In the War of Chianti, has the last battle been fought? Is there a path for the original Chianti to regain its exclusive name and identity? Could Chianti wine once again be associated solely with its geographic place of origin, the true territory of Chianti? The political comprises of the 1930s and 1960s that created External Chianti were memorialized in law—not carved in stone. When these compromises were made, the existence and content of Cosimo III’s bando of September 24, 1716, delimiting Chianti as a wine region were not put into evidence. In the absence of this proof of Chianti’s legitimacy as a legally delimited wine zone, the Italian government agreed to the creation of External Chianti for expedient commercial reasons. It is an established legal principle that if material evidence is withheld from the trier of fact in a legal proceeding and then comes to light, the probability that it would have been an important factor in the deliberations is the basis for the declaration of a mistrial and the granting of a motion for a new trial. And this bando has already been used as legal evidence to secure designation of origin protection for another appellation. In the mid-1970s, Ugo Contini Bonacossi of the Capezzana estate specifically relied on it as the historical precedent for securing the Carmignano DOC from Italy’s Ministry of Agriculture. In fact, the Capezzana wines Barco Reale and Ghiaie della Furba are named after places that the bando mentions in its delimitation of Carmignano.
In the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the creation of the European Union and the evolution of EU laws protecting designations of origin and geographical indications on agricultural products such as wine should call into question whether External Chianti’s use of the name Chianti to identify both its wine (including Chianti Superiore) and its self-proclaimed “places of Chianti” is consistent with these laws and related multilateral treaties.1 Article 7(2) of the EU’s Commission Regulation no. 607/2009 of July 14, 2009, expressly requires a wine product that carries a protected “designation of origin” (denominazione di origine protetta, or DOP, in Italian), to have a link to a specific geographical area and a quality or characteristics that are “essentially or exclusively attributable to the geographical environment.”2 On March 27, 2015, for the first time in the history of Italian law, the region of Tuscany legally identified “Chianti” as a distinct “landscape” (or “piano di indirizzo territoriale”),3 pursuant to the European Landscape Convention, which was opened for signature in Florence on October 20, 2000, and defines a “landscape” as “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.”4 This definition of the Chianti landscape substantially mirrors the delimitation of the Chianti Classico appellation.5 The preamble to the Landscape Convention expressly recognizes a legally defined landscape, such as Chianti, as “a basic component of the European natural and cultural heritage” which should be protected. This protection should logically extend to the wine, olive oil, and other agricultural products that are the fruits of the landscape and its natural and cultural heritage. To this end, the Chianti Classico consortium and Chianti’s Fondazione per la Tutela del Territorio (Foundation for the protection of the territory) in 2016 initiated the application process to obtain a UNESCO World Heritage Site designation for the wine production area of Chianti.
How can the Italian national laws from the 1930s and 1960s that extended the right to use the name Chianti to the multiple subzones of External Chianti (which are outside the geographic area of Chianti), based on the legal construct of marketplace typicity (vino tipico) as opposed to a true typicity of place (indicazione d’origine), be reconciled with the EU’s modern regime of laws and judicial decisions protecting both designations of origin and defined landscapes?
In a 1996 case, the Italian Supreme Court upheld the legal concept of origin for agricultural products, explaining that “the reason for affording protection [for designations of origin] lies in the fact that the product draws a particular character from its place of origin. This character is objectively discernable through a complex of the natural and human elements making up its environment of production. . . . [It] is aimed at reassuring the consumer of the place of origin, itself also an assurance of quality.”6 Since the proto-Renaissance, the wine of Chianti has been valued for drawing its particular character from its place of origin—namely, the territory of Chianti. While the history of Chianti is not without its complexities, it is clear on the central issue of origin. The 1716 bandi were expressly promulgated to guarantee the quality of Chianti wine by ensuring its connection to its place of origin and its reputation. The French appellation d’origine (AO) system that underpins the EU designation of origin regime is built on this very connection among origin, quality, and reputation.7 The power of prior generations of Italian industrialists and politicians should not be allowed to deny the original Chianti its history and identity. It will be for the patriots and skillful consiglieri (counselors) of Chianti Classico to pursue justice for Chianti and its winegrowers in the decades to come.
In recognition of the comity that now exists between it and External Chianti, Chianti Classico’s most constructive option would be a long-term strategy to negotiate with the subzones of External Chianti to voluntarily relinquish their use of the generic word Chianti in favor of their individual place-names on labels (while otherwise maintaining their current disciplines of production). Hence, the seven subzones of External Chianti would become the following individual DOCGs: Colli Fiorentini, Rufina, Colli Aretini, Montespertoli, Montalbano, Colline Pisane, and Colli Senesi. Since these subzones are presently operating as part of a unified DOCG, what objection could Italy’s Ministry of Agriculture have to this lateral move, the only substantive difference being the name change? In some cases, consortia are already organized and would be in a position to represent these prospective DOCGs, such as Colli Fiorentini, Rufina, and Colli Senesi. It is also true that few producers in the Montalcino, Montepulciano, and San Gimignano areas use the Chianti DOCG appellation, opting instead for Brunello di Montalcino DOCG, Rosso di Montalcino DOC, Vino Nobile di Montepulciano DOCG, Rosso di Montepulciano DOC, and San Gimignano DOC. Merchants in External Chianti who blend wines from different subzones and from areas outside these subzones could use the IGT Toscana or EU PGI (protected geographical indication, or Italian IGP, indicazione geografica protetta) denomination. Many of these blends are in fact pan-Tuscan wines.
The Colli Fiorentini (Florentine hills), Colli Senesi (Sienese hills), and Colline Pisane (Pisan little hills) subzones inherently possess positive marketing images, thanks to the incorporation of the names of their world-famous principal cities. In a global marketplace for wine that has expanded and matured significantly from the immediately post–World War II era (when generic Chianti was the default choice for Italian wine), consumers are increasingly looking to discover distinct flavors and places. In modern-day marketing, the importance of an authentic story cannot be overestimated. If the subzones of External Chianti were to emerge from under the assumed name of Chianti, the concept of place could finally be restored to several respected Tuscan wine-growing areas. Rufina, for one, has a historic reputation for quality that should transcend the generic marketplace reputation of External Chianti. If Chianti Classico were to successfully negotiate with the Montalcino, Montepulciano, San Gimignano, and Rufina consortia to abandon the name Chianti in favor of their own authentic and exceptional place-names, the foundation for executing this strategy with the other subzones of External Chianti would be built for a future round of negotiations. This approach would require wise rulers on all sides of the table. In the passionate words of Paolo De Marchi of Isole e Olena, “I think it is not so possible, but it is not impossible!”
Yet for all of the twists and turns in the evolution of Chianti Classico as a wine appellation, the territory of Chianti has remained true to its essential and pristine character. Over the past quarter century, Chianti Classico’s wines have brought distinction to Chianti and its winegrowers. Regardless of borders and boundaries (geographic or legal), Chianti is, was, and always will be a land to treasure for its nature and culture. It is where the Black Rooster reigns supreme. This story has been our search for this land and its noble wine, the true Chianti.
Near the end of their arduous and wondrous climb up the mountain of Purgatory in the second book of The Divine Comedy, Dante’s guide, the Roman poet Virgil, leaves him at the threshold of the summit called Earthly Paradise—as we leave you, dear readers, at the gates of the realm of Chianti—with these parting words:
I’ve brought you here through intellect and art;
from now on, let your pleasure be your guide;
you’re past the steep and past the narrow paths.
Look at the sun that shines upon your brow;
look at the grasses, flowers, and the shrubs
born here, spontaneously, of the earth.8