell, John K. Honour, Family, and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community. Oxford: Clarendon, 1964. Cardini, Franco. “Alfabetismo e livelli di cultura nell’età comunale.” Quaderni storici, n.s., 38 (1978): 488–522. Cassandro, Michele. “Aspects of the Life and Character of Francesco Datini.” In Nigro, Datini, 3–51. Cavaciocchi, Simonetta. “The Economics of Building.” In Nigro, Datini, 165–99. Cavaciocchi, Simonetta. “Francesco Datini and the Painters.” In Nigro, Datini, 213–26. Cavaciocchi, Simonetta. “Il vezzo del mercante.” Prato, Storia e Arte 105 (2009): 23–33. Cavaciocchi, Simonetta. “The Merchant and Building.” In Nigro, Datini, 131–54. Cavaciocchi, Simonetta. “A Taste for Living.” In Nigro, Datini, 201–12. Cerretelli, Claudio. “Il bel palagio, orgoglio di Francesco.” In Palazzo Datini, vol. 1, 4–51. Chabot, Isabelle. La dette des familles: Femmes, lignage et patrimoine à Florence aux xive et xve siècles. Rome: École francaise de Rome, 2011. Chabot, Isabelle. “Lineage Strategies and the Control of Widows in Renaissance Florence.” In Widowhood in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, edited by Sandra Cavallo and Lyndan Warner, 127–44. New York: Longman, 1999. Chabot, Isabelle. “Widowhood and Poverty in Late Medieval Florence.” Continuity and Change 3 (1988): 291–311. Cherewatuk, Karen, and Ulrike Wiethaus, eds. Dear Sister: Medieval Women and the Epistolary Genre. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. Page 261 → Cherubini, Giovanni. I servitori domestici della casa borghese toscana nel basso medievo. Florence: Salimbene, 1982. Chojnacki. Stanley. “Getting Back the Dowry: Venice, c. 1360–1530.” In Time, Space, and Women’s Lives in Early Modern Europe, edited by Anne Jacobson Schutte, Thomas Kuehn, and Silvana Seidel Menchi, 77–96. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2001. Ciappelli, Giovanni. “Il cittadino fiorentino e il fisco alla fine del trecento e nel corso del quattrocento: Uno studio di due casi.” Società e storia 46 (1989): 823–72. Cohen, Elizabeth S. “Honor and Gender in the Streets of Early Modern Rome.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 22 (1992): 597–625. Cohen, Elizabeth S. “No Longer Virgins: Self-Presentation by Young Women in Late Renaissance Rome.” In Refiguring Woman: Perspectives in Gender, edited by Marilyn Migiel and Juliana Schiesari, 169–191. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Cohen, Elizabeth S. “To Pray, to Work, to Hear, to Speak: Women in Roman Streets c. 1600.” Journal of Early Modern History 12 (2008): 289–311. Cohn, Samuel K., Jr. The Cult of Remembrance and the Black Death: Six Renaissance Cities in Central Italy.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Cohn, Samuel K., Jr. Women in the Streets: Essays on Sex and Power in Renaissance Italy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Couchman, Jane, and Ann Crabb, eds. Women’s Letters across Europe, 1400–1700: Form and Persuasion. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005. Crabb, Ann. “Gaining Honor as Husband’s Deputy: Margherita Datini at Work, 1381–1410.” Early Modern Women, Autumn 2008, 225–31. Crabb, Ann. “How to Influence Your Children: Persuasion and Form in Alessendra Macigni Strozzi’s Letters to Her Sons.” In Couchman and Crabb, Women’s Letters, 21–41. Crabb, Ann. “How Typical Was Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi of Fifteenth-Century Florentine Widows?” In Upon my Husband’s Death: Widows in the Literature and Histories of Medieval Europe, edited by Louise Mirrer, 47–68. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992. Crabb, Ann. “‘If I Could Write’: Margherita Datini and Letter Writing, 1385–1410.” Renaissance Quarterly 40 (2007): 1170–1206. Crabb, Ann. “Ne pas être mère: L’autodéfense d’une Florentine vers 1400.”Clio. Histoire, Femmes et Sociétés: Maternités 21 (2005): 150–61. (Journal title as of 2013, Clio. Femmes, Genre, Histoire. Includes all back articles.) Crabb, Ann. The Strozzi of Florence: Widowhood and Family Solidarity in the Renaissance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000. Cressy, David. “Levels of Illiteracy in England, 1530–1730.” In Literacy and Social Development in the West: A Reader, edited by Harvey J. Graff, 105–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Davis, John H. People of the Mediterranean: An Essay in Comparative Social Anthropology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977. Page 262 → Daybell, James. “‘I Wold Wyshe My Doings Myght Be . . . Secret’: Privacy and the Social Practices of Reading Women’s Letters in Sixteenth-Century England.” In Couchman and Crabb, Women’s Letters across Europe, 143–62. Daybell, James. “Letters.” In The Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Women’s Writing, edited by Laura Lunger Knoppers, 181–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Dean, Trevor, and K. J. P. Lowe, eds. Marriage in Italy, 1300–1650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Debby, Nirit Ben-Aryeh. Renaissance Florence in the Rhetoric of Two Popular Preachers: Giovanni Dominici (1356–1419) and Bernardino da Siena (1380–1444). Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. de Roover, Raymond. The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank, 1397–1494. New York: Norton, 1966. Doglio, Maria Luisa. “Letter Writing, 1350–1650.” In A History of Women’s Writing in Italy, edited by Letizia Panizza and Sharon Wood, 13–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Duby, Georges, and Philippe Braunstein. “The Emergence of the Individual.” In A History of Private Life, vol. 2, The Emergence of the Medieval World, edited by Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby, 509–630. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1988. Dunlop, Anne. Painted Palaces: The Rise of Secular Art in Early Renaissance Italy. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009. Eisenach, Emlyn. Husbands, Wives, and Concubines: Marriage, Family, and Social Order in Sixteenth-Century Verona. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2004. Epstein, Steven A. “Slaves in Italy, 1350–1550.” In At the Margins: Minority Groups in Premodern Italy, edited by Stephen Milner, 219–35. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005. Fildes, Valerie. Wet Nursing: A History from Antiquity to the Present. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988. Fiumi, Enrico. Demografia, movimento urbanistico e classi sociali in Prato dell’età comunale ai tempi moderni. Florence: Olschki, 1968. Flandrin, Jean Louis. Families in Former Times: Kinship, Household, and Sexuality. Translated by Richard Southern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Frangioni, Luciana. “Avignon: The Beginnings.” In Nigro, Datini, 249–79. Frangioni, Luciana. “Il carteggio commerciale della fine del XIV secolo: Layout e contenuto economico.” Reti medievali rivista 10 (2009): 123–61. Frick, Carol. Dressing Renaissance Florence: Families, Fortunes, and Fine Clothing. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Gavitt, Phillip. Charity and Children in Renaissance Florence: The Ospedale degli Innocenti, 1410–1536. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990. Gilmore, David G. “Anthropology of the Modern Mediterranean Area.” Annual Review of Anthropology 11 (1982): 175–205. Page 263 → Goldthwaite, Richard. The Economy of Renaissance Florence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Graff, Harvey J. The Labyrinths of Literacy: Reflections on Literacy Past and Present. London: Falmer, 1987. Greci, Roberto, “The Datini Correspondence from Bologna, Ferrara, and Parma.” In Nigro, Datini, 434–40. Grendler, Paul F. Schooling in Renaissance Italy: Literacy and Learning, 1300–1600. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. Guzzetti, Linda. “Donne e scrittura nel tardo trecento.” Archivio veneto 130 (1999): 5–31. Haas, Louis. “‘Il mio buon compare’: Choosing Godparents and the Uses of Baptismal Kinship in Renaissance Florence.” Journal of Social History 29 (1995): 341–56. Harris, Barbara J. English Aristocratic Women, 1450–1550: Marriage and Family, Property and Careers. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Hayez, Jérộme. “Expérience de migrant et pratique de l’amitié dans la correspondance de maestro Naddino d’Aldobrandino Bovattieri médecin toscan d’Avignon (1385–1407).” Bibliothèque d’École des Chartes, 2001, 413–539.

Hayez, Jérộme. “Francesco Datini et ser Bartolomeo Levaldini.” Part 1 of “La maison des fantộmes: Un rècit onorique de ser Bartolomeo Levaldini, notaire de Prato et correspondant de Francesco Datini,” by Simona Brambilla and Jérộme Hayez. Italia medievale e umanistica 47 (2006): 75–129. Hayez, Jérộme. “Il migrante e il padrone: Il palazzo nella vita di Francesco Datini.” In Palazo Datini, 169–207. Hayez, Jérộme. “‘Io non so scrivere al’amicho per siloscimi’: Jalons pour une lecture de la lettre marchande toscane de la fin du moyen age.” I Tatti Studies 7 (1997): 37–79. Hayez, Jérộme. “L’Archivio Datini de l’invention de 1870 à l’exploration d’une système d’écrits privés.” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome: Moyen Age 117 (2005): 121–91. Hayez, Jérộme. “Le rire du marchand: Francesco Datini, sa femme Margherita et les ‘gran maestri’ florentins.” In Les femmes et le quotidien (XIVe–XVIIIe siècle): Textes offerts à Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, edited by I. Chabot, D. Lett, and J. Hayez, 407–58. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2006. Helas, Philine. “Il ciclo pittorico sulle facciate del palazzo Datini.” In Palazzo Datini, vol. 1, 145–65. Henderson, John. The Renaissance Hospital: Healing the Body and Healing the Soul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Henderson, Judith. “Erasmus and the Art of Letter Writing.” In Renaissance Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Renaissance Rhetoric, edited by James J. Murphy, 331–55. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Herlihy, David, and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber. Tuscans and Their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Hughes, Diane Owen. “Regulating Women’s Fashion.” In A History of Women in the Page 264 → West, vol. 2, edited by Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, 136–58. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992. Hughes, Diane Owen. “Sumptuary Law and Social Relations in Renaissance Cities.” In Disputes and Settlements, edited by John Bossy, 69–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Jacquart, Danielle, and Claude Thormasset. Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages. Translated by Matthew Adamson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. James, Carolyn. “Marriage by Correspondence: Politics and Domesticity in the Letters of Isabella d’Este and Francesco Gonzaga, 1490–1519.” Renaissance Quarterly 55 (2012): 321–52. James, Carolyn. “A Woman’s Path to Literacy: The Letters of Margherita Datini, 1384–1410.” In Practices of Gender in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, edited by M. Cassidy-Welch and P. Sherlock, 43–56. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2008. James, Carolyn. “A Woman’s Work in a Man’s World: The Letters of Margherita Datini (1384–1410).” In Nigro, Datini, 53–72. Kaborycha, Lisa. “Copying Culture: Fifteenth-Century Florentines and Their Zibaldoni.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2006. Kent, Dale. Friendship, Love, and Trust in Renaissance Florence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. Kent, Dale, and F. W. Kent. Neighbours and Neighbourhood in Renaissance Florence: The District of the Red Lion in the Fifteenth Century. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1982.

King, Margaret L. Women of the Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. King, Margaret L., and Albert Rabil, eds. Her Immaculate Hand: Selected Works by and about Women Humanists of Quattrocento Italy. Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1997. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “Au péril des commères: L’alliance spirituelle par les femmes à Florence.” In Femmes, marriages, lignages, XIIe–XIVe siècles: Mélanges offerts à Georges Duby, edited by Jean Dufournet and Georges Duby, 215–32. Brussels: De Boeck University, 1992. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “Blood Parents and Milk Parents: Wet Nursing in Florence, 1300–1530.” In Women, Family, and Ritual, 132–64. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “Childhood in Tuscany at the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century.” In Women, Family, and Ritual, 94–116. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “The ‘Cruel Mother’: Maternity, Widowhood, and Dowry in Florence in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.” In Women, Family, and Ritual, 117–31. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “Demographic Decline and Household Structure: The Example of Prato, Late Fourteenth to Late Fifteenth Centuries.” In Women, Family, and Ritual, 23–35. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. La maison et le nom: Strategies et rituels dans l’Italie de la Renaissance. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1990. Page 265 → Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “Le chiavi fiorentine di barbablù.”Quaderni storici 19 (1984): 765–92. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “Les acteurs politiques de la Florence communale (1350–1430).” In Florence et la Toscane, XIV–XIX siècles: Les dynamiques d’un Ètat italien, edited by Jean Boutier, Sandro Landi, and Olivier Rouchon, 217–39. Rennes: Presses Universitaire de Rennes, 2004. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “Le travail géneologique.” In La maison et le nom, 37–58. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. Retour à la cité: Les magnats de Florence, 1340–1440. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2006. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. Women, Family, and Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “Zacharias, or the Ousted Father: Nuptial Rites in Tuscany between Giotto and the Council of Trent.” In Women, Family, and Ritual, 178–212. Kuehn, Thomas. “‘Cum Consensu Mundualdi’: Legal Guardianship of Women in Quattrocento Florence.” In Law, Family, and Women, 212–37. Kuehn, Thomas. “Daughters, Mothers, Wives, and Widows: Women as Legal Persons.” In Time, Space, and Women’s Lives in Early Modern Europe, edited by Anne Jacobson Schutte, Thomas Kuehn, and Silvana Seidel Menchi, 97–105. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2001. Kuehn, Thomas. Illegitimacy in Renaissance Florence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002. Kuehn, Thomas. Law, Family, and Women: Toward a Legal Anthropology of Renaissance Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Kuehn, Thomas. “Understanding Gender Inequality in Renaissance Florence: Personhood and Gifts of Maternal Inheritance by Women.” Journal of Women’s History 8 (1996): 58–80.

Lansing, Carol. The Florentine Magnates. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. Laslett, Peter, ed. Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Lewin, Alison Williams. “‘Cum Status Ecclesie Noster sit’: Florence and the Council of Pisa (1409).” Church History 62, no. 2 (1993): 178–89. Mannini, Maria Pia. “La costruzione del mito: Il primato del rosso.” In Palazzo Datini, vol. 1, 93–110. Maravelli, Cristina Gnoni. “La decorazione pittorica delle stanze a pianoterreno: suggestioni e modelli.” In Palazzo Datini, vol. 1, 141–43. Marcheschi, Chiara. “‘In Prato chon XXIII bocche in casa’: Le donne della ‘famiglia domestica’ di Francesco e Margherita Datini.” In Palazzo Datini, vol. 1, 209–30. Marshall, Richard K. The Local Merchants of Prato: Small Entrepreneurs in the Late Medieval Economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Masseti, Marco. “I ‘boschetti con animali’ e le raffigurazioni zoomorfiche.” In Palazzo Datini, vol. 1, 145–53. Page 266 → McGough, Laura Jane. “‘Raised from the Devil’s Jaws’: A Convent for Repentant Prostitutes in Venice, 1530–1670.” PhD diss., Northwestern University, 1997. Melis, Frederigo. Aspetti della vita economica medievale. Florence: Olschki, 1962. Miglio, Luisa. Governare l’alfabeto: Donne, scrittura e libri nel Medioevo. Rome: Viella, 2008. Miglio, Luisa. “L’altra metà della scrittura: Scrivere il volgare (all’origine delle corsive mercantili).” Scrittura e Civiltà 10 (1986): 83–114. Miglio, Luisa. “Leggere e scrivere il volgare: Sull’alfabatismo delle donne nella Toscana tardo medievale.” Civiltà comunale 103 (1989): 357–83. Reprinted in Governare l’alfabeto, 57–76. Miglio, Luisa. “Scrivere al femminile.” In Escribir y leer en Occidente, edited by A. Petrucci and F. M. Gimeno Blay, 63–87. Valencia, Spain: Usceneia, 1995. Reprinted in Governare l’alfabeto, 77–102. Miglio, Luisa. “‘Un mondo a parte’: Libri da donna, libri di donna.” In Governare l’alfabeto, 224–50. Molho, Anthony. Florentine Public Finances in the Early Renaissance, 1400–1433. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. Mollat, Guillaume. The Popes at Avignon, 1305–1378. London: Thomas Nelson, 1949. Muir, Edward. “The Double Binds of Manly Revenge in Renaissance Italy.” Gendering Rhetorics: Postures of Dominance and Submission, edited by Richard Trexler, 65–82. Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1994. Muir, Edward. Mad Blood Stirring: Vendetta in Renaissance Italy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Mundy, John H. “The Conciliar Movement.” In The Council of Constance: The Unification of the Church, edited by Louise Ropes Loomis, 3–51. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. Murphy, James J. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.

Murray, Jacqueline. Marriage in Premodern Europe: Italy and Beyond. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2012. Musacchio, Jacqueline Marie. Art, Marriage, and Family in the Florentine Renaissance Palace. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Najemy, John. “Giannozzo and His Elders: Alberti’s Critique of Renaissance Patriarchy.” In Society and Individual in Renaissance Florence, edited by William J. Connell, 51–78. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Najemy, John. A History of Florence, 1200–1575. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Nanni, Paolo. Ragionare tra Mercanti: Per una rilettura della personalità di Francesco di Marco Datini (1335 ca.–1410). Pisa: Pacini, 2010. Niccolaj, G. “Alle origini della minuscola notarile italiana e dei suoi caratteristorici.” Scrittura e Civiltà 10 (1986): 49–82. Nigro, Giampiero. “The Banking Company.” In Nigro, Datini, 515–27. Page 267 → Nigro, Giampiero. “Francesco and the Datini Company of Florence in the Trading System.” In Nigro, Datini, 229–48. Nigro, Giampiero. Francesco di Marco Datini: The Man, the Merchant. Florence: University of Florence Press, 2010. Nigro, Giampiero. Il tempo liberato: Festa e svago nella città di Francesco Datini. Prato: Istituto Internazionale di Storia Economica F. Datini, 1994. Nigro, Giampiero. “The Merchant and His Wealth.” In Nigro, Datini, 55–99. Noonan, John T. The Scholastic Analysis of Usury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957. Origo, Iris. “The Domestic Enemy: Eastern Slaves in Tuscany in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.” Speculum 30 (1935): 321–66. Origo, Iris. The Merchant of Prato: Francesco di Marco Datini, 1335–1410. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957. Reprint, Boston: Gordine, 1986. Orlandi, Angela. “The Catalonia Company.” In Nigro, Datini, 347–76. Palazzo Datini a Prato: Una Casa fatta per durare mille anni. Edited by Jérộme Hayez and Diana Toccafondi, with Maria Raffaella de Gramatica. 2 vols. Florence: Edizioni Polistampa, 2012. Pampaloni, Guido. “L’autonomia pratese sotto Firenze (1351–1500).” In Prato, vol. 1, part 2, 737–60. Pardini, Elena Cristina Lombardi. “Le ossa di Francesco Datini.” Archivio per l’antropolgia e la etnologia 109–10 (1979): 435–48. Passerini, Guia. “Dora Guidalotti Del Bene: Le Lettere (1381–92).” Letteratura italiana antica 4 (2003): 101–59. Peristiany, J. G., and Julian Pitt-Rivers. Honor and Grace in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Petrucci, Armando. “Introduzione alle pratiche di scrittura.” Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa 23, no.

2 (1993): 549–62. Petrucci, Armando. “Reading and Writing Volgare in Medieval Italy.” In Writers and Readers, 169–200. Petrucci, Armando. Writers and Readers in Medieval Italy: Studies in the History of Written Culture. Edited and translated by Charles M. Radding. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Piattoli, Renato. “Un mercante del Trecento e gli artisti del tempo suo.” In Rivista d’arte 11 (1929): 221–53, 396–437, 537–79; 12 (1930): 97–150. Pinto, Giuliano. Il contratto di mezzadria nella Toscana medievale. Edited by Giuliano Pinto and Paolo Pirillo. 3 vols. Florence: Olschki, 1987. Pitt-Rivers, Julian. The Fate of Shechem, or the Politics of Sex: Essays on the Anthropology of the Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Plebani, Tiziana. “Nascita e caratteristiche del pubblico di lettrici.” In Donna, disciplina, creanza cristiana dal XV al XVI, edited by Gabriella Zarri, 23–44. Rome: Edizione di Storia e Letteratura, 1996. Page 268 → Polecritti, Cynthia. Preaching Peace in Renaissance Italy: Bernardino da Siena and His Audience. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2000. Prato: Storia di una città. Edited by Fernand Braudel. 3 vols. Prato: LeMonnier, 1991. Preyer, Brenda. “La struttura dell’abitare: Il confronto con i palazzi fiorentini.” In Palazzo Datini, vol. 1, 73–89. Rainey, Robert. “Dressing Down the Dressed-Up: Reproving Feminine Attire in Renaissance Florence.” In Renaissance Society and Culture: Essays in Honor of Eugene F. Rice, Jr., edited by John Monfasani and Ronald G. Musto, 217–37. New York: Italica, 1991. Reveggi, Sergio. “Protagonisti e antagonisti nel libero Comune.” In Prato, vol. 1, part 2, 613–736. Romagnoli, Margherita. “Gli ambienti esterni: Preposti per una lettura iconografica.” In Palazzo Datini, vol. 1, 125–37. Romagnoli, Margherita. “La decorazione pittorica di palazzo Datini.” In Palazzo Datini, vol. 1, 111–23. Ruggiero, Guido. “‘Più che la vita caro’: Onore, matrimonio e reputazione femminile nel tardo Rinasciemnto.” Quaderni storici, n.s., 66 (1987): 753–75. Schneider, Gary. The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in Early Modern England, 1500–1700. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005. Scott, Karen. “‘Io Caterina’: Ecclesiastical Politics and Oral Culture in the Letters of Catherine of Siena.” In Cherewatuk and Wiethaus, Dear Sister, 87–121. Shahar, Shulamith. Childhood in the Middle Ages. London: Routledge, 1990. Smith, Alison A. “Revisiting the Renaissance Household, in Theory and in Practice: Locating Wealthy Women in Sixteen-Century Verona.” In Wives, Widows, Mistresses, and Nuns in Early Modern Italy: Making the Invisible Visible through Art and Patronage, edited by Katherine A. McIver, 141–57. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012. Spufford, Margaret. “First Steps in Literacy: The Reading and Writing Experiences of the Humblest SeventeenthCentury Spiritual Autobiographers.” In Literacy and Social Development in the West: A Reader, edited by Harvey

J. Graff, 124–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Strocchia, Sharon. “Learning the Virtues: Convent Schools and Female Culture in Renaissance Florence.” In Women’s Education in Early Modern Europe: A History, 1400–1800, edited by Barbara Whitehead, 3–46. New York: Garland, 1999. Stuard, Susan. Gilding the Market: Luxury and Fashion in Fourteenth-Century Italy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Swain, Elizabeth Ward. “My Most Excellent and Singular Lord: Marriage in a Noble Family of Fifteenth-Century Italy. Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 16, no. 2 (1986): 171–97. Swanson, R. N. Religion and Devotion in Europe, c. 1215–c. 1515. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Thomas, Keith. “The Meaning of Literacy in Early Modern England.” In The Written Page 269 → Word: Literacy in Transition, edited by Gerd Baumann, 97–131. Wolfson College Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Trexler, Richard C. Public Life in Renaissance Florence. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980. Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher. Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650–1750. New York: Vintage Books, 1991. Valori, Alessandro. “L’onore femminile attraverso l’epistolario di Margherita e Francesco Datini da Prato.” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 175 (1998): 53–83. Wray, Shona Kelly. Communities in Crisis: Bologna during the Black Death. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Zanelli, Agostino. Le schiave orientali a Firenze nei secoli XIV e XV. Florence: Loescher, 1885. Zarri, Gabriella, ed. Per lettera: La scrittura epistolare femminile tra archivio e tipografia, secoli xv–xvii. Rome, 1999. Page 270 →

Page 271 →

Index account keeping, 81, 135, 144. See also loans Agnolo di Niccolò di Piero, 19, 60 Alberti, Leon Battista: Book of the Family, 28, 32, 97 Ammanati, Filippo. See Tecchini family Antonino Pierozzi (Archbishop and Saint), 139 apprentices, 95–97, 235n26. See also Guido Pieri, Fattorino; Simone Bellandi autograph letters. See letter writing Ave (servant) 99, 145 Avignon, 8, 17, 156–59. See also Datini, Francesco: business career Baldo di Vestro Nucci, Ser, 121, 123, 128, 185 Bandini, Aldobrando di Donato, 9 Bandini, Bartolomeo di Domencio, 8, 150, 157–66, 190–91; and Dianora’s house, 158–61, 190–91; and Margherita, 150, 163–66, 191 Bandini, Caterina di Domenico. See Piaciti, Caterina. Bandini, Chiaramonda di Aldobrandino di Donato, widow of Francesco di Giovanni Asini, 168 Bandini, Dianora di Cione (Pelliccia) Gherardini (widow of Domenico di Donato Bandini), 13, 151; her house and other property, 9–10, 155–62, 164; her literacy, 9, 136, 140, 242n8; her relationship with her children, 6–7, 9, 138, 155–59, 248n58 Bandini, Domenico di Donato (father of Margherita), 6, 9 Bandini, Francesca di Domenico. See Tecchini, Francesca Bandini, Giovanna di Donato (widow of Silvestro di Cantino Cavalcanti), 9, 23–24, 42, 151, 190–91 Bandini, Isabetta di Domenico (wife of Jacopo Girolli), 155–61, 191, 194 Bandini, Zanobi, di Domenico, 8–10, 151, 156, 176 Bandini family, 8–9, 21, 151, 217n9 Barberino, Francesco da, 138 Bartolomea (slave), 18, 27–29 Bartolomeo di Francesco Cambioni, 153, 169, 175 Barzalone di Spedaliere, 58–59, 121, 130; executor and the Ceppo, 183, 185, 187; and Margherita, 58, 71, 73–74, 201

Becker, Marvin, 4 Bernabò, Domenico di Giovanni Golli, 18 Bernardino da Siena (Saint), 91–92, 139 Bianchi, 174 Boccaccio, Giovanni, 10, 139 Bologna, 45, 167–68 Boninsegna di Matteo Boninsegna, 17, 28, 33, 159, 175 Brucker, Gene, 4 Bubonic plague, 10, 42, 45, 167, 169–70 Bryce, Judith, 243n16, 244n37 Byrne, Joseph, 3, 4, 43 Page 272 → cats as pets, 45, 68 casa. See kinship relations Cecchi Elena, 3 Ceppo dei poveri di Francesco di Marco (Francesco di Marco’s Ceppo for the poor), 4, 61, 115, 167, 183–90 Chabot, Isabelle, 196 Checco Naldini, 183, 185–86 Chiara Gambacorte, Suora, 43, 142 Chiarito di Matteo, 185, 234n14 children, illegitimate, 12, 14, 36–44, 95, 108, 198; girls, 178, 188–89. See also Datini, Ginevra children and childbearing: attitudes to, 12, 14–16, 43, 46–48; boys’ upbringing, 90, 95–97, 145–46, 149; discipline, 91–93, 97; girls’ upbringing, 14, 90–95, 140–41; high childhood mortality, 47–48, 89, 112, 197 Chimenti di Niccolò, Ser, 71, 84–85, 87, 121, 123–25, 128 clothing, 66–68 Cohen, Elizabeth, 51, 226n23 Congdon, Eleanor, 3 correspondence. See letter writing Corsini, Messer Filippo, 128–29, 161 Cristofano di Bartolo da Barberino Carocci, 97, 121, 124–25

Cristofano di Mercato di Giunta, 37–38, 41 Datini, Francaesco, business career, 19, 34–35 42; Avignon company, 16–17, 19, 159, 175, 191; beginnings, 11, 13; Florentine companies, 20–21, 27–29, 82, 174–75; Pisa company, 18–20, 23; Prato companies, 19–20, 58–59, 174–75; Spanish companies (Valencia, Barcelona, Mallorca), 175 Datini, Francesco, personal life: attitude to illegitimate children, 197–98 (see also Datini, Ginevra); character, 30, 33–34, 68–69, 72–74, 113–14; desire for children, 12, 14, 47–48; death and wills, 182–85, 189; family background, 10–11; friendship and social life, 103–6, 110–18, 119–20, 128, 168–69, 179–82; and politics, 104, 119–30, 168–69, 179–82; portraits and depictions. 49, 60–61, 173 fig. 9, 187; religious activities, 17, 48, 75–76, 173–74, 184; religious beliefs, 14, 33, 38, 130; social status, 110–11, 129–30, 185; and taxes, 119–30, 168–69; work habits, 11–13, 18–19, 31–32, 72, 125, 174. See also children, illegitimate; clothing; kinship. Datini, Ginevra: babyhood, 43–44, 63; childhood, 45, 93–95, 140–41, 167; Margherita’s maternal role, 93–95, 179, 182; marriage and adulthood, 178–79, 182, 188–89, 191, 193–94, 196 Datini, Margherita: and building projects, 57, 72–75; burial, 60, 193–94; business and financial activities, 13–14, 77–88, 201–2; and the Ceppo, 167, 183–90; character and appearance, 22, 27, 49, 69, 113–14; childlessness and illegitimacy, 36, 39, 46–48, 89, 197; as executor, 183–87; family background, 6–9, 21, 111, 150–66; farming activities, 70–72; health and endometriosis, 22–23, 26, 39, 46–47, 55, 103, 132, 149; household management, 62–72; individual circumstances, 52, 139–40, 198; and politics, 121–27, 179–82, 205–6; portraits and depictions, 49, 60–61, 93, 94 fig. 6, 173 fig. 9, 186–87; and religion, 14, 47–48, 116, 171–73, 197; social life and social network, 103–7, 111, 128, 168, 180–82; speaking abilities, 70, 86–88, 128–29, 169; widowhood, 183–94, 206–7. See also children and childbearing; dowry; kinship; letter writing; literacy; medical care; wife Datini correspondence. See letter writing Datini marriage: arranged, 8–10, 12; authority and obedience, 2, 13, 54, 68, 93, 114, 157; Francesco’s adultery, 36–39, 42–44, 108; relationship, early years, 1376–1387: 13, 22–34, 157, 196–97; relationship, middle years, 1387–1400, negative interactions, 69, 101–2, 109, 137, 197; relationship, middle years, 1387–1400, positive interactions, 62, 113, 121–34, 166; relationship, last years, 1400–1410: 167, 171–75, 193, 197, 202; time apart, 50–51 Datini palace, 19, 61, 62–63, 120; beginnings, 4, 11, 16; and Margherita, 61, 184, 189; as place of business, 77–80. See also Ceppo dei poveri debtors. See loans Domenica (wife of Saccente), 74–75, 90, 98–99, 109, 167, 235n42 Dominici, Giovanni, Fra, 57, 91–92, 139, 173–74 Domenico da Cambio, 58, 142 Page 273 → dowry, 6, 10, 37, 113, 156–64, 177–78; Francesca’s, 9, 155, 159, 177; Margherita’s, 8–10, 150, 155–66 Dunlop, Anne, 186 farms, 70–72 Fattorino (Nanni di Luca Bencivenni), 54, 74, 80–81, 86, 95–97, 101, 135 females: informal influence, 83–84, 202, 233n33; inheritance and property, 156–59, 167, 183–84, 188–89, 191; limits on in law and custom, 83–84, 183, 200, 202, 248n53; often not mentioned by name or writings preserved,

80, 177, 200, 232n13; role in social life, 103–6. See also literacy food supplies, 64–65, 69–72, 113–14 Florence, 19; citizenship and prestanza (forced loan), 119–30, 168–69; Datini companies in Florence, 20–21, 27–29, 82, 174–75; Red lion district (gonfalone leone rosso), 120–27 friendship, 71, 110–14; between men and women, 115, 200; women’s, 26, 60, 111 Gaddi, Agnolo and Zanobi, 63, 108–10 gender attitudes, 31, 77, 99–102, 131, 149, 200 Gherardini family, 6, 13, 21, 29, 32, 151, 168; Antonio d’Attaviano, 104; Bartolomeo di Pelliccia, 167–68; Nanni di Ceci, 163; Pelliccia (Cione), 6, 21; Rinieri di Pelliccia, 190 Ghibellines and Guelfs, 6, 9, 119 Ghirigora da Brescia, 18, 36–38, 41 Ginevra. See Datini, Ginevra Giovanni (Nanni) di Luca Bencivenni. See Fattorino Girolli, Arnaldo, 157, 191, 194 Girolli, Jacopo (Giacchi), 156–60 godparents, 15–16, 115, 182 Guadagni, Margherita (Ghita), Vieri and Bernardo, 104–5 Guasti, Cesare, 3–4, 194 Guelfo Pugliese, Messer, 121–24, 129–30 Guido di Sandro Pieri, 55, 69, 95–96, 114, 142, 167 Guido del Palagio, 57, 115, 129–33, 169–70 Hayez, Jrộme, 3–4, 105–6, 111, 254n13 Harris, Barbara, 226n15 Haas, Louis, 15 health. See Datini, Margherita: health; medical care honor, 52–53, 103, 191; female sexual honor, 44–45, 53–54, 131–33, 186, 199–200; resulting from competence and efficiency, 52–53, 110, 199 horses and mules, 64, 167, 171 Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova, 188, 192 fig. 10, 192–94 Hospital of the Innocenti (Innocenti), 193

inheritance, 156–64, 167, 183 illegitimacy See children, illegitimate interest, charging. See loans: interest James, Carolyn, 233n33 kinship relations, 11, 218n19; casa, patrilineal family, 150–51; family, definition of, 89; in-laws and female line, 150–61, 191; mother, 90, 155–59; sister and sister, 151–55, 246n10; sister and brother, 150, 162–66, 176, 190–91. See also godparents Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane, 15, 107, 115, 139 Kuehn, Thomas, 52, 233n33 Lapa (wife of Niccolò di Piero), 24, 26, 60 letter writing: ars dictaminis vs. merchant style, 78, 147–48, 245n64; autograph letters, 78, 136–38, 143–49; characteristics of the Datini correspondence, 4–5, 25, 77–78, 80, 195, 197; dictation and scribal letters, 30–31, 130–34, 149, 171; letters Margherita and Francesco sent in each other’s names, 77, 105–6; letter writing as Margherita’s duty, 135–36, 148, 203; Margherita’s correspondence with men aside from Francesco, 138, 143, 164, 191; Margherita’s correspondence with women, 80, 138, 142, 203; social importance of letters, 80, 99, 105–6, 203 Lionardo di Ser Tommaso di Giunta, 178–79, 181–82, 183, 187, 189, 191, 194 literacy; education, boys, 97, 145–46; education, girls, 140–41; female literacy, numeracy, 81–82; female literacy, reading, 30, 138–43, 203, 243n22, 244n37; female literacy, writing, 143–49; partial and full literacy, 135, 202–3; teaching methods, 136, 140, 203–4 Page 274 → loans: interest, 82–83, 86–87, 202; Margherita and debt collecting, 84–88; religious attitudes, 83 Lodovico de Ser Jacopo Villani, 85–87 Lorenzo Sassoli, 189 Luca Del Sera, 153, 181, 183, 185, 251n49; as executor, 183, 185–86; his marriage, 175, 177; and Margherita, 183, 185–87, 189–91, 193–94 Lucia, 42–45, 167, 186 magnates, 6, 9, 122 Manno dell’Albizzo degli Agli, 43, 153, 169, 175 marriage: arranging, 8, 12, 106–7, 176–78, 196; celebrations, 10, 178–79; 240n19; ideas about, 13, 45, 176–77, 196; love, 13, 18, 57–58; wife/husband roles, 13, 21–23, 51, 54, 112, 117, 134, 154. See also Datini marriage Mazzei, Bartola, 112–14 Mazzei, Piero (Peraccino), 97, 145–46, 149 Mazzei, Ser Lapo, 72, 87, 97, 147–48, 178–79, 181; background and family, 43, 111–12, 169; as executor and in the Ceppo, 115, 183–84, 186; and Margherita, 58, 113, 141–43, 168–71, 188; and religion, 115–16, 173–74, 184

medical care, 18, 22–23, 42, 46–47, 65, 90, 170. See also Datini, Margherita: health Melis, Federigo, 3 Miglio, Louisa, 139 Monte d’Andrea Angiolini, 20, 33, 42, 59; and Margherita, 14–15, 23, 25, 115 Morelli, Giovanni, 139 Naddino Bottivieri, Maestro, 22, 46–47, 159 Najemy, John, 221n39 Nanni, Paolo, 4 Nanni di Martino di Pagno, 45, 69, 70, 97, 167 Niccolaio Martini, 110, 115, 121–23, 126–28 Niccolo di Piero di Giunta, 24, 71, 97, 169, 174–75, 178, 201; and Francesco, 19, 58–59, 121, 128; and Margherita, 58–59, 108, 115 Niccolozzo Binducchi, 11–12, 16, 22 Nigro, Giampiero, 3, 153 notaries. See Ser Baldo; Ser Chimenti; Ser Lapo Mazzei; Ser Schiatta nuns, 41, 43, 95, 138–39, 143, 179 oral vs.written communication, 5, 32 Origo, Iris, 1, 3, 11, 91, 143, 247n21 Pagliano, Antonio, 2 painters and paintings, 60–61, 62–63, 72, 185–87 Palazzo Datini a Prato, 3 Palco villa and the farms at Palco and Fillettole: the farms, 45, 70–72, 135; the villa, 64, 72, 75–76, 112–13, 189, 191 Paolo da Certaldo, 57, 139, 226n25 Piaciti, Bindo, 42, 191, 193–94 Piaciti, Caterina Bandini, 151, 168 Piaciti family, 151, 246n3 Piera di Pratese Boschetti, 8, 11–12, 14, 16, 20, 34 Piero di Filippo Milanese, 28–31 Piero di Giunta di Rosso, 10–11, 19, 40

Piero di Strenna, 44 Pisa, 153; Datini company in Pisa, 18, 23, 153, 175; Margherita’s time in Pisa, 24–26 Pistoia, 42 podesta. See Prato Prato, 19; Datini companies in Prato, 19–20, 59–60, 174–75; Florentine podesta, 75, 104–6, 129; government, taxation, 119–27, 129–30, 239n5 private and public, 51–52 religion: activities, 17, 46, 48, 141–42, 173–74; beliefs, 38, 43, 115–16; Catholic Church politics, 17, 179–82 Ricasoli, Tita and Contessina d’Albertaccio, 105 Rinaldeschi, Messer Piero, 85–86, 115, 122–30 Rinaldeschi, Caterina, 42, 122 Rinaldeschi, Simona, 87–88, 122 Rinaldeschi family, 122 Romita, 49, 70, 187–88 Rosati, Valeria, 3 Saccente (Meo) di Simone, 71, 98, 167, 235n42 San Francesco church, 40–41, 60–61, 178 Sapori Armando, 3 Schiatta, Ser (Mei Schiatta di Ser Michele), 86, 123–24, 128, 205 Schiatta (laborer), 71 servants and laborers: females, 36–37, 45, 98–102; males, 45, 71, 97–99 Simone Bellandi, 25, 27, 29–30, 97, 136 slaves and slavery, 27–28, 37, 42–44, 101 sleeping arrangements, 33, 42 Page 275 → Stoldo di Lorenzo, 63, 153, 160–61, 166, 175 Strozzi document collection, ASF, 80 Strozzi, Alessandra, 136, 139, 218n19, 227n47, 237n15 Strozzi, Nofri di Palla, 106, 128 Strozzi, Strozza di Carlo, 91–93, 106

taxes, 72, 124, 161–63, 168–69; Catasto of 1427, 120; estimo, 120, 124–26; forced loan (prestanza), 119–26, 130 Tecchini, Caterina (Tina), 151, 154; childhood, 63, 90–93, 95, 140–41, 170; marriage and adulthood, 175–77, 191, 193 Tecchini, Francesca Bandini, 8, 136, 170, 173–74; and Margherita, 46, 133, 151–55, 164, 170, 246n10. See also dowry: Francesca Tecchini, Niccolò dell’Ammanato, 136–37, 151–55, 170, 176; attitudes to love, marriage, and childbearing, 13–14, 16, 18, 152–53; and the Bandini relatives, 156–63; and Francesco Datini, 37, 153–54, 161–62, 164; and Margherita, 14, 18, 36, 39, 120, 137–38; and religion, 173–74 Tecchini, Piero di Matteo, 176–77 Tecchini, Tomaso (Maso), 89–90, 176 Tecchini family, 89, 152, 246n11 Tieri de’ Benci, 13, 28 time, importance of, 54–55, 147 Toccafondi, Diana, 3 Torelli, Messer Torello, 185–86, 189 travel between Prato and Florence, 63–64, 81, 145 Trexler, Richard, 112, 115, 238n41 Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher, 226n15 Valori, Alessandro, 53–54 Vespasiano da Bisticci, 139 Villani, Giovanni, 141 Visconti, Gian Galeazzo. See war: between Florence and Milan war: between Florence and Milan, 75–76, 120, 168, 170; War of Eight Saints, 17, 152; wet nurses, 38–40, 107–10 widow, 106, 183–94, 206–7 wife: importance of, 1, 52–53, 198–99; opportunities and limits on, 52–54, 83–86, 121, 201; and property, 13–14, 167, 188–89. See also marriage: wife/husband roles women. See females Page 276 → Page 277 → Page 278 →