Standage 1

Quincy Standage

Dr. Wolbrink

HIST 225

3 March 2019

The Florentine Commune: Regulating Illicit Activities During the Renaissance

Lauded for its beauty, the city of Florence through the eyes of Leonardi Bruni, was a

place of civic participation and growth through diligence to the Commune’s regulations (Bruni).

The Florentine Commune facilitated this growth by exercising considerable control over its

citizens. The purpose of regulations was to provide stability and order to the citizens of Florence.

The regulations enacted controlled a wide range of acts from prostitution and gambling to

sodomy and murder. Despite the regulations attempt to cut down on abhorrent activities, they

were responsible for widespread discrimination against women and the Jewish community. The

Commune’s attempt to stabilize Florentine society through economic means and sentencing for

larger crimes demonstrates the use of regulations to guide public behavior. In the fifteenth

century, Florence regulated societal behavior through fines and punishments regarding women’s

garments, the Jewish community, murder, gambling, prostitution, and sodomy to control societal

standards of behavior.

In practice, these laws were often economic mechanisms through taxes and fines. Scholar

Gene Brucker utilizes the Catasto records to demonstrate the Commune primarily regulated

through taxes. The Catasto records display the debts of each household in Florence. These

records demonstrate that taxes were primarily geared towards wealthy families by taxing

women’s fine garments, businesses, and land-holdings. Instituted in 1427, the Catasto required

“each household […] to submit to the fiscal authorities a complete record of his property
 Standage 2

holdings: real estate, communal bonds, cash on hand, investments in businesses, money

borrowed and loaned” (Brucker 1). This resource provides valuable information on how the

Commune was funded in its pursuit of regulations. Another aspect is the way in which

regulations were used to collect money to fund the Commune. For example, a Jew in Florence

who does not wear the designated “O” pin in public must pay 25 lire to the Commune for each

offense (Brucker 242). Another example is the yearly tax on women who wear fine clothes or

jewelry of 50 florins (Brucker 180). Various regulations were often used as mechanisms for

monastery gain to fund the Commune.

Florence employed numerous taxes geared towards the wealthy. Including the 50-florin

yearly tax, women were also fined for various clothing infractions (Brucker 180). A woman by

the name of Monna Bice was fined 37 florins and 10 soldi for wearing over two rings on her

fingers (Brucker 182). Another example is a regulation that does not allow a woman to wear a

silver belt that weighs more the fourteen ounces (Brucker 180). The 50-florin tax included a

clause grandfathering in currently owned garments for un-taxed wear for ten years. This tax was

applied to items of “gold, silver, pearls, precious stones, bells, ribbons of gold or silver, or cloth

of silk” (Brucker 180). The fines ranged from 14 lire to 37 lire and 10 soldi. Another example of

this regulation was Mona Agnella, married into the Medici family, who was prosecuted for

having “sleeves wider than one yard in circumference” and was fined 28 lire (Brucker 182). The

regulation of women’s clothing was largely left to the discretion of the Commune.

The Jewish population in Florence was heavily scrutinized through economic regulations

barring Jews from banking professions and requiring identification in the public sphere.

Primarily due to their fundamental religious beliefs they were not allowed to lend money in

Florence. If a Jewish individual chose to loan money in the banking industry, they were charged
 Standage 3

a 1000 florin fine (Brucker 241). Another regulation was that Jews did not have to wear the “O”

identification sign in or within ten yards of their residence (Brucker 242). Despite these penalties

the Commune was considered more tolerant and did allow the Jewish faith to be practiced in

Florence. This is demonstrated in the statement that “each abovenamed Jew, is to be permitted –

without penalty or prejudice – to preform and recite the ceremonies and offices in the

synagogues and houses in which they live” (Brucker 243). The regulation of Jews was largely

sponsored by a policy of containment of Judaism rather than direct persecution.

The Commune often stepped in to facilitate prosecution and punishment regarding the

acts of murder or violence. Monna Francesca, a citizen of Pistoia, was burned at the stake for

confessing to drowning her illegitimate child, conceived out of wedlock (Brucker 146-147). In

the city of Florence, the Commune also condemned Francesco di Simone Moretti Ruzini to death

after he coerced his step-daughter to marry him and write him into her will (Brucker 140-142).

As the step-daughter was ill from the plague, Ruzini poisoned and killed her. The Commune

often turned to the punishment of death in murder related cases, whether that be through burning

in a wooden cage, burning at the stake, or decapitation. The punishment of death enacted by the

Florentine government was important to maintaining societal standards and norms.

Significantly less threatening than murder, the Commune pursued the sin of gambling in

Florence to maintain the sanctity of the city’s streets. The Commune focused regulations on

“organized” gambling in piazzas and public spaces. Domenico, a Florentine man, operated a

gang notorious for gambling with loaded dice. As a result, he was fined fifty lire for his

operation of gambling (Brucker 185). Another man, Francesco di Gaddo, a shoemaker who ran a

gambling ring was also fined fifty lire for enabling others to gamble. The Commune’s concern

for gambling in public was the fear of its visibility to tourists displaying Florence in a poor light
 Standage 4

(Brucker 186). Florence viewed gambling as a nuisance rather than a major criminal issue due to

the detrimental impact it had on societal behavior (Brucker 179). The Commune was made

aware of gambling matters through public notices by individual citizens. In the case of Francesco

di Gaddo, the notice to the Commune states that gambling “is an infamous thing in this city”

(Brucker 185). This notice also demonstrates the abhorrence of gambling in the public sphere by

asserting “so many foreigners came to Florence, and they all want to visit the [church of the]

Annunziata, and on their way they see this throng of men who assemble there to gamble”

(Brucker 185-186). Cases brought to the Commune regarding gambling were often fined on the

principle of proper public behavior.

The Commune attempted to regulate prostitution because of its view as a public nuisance.

The Commune established two city-state regulated brothels and provided 1000 florins for the

construction of these institutions. Per Florentine regulations, prostitutes were required to wear

“gloves, bells, and high-heeled slippers” (Brucker 195). The Communes primary motive for the

regulations was to conceal acts of prostitution from the public eye. Salvaza, the wife of Seze,

was sentenced to wearing the required prostitute garb after several witnesses, mostly neighbors,

testified to her lascivious behavior (Brucker 192-193). The court gave her eight days to prove her

innocence and despite her attempt to clear her name, she was declared to be a public prostitute

(Brucker 195). Another example is a man named Nicolo di Giunta who coerced women to

prostitute for a 1/3 cut of the women’s earnings (Brucker 196-198). He confessed and was

executed by the court. Instead of banning prostitution, Florence attempted to legalize it in certain

settings to contain the spread of prostitution.

Sodomy, despite being widely practiced, was regulated by the Commune in the fifteenth

century. The Commune authorized public spending of over 500 florins for the purpose of
 Standage 5

investigating sodomy (Brucker 202). One regulation practiced was the requirement for notaries

to inform electors of individuals under investigation for sodomy and warned electors not to vote

for these individuals. Any individual who “again commits or perpetrates the vice of sodomy … is

to be declared a debtor of the Commune of Florence for 100 gold florins” (Brucker 203). An

example of this is with Jacopo di Cristofano who committed sodomy on a coerced child and was

fined 750 lire and whipped through the streets of Florence (Brucker 204-205). Another example

is Piero di Jacopo who committed sodomy and raped a 10-year-old boy (Brucker 205-206). After

having charges brought against him and confessing to this crime he was burned at the stake. The

penalty by the Commune for sodomy ranged from fines to death, demonstrating a wide range in

punishments.

Regulations were perpetually used to shape Florence’s citizens behavior. These

regulations stem from the idea of a right and wrong in how to act in public spaces. In Florence,

the spread of new ideas primarily circulated through public spaces. Therefore, control over the

activities taking place in the public sphere was critical to shaping Florentine society. Scholar

Alison Brown asserts that in Florence “the city’s open streets, piazzas, shops and churches – as

well as its open government – all served as channels through which to diffuse the new ideas”

(Brown 26). This diffusion of ideas is critical to understanding the regulations that the Commune

ultimately promoted. It is important to note that the Commune provided strong civic participation

to the citizens of Florence while upholding standards of behavior for the citizens.
 Standage 6

Works Cited

Brown, Alison. “Big-Business Florence.” The Renaissance. 2nd Ed. Harlow: Longman, 1999. 22-

29.

Brucker, Gene A. The Society of Renaissance Florence. The University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Bruni, Leonardi. In Praise of the City of Florence. Moodle, 1404.