In the winter of 1400–1401, the Arte di Calimala, the Florentine guild of cloth merchants who imported and finished foreign cloth, announced a competition. It was one of the city’s oldest and wealthiest trade associations, and the body responsible for the Baptistery. The prize was a commission to create a new set of bronze doors for the Baptistery of San Giovanni, the ancient octagonal building that stood at the civic and ceremonial heart of Florence. Seven sculptors submitted trial panels, each depicting the sacrifice of Isaac. The competitors included Lorenzo Ghiberti, Filippo Brunelleschi, Jacopo della Quercia, and four others. Ghiberti was chosen: by his own account he won outright, though Brunelleschi’s biographer says the commission went to him only after Brunelleschi refused to share the work. The doors he spent the next two decades producing became one of the founding works of the Renaissance, and they won him a second commission: the east doors, finished in 1452, which Michelangelo, as Vasari tells it, judged worthy to be the Gates of Paradise.
The Arte di Calimala was not a new patron. The same guild had commissioned Andrea Pisano’s earlier set of Baptistery doors in 1330, a project completed in 1336. These pre-plague doors were accomplished, prestigious, and entirely legible within the existing logic of Florentine civic life: a powerful merchant guild spending money to decorate a sacred building, thereby purchasing honour for itself and its city, as the 1401 commission would.
In the sixty-five years between the completion of Pisano’s doors and the 1401 competition, the city around them changed: its size, the composition of its wealth, the social logic of public expenditure, and what paying for public art could buy a family in standing, in a city whose population and fortunes had been catastrophically shaken. The puzzle is how those changes produced patronage on this scale.
The Standard Account and Its Gap
The conventional story of the Renaissance is a story about ideas. Classical learning recovered, Greek texts rediscovered or reappraised, the individual lifted from medieval subordination to collective spiritual authority and given a new dignity and intellectual confidence. Humanism, in this telling, arrives as a kind of intellectual dawn, and with it artists, architects, and scholars who happened to be concentrated in Florence and whose genius happened to coincide. The roll call is familiar: Brunelleschi and his mirror experiments with perspective; Donatello’s David, the first freestanding bronze nude since antiquity; the Platonic Academy; Lorenzo de’ Medici writing sonnets while governing a city-state.
This account is not false, but on its own it leaves a question open. Florence in 1300 was already prosperous, home to sophisticated merchants and active artistic production, and a city with pretensions to cultural distinction. The wool and banking trades had generated considerable wealth for over a century before the plague arrived. Historians have long argued about how, or whether, the plague shaped what followed. Millard Meiss claimed that post-plague painting turned more conservative; economic historians saw the Renaissance as investment in culture during hard times; David Herlihy and Samuel Cohn saw the plague as a turning point. Others, such as Katharine Park, conclude that the plague did not radically alter Florence’s social hierarchy or the make-up of its ruling groups. The story of ideas on its own does not explain why the achievement concentrated in fifteenth-century Florence, or why merchant and guild money, already an important source of public patronage before 1348, was able to fund it on such a scale afterwards. There is one possible economic answer, and it begins with the death toll.
Florence’s population in 1338 has been estimated at somewhere between 90,000 and 120,000; the city was by most measures one of the largest and most prosperous in Europe. Within a few years of 1348 the population had fallen, on most estimates, to well under half that figure: a reconstruction from the city’s tax surveys of 1352 gives about 25,000 people, and even that is probably an undercount. Most of the dying happened in a single season: the city lost at least half its inhabitants in 1348 alone; the chronicler Matteo Villani put it at three in every five. That loss, on this reading, is the structural precondition for the Renaissance.
The Demography of Catastrophe
Pre-plague medieval Europe was what economists call a Malthusian regime. Land was constrained, population was large relative to available resources, and this abundance of labour relative to land held wages down. A peasant or a day labourer had very little bargaining power. The work was there; the people to do it were plentiful. In England and much of Western Europe, real wages in the early fourteenth century were compressed to near-subsistence levels without any explicit policy, by the arithmetic of a labour market where supply vastly exceeded effective demand.
The Black Death inverted this arithmetic overnight. Across Europe, recent estimates put the plague’s toll at between 30 and 50 percent of the population, with wide regional variation. Nico Voigtländer and Hans-Joachim Voth argue that the effect outlasted the dying: in northern Europe, land left empty went over to livestock, pastoral farming drew women into paid work, women married later and had fewer children, and so labour stayed scarce and wages stayed high for generations.
Over the following century and a half, more than a thousand English villages were gradually abandoned as survivors moved to better land and better-paid work. Nothing in European history, before or since, compares with the Black Death as a demographic shock.
Florence was not spared. The city lost at least half its population in the initial outbreak, and the plague kept returning: in 1363, 1374, 1383 and 1390, and again in 1399–1400, on the eve of the Baptistery doors competition, when a devastating epidemic killed, by one estimate, a quarter of the city’s remaining inhabitants. By the time the Arte di Calimala issued its competition brief, Florence had been living with recurring demographic shocks for more than fifty years. The adults of Florence in 1401 belonged to generations shaped by recurring plague; the oldest among them still remembered the first outbreak. Many were newcomers, drawn in from the countryside to fill a depopulated city.
Regional variation in mortality
The plague did not kill evenly. Mortality in Scandinavia, particularly Norway, reached catastrophic levels. Some estimates, notably Ole Benedictow's, put Norwegian mortality at 60 percent or more in the initial outbreak; others put Scandinavia at around 50–55 percent. Parts of urban Italy, including Florence, lost half or more of their inhabitants. Other regions, including parts of Central and Eastern Europe such as Poland, appear to have suffered lower mortality, though the estimates there are especially uncertain. This variation matters for understanding why Italy, and specifically the densely networked merchant cities of Tuscany, became the epicentre of the economic and cultural effects that followed. Where mortality was high and the trading houses, banks and guilds survived it, wealth could change hands fast and institutions could adapt; regions that were less urban, or less devastated, had neither the shock nor the machinery.The Wage Revolution
“The humble turned up their noses at employment,” records the cathedral priory chronicle of Rochester, written no later than 1350, “and could scarcely be persuaded to serve the eminent unless for triple wages.” The chronicle’s tone is one of moral outrage. What it documents is a sudden reversal in the labour market: where there had been many workers chasing limited work, there were now few workers and abundant unfilled positions.
When half the workforce dies, the survivors can negotiate, because the fields still need ploughing and the cloth still needs weaving. The work did not disappear with the workers, and so wages rose.
In Florence, a provision of July 1349, passed while the city was at war, allowed the pay of the city’s infantrymen to rise, citing “inopiam personarum”, a dearth of men. More broadly, the authorities accommodated the new reality in town while resisting it in the countryside: urban wages were allowed to rise, while rural labourers who left their farms were fined. The real wages of unskilled workers in Florence rose by 87 percent between 1348 and 1350, against 27 percent for skilled workers. The historian William Caferro adds a caution: the wages of the city’s public workforce did not always follow the simple supply-and-demand pattern that plague models predict, and the nominal pay of the city’s cavalry, for instance, did not change at all between 1349 and 1350.
England tried legislating its way back to the old equilibrium. An Ordinance of June 1349, reinforced as the Statute of Labourers in 1351, set maximum wages at pre-plague levels and made it illegal to pay more or to demand more. The statute was enforced, in waves, for decades, and it failed: the real day wages of English farm labourers roughly doubled between the 1350s and the 1450s. The conditions the law was written against could not be reversed by decree. The Rochester chronicler’s outrage captures what the legislation was responding to: a world in which deference had become negotiable because labour, for the moment, was scarce.
Samuel Cohn, who compared the labour laws passed across western Europe after 1348, finds that they did not follow logically from the new balance of labour supply and demand. They reflected elite anxiety, specifically fear of class inversion: the ruling classes’ fear of the “greed” and new power of working people, the same post-plague anxiety that fed the flagellant movement and the persecution of Jews, Catalans and beggars.
The Statute of Labourers and the politics of wage suppression
The English Statute of Labourers (1351) is often cited as evidence of elite resistance to post-plague wage increases, but its history complicates any simple narrative. The statute was enforced, mainly through royal justices: vigorously in the early 1350s, when fines from offenders were used to offset local tax bills, and in waves after later epidemics. But enforcement was patchy: the great majority of manor courts never prosecuted under it at all. It was not a dead letter, yet the wage trend it was designed to reverse continued regardless. Cohn's explanation is that the legislation was never primarily about efficient labour market management; its purpose was holding working people in their place. The courts could not stop servants from earning more, but they could prosecute them for demanding it. The Italian case differs from the English one in significant ways. Florentine guilds operated under different institutional frameworks, and the city-state political structure created different pressure points, which is part of why the Italian and English post-plague trajectories diverge.Measured over the long run, post-plague wage levels were exceptional, and historians have sometimes called the century after the plague a “golden age” for wage-earners. The label is still debated, since the wage series cover only some workers and say nothing about how many days a year they could find work. On inequality, the Italian tax records yield two readings. Samuel Cohn identifies roughly 1375 to 1475 as the longest measurable spell in which the gap between rich and poor narrowed; Guido Alfani dates the decline from the plague itself and finds it lasting about a century in most places, though in Tuscany inequality began creeping back from the 1370s.
Wealth Redistribution and the New Merchant Class
Two mechanisms translated demographic catastrophe into a new distribution of wealth, and they did not always pull in the same direction.
The first was the wage revolution described above: over decades of elevated wages, workers and small craftsmen accumulated more surplus than they had in the Malthusian economy of the early fourteenth century. The gains were incremental: the difference between subsistence and a modest surplus, sustained across a century.
The second mechanism was faster: inheritance. When half a city dies in a few years, surviving members of a household inherit earlier and inherit more. A merchant family that in 1347 expected to divide a modest estate among four adult children might, by 1351, have consolidated that estate in one survivor, who had also inherited from relatives on the collateral line. Multiply this pattern across a city of merchants and guild members and some families emerged far richer than they had expected to be. But the overall effect of inheritance ran in both directions: under Italy’s partible inheritance customs, the plague also broke up large estates and brought property to many people who had never owned it.
The best evidence for post-plague levelling comes from Italy: the tax records of Tuscan towns such as Prato and San Gimignano show wealth becoming markedly more equal after 1348. Yet Tuscany was also where inequality began rising again earliest, from the 1370s, and over the following generations Italian elites adopted legal devices such as the fideicommissum, which tied family property to a line of heirs and helped protect large estates from fragmentation in later epidemics.
None of this requires post-plague Florence to have become more unequal. It requires something narrower: that the surviving merchant families and the guilds they ran still commanded large, liquid fortunes and corporate funds, in a city with fewer people to share them. The Arte di Calimala, which dealt in imported foreign cloth, and the Arte della Lana, which ran the city’s wool-cloth industry, were such bodies. How far their funds grew per member after 1348 is an inference; the evidence here does not establish it.
A cultural dimension sits alongside the economic one. Across post-plague Europe, elites responded to rising wages and eroding status barriers with a wave of sumptuary laws, which regulated who could wear what and were aimed largely at the newly prosperous lower orders. In Florence the people writing such laws were themselves merchants: the old magnate families had been shut out of government since the Ordinances of Justice of 1293. Status competition in post-plague Florence played out largely among merchant families, the established and the newly enriched alike, and art, architecture and public commission were among its arenas.
From Capital to Patronage
The Arte di Calimala did not commission the Baptistery doors in 1401 because of the plague. The guild members sitting on the commission were thinking about civic honour, the glory of Florence, their own reputations, and the correct subject matter for a competition brief. No document from the period connects the commission to the wage revolution or the inheritance windfalls of the preceding decades. The connection lies in the conditions under which the guild made its decision, not in anything its members intended.
What the guild could draw on by 1401 was the wealth of a merchant community that had survived repeated demographic shocks while the commercial infrastructure around it slowly adapted to a reduced but still functional city. The scale of the commission, with seven sculptors competing before a jury for a bronze programme of significant scope, depended on that wealth. The competitive logic of the commission, the very ambition of inviting comparison among the best available artists, belonged to a society in which merchants claimed standing by paying for public art.
What changed after the plague was the scale, competitive intensity and social stakes of merchant patronage. In a city where mass death had thinned old families, broken lines of succession and drawn in newcomers from the countryside, public patronage was one of the most visible ways for the newly prosperous, and for established families intent on keeping their place, to claim the civic standing that a family name alone no longer guaranteed.
The Medici came later, as the mature expression of this logic. Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici was born around 1360, a dozen years into the post-plague world. He learned banking in the firm of his kinsman Vieri di Cambio, founded his own bank in 1397, and built it above all on business with the papal court; wool workshops came afterwards, as investments of the bank. He also sat on the jury of the 1401 Baptistery competition. His son Cosimo de’ Medici used the profits of that banking operation to commission Brunelleschi’s architectural projects, Donatello’s sculpture, and Fra Angelico’s paintings. The Medici’s patronage was political and social strategy: in Florence, cultural authority had become a leading form of non-coercive power. Cosimo understood that the man who built the best buildings and filled the best chapels was accumulating a kind of authority that rival families could not easily counter, however old their name.
The Decameron as cultural symptom
Giovanni Boccaccio wrote the Decameron in the years immediately after the plague, between about 1349 and the early 1350s. Its framing narrative, in which a group of Florentine survivors retreat to a villa outside the city to tell each other stories while the plague rages, places the work explicitly in the moment of catastrophe. The Decameron is widely recognised as the founding achievement of Italian prose literature and the most influential model for secular narrative in the European tradition that followed. Its comic, erotic, satirical and worldly subject matter reflects a sensibility that found the old frameworks of spiritual authority inadequate to what had just happened. If post-plague Florence created the material conditions for Renaissance patronage, the Decameron is early evidence that it also created the cultural conditions for Renaissance humanism: a secular confidence, a willingness to find the human rather than the divine at the centre of the story, that the plague seems to have intensified rather than extinguished.The Limits of the Mechanism
Economics explains the conditions that made the 1401 commission possible: the capital, the social pressure to spend it publicly, the shaken city in whose admiration the Arte di Calimala was investing. It does not explain, and does not try to explain, why Ghiberti’s winning panels look the way they do.
That question belongs to art history, and art history has good tools for it. The recovery of specific classical models, the influence of Hellenistic sculpture, the particular training and temperament of the artists involved, the iconographic traditions they were working within and against: none of this is legible from wage series or inheritance records. Later in the century, Greek scholars, teaching in Florence from 1397 and arriving in greater numbers after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, brought manuscripts that changed what Florentine humanists could read and what Florentine artists could see. Individual genius mattered as well. The perspective revolution that Brunelleschi worked out with a mirror and a painting of the Baptistery was an insight that required Brunelleschi himself, with his formation in mathematics and his restlessness with received visual conventions, and no shift in wages or inheritance accounts for it.
This is a hypothesis about preconditions, not a claim of sufficient cause, and historians who doubt that the plague changed Florence’s social hierarchy or its ruling groups would not grant even that much. On this reading, the post-plague reshuffling of wealth and population supplied the money, and the rivalry, within which the Renaissance became possible. It did not determine what the Renaissance would look like, whose work would survive, or which ideas would dominate. Wage data can explain why someone was willing and able to commission the Primavera, but not the painting itself.
The Patrons of Florence
In 1474, Sandro Botticelli completed a large panel depicting Saint Sebastian for the church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Florence. The painting was set up in the church on 20 January 1474, the feast day of Saint Sebastian, who was among the most invoked of plague intercessors, the saint who, in visual tradition, absorbed the arrows of divine wrath into his own body so that others might be spared. No document records why it was commissioned, but in a city that had lived with plague for over a century, the choice of saint and day is unlikely to have been accidental.
The patrons of post-plague Florence knew what the plague was. They had grown up with it. The cloth merchants behind the 1401 Baptistery doors competition belonged to generations that had lived through the outbreaks that returned every decade or so, striking families and guilds across the city, and the severe epidemic of 1399–1400, on the eve of the competition, would have been a recent and specific loss for many of them.
What they could not have seen was how far that survival had shaped the prosperity underwriting their patronage. If the argument here is right, the guild treasury that funded Ghiberti’s commission was larger, per surviving member, than it would have been in a city that had not lost half its population, and the pressure to spend it publicly came from a world in which plague had thinned the old families and pulled strangers into their places.
The Baptistery
Return to the Baptistery in 1401, as the jury weighs the panels and settles on Ghiberti’s. The decision to fund this project at this moment and at this scale, and to organise it as an open competition rather than a direct commission, was made by men whose working lives had been spent amid recurring catastrophe and its aftermath, in a city whose population had been cut by at least half. The pressure to commission rather than hoard, and to compete in public rather than consolidate privately, came from a status economy in which standing had to be displayed to be secure.
The Black Death killed tens of millions of people across Europe. It obliterated families, ended lineages, collapsed communities, and left survivors with forms of trauma that contemporary accounts record without being able to name. Florence in 1402 was a smaller, diminished version of the city of 1338.
None of that dictated what the Renaissance would be. It happened in the world the Black Death made: the wage regime it created, the fortunes it broke up and remade, the families it thinned and the newcomers it drew in, the anxiety about standing it produced in survivors who were now rich enough, and precarious enough, to commission their way to permanence.
Ghiberti spent twenty-one years on the first set of doors. The Arte di Calimala then commissioned a second set, which Michelangelo, as Vasari tells it, looked at and named. The money to make them came, at several removes, from a city that had been halved and had spent the decades since filling again with newcomers from the countryside.
Gen AI Disclaimer
Some contents of this page were generated and/or edited with the help of a Generative AI.
Media
Key Sources and References
The Baptistery doors and Florentine art
Oberer, Angela. “Ghibertis Hommage an Brunelleschi.” kunsttexte.de 4/2014 (winter 1400/1401 announcement; contract 1403; installation 1424). edoc.hu-berlin.de (PDF) https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/server/api/core/bitstreams/a504b8d3-0972-42c5-aa28-b267f2db0e7d/content
Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art. The Gates of Paradise (north doors after 1401; east doors 1425–1452). nelson-atkins.org https://nelson-atkins.org/gates-of-paradise/
PBS, Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance. Ghiberti (the two sets of doors; Giovanni de’ Medici on the selection committee). pbs.org https://www.pbs.org/empires/medici/renaissance/ghiberti.html
Utah Education Network open textbook. Lorenzo Ghiberti, Filippo Brunelleschi, and the Competition Panels. uen.pressbooks.pub https://uen.pressbooks.pub/arth2720/chapter/ghilberti-and-brunelleschi/
Villani, Giovanni. Villani’s Chronicle, trans. Rose E. Selfe, ed. Philip H. Wicksteed (1906) (the Calimala and the Baptistery; the Ordinances of Justice). Project Gutenberg https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33022
Palazzo Medici Riccardi Mediateca. Sandro Botticelli, chronology (San Sebastiano placed in Santa Maria Maggiore, 20 January 1474). palazzomediciriccardi.it https://mediateca.palazzomediciriccardi.it/Personaggi/sandro-botticelli-detto-alessandro-filipepi/
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie. Botticelli, Der heilige Sebastian (1474). smb.museum https://search.smb.museum/object/obj-864864
Brown University, Decameron Web. Boccaccio’s Life and Works. brown.edu https://webhelper.brown.edu/decameron/boccaccio/life1_en.php
Treccani, Enciclopedia on line. Crisolòra, Manuele (taught Greek in Florence from 1397). treccani.it https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/manuele-crisolora/
World History Encyclopedia. Renaissance Humanism. worldhistory.org https://www.worldhistory.org/Renaissance_Humanism/
Plague and population in Florence
Park, Katharine. Doctors and Medicine in Early Renaissance Florence. Princeton University Press, 1985 (outbreak chronology; immigration; limited change to the social hierarchy). Introduction, publisher preview (PDF) https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781400855001_A23704374/preview-9781400855001_A23704374.pdf
Cohn, Samuel K. “The Black Death: collapse, resilience, transformation” (2023), author’s accepted version (Florentine population estimates). University of Glasgow (PDF) https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/292026/2/292026.pdf
Brown University, Decameron Web. Death toll (Matteo Villani’s three in five). brown.edu https://webhelper.brown.edu/decameron/plague/effects/death_toll.php
Gilbert, Felix. “The Other Florence.” New York Review of Books, 9 October 1986. nybooks.com https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1986/10/09/the-other-florence/
Wages, labour law and inequality
Jedwab, Remi, Noel D. Johnson, and Mark Koyama. “The Economic Impact of the Black Death.” Journal of Economic Literature 60, no. 1 (2022), pp. 132–178. DOI 10.1257/jel.20201639 · working-paper version (GWU, PDF) https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20201639 · https://www2.gwu.edu/~iiep/assets/docs/papers/2020WP/JedwabIIEP2020-14.pdf
Caferro, William. “Petrarch’s War: Florentine Wages and the Black Death.” Speculum 88, no. 1 (2013), pp. 144–165. DOI 10.1017/S003871341300050X · earlier working paper, “Florentine Wages at the Time of the Black Death” (Yale, PDF) https://doi.org/10.1017/S003871341300050X · https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/florence_wages-caferro.pdf
Caferro, William. Petrarch’s War: Florence and the Black Death in Context. Cambridge University Press, 2018. introduction excerpt (PDF) https://assets.cambridge.org/97811084/24011/excerpt/9781108424011_excerpt.pdf
Horrox, Rosemary, ed. and trans. The Black Death. Manchester University Press, 1994 (includes the account in the cathedral priory chronicle at Rochester, written no later than 1350). Passage quoted in: Christine R. Johnson, “How the Black Death made life better.” Washington University in St. Louis https://humanities.washu.edu/news/how-black-death-made-life-better
The Statute of Laborers, 1351. Avalon Project, Yale Law School https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/statlab.asp
Bailey, Mark. “The implementation of national labour legislation in England after the Black Death, 1349–1400.” Economic History Review 78 (2025), pp. 529–552. DOI 10.1111/ehr.13355 · open-access copy (UEA, PDF) https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13355 · https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/95111/1/Bailey_2025_TheEconomicHistoryReview.pdf
Cohn, Samuel K. “After the Black Death: labour legislation and attitudes towards labour in late-medieval western Europe.” Economic History Review 60, no. 3 (2007), pp. 457–485. DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0289.2006.00368.x · abstract (IDEAS/RePEc) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2006.00368.x · https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ehsrev/v60y2007i3p457-485.html
Clark, Gregory. “The Long March of History: Farm Laborers’ Wages in England 1208–1850.” Working paper, UC Davis (published in revised form in Economic History Review, 2007). ucdavis.edu (PDF) https://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/long_march_of_history.pdf
Allen, Robert C. “The Great Divergence in European Wages and Prices from the Middle Ages to the First World War.” Explorations in Economic History 38, no. 4 (2001), pp. 411–447. DOI 10.1006/exeh.2001.0775 https://doi.org/10.1006/exeh.2001.0775
Voigtländer, Nico, and Hans-Joachim Voth. “How the West ‘Invented’ Fertility Restriction.” American Economic Review 103, no. 6 (2013), pp. 2227–2264. DOI 10.1257/aer.103.6.2227 · NBER working paper (PDF) https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.6.2227 · https://www.nber.org/papers/w17314.pdf
Cohn, Samuel K. Paradoxes of Inequality in Renaissance Italy. Cambridge University Press, 2021. cambridge.org https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/abs/paradoxes-of-inequality-in-renaissance-italy/A7185F6DCE349C6001128B0231398119
Alfani, Guido. “Epidemics, Inequality, and Poverty in Preindustrial and Early Industrial Times.” Journal of Economic Literature 60, no. 1 (2022), pp. 3–40. DOI 10.1257/jel.20201640 · working-paper version (GWU, PDF) https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20201640 · https://www2.gwu.edu/~iiep/assets/docs/papers/2020WP/JedwabIIEP2020-16.pdf
Alfani, Guido, and Francesco Ammannati. “Long-term trends in economic inequality: the case of the Florentine state, c. 1300–1800.” Economic History Review 70, no. 4 (2017), pp. 1072–1102. DOI 10.1111/ehr.12471 · working-paper version (RePEc) https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.12471 · https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/dondonwpa/070.htm
Scheidel, Walter. The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.
The Medici bank
PBS, Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance. God’s Bankers. pbs.org https://www.pbs.org/empires/medici/medici/bankers.html
de Roover, Raymond. The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank, 1397–1494. Harvard University Press, 1963.
Historiography named in the text
Meiss, Millard. Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death. Princeton University Press, 1951.
Herlihy, David. The Black Death and the Transformation of the West. Harvard University Press, 1997.
Cohn, Samuel K. The Black Death Transformed: Disease and Culture in Early Renaissance Europe. London: Arnold, 2002.
