The Merchant of Prato

Nigel Morton

Fascinating details about the textile industry 600 years ago are contained in Iris Origo’s book The Merchant of Pruto. The legen- dary merchant was a 14th century Dick Whittington, dyehouse owner and trading magnate. Using the book as a basis, Nigel Morton looks at the relationship between textile processing then and now.

Many years ago, my wife bought a copy of The Merchant of Prato, written by Iris Origo and published by Penguin Books in its Peregrine paperback series [I]. I see from the fly leaf that it cost €1.95, obviously not new, as it was printed in 1963. Never was money better spent.

The book is a scholarly account of the papers of Francesco di Marco Datini, which he bequeathed to the poor of Prato at his death on 16 August 1410 -along with his house in Prato and 70 OOO gold florins! So impressed was I with the story of the Merchant of Prato and the cloth trade, and the similarities of commerce and industry at points in time almost 600 years apart, that I requested and was given permission by Penguin Books to use chapter 2 as the basis for this article.

There is much more in the book than I precis here for readers of thelournul, and I can only advise searching out a copy.

In the name of God and of profit Prato, an Italian city in the plain of Florence, is still busy with textiles. Legend has it that a merchant of Rat0 was the Italian equivalent of Dick Whittington, as both became rich by their cat ridding far off lands (in the Italian legend, the Canary Isles) of rodents, and being richly rewarded by their respective kings. The Merchant of Rato in the legend was Francesco di Marco Datini.

Born iri 1335, and orphaned in 1348, in 1349 or so he went to Florence, and then at the age of 15 to Avignon. By 1361 he was an established merchant, trading first in armour and arms, then salt, cloth, silks, spices, money, works of art, French enamels, wine, saffron and many other commodities - and leather, dyes and wool. This was, altogether, a very diverse range of merchanted goods, and he traded very profitably. On 8 December 1382, Francesco departed from Avignon, leaving 3866 gold florins as his trading capital in a partnership with two of his

employees, and returned to Prato, arriving on 19 January 1383.

First mention of Prato was some 350 years earlier, and by 1108 there was a fulling mill on the river Bisenzio, with nearby Monteferrato providing a ‘very dark slimy earth‘ for fulling. The plentiful water supply developed the wool trade and its factories, marked even today by the names of the workers’ trades. Where riches are amassed, envy is also present and Prato had lost its independence to Florence by the time Francesco arrived.

What do we get if we compare and contrast the cloth trade of 1382 and today - 611 years later? There were green canals with fulling mills and dyeing sheds upon their banks - who would say, even today, that these could not be found somewhat nearer home? There were anti-pollution laws - the tanner could spread his skins in the street to dry ’but not, by statute, too near any spring or fountain’. Fullers and

dyers could use the canals to wash their cloth and wool, ’except during vintage, when all the water was needed for wine- making‘, but they were always to stretch rakes across the canal to prevent blockage of the waterway. The cloth guild, the ‘Arte della Lana’, was a combination of CBI and Union. Membership was essential for progress in life and full citizenship. Not so extreme today perhaps - but it helps!

Prato’s Arte della Lana determined all rights and privileges, administered and set the rules, fined transgressors, settled arguments and even recovered stolen goods. Guild officials were appointed: ‘measurers were responsible for the correct measuring of the cloth on official yard sticks’, and appraisers of damage ‘looked into complaints about ill-woven or ill-dyed cloth or yam’ or ‘wool not up to sample’ - surely BS 5750, TQM, or arbitration at least. Job description was covered in the statutes, from wool sorting right through all stages of processing to ‘pressing, folding for packing‘.

Early independence amongst the craftsmen had disappeared by the time of Francesco. The wool merchant had become an entrepreneur on a big scale, having absorbed the wool sellers and the yam sellers, and employing a wide range of craftsmen. Here there was job grading ranging from washers and carders through ’spinners, warpers and weavers (almost all women)’. Then came dyers, whose own guild had been ’absorbed into the Arte della Lana, and finally the finishers, who had their own workshops and tools and partial independence, a practice which held until at least the Second World War.

The wool merchant was the potentate who controlled production and the livelihood, if not the lives, of those in the industry. Some, for example fullers and folders, were required to put down bail before they were given cloth. Dyers ‘since they showed dangerous tendencies to

JSDC VOLUME~W M~y/Jm1993 183

independence’ got special treatment, viz: Had to swear an oath of fidelity and obedience to the Consuls Were bound to bring back all the cloth and yarn entrusted to them, and not to dye any stuffs except the Guild’s Were told what dyes they could use Were told which sorts of cloth could be dyed with woad or black Were told what type of cover they could use for their vats.

Even the procedure for cloth buying by a merchant from outside Florence or Prato was closely regulated. A broker was chosen by lot; he took the merchant to make the purchase, recorded the quantity, price and colour, and marked the cloth with the Guilds stamp. Fines were also imposed for ‘right first time all the time’ infringements, such as ‘linen that is not supple’ or badly tentered cloth. Lateness was also punished by a fine.

There was one particular area, however, which is in stark contrast to today: enforcing the Guilds statutes relating to religious duties. Holy days were literally holidays with no work, no selling and no exhibition of goods - a far cry from the current Sunday trading debate. On the death of a Guild member, all others were bound ’to follow him in procession to his last resting place’.

It was in these circumstances that Francesco di Marco Datini set up as a merchant in 1383, with partners, and in 1384 he formed a dyeing company with Niccolo di Guinta, a master dyer, ’to supply the foreign wool‘ and ‘to work the stuffs for him (Datini) and for ourselves’. Like many today, the firm lacked capital. Before Francesco came, Niccolb’s father wrote lamenting that lack of capital stopped him from doing well, prices were high and he made a profit of only 50% on each piece! Little wonder that in a ledger begun on 21 August 1384 it is written that every transaction would be carried out ’in the name of God and of profit’.

Niccolo was a ’hands-on’ master dyer, as he tells of an explosion that occurred whilst poling a vat, he and five others avoiding injury. Nevertheless, there is a case for the Health and Safety Executive and industrial injuries benefit, since the man ’feeding the fire was badly hurt’ and for two months he could do nothing, nor earn anythmg.

Niccolb was a woadindigo dyer: ‘a good dyer in woad and every other colour’. Even then they were in short supply. They were used both for self colours and as a basis for other colours in admixture with many natural dyes listed in the book, most of which were in any case imported by Francesco through his own branch companies. It was one of

these, established in Pisa before Francesco returned to Prato, that enabled him to import wools and dyes from abroad.

The local wool was rough, and finer wools were imported from Spain, Africa, Minorca or England. Competition was fierce in the fine wool cloth trade (how is it today, over 600 years later?). In 1396 Niccolb was forced to ask about selling in Catalonia rather than Prato or Florence, owing to merciless competition from Florentine merchants and high duties.

The book gives interesting comments on the buying and importing of English wool, particularly from the Cotswolds. English cloth was also imported, undyed and dyed, export tax on cloth being much lower than on wool. Francesco shipped most of his wool to Italy from England. Employing soldiers with crossbows was a wise precaution against piracy. The book details the dangers and hence delays imposed by these, pointing out that this gave rise to a very great disadvantage of the cloth trade - cash flow difficulties and the complications of such customers and suppliers who would like to have embraced the ’just in time’ approach.

The final pages of chapter 2 of The Merchant of Prato give an enthralling picture of how trading ‘in the name of God and of profit’ was achieved. One transaction is summarised as follows:

15 N m 1394 Order to branch company in Palma di Majorca for wool.

Agent sent to Minorca, who purchased 29 sacks of Minorcan wool and wool fells.

Charter on Spanish ship delayed by storms to end of July Sailed first to Pensicola, then to Barcelona.

Sailed from Barcelona to Porto Pisano accompanied by twelve archers.

Arrived at Porto Pisano. Wool fells sent by land to Pisa. Wool in sacks to Pisa by sea and river. Repacking of wool in Pisa into 39 bales, 21 sent to Florence.

Remaining 18 bales amved at Francesco’s warehouse in Prato.

May 1395

July 1395

2 Sept 1395

22 Oct 1395

14Jun 2396

Then followed the production stages: beating, picking, greasing, washing, combing, carding, spinning (on the distaff by 96 different peasant women on their farms), warping, weaving, burling, shearing (while still damp), tentering, teasling, shearing (again), dyeing (in this case blue), napping, shearing (third time), pressing, and finally folding.

By this time six cloths, each of 35 yards or so, together with five other cloths of Minorcan wool, were packed into two

184 JSDC VOLUME 109 MAY/JUNE 1993

bales for despatch via Majorca for sale in Spain or Barbary. All Tuscan ports were closed to Florentine trade at this time. Thus on 14 July 1396 the two bales, on mule-back, set off over the Appennines via Bologna and Ferrara to Venice, thence by ship, arriving in Palma di Majorca on 1 September 1396, in only seven weeks!

Now to the last stage - sale of finished goods. Market conditions were reported as stagnant due to an outbreak of plague. Furthermore, the colours were not liked (changed fashions, or simply not within AE tolerances?), so all the cloth was sent to Valencia. There, some was sold and the remainder sent to Barbary. Even then part of this came back to Palma. Not until spring 1398 was it all sold, three and a half yeurs after ordering the wool. Rapid response was obviously yet to come.

Gods will is very much evident with regard to shipwreck, piracy, closed ports, plague and the like, but what about the profit? Datini was a canny man, for the tax collectors of Prato reported on his return from Avignon that ‘he is said to be rich, but we see naught of it, save some houses -so to make no error, we set no value on his property’. Would that today’s tax inspector was like-minded! Three years later, Datini’s possessions in Prato alone were declared at 3000 florins. Even then the tax collectors were puzzled. ‘What he owns elsewhere may be worth more or less,’ they wrote, ’we do not know but God does,‘ and locally he was called Francis the Rich!

financial return was worked out in 1954 by Professor Melis as follows:

For the transaction outlined above, the

Raw material costs 15.2% Collectiodoading 0.8% Transport 5.4% Packing 3.5% Insurance 6.1% Warehousing 0.6% Duty paid 10.7% Selling costs 3.1% Manufacturing costs 40.6% Other costs 5.0% Profit 8.9%

As the book says ‘small return for so great and prolonged an effort’. Present day readers may like to compare or contrast this performance with that of today.

Reference 1. I Origo, TheMerchunt ofPruto: Fruncescodi

Murco Datini (London: Penguin Books 1963) [First published by Jonathan Cape, 0 Iris Origo 1957, 19631.

Nigel Morton is chairman of the Society’s Publications Coordination Committee.