Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
It appears to me that the strength of Professor Weinstein's inquiry is predicated upon the concreteness of his approach and his unwillingness to take refuge in those abstractions which are not infrequently found in the realm of Medieval and Renaissance studies. Therefore, the hypothesis that he advances stems from data, rather than from an unverifiable assumption about the nature of man or of thought in the Quattrocento. Another quality which is evident in his paper is his commitment to a type of research which is essentially an adventure. This figure of speech is intended to suggest that he is trying to isolate and then delineate a problem. In this instance, the unknown quantity is the boundary line that separates the historical from the a-historical. As a result of his search, he is compelled to modify the interpretations of Garin and Cantimori. His explanation is based upon the decisive role that historical circumstance and Florentine tradition (possibly two facets of a single entity) played in forging the prophetic message of Savonarola. Therefore, he locates the center of gravity of the Dominican's teachings “in tempore,” rather than in the a-historical “world of ideas.” For Professor Weinstein, the boundaries of Savonarola's prophecies are generated by “the fervor of daily events.” Not only does this view appear to be valid, for the reasons advanced by the speaker, but there are also factors that are peripheral to his central argument which lend it further authenticity.
1. For cultural manifestations, see Meiss, Millard, Painting in Florence and Siena After the Black Death (Princeton, 1947), PP. 80–93Google Scholar; Antal, F., Florentine Painting and its Social Background (London, 1947), pp. 71–72Google Scholar; Sapegno, N., Storia letteraria d'Italia, il Trecento (Milan, 1934), pp. 528–540Google Scholar; Panella, A., “La guerra degli Otto Santi le vicende delle legge contro i vescovi,” Archivio Storico Italiano, I (1941), pp. 36–45Google Scholar; Becker, M., “Three Cases Concerning the Restitution of Usury in Florence,” Journal of Economic History, (1957), pp. 446–447.Google Scholar
2. Garin, E., L'Umanesimo italiano (Bari, 1952), pp. 38 ffGoogle Scholar.; Valeri, N., L'Italia nell' età dei principati dal 1343 al 1516 (Milan, 1949), p. 206.Google Scholar
3. The displacement of both factions from Florentine political life in 1372, led to an intensification of the power of the state as opposed to the authority of the church. The heightened sense of civic consciousness that evolved parallels that which developed upon the ouster of the Medici in 1494. Cf. especially the minutes of the sessions of the advisory councils in Consulte et Pratiche, vols. 12–15. (All documents cited are to be found in the Archivio di Stato in Florence).
4. Cf. Grundmann, H., “Die papst-prophetien des mittelalters,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, XIX (1928), p. 122Google Scholar; Brucker, G., “Un documento fiorentino sulla guerra, sulla finanza e sulla amministrazione pubblica (1375),” Archivio Storico Italiano, II (1957), pp. 165–176.Google Scholar
5. The Signoria was solicitous in its attitude toward the inquisition and appointed communal syndics to aid the inquisitor in the performance of his functions. cf. Provvisioni, 16, f. 20r; Ibid., 28, f. 8r; Libri Fabarum, 16, I, f. 102.
6. One of the principal motives that animated the passage of these measures was the desire of the Signoria to prevent victims of usurious contracts from making appeals to ecclesiastical courts. Cf. Villani, G., Cronica, ed. Dragomani, F. (Florence, 1844), XII, 44Google Scholar; Rodolico, N., I Ciompi (Florence, 1945), p. 42.Google Scholar
7. Pepo Frescobaldi, a member of the famous aristocratic banking family, was one of the spokesmen for the legislation in question. Cf. Provvisioni Duplicati, 5, f. 54.
8. For a consideration of the problem of representation, see Brucker, G. and Becker, M., “The Arti Minori in Florentine Politics, 1342–1378,” Medieval Studies, XVIII (1956), pp. 96–97.Google Scholar
9. For a detailed analysis of this problem, see Sapori, A., La crisi delle compagnie mercantili dei Bardi e dei Peruzzi (Florence, 1926), pp. 117 ffGoogle Scholar. For a consideration of the pragmatic nature of the Republic's foreign policy, see Rubinstein, N., “Florence and the Despots: Some aspects of Florentine Diplomacy in the Fourteenth Century,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series (1952), vol. 2, pp. 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Cf. Salvemini, G., Magnati e popolani in Firenze dal 1280 al 1295 (Florence, 1899), p. 60Google Scholar; Pieri, Paolino, Cronica delle cose d'Italia, ed. Adami, A. (Rome, 1755), pp. 56–58Google Scholar; Ottokar, N., Il comune di Firenze alla fine del dugento (Florence, 1926), pp. 286–289.Google Scholar
11. According to the testimony of the chronicler Donato Velluti, during his tenure as Gonfaloniere di Giustizia, both factions vied for the favor of the lower orders. Cf. his Cronica domestica, eds. del Lungo, I. and Volpe, G. (Florence, 1914), pp. 240.Google Scholar
12. For the role of this group in communal politics, see Rado, A., Maso degli Albizzi e il parte oligarchie, 1382–1393 (Florence, 1926), pp. 40–45.Google Scholar
13. This was especially true during the era of war with the papacy (1375–78). Cf. Gherardi, A., “La guerra dei Fiorentini con papa Gregorio XI,” Archivio Storico Italiano, V, VIII (1867–1868).Google Scholar
14. Tocco, F., Studi francescani (Naples, 1909), p. 414.Google Scholar
15. For the part that the diffusion of the teachings played in precipitating the revolt of the masses in that year, see Rodolico, N., La democrazia fiorentina nel suo tramonte (1378–1382), (Bologna, 1905), p. 62 ff.Google Scholar
16. For the influence of heretics on the revolutionaries, see Sapori, A., Compagnie e mercanti di Firenze antica (Florence, 1955), p. LXXXVIGoogle Scholar; Gukowski, M. A., “Chi fu a capo della sommosa dei Ciompi?” Studi in Onore di Armando Sapori (Milan, 1957), pp. 710–713Google Scholar. It should also be noted that members of the patriciate cooperated with the regime of the minuti and minori and assumed communal office. There were individuals from the Acciaiuoli, Antella, Bardi, Bondelmonti, Medici, Pazzi, Peruzzi and other eminent Florentine families.
17. Provvisioni, 71, fols. 175r-176r (13 December 1382). The Spirituals had considerable support in the legislative councils. On the preceding day, the measure “contra fraticellos” had been rejected. (Libri Fabarum, 41, f. 77). It barely managed to secure the required two thirds majority. The votes in the two councils were 179–81 and 104–52.
18. Consulte et Pratiche, 25, f. 56r (9 April 1386); idem, 26, f. 182 (18 March 1388).
19. Baron, Hans, “Franciscan Poverty and Civic Wealth as Factors in the Rise of Humanism,” Speculum, XIII (1938), p. 16.Google Scholar
20. For a review of this type of historiography, see Rodolico, N., I Ciompi, pp. VII–XVI.Google Scholar
21. This was true especially in cases involving a charge of usury. Statuti Populi Communis Florentiae (Freiburg, 1715), bk. II, rub. 18, pp. 123–124Google Scholar. In 1435 the Medicean Signoria suspended the law against dry exchange. Provvisioni, 126, fols. 313r-314; Libri Fabarum, f. 42.
22. See the evaluation of the landed patrimony of the clergy that the comune made for the purpose of tax assessment in Canestrini's, G., La scienza e l'arte di stato dagli atti ufficiali della repubblica fiorentina e dei Medici (Florence, 1862), p. 152.Google Scholar
23. E. Garin, op. cit., pp. 51–53.
