ABSTRACT
Historians of material culture are fascinated with the particularities of early modern economic life. They have argued that reducing prices to a single abstract figure or a purchase to a single transaction in time are dangerous simplifications because prices for apparently identical goods varied according to the buyer’s social status or relationship with the seller and because many transactions were spread out over weeks or even months. Historians have cautioned against inferring the business practices of any single artisan from inventories, however. While a large number of inventories may reveal something of the structure of the industry, they do not shed light on crucial dimensions of stock flow. The variable demand structure was not unique to glassmakers like Fidani, but was shared by two cobblers from vastly different socio-economic worlds. An undermonetized economy should probably not bear brunt of the blame, since historians have argued that networks of credit and pawning mitigated the problems of a limited diffusion of currency.
