Final Report Summary - CREDIT AND REPUBLIC (Public Debt and the Republic: Florentine Political Thought and Public Finance from 1470 to 1537.)
Summary and Conclusions
The history of the Florentine Republic of the Great Council (1494-1512) remains carried on for a negligible period, as a simple parenthesis within the long-lasting era of Medicean power (1434-1737). However, the presence of Niccolò Machiavelli, an inescapable reference for western culture for five centuries, makes it special. Moreover, it represents a unique case for the analysis of the relations between the management of public finances and the definition of new political programs in “democratic” context.
From 1498 to 1512, Machiavelli served a Republic that constituted a particularly interesting experience for the understanding of an early stage of what, in the wake of World War I, Rudolf Goldscheid identified as the central problem of the academic discipline he attempted to promote: namely the connection between the development of democratic institutions and the forms of public debt. According to the Austrian father of financial sociology, certain systems of public debt allow groups of creditors to form a “caricature of the State, the State within the State”: “only a State forced to live from hand to mouth and deprived of sufficient funds to meet even the most urgent social needs on its own remains at the mercy of private capital.” Now, according to him, in a mature democracy there should be no place for a “State within the State.” In this regard, Machiavelli’s remote epoch conceals something rather untimely, which needs to be carefully considered. At the time of the Great Council, in Renaissance Florence, the question of the interaction between financial system, political order, and social structures had indeed led certain actors to develop original political programs, in an effort to establish the Republic’s autonomy from financial power. Machiavelli, in his quality of secretary and second chancellor of the Republic, set out to achieve this goal, putting forward a highly controversial project of mass conscription.
The critique of a mercenary-based military system is a central issue in Machiavelli’s works, from his early writings, when he was in charge of the Second Chancery, up to his major ones, written once he had been discharged from offices. In his latter works – the ones following the aristocratic coup of August 1512 – the critique of political and economical elites is conducted with a vehemence that largely explains the singular position occupied by Machiavelli, after five centuries, within the history of political thought, as the author of a plebeian philosophy. In The Prince, The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy, and the History of Florence as well, he clearly states the need to protect the majority against the wealthy minority, and to restrain the “appetite” of domination of the grandi. In The Art of War, the only major work that he sent to print in his lifetime, he allows himself to state as a general rule that “the unarmed rich man is the prize of the poor soldier.” The Machiavellian concept of “people in arms” actually leads to an undoing of the knot between a military system based on mercenary forces and a financial system based on public credit, which the financial elites had made the main asset of their political and economic hegemony.
The above mentioned general rule points straightaway to the connection between the critique of the military system and the critique of the elites. This connection needed therefore to be clarified further, by considering the power relations that underlie the management of public debt. What was at stake was nothing less than an attempt to suppress those political powers to which the aristocracy of public securities owners considered themselves entitled.
Results and Impacts
During his Marie Curie Fellowship, the Researcher in charge, Dr. Barthas, has extensively published in the field of History, Intellectual History and Financial History. In particular, he was able to work out the connection between democracy and public debt, and came to focus on the function of the “tribunes of the plebs”. He is still developping researches on the intellectual history of political economy and financial thought. Furthermore, he has developed his network of collaborator in the ERA, and beyond. Finally, the Marie Curie Fellowship has had a major impact on the pursuit of Dr. Barthas' academic career, as he is now taking up a permanent position at a leading ERA research institution, where he will be carrying out the project already well engaged with the resources of the Marie Curie Action.
The Researcher in Charge regularly attended the Seminar in the History of Political Ideas of The Centre for the Study of the History of Political Thought at Queen Mary, University of London, which is hosted at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London. He responded to a series of invitations, leading him to participate to six (6) international conferences and to contribute a paper to four (4) workshops and seminars, in France, the UK, the USA, and in Italy. He has also co-organized one (1) international conference on the Social History of Political Thought in Paris. Dr. Barthas has thus further explored a line of research in Intellectual History, with particular reference to the topic of his program, strengthening his academic skills, developing his international network of collaborators, and enhancing the recognition of the academic community for his works.
Most of the papers he contributed, which represent partial results of his research, are either already or will be soon published, as book chapters (5 essays, plus 2 tables with an introduction), online publications (1 paper), or articles in peer reviewed journals (1 essay).
In addition, he has contributed two (2) other research articles in peer reviewed journals in France and Italy. He has also contributed to a major collective enterprise such as the Enciclopedia Machiavelliana with four (4) entries, one being a standing essay. He has also supervised an issue in a South African Journal (peer reviewed) of political theory, providing an editorial and co-authoring a contribution, the part he was responsible for was later published in a French online journal. Finally, he has published two (2) book reviews.
This record of publications – nineteen (19) in total, in English, Italian and French (see his periodic report for more details) – is to be considered the assessment of the results of his research.
These activities: conferences, workshops and seminars, and contributions to a series of collective enterprises, expanded his international network and have revealed to be particularly useful for the researcher when applying for a permanent academic position in the ERA, according to his Personal Career Development Plan. His application for a permanent research position of Chargé de recherche de première classe at the CNRS in France went successfully. He is now integrating this position that will allow him to further develop his research and to finalize the book he had planned.
The history of the Florentine Republic of the Great Council (1494-1512) remains carried on for a negligible period, as a simple parenthesis within the long-lasting era of Medicean power (1434-1737). However, the presence of Niccolò Machiavelli, an inescapable reference for western culture for five centuries, makes it special. Moreover, it represents a unique case for the analysis of the relations between the management of public finances and the definition of new political programs in “democratic” context.
From 1498 to 1512, Machiavelli served a Republic that constituted a particularly interesting experience for the understanding of an early stage of what, in the wake of World War I, Rudolf Goldscheid identified as the central problem of the academic discipline he attempted to promote: namely the connection between the development of democratic institutions and the forms of public debt. According to the Austrian father of financial sociology, certain systems of public debt allow groups of creditors to form a “caricature of the State, the State within the State”: “only a State forced to live from hand to mouth and deprived of sufficient funds to meet even the most urgent social needs on its own remains at the mercy of private capital.” Now, according to him, in a mature democracy there should be no place for a “State within the State.” In this regard, Machiavelli’s remote epoch conceals something rather untimely, which needs to be carefully considered. At the time of the Great Council, in Renaissance Florence, the question of the interaction between financial system, political order, and social structures had indeed led certain actors to develop original political programs, in an effort to establish the Republic’s autonomy from financial power. Machiavelli, in his quality of secretary and second chancellor of the Republic, set out to achieve this goal, putting forward a highly controversial project of mass conscription.
The critique of a mercenary-based military system is a central issue in Machiavelli’s works, from his early writings, when he was in charge of the Second Chancery, up to his major ones, written once he had been discharged from offices. In his latter works – the ones following the aristocratic coup of August 1512 – the critique of political and economical elites is conducted with a vehemence that largely explains the singular position occupied by Machiavelli, after five centuries, within the history of political thought, as the author of a plebeian philosophy. In The Prince, The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy, and the History of Florence as well, he clearly states the need to protect the majority against the wealthy minority, and to restrain the “appetite” of domination of the grandi. In The Art of War, the only major work that he sent to print in his lifetime, he allows himself to state as a general rule that “the unarmed rich man is the prize of the poor soldier.” The Machiavellian concept of “people in arms” actually leads to an undoing of the knot between a military system based on mercenary forces and a financial system based on public credit, which the financial elites had made the main asset of their political and economic hegemony.
The above mentioned general rule points straightaway to the connection between the critique of the military system and the critique of the elites. This connection needed therefore to be clarified further, by considering the power relations that underlie the management of public debt. What was at stake was nothing less than an attempt to suppress those political powers to which the aristocracy of public securities owners considered themselves entitled.
Results and Impacts
During his Marie Curie Fellowship, the Researcher in charge, Dr. Barthas, has extensively published in the field of History, Intellectual History and Financial History. In particular, he was able to work out the connection between democracy and public debt, and came to focus on the function of the “tribunes of the plebs”. He is still developping researches on the intellectual history of political economy and financial thought. Furthermore, he has developed his network of collaborator in the ERA, and beyond. Finally, the Marie Curie Fellowship has had a major impact on the pursuit of Dr. Barthas' academic career, as he is now taking up a permanent position at a leading ERA research institution, where he will be carrying out the project already well engaged with the resources of the Marie Curie Action.
The Researcher in Charge regularly attended the Seminar in the History of Political Ideas of The Centre for the Study of the History of Political Thought at Queen Mary, University of London, which is hosted at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London. He responded to a series of invitations, leading him to participate to six (6) international conferences and to contribute a paper to four (4) workshops and seminars, in France, the UK, the USA, and in Italy. He has also co-organized one (1) international conference on the Social History of Political Thought in Paris. Dr. Barthas has thus further explored a line of research in Intellectual History, with particular reference to the topic of his program, strengthening his academic skills, developing his international network of collaborators, and enhancing the recognition of the academic community for his works.
Most of the papers he contributed, which represent partial results of his research, are either already or will be soon published, as book chapters (5 essays, plus 2 tables with an introduction), online publications (1 paper), or articles in peer reviewed journals (1 essay).
In addition, he has contributed two (2) other research articles in peer reviewed journals in France and Italy. He has also contributed to a major collective enterprise such as the Enciclopedia Machiavelliana with four (4) entries, one being a standing essay. He has also supervised an issue in a South African Journal (peer reviewed) of political theory, providing an editorial and co-authoring a contribution, the part he was responsible for was later published in a French online journal. Finally, he has published two (2) book reviews.
This record of publications – nineteen (19) in total, in English, Italian and French (see his periodic report for more details) – is to be considered the assessment of the results of his research.
These activities: conferences, workshops and seminars, and contributions to a series of collective enterprises, expanded his international network and have revealed to be particularly useful for the researcher when applying for a permanent academic position in the ERA, according to his Personal Career Development Plan. His application for a permanent research position of Chargé de recherche de première classe at the CNRS in France went successfully. He is now integrating this position that will allow him to further develop his research and to finalize the book he had planned.