The Power of ‘Useful Truths’

Introduction

During the last decades of the eighteenth century, a serious interest in political economy developed in Venice in the wake of what was happening in the rest of the continent. Certain members of the aristocracy that governed the Republic, such as Andrea Memmo and Andrea Tron, zealously studied texts by the European economists in order to then develop concrete reform projects.1 But most importantly, this discipline also attracted a vast array of personages outside the ruling class – scientists, journalists, humanities scholars and writers, and even clergymen – who applied themselves to it in the academies, as well as in periodicals and printed works in general. Expressing the spirit of the Enlightenment (Robertson, 2005), this reformist galaxy, who symbolised an important generational and ideological progression, saw in political economy an invaluable opportunity to give cultural commitment a civil purpose, making it a practical resource for public happiness (Venturi, 1990, p. 95; Carnino, 2014, p. 222; Simonetto, 2016, pp. 550–53). ‘The excessively abstract questions […] and studies aimed only […] at making human knowledge a brilliant but mostly vain and little useful manifestation’, declared journalist Francesco Griselini with enthusiasm, ‘no longer constitute the occupation […] of minds’ (1773, p. 280).2 At last, ‘almost all the most sublime and enlightened Spirits […] have chosen […] as the object of their applications, the more practical Sciences, and have begun to seek the most interesting truths. […] Thus there have […] originated many Writings on Commerce, Population, Agriculture, and Political Economy’ (pp. 280–81).

The agronomist and man of letters Girolamo Silvestri thought the same way. In his opinion, ‘learned men’, emerging from their ‘fruitless retreats’, were now destined to remain ‘among the fields and among the animals […], in public fairs and markets, in customs offices, in fiscal chambers; and wherever the sources and means of public happiness are, or the causes of common misery’ (Silvestri, 1771, p. 348).

This was an interesting phenomenon not only for the analyses and proposals which it spawned, but also for the way in which its protagonists, who had no formal power, accounted for their actions. Far from being naive, they were well aware that they were dealing with the thorny ‘taboo of politics’ (Benzoni, 2013, pp. 21–29). Indeed, in order to understand the dysfunctions and opportunities of the Venetian economy, it was impossible to ignore the existing legislation, with its flaws and even its inaccuracies – hence it was no coincidence that in their eyes, as well as those of other European reformers such as Richard Cantillon, David Hume and François Quesnay (Albertone, 2007), economics constituted a state science, as it concerned the ‘rules’ that made a nation ‘populated, rich, powerful’ (Costantini, 1762, pp. vi–xxi; Griselini, 1768a, pp. 177–78). What is more, they were aware of addressing a ruling class particularly jealous of its own primacy, which liked to be reassured and edified, and which therefore tended to be easily irritated by criticism, even when it came from members of the patrician class itself (Del Negro, 1977, pp. 126–30; Scarabello, 1981, pp. 7–8; Del Negro, 1984, p. 429; Del Negro, 1986a, pp. 123–24). Consequently, to forestall dangers and discontent, they felt the need to justify and legitimise their right to discuss publicly and judge the government’s economic decisions. In consideration of the epistemological status attributed by the reformers to economic science, our objective must be to understand how its emergence changed the Venetian political debate, redefining the dialectic between knowledge and power, and creating an original form of collaboration – rather than opposition – between patricians and economists.

A Patriotic Mission

The reformers, first of all, insisted that the subject they were dealing with had become a ‘very important matter’ in the life of European countries (Zanon, 1763a, p. 98). Indeed, a flourishing economy made it possible both to promote ‘prosperity’, thus avoiding the dangerous discontent of the subjects, and to possess financial and human resources with which to support the nation’s political and military power (Griselini, 1766a, pp. 9–10; Piloni, 1794, pp. 128–29; Scola, 1787, pp. 64–68).3 As Griselini stated, ‘Commerce’ had become ‘the prime mover of the public reason of States’ (1771a, pp. 304–05). Moreover, it had come to resemble a jealous ‘competition’, in which everyone sought to ‘enrich themselves with the spoils and money of others’. Many, for good reason, described this phenomenon as a ‘war of industry’, in which those ‘who neglect Commerce’ succumbed to ‘the snares of the most astute’ (Costantini, 1749, pp. 6, 205–15). The losers, in short, were on the path to ‘ruin’, which, as explained by the friar, journalist, and agronomist Giovanni Francesco Scottoni, was paved with ‘depopulation, vice and slavery’ (1767, p. 71).

Every country, therefore, devoted itself to material development driven by an instinct for survival: Venice certainly could not afford to ignore this epochal change, which denoted a genuine ‘economic turn’.4 It had no option but to emulate what was being done by the ‘most enlightened nations’, where the study of economics benefited from the approval and support of public authorities (Griselini, 1773, p. 281). These authorities knew that the new discipline was a vital weapon in the ‘war of industry’, since its principles showed the legislator how to manage economic phenomena scientifically, obviating improvisation and arbitrariness, and thereby giving rise to good government (Anonymous, 1766a, pp. 254–55; Anonymous, 1774, pp. 25–27; Fortis, 1782, p. 4).5 ‘If we do not renounce the prejudices in which we have lived until now’, noted the merchant and writer Antonio Zanon in 1765, ‘we can be sure that, as all European nations become more fervent in the emulation of economic and commercial studies, the nation that neglects them will become increasingly impoverished and perpetually tributary to [those nations]’ (Zanon, 1982, p. 304).

By emphasising the urgency and seriousness of the situation – the ‘freedom’ and very existence of the Republic were at stake – the people we are considering here laid the groundwork for conferring special legitimacy on their interventions (Griselini, 1768b, pp. iii–iv). In essence, they presented their inquiries as part of a patriotic mission. Driven by a deep sense of responsibility and aware of the politically strategic value of their knowledge – which qualified them as experts, equipping them with the discursive authority and positional power enjoyed by those who illuminated by indicating ‘useful truths’6 – these reformers sought to ‘serve their country’, making available to the ‘public good’ the intellectual capital they had accumulated (Zanon, 1774, pp. 52–54).

The reformers adopted a collaborative approach based on constructive analysis, acting as willing consultants and advisors to the government. In this sense, they emphasised that this would not require any alteration of the existing constitutional architecture. They had no intention of usurping the authority of the patriciate, and even less of ‘disobeying’ its decisions. On the contrary, their goal was to assist it by offering opinions and insights that would help it evaluate the current state of affairs and foresee the effects of its decisions (Griselini, 1766b, p. 369; Griselini, 1766c, p. 169; Zanon, 1767, pp. 1–5). ‘Seeing myself about to speak to you about Legislation’, the Brescian man of letters and agronomist Giambattista Corniani made clear in the opening sections of his Saggio sopra la Legislazione relativamente all’agricoltura (1780), ‘I would not want you to believe that I intend to assume the character of Legislator’. ‘The Philosopher’, he continued, ‘does not dictate Laws’, but ‘aspires to grasp the spirit that should animate them’, so that they ‘contribute to the great aim that one wishes to promote’ – in this case the ‘progress of Agriculture’. ‘The Philosopher’, in other words, clarifies and expounds ‘the principles that might guide the attention of the wise Legislator’, but at the same time ‘obeys in solitude and silence the Laws that he finds already established’ (Corniani, 1780, pp. 10–11). In this regard, Corniani did not fail to note how this dynamic was already widespread in Europe: ‘Many governments encourage Writers to examine the various regulatory systems of the Peoples, promote the dissemination of Works concerning this essential topic, and even pay public instructors to educate every class of Citizens about the fundamental elements of political economy’ (pp. 11–12).

A Complex Science Requiring ‘Free Discussion’

Precisely because this function involved the application of specialised knowledge, to be carried out properly – that is, reliably and effectively – it needed compliance with particular requirements. In 1773, for example, in a work on agricultural issues, the priest Gottardo Canciani explained that any criticisms regarding the excessive ‘length’ of the text were totally out of place. ‘Brevity’ would in fact have prevented him from tracing the roots of the countryside’s malaise, and thus from achieving his goal: to be useful to the magistracy to which he had dedicated and submitted his Memoria. ‘In order to implement the necessary measures’, he noted in this regard, ‘the throne of Legislation likes to know not only the problems but also the causes on which they depend’ (Canciani, 1773, p. 343).7 Furthermore, this same sense of responsibility towards the mission they had set for themselves prompted the reformist economists to admit that they were not immune from making mistakes, from taking the wrong path. Although they appreciated many elements of physiocracy, in particular the importance of agriculture and the idea of economics as a political science, they tended not to share its emphasis on ‘evidence’ – its Promethean, and almost eschatological posture – and therefore the belief in a geometric, indisputable and infallible truth that is disclosed and revealed, but certainly not discussed.8 In their eyes, instead, economics – while remaining a valuable medium for understanding and transforming reality – appeared to be an ‘uncertain’ and ‘intricate science’, in other words, a ‘conjectural art’, which had to deal with ‘misinterpretations’, and often with ‘false results’ (Anonymous, 1767, pp. 38–40).

Prudence was therefore a central element. As was the indefatigable willingness to study the subject more deeply, in order to practise it in the most dexterous way possible. Reviewing in 1767 the translation by the aforementioned Scottoni of Cantillon’s Essai sur la nature du commerce en général, Griselini declared that it would be ‘very good’ if similar works were ‘multiplied’, as they promoted adequate theoretical preparation. The worst danger, in fact, was to deal with economic topics lightly and superficially. ‘There are more know-it-alls whom I have heard with my own ears spouting verdicts and judging the most respectable Scholars than the hairs I have on my head’, he declared caustically. He therefore had no doubts: anyone who wanted to ‘express their opinion’ on ‘serious’ texts like Cantillon’s should ‘be very familiar with that part of Politics that concerns Commerce’ (Griselini, 1767, pp. 163–64). Those writing their own texts had to demonstrate a similar, if not superior, application. Indeed, even the most original and innovative theses originated from a careful study of the existing literature. Thus, for example, the Veronese mathematician and economist Agostino Vivorio revealed, in a letter to Leonardo Salimbeni, that he had made ‘great strides’ in a ‘Work on money begun a long time ago’, which he hoped would be ‘appreciated and useful’, emphasising the large number of preparatory readings he had completed. ‘If you knew how many books I had to consult, you would admit without hesitation that the need to learn from others’ thoughts takes away half the time for our own’, he reflected (Vivorio, 1780, pp. 78–79).

In any case, it was precisely the complexity of political economy, the fact that it was one of the ‘vastest’ sciences, surrounded by a ‘great number of difficulties not so easy to overcome’ (Zanon, 1774, pp. 35–38), that allowed the reformers to substantiate, in an original and persuasive way, the claim for ‘free discussion’ of economic problems. They believed that the development and refinement of this discipline required a dynamic based on dialogue, on the open confrontation of different, and even conflicting, opinions, ‘because good advice arises from opposition’.9 In this sense, according to the finance official Girolamo Costantini, a controversy like that between Nicolas Dutot and Jean-François Melon was to be considered a positive episode. Indeed, ‘when the argument is agitated by various skilled hands’, and thus approached with ‘a variety of sentiments’, its ‘truth’, which was naturally ‘hidden’, could ‘finally filter out’, ‘thanks to the discussions that set it in motion’ (Costantini, 1754, p. v).

For his part, Zanon, presenting the first volume of his magnum opus, which appeared in 1763, stated that he had chosen, contrary to common practice, to put his name on the title page not out of ‘vanity’, but because he desired ‘with all his heart that all objections, and even all reproaches, if rightly deserved, be directed at me, for any expression, or proposition, that offended the truth’. In short, he was ready ‘to receive reasonable objections’, and ‘to retract any propositions that are criticised, where I will not be able to defend them’ (Zanon, 1763b, pp. xx–xxi). The mind of one man, he explained, had a ‘limited capacity’, as it ‘cannot comprehend in all their parts the objects it considers’, and therefore ‘cannot completely remove them from the darkness that envelops them’. In consequence, it ‘always needs the help and considerations of others’. In the case of economics, taking this into account was essential, since it was a science whose findings were translated into policies, and therefore had a concrete impact – positive or negative – on collective life. ‘What principle of Legislation deserves to be universally approved, if it has not first been examined in various debates?’, he asked in this regard. In light of this, he identified the economic societies – which had spread throughout the Venetian provinces since the late 1760s10 – as being highly suitable locations for this cognitive endeavour. In such institutions, ‘many scholars and educated Citizens, frequently gathered together’ had the opportunity to interact fruitfully, comparing their respective ideas, and thus giving rise to a real team effort (Zanon, 1774, pp. 35–36, 90–96).

This, furthermore, was to be understood as the microcosm of a broader dynamic, which ought to involve, through the press, anyone who seriously undertook economic studies: that is, what Scottoni defined as the ‘most skilled and sought-after pens of every nation’, who, throughout Europe, had ‘for some years now’ oriented their ‘research’ towards ‘commerce, navigation, population, agriculture’ (Scottoni, 1765, p. 97). Given these reasons, as noted in the Giornale Enciclopedico by the reviewer of Donaudi delle Mallere’s Saggio di Economia Civile (1776), it was now clear that economic science could no longer be ‘reserved for the cabinets of Kings’ (Anonymous, 1777, p. 88). Making it an arcana imperii, and thus withholding it ‘from the eyes and examination of the public’, was a ‘harmful prudence’, as it belonged to the field of ‘political sciences’, which ‘expand’, and see ‘the ever imminent and pliable error dissipate’, ‘as they pass and repass through the clash and crowd of different minds’ (Beccaria, 1769, pp. 281, 287).

From this standpoint, the essential role played by the Giornale d’Italia should be underscored. Founded by Griselini in 1765, this periodical was, so to speak, the organ and mouthpiece of the Venetian economic societies, and more broadly a place of encounter for reformist galaxy. In other words, it proved to be a valuable platform for dialogue, a place for interaction aimed at taking part in and deepening economic discussion. By adopting a participatory approach, the editors sought to create an audience made up of readers who were also active interlocutors.11 Griselini described this dynamic as a virtuous circle, within which everyone tried ‘to educate themselves, and to educate their Brothers at the same time’ (Griselini, 1766d, p. 1). ‘With the publication of the Giornale d’Italia’, he explained, ‘I thought of awakening […] the good minds of our Nation, so that they would give themselves to the most useful of studies’ (Griselini, 1771b, p. 1).12

Furthermore, promoting the ‘publicisation’ of economic debate13 enabled a significant amount of persuasion to be exercised on government, thus reinforcing reformist discourse through collective pressure. As Zanon pointed out, citing Melon’s Essai politique sur le commerce (1736), ‘the same things said and said again by many people acquire greater force, and can influence a legislator whose good intentions are not always supported by great courage to oppose the torrent of obstacles’. It sufficed to look at England, where ‘the voices of an infinite number of readers, citizens, and philosophers, unite and form the public voice’, and where ‘the public voice ultimately attracts the attention [of the ruling class]’ (Zanon, 1774, pp. 35–38, 100–05, 167–68, 180–83, 232, 279).14

The Enlightened Patricians and the Economists

In this respect, it seems fair to say that the patriciate showed at least a partial willingness to listen and interact. This was true, first and foremost, on a level that was private and personal, but not for this unpolitical. Indeed, within the Venetian ruling class, there were those who recognised the importance of appreciating the knowledge of economists. For example, upon receiving a copy of a work on guilds (Vivorio, 1792), the patrician Girolamo Zulian thanked its author, the aforementioned Vivorio, expressing his conviction that the book would provide him with ‘insights into this interesting subject’. He then added: ‘The learned, by providing knowledge to those who govern, are the principal agents of the happiness of States’ (Zulian, 1792, p. 1). For his part, in 1766, while staying in villeggiatura in the countryside and intending to write a ‘Treatise […] on practical ways to make a people […] prosperous, rich, and powerful’, a patrician whose name is not known felt the need to fill gaps in his knowledge by seeking enlightenment from Griselini on the economic science and its political applications. Griselini readily agreed to help him, and in the following months wrote a concise handbook outlining the path to creating an economic policy equal to the challenges of the period (Griselini, 1766a, pp. 9–12).

Generally speaking, these episodes were an integral part of a more regular interaction, which, alongside correspondence, took place through personal meetings. For instance, circles of reformist economists gathered around certain enlightened patricians, seeing a point of reference in them as well as a concrete opportunity to feed their ideas into the Venetian ruling class. In addition to Zanon and Griselini, the charismatic patrician Andrea Tron, who made the economic renewal of Venice one of his political priorities, was close to Scottoni, who often visited his house (Zanon, 1982, p. 20; Infelise, 1989, pp. 103–08, 159–62). Emboldened with this familiarity and aware of Tron’s ‘great and prudent’ love for the ‘public good’, in September 1774, Scottoni, while away from Venice, asked the patrician to ‘review, comment, and correct’ some papers that he would gradually transcribe and send him on the subject of agriculture. Having already been ‘graced’ several times by Tron’s ‘judicious observations’, Scottoni added that he would treasure the new remarks, and integrate them into the text in question. Finally, he expressed the hope that those matters would be addressed by the government, so that ‘a happy era for the worn-out, oppressed, disheartened, industrious, useful, yet universally despised peasant’ could finally begin (Passolunghi, 1991–92, p. 130).

Another patrician to whom the reformers looked with confidence was Francesco Morosini, who had a close rapport not only with Griselini but also with the writer and naturalist Alberto Fortis, as well as with Simone Stratico, a professor of Mathematics and Navigation at the University of Padua, and a leading member of the Galilean Academy of Sciences, Letters and Arts in the same city (Fortis, 1774, p. 1; Griselini, 1775, p. 79; Del Negro, 1980, p. 93; Del Negro, 1986b, p. 255). Between the late 1760s and the early 1770s, he seemed not only to have a desire, but also the actual opportunity, of intervening in the economic structures of the Republic. In fact, as Inquisitore alle Arti (Inquisitor for the Guilds), he was passionately committed to the renewal of Venetian manufacturing. Wishing to make the most of this opportunity, which saw an enlightened and willing patrician at the helm of a strategically important magistracy, in 1769, the Trevisan abbot and scientist Angelo Talier dedicated his translation of Considérations sur les compagnies, sociétés et maîtrises (1758) to Morosini. In this work, Simon Clicquot de Blervache, the protégé of Vincent de Gournay, encouraged a radical reform of the craft guilds: to allow the free exercise of a trade, thus stimulating ‘competition’ and ‘emulation’, it was necessary to simplify access criteria to a minimum and to eliminate any form of discrimination.15 ‘I dare to present you with a Dissertation’, wrote Talier, which ‘due to the novelty and goodness of its doctrines’, ‘should interest anyone who loves the public good, and in particular those who, in addition to good intentions, have the power to promote, with their own eloquence and influence, the well-being of an entire nation’. Talier, in short, invited Morosini to consider Clicquot de Blervache’s proposal carefully, believing it to be a useful solution to the lack of dynamism in Venetian manufacturing: ‘the system proposed by the Author to open the guilds would greatly help to stimulate our industry’ (Clicquot de Blervache, 1769, pp. 3–4), he declared. Reviewing this translation in Europa Letteraria, Fortis demonstrated a full understanding of Talier’s tactic. Not being ‘of high rank’, and therefore unable to make Clicquot de Blervache’s ideas ‘useful’, the ‘commendable Translator’ had done the most intelligent thing possible by submitting them to one ‘of the most illustrious Personages of this Serenissima Republic’, so that he could put them into practice (Fortis, 1769, pp. 55–56).

In some cases, a real collaboration was created. With a common goal of promoting the renewal of the Venetian economy, some enlightened patricians formed relationships with commoners whose expertise and goodwill they appreciated, in order to implement specific reform projects. This was the case with Andrea Memmo, who in the early 1770s sat on the economic magistracies of the Republic. Convinced of the need to establish an economic society based in Venice, he commissioned the aforementioned Talier to draft a text clarifying the mission, profile, and statutes of this institution. This created a division of labour, as the handwritten Relazione submitted by Talier to Memmo in April 1773 served as the basis and inspiration for the latter to write, in September of the same year, a Saggio d’un Piano per una Società Economica, a text he circulated among fellow patricians in order to achieve his goal (Talier, 1773; Memmo, 1773). What we are faced with, then, are forms of consultancy in all but name. And some, at times, even became more formalised and structured. We know, for example, that in the 1760s, the Inquisitore alle Arti Gabriel Marcello sought and obtained the regular assistance of Zanon, who was known and respected in Venice as both an economist and a textile entrepreneur (Zanon, 1982, p. 264). In point of fact, if we consider Marcello’s words on the need to improve dyeing techniques used in the textile industry – more colourful, and therefore more beautiful and appealing goods were also more competitive – it is not hard to see Zanon’s ideas behind them, as he had emphasised this point repeatedly (Zanon, 1764a, pp. 150–52; Zanon, 1764b, pp. 1–9; Marcello, 1767, pp. 34–37).

Collaboration, Not Opposition

It is therefore difficult to identify among the reformist economists any ‘opposition’, in the sense of Jürgen Habermas’s and Reinhart Koselleck’s idea of ‘intellectuals’ as a ‘counter-power’ to the ‘government’, or as the expression of a ‘public sphere’ basically autonomous from political power.16 This seems all the more true if we consider that this ‘collaboration’ also had an institutional dimension. In fact, while it did not establish a chair in political economy, nor create new positions aimed at integrating and involving economists in the state apparatus – in Milan, by contrast, the Supreme Council of Economy was established – the government did pay heed and show openness to them in various ways. From this point of view, the case of economic societies is emblematic. In these peculiarly hybrid organisations, the agency of civil society, and in general of those excluded from traditional power structures, intertwined with the participation of the authorities. It should not be forgotten, in fact, that between September and October 1768, the Senate expressly recommended their foundation in every city of the state, and tasked the Deputazione all’Agricoltura (Deputation for Agriculture) with coordinating and supervising their activities. These and other magistracies often submitted to the societies topics and questions for discussion, and also financed prizes to be awarded to authors of winning essays in particular competitions. Unsurprisingly, the government reserved the right to make the final judgment and therefore to decide whether to make use of the suggestions.17 Moreover, in order for there to be ‘public evidence of their applications’, the same Deputazione all’Agricoltura requested that the Giornale d’Italia be ‘copious’ with content concerning the ‘useful efforts’ of the societies (Arduino, 1771, p. 1).

In fact, the Giornale d’Italia itself constitutes another significant example of this ‘collaboration’. As mentioned, it was founded by Griselini, but it is interesting to note that it was Marco Foscarini – one of the leading figures of the patriciate, and Doge between 1762 and 1763 – who invited him to embark on this venture (Griselini, 1785, pp. 9–10). What is more, it should be added that the first volume of this periodical was published ‘under the High Protection’ of one of the main economic magistracies of the Republic, the V Savi alla Mercanzia, which thereby demonstrated openness and official support for this editorial initiative (Griselini, 1765a, pp. 1–3). In fact, if we look at the press as a whole, we see that the Venetian authorities had no intention of obstructing the publication of writings on economics.18 On the contrary, it cannot be excluded that the patricians recognised the usefulness of allowing, through this relative and regulated freedom of the press,19 a forum for discussion from which they could draw valuable information with which to reshape legislation. In any case, if this happened, it was also because, presumably, economic writers exercised, as a precautionary measure, a degree of self-censorship and self-correction. Their writings were characterised by measured tones, velvety and euphemistic discourse, the substance and truth of which were to be read between the lines and looked for in implications and allusions.20 Deeming uninhibited discourse to be fraught with danger, they preferred an approach marked by prudence and deference, which kept economic texts within the bounds of the sayable.

In other words, the political and cultural climate in Venice did not allow for the replication of the English model, where there was an ‘abuse’, and even ‘intoxication’, of ‘freedom’ which disrupted ‘public tranquillity’. Across the Channel, as we read in an excerpt from Accarias de Sérionne’s Intérêts des nations de l’Europe published in the Giornale d’Italia in December 1766, ‘one can say everything and print everything’, and ‘denounce Admirals, Generals, and Allies, even the King himself’ (significantly, the translator introduced the excerpt with the following words: ‘the sensible things one reads in this work about the press truly deserve being brought to your attention’).21 From this point of view, the situation in France seemed more reasonable. In this country, although ‘freedom’ was not ‘unlimited’ – since it was ‘restricted by examinations, by the necessity of approvals, and by [printing] licences’ – ‘useful and enjoyable books’ as well as ‘learned treatises’ were nevertheless still published (Anonymous, 1766b, pp. 204–05).

A representative episode, useful especially from a comparative viewpoint, can be cited in this regard. On 24 October 1765, in a spirit of cosmopolitanism, the Société économique de Berne had sent a letter to the Società d’agricoltura pratica di Udine, among whose founders and main promoters was Zanon. Writing on 30 November to Count Fabio Asquini, an enlightened landowner and secretary of the Società, Zanon expressed his conviction that the letter ‘is conceived in such wise terms that it cannot but be approved by anyone for the excellent principles it contains’. At the same time, however, he noted that ‘some passages have a whiff of Swiss liberty’. The ‘Gentlemen of Berne’, in fact, criticised certain aspects of agricultural legislation in a rather peremptory tone,22 and this was a style that he did not approve of. Therefore, while he told Asquini that he would certainly have been prepared to use and develop the worthwhile observations of his Bernese colleagues, he added: ‘I will not do so except with the permission of the superiors’. In other words, he would draft a text on the topic on condition that it would first be viewed and endorsed by the magistratures of the Republic. However, on 7 December, a translation of the letter from the Société économique de Berne, made by Griselini, appeared in the Giornale d’Italia (Griselini, 1765b, pp. 182–83). This deeply irritated Zanon: ‘Griselini’, he wrote to Asquini on the same day, ‘has broken his word to me and, against the sacred promise he made not to publish it, had the letter from Berne printed’. And even though he admitted, perhaps rhetorically, that he could not imagine how it could upset any government official, he insisted that if this were to happen, Griselini would regret it (Zanon, 1982, pp. 345, 350).

In conclusion, we can say that albeit prudently, and adopting a patriotic approach, the reformers used the normative power of economic science and its status as useful knowledge to participate in the Venetian political debate. In doing so, they created a public space for free discussion and established collaboration with the government and in particular with the enlightened patriciate.