ESHET 2022 AISPE session "Women and economic thought in Italy (1850-1950)" POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE SALON OF EMILIA TOSCANELLI PERUZZI Monika Poettinger ABSTRACT Emilia Toscanelli Peruzzi (1827-1900), from the high bourgeoisie of Pisa, married, in 1850, Ubaldino Peruzzi, scion of an ancient Florentine family, politically active in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany as in the later unified Italy. Conscious of her role in strengthening her husband’s position, she immediately opened the salon of the Florentine mansion to politicians, literates, bankers and whomever she deemed might contribute to a lively discourse. Her correspondence followed up the discussions held in the salon and with its consistency of ten thousands of letters constitutes today a precious archival source for the understanding the critical role of salons in the Italian political and cultural scene of the second half of the nineteenth century. At that time the professionalisation of economists was still in its infancy and the salon Peruzzi was crucial in the formation of several young economists – lato sensu - who would later hold important positions in academia, in the administration of the Italian state and in major companies. While the case of Vilfredo Pareto has been researched, a general evaluation of the influence of Emilia Peruzzi on Italian political economy is still lacking. This paper will firstly reconstruct the economic ideas of Emilia Peruzzi herself, as related to the environment in which she grew up and her marriage with Ubaldino. Then, the analysis will encompass the wide network of friends and correspondents that Emilia built in time, trying to understand the logic of its functioning and the use that both Emilia and Ubaldino made of it. After 1871 Emilia dedicated her attention increasingly to a young generation of protégés, selected by Ubaldino but nurtured by her to become a political élite alien to the logic of parties but of high morals and profound culture. In the same years Ubaldino switched his attention to political economy and so, these young protégés, all born in the 1840s, increasingly studied and anlysed economic and social questions. Among them: Vilfredo Pareto, Sidney Sonnino, Carlo Fontanelli and Francesco Genala. While the political mission of the salon, salvaging liberalism and political representativeness, was lost, a major legacy consisted in the habit to analyse questions based on accurate empirical studies. THE ECONOMY FOR A 19TH CENTURY WOMAN OF THE TUSCAN ELITE Emilia Toscanelli Peruzzi (1827-1900) 1 was born in Pisa into the wealthy bourgeois family of the Toscanelli (Menconi 2005). The family of small building contractors had migrated from Canton Ticino to Tuscany in the last decades of the 18th century and had made a fortune during the Napoleonic occupation. Emilia’s mother, Angiola Cipriani, had been quite instrumental in this ascent, since her family, of Corsican origin, was acquainted and related to the Bonaparte family. Already in 1810, Giovanni Battista Toscanelli had been able to acquire the stately villa La Cava in the countryside of Pontedera. In the same year of the birth of Emilia, then, her father bought the prestigious palazzo Lanfranchi Chiccoli on the Lungarno Mediceo, the best possible address in Pisa. After the death of her mother, at the age of sixteen Emilia reigned over these two mansions 2 and supervised the entertainment activity that collected there many intellectuals from the university of Pisa and many a young patriot, friend to the two brothers of Emilia: Giuseppe and Domenico who actively contributed to the Italian independence movement. As a young lady, Emilia learnt foreign languages – French, English and German – practiced sports and enjoyed reading literary works (Benucci 2007, p.XI) but in her twenties, the involvement of her family, friends and acquaintances in revolutionary activities definitively moved her attention toward politics (Soldani 2002; Benucci 2007 pp.CV-CXVIII). Her diaries, only scantily preserved (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007), give an insight over these early years. In 1847, aged 20, Emilia would write down: “Let’s defy the bad opinion others have of us, the greatest obstacle to our risorgimento; let’s unite for the love of our country and of ourselves. We will be strong, we will be formidable, we will be grand. Yes, all of us, brothers from the Alps to Lilibeo, all united in the same scope, in the same idea: independence, Italy as a nation. May this not only be a dream, but a reality, may I see it come true” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, p.153). During the upheavals of 1848, Emilia read all possible newspapers and cried and quivered over the results of battles and uprisings (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, p.161). The 1 No complete biography exists of Emilia Toscanelli Peruzzi. Major sources still consist of obituaries and the sparse remembrances of family and friends (Benucci 2007, pp.XX-XXI). For a more recent, brief, appraisal, see: Cuccoli 1966. 2 In 1845 she wrote in her diary: “I speak frankly and in abundance, I act ardently. In a bad mood or when I’m excited, I might be pungent, but I immediately repent and if i would offend someone I would not shy from offering my excuses. That has never happened to this day and whenever offended I excused, and I never held a grudge or looked for vengeance. I will never be able to hate or to wish evil on someone. I like to command and not to obey. I usually do what I wish, and I don’t like to be opposed. The absence of our mother has made out of us independent women, since our father is almost never at home and he leaves petty decisions to us, only influencing the big ones. Usually, we know when to ask for permission and our father tries to accommodate our wishes anyway. I fear I am a little spoiled since the cases in which father denies me I am not happy at all. Poor me if I should marry an intransigent man, I would have many a bitter pill to swallow!” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, pp.131-132). passionate tone of her diary entries, though, must not deceive. She analysed the political and military situation with rational understanding and strategic vision. Her brothers, on the front in the north of Italy, sent home precise reports on the numbers of soldiers and military equipment on each side, other data was retrieved from newspapers and asked for to corresponding friends 3. Emilia also had, already, a very precise political stance. She defined herself a liberal and a constitutionalist (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, p.301). Republican and democratic endeavours, let alone popular revolutions were condemned and even considered one of the causes for the failing of the 1848 attempt at unifying Italy. Giuseppe Mazzini, the Giovane Italia and Francesco Domenico Guerrazzi were all harshly judged. After 1848, she wrote: “The righteous man cries: “I’m not a democrat”, and means: “I’m not guilty” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, p.312). While Emilia’s political credo was already set in her teenage years, informed by the stance of her family, her ideas about the economy received a clear definition only after her marriage in 1850. Before, the only entry regarding liberalism concerned the famous Cobdenian tour of Italy in 1847. At the time, while demonstrations in favour of liberty were repressed, as Emilia duly noted in her diary, acclaiming free trade was acceptable, making liberalism one of the legitimate claims that patriots could pursue4: “in absence of other liberties, having the freedom of trade is still something” (Peruzzi 2007, p.93). The 13th of May 1847, Emilia wrote: “Today there is a great banquet at Ardenza in honour of Richard Cobden. From Pisa the professors Montanelli, Regny and Castinelli have gone there to participate, as did the jurist Dell’Hoste. Cobden, the English defendant of free trade has been welcomed in Italy with great enthusiasm. In Genoa, Rome, Naples, Bologna, Florence and now Livorno great banquets have been organised for him. On these occasions important men have pronounced speeches in favour of free trade” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, p.154). Unregistered by her diaries, the banquet in Florence, held days before, the 2nd of May, had been hosted by the then mayor – gonfaloniere – of the city, Vincenzo Peruzzi (Arcangeli, 1848). On this occasion Cobden himself had admitted the ground-breaking role of Tuscany in embracing free trade much in advance of the rest of the world, England included (Anonymous 1847). The reforms of Pietro Leopoldo, in fact, had liberalised, since the 1780s, many aspects of the Tuscan economy, allowing the free import and export of agricultural products and the sale of 3 The usage to circulate letters containing information about war efforts was diffused. In the case of the Crimean war, for example, Emilia received “second-hand” letters of the Piedmontese officer Agostino Petitti through her uncle Pietro Torrigiani (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p. 56 and p.65). 4 See: Poettinger 2017, pp.193-194. land through the abolition of the fideicommissum: this the content of the speech held in front of the 110 guests by the banker and industrialist Emanuele Fenzi (Ibid.). The brothers Carlo and Emanuele Fenzi were family acquaintances of the Toscanellis, and, as most of the Tuscan élite, shared the liberal view of the economy supported by the reigning Lorena family. Emanuele became, as seen, a veritable champion of free trade and endorsed the then current plan for a trade union among Italian states on the example of the German one, an economic union that could become the base for an Italian political federation, led by the Pope. Emanuele Fenzi also played a pivotal role in the modernisation of the Tuscan economy. He financed both the main railway and tramway lines and the first tentative ventures for the extraction of iron and combustible material needed to produce rails and mechanical components for the emerging railway industry. This part of the Tuscan economy, the emerging industrial ventures, was mainly alien to Emilia until the encounter with Ubaldino Peruzzi (1822-1891), son of Vincenzo, who followed in the paternal steps and became gonfaloniere of Florence at a very young age. As such he was presented to Emilia in the salon of Carlotta Marchesini Torrigiani. While in the diary entry of the 10th of March 1850 Emilia recounts this as a casual event (Benucci 2007 p.XXVII), the reality of what would become a love match was more complex. According to Emilia’s own writings, the choice of the spouse was not something to be left to pure romanticism. Commenting the wedding of a friend, in 1846, she wrote about a choice that determined future perspectives (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, p.136). On the contrary, a great love could easily and rapidly fade, as in the case of Massimo d’Azeglio (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, p.137). A good impression and a personal inclination were essential to cement a good marriage, but common beliefs, goals and aspirations were likewise necessary. A little help in such a momentous choice might be useful and welcome. In the case of Emilia and Ubaldino the matchmakers were members of the Torrigiani family, one of the most prominent in Florence, to which both youngsters were directly related. Believing that the characters, perspectives, and inclinations of Emilia and Ubaldino would be a good match, they arranged a meeting. The wedding was celebrated in the very same year. According to a superficial scrutiny, the marriage between Emilia and Ubaldino appears to be a classic match between a rich merchants’ daughter of recent acquired nobility and the scion of a family of ancient lineage but little wealth. Emilia would so be the one used to discussing trade, speculations and innovative ventures, by precisely weighing costs and benefits, while Ubaldino should have been the idle nobleman with good connections but no practical capabilities. To the contrary, the diaries of Emilia show a young lady whose family had chosen to leave behind trade and embrace the life of landed proprietors, while Ubaldino had been educated to be a driving force behind the modernisation of Tuscany. After attending the renown liceo Cicognini in Prato, Ubaldino had obtained, at the age of 18, a degree in law at the university of Siena, but his family insisted at that point that he should move to Paris to study in the prestigious École des mines. The elders of the noble but impoverished Peruzzi family, in fact, and specifically his father, Vincenzo, who had invested in many of the new stock companies, wanted Ubaldino to become a mining engineer so that he could take advantage of a sector that would blossom in the wake of the modernisation of the economy5. After his degree, Ubaldino returned home enthusiastically reporting of the changes he had witnessed in Paris: the gigantic public works and the sprouting of railway lines. Ubaldino, then, went on to Germany, where he visited mines and manufactures, extensively relating his findings to the Accademia dei Georgofili (Peruzzi 1846, Peruzzi 1848), the most important discussion forum for economic issues in Florence. The premature death of his father and the precipitating events of 1848 steered Ubaldino’s career, as seen, toward politics. After the return of the Lorena family, accompanied by the invasion of Austrian military forces, Ubaldino briefly acted as gonfaloniere of Florence, but in 1850, only days after his marriage, he was deposed in consequence of his opposition to the disbandment of the Parliament imposed by the Austrians. As many of his peers, he decided to leave the active political scene, de facto withdrawing the long-standing support of the local nobility to the reigning family. After the dismissal, thanks to the enormous dowry brought by Emilia, 300.000 Lire, the couple, financially independent, travelled6, visited friends and family, leaving a quiet life. Ubaldino, though, did not remain idle. He firstly applied new scientific methods to the managing of his landed properties. In May 1854 Emilia registered in her diary that her husband was completing a statistical work on Tuscany’s farmers (Peruzzi 1857) for his former professor at the École des mines, Pierre-GuillaumeFrederic Le Play (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.9) a founding father of French sociology. Ubaldino, in fact, participated to a generalised European study, based on the new analytical method of Le Play7, to measure the living standards of the working class (Le Play 1855), contributing an 5 Ubaldino came back from Paris, where he lived with his uncle, diplomatic representant of the Grand Duke at the French court, with more than a technical education. He created long lasting relationships among the French liberal and technocratic elite. Instrumental in this sense was the prestigious school he attended. There he gained the friendship of fellow students like Pierre Paul Ernest vicomte Benoist D'Azy (1824-1898) and of his professor PierreGuillaume-Frederic Le Play (1806-1882). 6 In 1851 the couple visited Paris, while in 1853 they went to Venice (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p. 7). In 1855 they were again in Paris (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.107). 7 Le Play founded, in 1856, the Société internationale des études pratiques d'économie sociale to spread his statistical method for the social sciences (Le Play 1879). He also obtained political recognition for his pioneering work and was held in the highest regard by Napoleon III. Politically he was a reactionary and that costed him future recognition as exceptionally analytical analysis of the Tuscan sharecropper (Peruzzi 1877). Ubaldino could also finally express his passion for the railway sector, having been nominated, in 1853, director of the Leopolda, the line that connected Florence with Pisa and Livorno, a position he would maintain until 1861. “Ubaldino manages a great estate and directs all his energies in industrial ventures” wrote Emilia in her diary in July 1856 (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.139). Only after her marriage, then, Emilia was introduced at the centre of economic change and started to learn and discuss about economic questions. The 11th April 1856, for example, Emilia wrote in her diary: “On the road conversation with Ubaldino on the real estate- and land-credit and on mortgage loans – new banking institutions that are to be introduced also here [in Tuscany]” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.83). The new awareness was not limited to the intercourse with her husband. Many Tuscan notables, having abandoned the political scene, dedicated their efforts to the modernisation of the economy (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.139). Another figure that influenced her in the first marriage years was that of a cousin, though senior in years, of Ubadino Peruzzi: Bettino Ricasoli. Ricasoli, a Baron of ancient lineage, had suffered the same fate as the Peruzzis and, impoverished, had dedicated himself to restoring the family fortunes by applying scientific methods to the agriculture and viticulture in the Chianti region, where he possessed a great estate around the castle of Brolio (Poettinger 2019). When Emilia got acquainted with him, Bettino Ricasoli had already been successful in his endeavour and had risen to be the leading political figure of the Tuscan élite. The setback in local politics after 1848 had not dampened his factual energy. In November 1855, Emilia wrote down: “Now Bettino goes to the Maremma; he has bought land and house; he has also procured machines of all kinds from France and England and will try them out. He needs action. For the country there is nothing to be done in the sphere of high politics and in Brolio his mission has been accomplished; so Maremma it is: another type of agriculture, other experiments that if successful will benefit all of Tuscany. But for all of this to be achieved he needs to be there, his control is needed over the working men, and he will bury himself in that desert, he will pass there all winter, and, worse, also the pernicious time of harvest, when the reaping and threshing machines will be in use. Here is a man who succeeds or dies: he possesses an iron will that is rare in our days; he has a patient and persevering nature that sees the obstacle, measures it and overcomes it, or at least has the courage and merit to try” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p. 71). Just half a page and Emilia perfectly depicted the struggle of one of the founding fathers of French sociology. Only recently, with the spreading of structuralism, his analysis on family structures has been rediscovered and appreciated for its worth (Augustine 1989, pp. 103-109). modernising the Tuscan economy by Schumpeterian heroes (Barsanti 2010), a struggle that could be mortal, since the Maremma plain was marshy and plagued by malaria. Bettino Ricasoli, in fact, caught the terrible fever in July 1856 (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.145), as Emilia duly registered: “I found Bettino with the traces of the malady on his face – but nonetheless he did not change his resolve. I did not address the issue because I didn’t want to touch a hurtful subject. When a man is miserable, he looks for an optimal occupation, something that won’t leave him alone with himself” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.161). The efforts of Bettino Ricasoli and his brother Vincenzo in the Maremma were not successful. The difficulty in finding specialised workers, the hostility of the local farmers, leading to episodes of luddism, the impossibility for the local mechanical factory to produce and repair machines with the cast iron available at the time in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany made the endeavour of the brothers uneconomical. The big estates were so subdivided into smaller pieces of land, each managed by a farm, lent to one family. It would take time, the development of an efficient iron industry, the drying of the marshlands and the emerging of a modern workforce to allow the intensive exploitation of the Maremma. Nonetheless, transferring the efforts of the Tuscan élite into industrial pursuits obtained its goal. Emilia, always attentive toward the subtle changes in political equilibria, discussed these results at length in her diaries in June 1856. The humiliation of being deprived of political representativeness suffered by the Tuscan nobility after the return of Leopoldo II was vindicated by the visibility and influence gained on economic ground (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, pp.126-128). Among the receivers of the medal for industrial merits were, on this occasion, Bettino Ricasoli, Cosimo Ridolfi and Antonio Salvagnoli, all - duly noted Emilia adherents to the party of constitutionalists. Only Raffaello Lambruschini could not obtain an invitation to the court, despite his undeniable innovativeness in agriculture and industry, for the opposition of the Church, sparked by his “protestant” stance. A good sign, in the eyes of Emilia, who wrote: “Whenever Austrians and the clerical party show fear and react, the liberal party stirs and resurges, also in Tuscany” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.127). In the same diary entry Emilia extensively reported on the state of the Tuscan economy, a topic that had become the centre of the debate between the prime minister, Giovanni Baldasseroni, and the clerical party. The repeated failing of many crops due to climatic reasons and the new fungal diseases that affected the precious vineyards had caused a decisive drop in tax income and consequently an increased disorder in the finances of the state. “The biggest landed proprietors are in trouble; the little ones are ruined. The countryside, once a quiet, joyous, and secure place is now full of thefts and disorder. (…) Public works are not enough to counterbalance this state of things” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.128). While the drying of marshlands was proceeding slowly, the enormous works started to enlarge the port of Livorno were heftily criticised by engineers and politicians alike as a waste of funds. At this point, Emilia did not shy to express a personal opinion on the question. She did not approve the general criticism: to appreciate the economic results of the public works, particularly of those in Livorno, more time was needed (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.129). All in all, during the first decade of her marriage, the view that Emilia had of economic matters was fairly conventional, notwithstanding the influence of Ubaldino Peruzzi. Ubaldino himself, as seen, although enthusiastic about new technologies and industrial innovation, was, in the political sphere, a conservative prone on cautious reforms. This general view of things was not changed by the extensive travelling of the couple8 or by the knowledge gathered through friends, conversations, or readings. If possible, these experiences reinforced their conventional wisdom. Modernity had its positive sides, one of the foremost being the beloved railways. “Easy transports are a means to multiplying the existence” wrote Emilia in 1854 (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.8). She also registered with surprise how the line from Livorno to Florence, built to enhance the trading activity of the Grand Duchy, had rapidly become a way for Tuscans to reach the seaside and enjoy a day or two of vacations. Emilia called these the “trains of pleasure” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.141), transporting thousands of newly become tourists on Sundays during the summer season. Modernity, though, had also some perils, brought about by the rapid changes in the economy. One of the rare readings of Emilia was so dedicated, in August 1856, to the comedy “La Bourse” by Francois Ponsard (1856) and to a satirical piece by Louis Veron (1856) on the life of the new millionaires, both dedicated to the moral condemnation of easy earnings (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.155). A moral judgement that Emilia would apply also in respect to her brother, who squandered the family fortune in risky ventures and in opaque affairs linked with the scandal of the Italian emission banks, which ultimately led to the abolition of the convertibility in gold of the Lira in 1866. Morality was, in this case but always, for Emilia, the rule on which to measure economic activities. She wrote to her brother: “The issue of Banks is a serious question for the huge amount of circulating capital involved and you as all rentiers could find yourself in a disastrous situation. 8 Every year the couple organised a travel abroad. Paris was a recurrent destination, but Ubaldino also extensively visited Spain, having left Emilia in Paris, in 1862, and in 1869 the couple was invited by the Kedivè of Egypt to the opening of the Suez canal (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, p.28). On the interesting observations of Ubaldino about the economic situation of Spain, see: Ragozzino 2013, pp.74-75. On Egypt, see the joyous letter of Emilia to her sister-inlaw Vittoria: Ragozzino 2013, pp.199-200. In 1873 the couple visited Sweden (Pareto 1968a, p.253), in 1874 Switzerland (Pareto 1968a, p.394). Sell your share, all of you should sell your shares, but for God’s sake take yourself out of the peril represented by the Banks. You already had many debts, you had to sell the family villa in Livorno, you speculated and threw yourself, for electoral reasons, in a business that is even more delicate for a member of the local government as you are. This is dangerous for your and your children’s patrimony” (Ragozzino 2013, pp.221-222). Fig. 1 Emilia Peruzzi in a caricature of the early 1860s. Emilia is, interestingly, characterised as a woman with political interests, wielding power in the form of a muff representing a document folder inscribed with the ministerial post held by Ubaldino at the time, the ministry of internal affairs. PARETO AND A 19TH CENTURY SOCIAL NETWORK Emilia Peruzzi has been widely recognised, already in her time9 and today, as being an exceptionally influential woman. Her salon, held in the Florentine house situated in Borgo de’ Greci or in the villa dell’Antella in the southern hills of Florence (Giacalone Monaco 1968), was attended by literates, politicians, the local aristocracy, and many foreigners10. Her vast correspondence, of which the received part has been preserved at the National Library in Florence(BNCF) (Fontana Semeraro, Gennarelli Pirolo 1980; Fontana Semeraro, Gennarelli Pirolo 1984), testifies of the respect she enjoyed. Since she had no outstanding qualities or capacities, being neither a literate, a poet, a scientist nor an exceptionally beautiful, fashionable or witty woman11, it might be asked how and why she became the pivotal point of a varied and widespread network of illustrious, intelligent and powerful people. The answer to this question lies in modern social media culture. Emilia Peruzzi’s outstanding ability lied in her incessant conversation and widespread and continuously flowing correspondence. She was even capable of writing while engaging in multiple conversations (Pareto 1968a, p.111). This made her an early example of influencer in the cultural and political spheres. Emilia Peruzzi used her salon and her correspondence in a way that is easily comparable with today’s participation to social media platforms. Emilia considered conversation to be her preferred engagement and the main tool to obtain knowledge. She did not like to read. In 1854, quoting Dante, she confided to her diary: “During my life, that has now reached its half, I have written much, little I have read” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007 p.1). Apart from some classics, her literary knowledge derived from others who read the books and commented them to her (Benucci 2007, pp.XC-CV). In fact, she was more interested in being able to converse about literature than having a profound understanding of it. Advising her nephew, in later years, she said “Dear child, one must be utilitarian. From everyone you can learn much more than by studying, if you lead the conversation on the topic that interests him, or that he has especially studied” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, p.25). Her network, though, was not only the main source of her knowledge, but also a world of her creation in which she represented herself, expressed her own personality and reigned supreme. 9 For a complete account of the obituaries and homages dedicated to Emilia Peruzzi in life and after her death in 1900, see: Benucci 2007, p.XX n.25. 10 For a bibliography on the salon Peruzzi, see: Benucci 2007, pp.XX-XXI n.26. 11 She wrote many times in her diaries on her lack of beauty, always appreciating the fact that this circumstance held many unwanted attentions at bay. Despite all recounts about Emilia’s goodness of heart, by her own admission she had always been quite a wilful person. In 1845 she wrote in her diary: “I speak frankly and in abundance, I act ardently. In a bad mood or when I’m excited, I might be pungent, but I immediately repent and if I’d offended someone, I would not shy from offering my excuses. (…) I like to command and not to obey. I usually do what I wish, and I don’t like to be opposed. The absence of our mother has made out of us [she and her sisters] independent women, since our father is almost never at home and he leaves petty decisions to us, only influencing the big ones. Usually, we know when to ask for permission and our father tries to accommodate our wishes anyway. I fear I am a little spoiled since when father denies me, I am not happy at all. Poor me if I should marry an intransigent man, I would have many a bitter pill to swallow!” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 1922, pp.131-132). Luckily for her, Ubaldino Peruzzi was not one to oppose her wishes and she could even write recommendation letters on his behalf, without asking, and get only a mild scolding in return when he was accosted by someone thanking him for a favour he could not recall having granted. Social intercourse was for her a form of competition. Exemplary the case of her visit to Mary Somerville, in May 1856. Mary, according to Emilia’s narrative, was in conversation with Giulia Ridolfi, a friend and rival of Emilia. In consequence, she engaged in conversation the husband of Mary, William Somerville who was, up to that moment, sitting nearby, reading a newspaper. “He lay down the paper, looked at me, stood up and came near me and when I sat up to leave, he kissed my wrists, not wanting to kiss the glove, and told me that he would never forget the things that I had told him (…). Mrs Somerville and Giulia smiled astonished by the success that I had ensured in just a few minutes. And these are my triumphs” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p. 108). Only a little while before she had admitted that middle aged men were, in fact, her preferred partners in conversation (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007 p.84). The reason for this choice was, to her, clear: “Elderly men show a great affection towards me. Among the younger ones only one. Youngsters are conquered by beauty, coquetry, romantic temperament, melancholia, a mysterious look, and a tormented soul. Happy women, with serenity in their eyes and a tranquil face; not ugly but like many others; with no caprices, no mood swings, transparent, fair, sincere, good, inspire esteem and a general appreciation, have many friends, many admirers but they don’t provoke love, if not one or two times in life” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p. 108). Emilia, so, abstained from all social gatherings were beauty, fashionable attire and vain conversations were required. There was also an undercurrent of moralism in her decision. In May 1856, on her way from Florence to the villa all’Antella, she penned down: “Tomorrow countryside, solitude, none of what are called entertainments, instead peace, quiet, the beauties of nature, freedom and independence: the real delights of life. My city life has ended for this year, and I salute it with no regrets and no yearning. How many sighing hearts at the arrival of Spring, by mere distancing, fall prey to oblivion! How many passing quarrels are extinguished by distance, how many caprices end, how many gallantries are interrupted! How many fantasies born in candlelight are extinguished by the splendour of a true spring sunshine!” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, 111). Notorious her refusal to join Ubaldino in hosting the Emperor of Brasil, one of the grandest events that her husband presided as mayor of Florence (Ragozzino 2013, pp.563-564). She preferred the limited spaces of the living rooms in Borgo de’Greci, where the number of guests had to be restricted and she could decide whom to admit and whom not. Women, unsurprisingly, were scarce. She did not shy to admit: “My taste is that of a man more than that of a woman. Patriotism, studies, all kind of occupations, with the exclusion of feminine works, travels, politics, public life are my passions, the things in which I engage with enthusiasm” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p. 76). Her correspondence also shows an overproportionate presence of males in respect to females and an alarmingly high level of bossiness. Younger correspondents like Sidney Sonnino (1847-1922) and Vilfredo Pareto (18481923) had to continuously justify themselves for not having written often enough, long enough, accommodating enough. Even the Iron Baron, Bettino Ricasoli, one of the most respected and revered figures of Tuscany’s nobility, went not without occasional scolding. The 21st of November 1856, Emilia noted down: “I wrote some time ago to Bettino reprimanding him that he never took the initiative in writing and only answered back and many other things, sweet and sour. He answered that I’m a thorny rose. I answered that the roses without thorns are of a species that doesn’t have much scent, and I don’t want them in my garden, and, in my house, I rule” (Peruzzi 2007, p.198). The complacency of this observation reveals how much Emilia depended on her network to express her will and cement her sense of worthiness. Her increasing addiction to conversation and letters resembles today’s dependence on “likes” and other forms of recognition in social networks. “I received yesterday 8 letters, 8 people had thought about me and had engaged with me!” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007 p.1) wrote Emilia with delight in 1854. And more: “All the action in my present life happens through correspondence” (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.33). As a final confirmation of how much she came to rely on her own peculiar form of social recognition it is worthwhile quoting a last entry from her diaries: “and I believe that for a traveller the possibility to speak about her/his travels is one of the main pleasures” (Peruzzi 2007, 18). The narrative of the events of her life to her network became, so, more important than the event itself. Her identity building and the way she constructed her experience into knowledge were so the result of her interaction with conversation partners and correspondents: a social and socialising media (Menduni 2013, pp.124-126). As in social networks today, dominated by influencers, the prevailing form of opinion building and rule of choice in the network of Emilia was the principle of authority (Guadagno 2013, 326-328). Vilfredo Pareto, an assiduous guest of the Peruzzis, immediately noted how in the discussions held in the salon all opinions could be expressed, but the outcome was already decided. Furthermore, ideas acquired value and were ordered not according to their internal logic and empirical verifiability, but with regard to the importance, fame and name of the person who upheld them. The scholar Gaetano Imbert remembered vividly how the scientific approach of Pareto upset the orderly functioning of the salon. “When the marquis Vilfredo Pareto attended, the conversation never languished. He told incendiary things, because his economic and social theories were new and courageous. He was scandalous among those fogies. - But dear Fried, - would the dame say – these things cannot be published on L’Economista and even less on the Revue des Deux Mondes. No, dear Mrs Emilia! The truth, that is light must enlighten not only us but also the foreigners” (Giacalone Monaco 1968b, p. XXI)12. The observation of Emilia was not idle. When Pareto penned down an answer to an article published in the Gazzetta d’Italia that criticised the idea of proportionality, and asked Carlo Fontanelli to print it on the Florentine newspaper La Nazione, Emilia, being befriended with the author, denied the wish of Pareto who had to step back (Pareto 1968a, pp.205-207). Pareto relinquished by writing to Emilia: “Fontanelli will not publish the article unless thou will give him thy permission. I shouldn’t even have to write it down, thou know that I would never do anything that could displease thou and I would sacrifice not one but ten articles (…) to prove my gratitude” (Pareto 1968a, p.206). Notwithstanding his profession of obedience, Pareto came back on the topic of authority multiple times, mostly with vehement denial13. In a letter to Emilia written in Vienna the 5th of February 1873, in complete opposition to 12 An example of how Pareto confronted adversaries in animated conversations is given in the letter dated 21 March 1876. “Yesterday evening great discussion with Padeletti on liberal theories. Padeletti says that the guelfism of Florence will create embarrassment to the government and that this tendency should be repressed. Fridino [Pareto] fights as a lion and says that if you want freedom for yourself, you must grant it to the others also. Philipson agrees with the Germanic ideas of Padeletti and Frid [Pareto] in such a nest of vipers doesn’t back down and shouts as both his adversaries together, denies that he has a partiality for the Scolopi, but praises the Florentine municipality for subsidising private schools. This heretical notion that the state should not monopolise education flabbergasted Padeletti and Philipson. Frid [Pareto] is accused of being a clericalist but he shouts that he is honoured by this definition if it is synonymous of liberal “(Pareto 1968a, p.579). 13 See the letter dated 10th February 1873 (Pareto 1968a, pp.164-168); the letter dated 12 march 1874 (Pareto 1968a, pp.325-326). the principle governing the salon, Pareto declared: “I believe ideas to be everything, the man that upholds them nothing and often the ideas that prevailed [in the history of science] were supported by mediocre minds and opposed by luminous intelligences. So that if on some occasion my tone is too sharp, this is a consequence of my faith in my ideas and not in myself (Pareto 1968a, p.152). Of the two, the principle of authority and the principle of scientificity, Pareto, despite all scolding by Emilia, would always follow the second. The principle of authority gave way to sentimental judgements. In the words of Pareto: “Judgments based on sentiments have always been wrong and if it happens that one should be right, I wouldn’t know how bad became good and false became right. The sentimental judgment is always rush, sudden, absolute and is never to be changed, even, you admit it yourself, when the victorious reason proves it false and unfair” (Pareto 1968a, p.47). Nonetheless, the authority of Emilia made sentimental judgements the rule in her network: “Perhaps, more than reason, sentiments divide us and on this terrain I cannot but lose. Thou feel so exquisitely and delicately that everyone is on thy side, and I stand alone in battle against all my adversaries, only excused by thy uncommon benevolence” (Pareto 1968a, p.53). The self-representation of Pareto as a solitary hero armoured in reason and logic, against the rest of Peruzzi’s guests and friends14, underlines how Emilia’s social network was made out of a majority of common minded followers. The principle of authority worked, so, as a self-reinforcing mechanism: “What leads astray is that the esteem and the benevolence of the public are easily possessed by whom does not depart from the ideas of the majority” (Pareto 1968a, p.60). Pareto, again, perfectly understood and denounced the fallacy of this rule of choice. He wrote: “The justice and goodness of a doctrine depend on causes that are external to the doctrine itself, never on the major or minor number of its followers” (Pareto 1968a, p.58). More: “To take as a rule to follow the opinion that counts the highest number of followers can lead us to err with the same easiness of a rush judgement, since it has been observed, rightly in my opinion, that every error has had a time and place in which it was followed by a majority”. There was only one exception, for Pareto, to the distorted functioning of networks operating under the principle of authority: networks of science. “I cannot leave it unsaid that there is one case in which we must judge according to the mind of others: when we are Pareto’s heroic vision of innovation followed his reading of John Stuart Mill. “I become more and more convinced of the assertion of John Stuart Mill that all greatness of humanity has been the result of eccentric men that opposed the ideas commonly held. Examples are infinite and quoting all of them would mean writing the history of the progress of humankind. Today, luckily, science does not follow authority anymore and authority is only the realm of political and social questions” (Pareto 1968a, p.73). See also the Darwinian metaphor in the letter of the 2 June 1875 (Pareto 1968a, pp.513-514). 14 ignorant of a science. Then, we accept the theorems that are reputed true by all the scientist that practice it” (Pareto 1968a, p.59). Networks were not bad in themselves, but only if they were governed by the principle of authority, an authority cemented by the numerosity of followers, and diffused by sentimental judgements. A network, instead, built around a scientific community could be helpful and positively inform the worldview of the general public. PATRONAGE AND ÉLITE FORMATION An influencer, today, is someone who, by the authority given by the number of followers, can affect the consumption patterns and opinion of a significant number of people. Emilia Peruzzi, despite managing a network that functioned, as seen, along the same lines as modern social media, surely did not use her power in the realm of consumerism. Both her and Ubaldino were rather modest people. They lived sparingly, ate with restraint, and enjoyed long walks. Nonetheless, Emilia exercised her influence over her followers in no minor measure. To understand how, the time of Emilia as an influencer should be subdivided in two periods. The first comprises the brief period in which Florence was capital of the Kingdom of Italy, from 1865 to 1871 (Poettinger, Roggi 2017) The salon Peruzzi, both in Florence and Antella, was then at the centre of the Italian political life. Emilia thrived in it. Her knowledge of politics made her an interesting conversation partner and confidante for many politicians15. Thanks to her international network of correspondents, built up in the many travels and diplomatic missions she shared with her husband, Emilia was also a reliable source of information on international political events and moods. All the while the connections of Ubaldino in the Tuscan elite and in the emerging national financial and industrial ventures, made the couple a reference point for a Tuscany-wide network of political affiliations. In newly unified Italy, politics was practiced by managing a restricted electorate made out of notables, through concessions, favours and recommendations. Emilia was a perfect aid for her husband also in this context. Only a passing glance at the later correspondence between Emilia and Carlo Fontanelli (1843-1890), one of her and her husband’s protégés, reveals a continuous flow of requests: a recommendation for a chair in history at the Naval Institute in Livorno (BNCF Fondo Peruzzi 70, 2, 15); a recommendation for the son of an employee of the Circolo Filologico to be admitted to Art School, possibly without paying the 15 Examplary of this is the political testament of Luigi Guglielmo Cambray-Digny that he wrote in a letter to Emilia Peruzzi in May 1876 (Fontana Semeraro, Gennarelli Pirolo 1980, pp.201-202). necessary fee, given the poor condition of the family (BNCF Fondo Peruzzi 70, 2, 21) a recommendation for a chair in Italian, History and Geography at a high school in Prato (Fontanelli 2012, p.251); a recommendation in favour of Francesco Genala (1843-1893) for a chair in commercial law at the Social Sciences School (Fontanelli 2012, p.255; Fontanelli 2012, p.256); a recommendation for Tullio Martello for a chair in political economy at the University of Bologna (Fontanelli 2012, p.262) and so on. The correspondence of other protégés, like Emilio Broglio (1814-1892), this time with Ubaldino Peruzzi as with Emilia, also shows the same pattern and contents16. When Rome became capital of Italy, in fact, the political life and liveliness moved there too, leaving Florence in disastrous financial conditions and a much quieter place. The social activity of Emilia, then, transferred from her salon, as seen, more onto her correspondence and the focus of her attention switched from middle-aged followers to younger protégés. There is no doubt that, also in this phase, political influence remained the aim of her social activity, at least up to the fateful 1876 when Ubaldino Peruzzi became instrumental in the fall of the right-wing party and lost much of his political weight, but her attention inexorably shifted toward a younger generation. The absence of her diaries for this delicate period of passage and the fact that only few of her letters have been preserved do not help in understanding the reasons for this undeniable change. An easy explanation lies in the childlessness of the marriage of Emilia Peruzzi. Although in many passages of her writings she denied feeling in any way diminished by her want of motherhood, her intercourse with the youngsters of her family and of her salon shows many maternal traits, at least in her narrative. As seen, Emilia represented herself as a woman of mediocre beauty and great virtue, attracting the affection of many middle-aged men but not the unwanted passion of younger ones. As such she distanced herself from the likes of Marie Laetitia Bonaparte Wyse, spouse of a rising star of Italian politics, Urbano Rattazzi, who exercised her influence in Florence with a salon where magnificent toilets, mundane conversations and libertinism ruled. The rivalry between the two grand dames became legendary (Imbert, 1949) and no viciousness was spared (Bonaparte Wyse Rattazzi, 1867). The virtuous public image of Emilia could only be reinforced, given the accusation that the rival threw at her. There surely was also some genuine moralism behind her attitude toward her protégés, despite a measure of satisfaction in having to scold some of them for their attempts at passionate declarations of love. 16 The BNFC, Fondo Ubaldino Peruzzi, registers many brief letters from Broglio to Ubaldino and Emilia Peruzzi. Mostly, Broglio asks for favours and recommendations as in use at the time (Faucci and Bianchi 2005, pp.242-247). This last was the case of her first protégé: Eduardo de Carbajal (1831-1895), an Uruguayan painter who came to Italy to complete his education (Benucci 2007, p.LXXIV). He stayed in Florence between the end of 1853 and the beginning of 1855 when he relocated to Rome17. Starting in 1855 up to 1864 he wrote 15 letters to Emilia (BNCF, Fondo Peruzzi, 38, 10). Most of the flattery he bestowed on his patroness was quickly dismissed as an expression of his South American passionate character (Toscanelli Peruzzi 2007, p.33). Nonetheless, Emilia wrote down with assiduousness in her diary her dealings with him. The case of Carbajal is worth quoting because it shows some of the traits that would become typical of Emilia’s style of patronage. While usually patronesses would encourage young intellectuals and politicians and offer them much needed connections and recommendations, Emilia also delivered, mostly unwanted, advice on their moral character and how to meliorate it. About Carbajal, she penned down in her diary, also quoting one of her letters to him: “I advise him on readings on art and painters, some poetry and ‘Le mie prigioni’ by Silvio Pellico: ‘I consider it an excellent book for everyone to read but perfect for you. You would read about the importance of faith for a man who was unjustly martyrised for so many years. You would have sworn, cursed and consumed yourself. Pellico, in his isolation, found God and submitted to His wishes, believing in His goodwill’” (Peruzzi 2007, p.17). This duplicity in scolding young ardent admirers, the literate Edmondo de Amicis would be one such a case, while boasting with others of their flattering speeches would persist in time, so much so that Pareto would candidly feel the necessity to explain to Emilia that such compliments were a social convention in European salons and no real admiration or sentiment lay behind them18. The most interesting and fruitful patronage would develop in the salon during the 1870s, when the hustle and bustle of the Capital had passed, and visitors rarefied. The fact that much of it would be bestowed on youths preparing to enter the political arena or one of the sprouting economic ventures in new sectors as railways, testifies for the influence of Ubaldino in selecting them and introducing them in the salon. Ubaldino, in fact, was not extraneous to Emilia’s network. 17 In Rome he would marry Luisa Gramgee, the daughter of an English family living in Florence. In 1858 he would then return to Monteviedo were he became the most important national painter in the neoclassical academic style. How much Emilia might have been instrumental in arranging his marriage is not known. 18 Emilia had written to Pareto about the flattering that a young Frenchmen had bestowed on her. Pareto answered: “These are the usual compliments that you use with dames, I believe that you are too superior in respect to other women to fall into them. I met a woman, that you know also, Elisa Vita, that confronted with much spirit the poor devils who tried the usual compliments that educated men believe they have to bestow on women, on her. They were mortified because Elisa was much too intelligent to believe true words that are vain. I have the fault to love sincerity and I believe the words that I say. I think it stupid to make compliments that everyone makes and as such loose every significance. I cannot admire, then, the words of your French friend” (Pareto 1968a, p.173). Whenever possible he enjoyed the social life orchestrated by his wife. Ubaldino was also very thoughtful of her, and it might well be possible that he chose these young people having in mind to assuage the maternal instincts of Emilia. Nonetheless this newest generation of protégés reflected in no minor measure his own interests: politics, engineering, and the modernisation of the Tuscan economy19. As in the case of the economic ideas of Emilia, mostly derived from her husband, also the economists – lato sensu – who started to attend her circle came so to know her through initiatives of Ubaldino. The question that firstly coalesced this cohort of young protégés was that of political representation (Nieri 1980, Busino 1989 pp.33-62). Carlo Fontanelli, as first, had published, in 1864 a booklet dedicated to this issue for lower grade students (Fontanelli 1864). This, probably, what caught the attention of the Tuscan moderates, Bettino Ricasoli first and then Ubaldino Peruzzi. The simple text, explaining to the working class the best possible form of government, already addressed the main problem of the voting system that had emerged after the Unification of Italy: the tyranny of the majority and the oppression of minorities. In the words of Fontanelli: “to avoid that one portion of society be oppressed by another, the government should represent all interests, all parts of society, not just one” (Fontanelli 1864, p.24). While everyone had the right to be represented, though, few had a right to represent. Only an élite possessed the morality and the knowledge necessary to govern with justice (Ibid. p.25, p.52). “The democratic element does not enter into the government through the entirety of the population (…), but with the election, i.e. the choice of the most capable made by the population itself. The election is so an essential part of the representative government” (Ibid. p.78). The booklet written by Fontanelli already contained two major points of Italian and Tuscan moderates’ thinking on the best representative system: the necessity firstly to give space to the interests of minorities and secondly to secure the emergence of personalities that distinguished themselves for their moral and intellectual capacities. These issues would be underlined also by Emilio Broglio who dedicated his work on parliamentary forms, published in 1865, to Ubaldino Peruzzi, recognising already at that date his leading role, as a reformer of the faulty voting system. The jurist Guido Padelletti (1843-1878), close friend of Fontanelli and later part of the wider circle around the salon Peruzzi20, instead, published in 1867 a complex historical essay on the theory of political elections (Padelletti 1870) 19 There were others, like the poet Renato Fucini (1843-1921), the literate Edmondo de Amicis (1846-1908) of the same age group who actively participated to Emilia’s network. Given their occupation they are not included in this study. Both correspondences have been partially or totally published (Dota 2015, Lazzeri 2006, Vannucci 1973). 20 The archive at the BNCF counts 34 letters from Padelletti to Emilia, written in the timespan 1874-1892. that won a prize of the Neapolitan Accademia di scienze morali e politiche and would be published in 1870. Along the same lines as Fontanelli, Padelletti had a providential idea of history and wanted the government to follow rules of universal and divine justice (Padelletti 1870, p.7). Interestingly, after condemning the divorce between political science and religion, Padelletti also argued in favour of taking into consideration the principles of political economy, particularly the distribution of income, when deciding the best possible form of government (Ibid. p. 9). This due to the fact that the right to vote could not be granted to everyone, but exclusively according to the ability to read and write21 and having reached a certain age, but also in consideration of a grade of intelligence that could be inferred by applying three criteria: the exercise of a profession, being employed in public service and possessing a determined level of income. A further criterion of exclusion, insurmountable for Padelletti, was gender (Padelletti 1870, pp.230-238). Contrary to the opinion of the otherwise revered John Stuart Mill, women could never be made into electors or, God forbid!, elected. Amid so much conservatism, Padelletti still found some criticism toward the Italian representative system that, since Unification, allocated the parliamentary seats to the most voted candidate in every constituency. Such a system, in which the imposed restrictions allowed just under 2% of the population the right to vote, completely unrepresented the losing minorities. On the same lines as Fontanelli, Padelletti (1870, pp.246-257) condemned the consequent tyranny of the majority and advocated the adoption of the quota system, proposed by Thomas Hare (Hare 1857, 1873) and divulged by John Stuart Mill (Urdánoz 2019). This system rather than being proportional, was personal, in the sense that voters had the right to choose whatever candidate they preferred nationwide and, granted that this candidate coalesced enough votes to reach the quota level (n. of voters/n. of parliamentary seats), he would be elected. Once reached the quota level, ulterior votes for the same candidate would be switched to a second preference, then a third and so on, so that every vote would, in the end, be represented. What Hare and Mill wanted to achieve with such a system was to take away power from the party system, usually polarised, while giving the possibility to worthy personalities outside of the parties to be elected. The élites would so enter Parliament, without the need of constraining party affiliations (Mill 1963, p.456). “With the actual system – underlined Padelletti – the majority is obliged to accept the candidates of the party and to obey to its vote indications, in order not to lose votes. This, according to Stuart Mill is not democracy but a figment of democracy. With the 21 At the time in Tuscany 74% of the population was illiterate. In 1911 still 37% of Tuscans could neither read nor write (De Mauro 1963, p.95). Hare system, instead, not only would minorities be represented, but each deputy would be elected by unanimous voters, who would then be truly represented. Each voter would so give his vote to a candidate confiding in his character and intelligence, agreeing with his opinions and the elections would thus hold a much greater value. (…) It is easy to see how this voting method would elevate the quality level of the Chamber of Deputies. Minorities would have every incentive to elect illustrious men who would worthily represent the ideas of their party and would have the possibility to exercise a greater influence, by sometimes convincing the majority, in parliamentary discussions, of their theses, thanks to their great capabilities” (Padelletti 1870, 253). While Thomas Hare and John Stuart Mill theorised this new personal system of voting, that would, as seen, immediately be commented and divulged in Italy22, in Geneva, in August 1864, the disastrous turmoil following an election that had sanctioned the victory of one candidate for just a few votes, convinced the philosopher Ernest Naville (1816-1909) to start a campaign in favour of introducing proportionality, via a version of the Hare system, into the local voting system (Naville 1864). In 1865 he so set up a Reform league, on the example of the Cobdenian Anti-Corn Law League, with the aim of diffusing the idea of proportionality worldwide (Busino 1989, pp.41-42)23. His activity is of interest because his father had been a close correspondent of Tuscan intellectuals of the calibre of Raffaele Lambruschini and had visited Tuscany, becoming acquainted with the local notables. Ernest himself, who had been in Florence between 1839 and 1840, became a correspondent of Lambruschini and through him of Bettino Ricasoli. In 1869, in Geneva, he met Francesco Genala (Busino 1989, pp.43), who was travelling all over the Continent in a sort of reversed Grand Tour. After discussing at length with Naville, Genala published a book in which he related the theories of Hare and Mill, but also presented the Genevan association to the Italian public (Genala, 1871). At the same time, Naville rekindled the acquaintance with the Peruzzis, as proved by the 65 letters written to Emilia between 1871 and 1897 and preserved at the BNCF. His main advocate in Italy, though, at this point, was the jurist Attilio Brunialti (1849-1920), another 22 The first to introduce the Hare system had been Giuseppe Saredo, professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Parma, in his course of 1861-62. After him Padelletti, as seen, dedicated a chapter of his book to Hare. Then Francesco Genala and Sidney Sonnino would both propose versions of Hare’s voting system in their works. On this, see: Genala 1871, p.47; Maglie 2014, pp. 144-146. 23 The network of the league included: John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hare in Great Britain, Victor D’Hondt and Jules de Smedt in Belgium, Maurice Vernes in France, Francis Fischer in Philadelphia, and Sydney Myers in Chicago. young attendant of the salon Peruzzi24. Brunialti, also in 1871, published a work that resumed, translated, and divulged the activities of the Genevan Reform League (Brunialti 1871). So much political interest and activity25 coalesced in May 1872 in the first meeting of the promoting committee for the foundation of an Italian Association for the Study of the Proportional Representance. Obviously, Ubaldino Peruzzi was among the promoters, along with Brunialti, Genala, Padelletti, Broglio and the long time friend of the Peruzzis, Ruggero Bonghi26. Among the others, we find many politicians and jurists of the time, with which Ubaldino had connections: Terenzio Mamiani, Giuseppe Saredo, Alessandro Spada, Luigi Luzzatti, Angelo Messedaglia, Pasquale Stanislao Mancini, and Marco Minghetti27. The chart of the association, as signed by the members of the committee, stated that “to fulfil its ends, the representative system must collect in the Council of the elected the representants of the ideas, interests and needs of the entire community - and at the same time must guarantee that these representants should be the persons better suited, for their knowledge and virtue, to accomplish the task that has been entrusted onto them (…) Then the representance truthfully portrays the state of things and of spirits and by putting these elements, so different, to work together and for the common good, constrains them to discuss with maturity and to converge, at the end, toward a decision that will surely comply with the will of the true majority and will probably be the best that that people would on that occasion think of and want” (Piretti 1990, pp.21-23). To achieve this ambitious goal there was just one voting principle to be applied, that of Thomas Hare. President of the Association became Terenzio Mamiani. Francesco Genala and Attilio Brunialti were nominated as secretaries with the task to organise the manifold activities of the Association and publish its Bulletin. The first public assembly of the Association was held in Florence at the Accademia dei Georgofili in June 1872 (Busino 1989, pp.45-47), becoming the fateful occasion in 24 The BNCF registers two letters sent by Brunialti to Ubaldino Peruzzi, without a date (Fontana and Gennarelli 1980, p.212). 25 The question also occupied Emilia’s salon in the villa all’Antella. Emilia wrote to Sonnino in 1872: “A long discussion on the representation of minorities – some argue that in Italy minorities are far better represented than the majority! Hillebrand eloquently argues against this thesis, Giorgini makes many subtle observations. Between Hillebrand and Giorgini a wonderful discussion, witnessed by all others, on old and modern societies, on social problems, on questions of political economy, on the more elevated questions – the eternal and the mutating things” (Sonnino 1989, p.292). 26 The BNCF registers 264 letters sent by Bonghi to Emilia between 1859 and 1886 (Fontana and Gennarelli 1980, p.211) 27 Marco Minghetti was a sporadic guest of the salon Peruzzi. which the young speakers and organisers, Sonnino (1970; 1872), Pareto28. and Genala29, came in touch with Carlo Fontanelli, who also held a speech on the occasion (Fontanelli 1872), and Emilia Peruzzi. Invited to join in the salon, they all became protégés of the Peruzzis and started a long lasting correspondence. The importance of the new voting system for Ubaldino Peruzzi cannot be underestimated. He so much believed in the new voting system that he tried to introduce it in local institutions and private companies, according to the indications received from Ernest Naville. First of all, obviously, not without raising protests from older associates, the personal voting system à la Hare became the rule in the Circolo Filologico (Maglie 2014, pp.148-150), then in the Società per l’industria del Ferro of which Ubaldino was president (Busino 1989, p.53). Proportional representation was also introduced, with the help of Vilfredo Pareto, who was at the time general director of the Società per l’industria del Ferro, in its workers’ association, the Società operaia di San Giovanni Val d’Arno (Ibid.). Here the new voting system produced positive effects. Before, of the three categories of workers employed: metal workers, machinists and porters, the first were numerically superior and with the majority system acquired all representative positions in the board, causing protests and a tense working environment. After including representatives of the minority workers into the board, the situation de-escalated. Thanks to the campaigning of Pareto, the new voting system was also adopted in Genoa, in the Banca operaia mutua di Sampierdarena, and the Società per la costruzione di case di Sampierdarena. Lastly, many cooperatives in Central Italy decided to change their representance into the Hare system (Ibid.). The success was so important that Naville would boast about the Italian case at the reunions of the Genevan League. Nonetheless every attempt to introduce proportional reforms into the Italian voting system, according to the proposals made by Genala and Minghetti in 1879, came to nothing (Maglie 2014, pp.151-153). The only advancement would be, in 1882, the easing of the requirements for suffrage and the extension of voting rights to almost 7% of the population. The reason why the staunch belief of Ubaldino in personal representance is so important in the context of this paper is that he, with no minor help by Emilia, put in practice the ideas of Mill not 28 A previous knowledge between Ubaldino Peruzzi and the father of Vilfredo Pareto must be excluded, given the content of the correspondence between Raffaele Pareto and Emilia/Ubaldino Peruzzi. The letters have been published as an Appendix to Pareto 1968b, pp. 641-676. 29 Ubaldino was well connected with the Tuscan Jewish business community and so knew both Isacco Sonnino, father of Sidney (Carlucci 1998, p.XIII), and the banker Abramo Philipson, father of Eduardo, who would become his pupil and another of Emilia’s protégés. On this circle, see: Funaro 2017. only campaigning for a reform of the voting system, but also dedicating a lifetime of effort in nurturing those morally irreprehensible and culturally knowledgeable young men who, when elected in Parliament, would enrich the quality of politics and benefit the whole country. Having been selected for their merits, promising qualities and knowledge, these youngsters, all born in the decade between 1843 and 185330, became assiduously present in the salon and in Emilia’s correspondence. Carlo Fontanelli sent her 590 letters between 1868 and 189031, Francesco Genala a staggering 1999 letters between 1872 and 1893, Vilfredo Pareto 1397 letters between 1872 and 1900 (Pareto 1968aa, Pareto 1968ab), Eduardo Philipson 233 letters between 1873 and 1897, and Sidney Sonnino 165 letters between 1872 and 1878 (Sonnino 1998). As in the building of a functional élite should be, they also became friends, as Carlo Fontanelli himself testified through a witty poem written about the salon, dedicated to Emilia: “Whatever my future and fortune will be I will never forget your courtesy or the elegant and appreciated conversations of which you were the centre, the soul and life; all the questions we gratefully discussed, often to the point of exhaustion; dear Sidney about universal suffrage, my sweet Genala on proportional representation, Pareto about a free, emancipated woman, voting and voted, judge and lawyer” (Carlucci 1998, p.XVII; Fontanelli 2012, pp.250-251) Although the salon was a merry place, where adults played social games, engaged in singing and music, recited poems and even acted in childlike manner, there is no doubt that Ubaldino practiced a very precise operation of élite selection and formation. The fact that the participants, here analysed, engaged in economic studies must not mislead. They were mostly prepared for a political career. Francesco Genala would be elected in Parliament as soon as he reached the 30 Carlo Fontanelli (1843-1890), Francesco Genala (1843-1893), Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Edoardo Philipson (18531944), Sidney Sonnino (1847-1922). 31 The correspondence of Fontanelli with Emilia has been partially published in Fontanelli (2012) pp.249-266. necessary age and would maintain his seat from 1874 al 1893. In this timespan, he would also act twice as minister for public works. Interestingly, he would always side with the left-wing party, not with the right, of which Ubaldino Peruzzi was a leader. A proof that, for Ubaldino and Emilia, what mattered was the quality of the elected, not their political side, nor their party affiliation. Fontanelli wrote it clearly in a letter to Emilia: “Please insist with Genala that if elected he won’t refute his seat. He is one of the young people that I’d love to see in Parliament. A sharp mind, serious studies, straight character, refined language: he possesses all qualities needed to be excellent deputy. Persuade him. I tried many times but to no avail” (Fontanelli 2012, p.254). As a side effect, the network managed by Emilia would be influential across all the spectrum of Italian politics. Sydney Sonnino underwrote the vision of Ubaldino on a proportional reform (Sonnino 1989, p.105), also sharing his dislike for the nefarious influence that parties had on the level of political discussion. In 1877, he would confess to Emilia: “In Rome I was disgusted by the condition of the parties, right- and left-wing. What a total absence of civil courage! I almost fear of stepping at one point into the Chamber as deputy and let myself be overcome by that sickness that takes away the ability to see the great questions, concentrating the activity and vitality of so many people on trivialities and unworthy gossip” (Sonnino 1989, p.264). Sonnino would sit in Parliament from 1880 to 1919, to be made senator in 1920 up to his death in 1922. A right-wing liberal, Sonnino would become a primary figure of Italian politics and hold over time the position of prime minister and various other ministerial posts. His position, though, would never be that of party servility32. Lastly, Vilfredo Pareto, before his call to the chair in economics at Lausanne, tried to be elected in Parliament, with the help of the Peruzzis, without success (Mornati 2018, pp.162-171; Giacalone Monaco 1965), but was nonetheless politically active as a municipal Councillor in San Giovanni Valdarno for several years (Mornati 2018, pp.171-173). As early as in 1868, Carlo Fontanelli was the first to become part of Emilia’s circle, through the recommendation of Bettino Ricasoli (Pallini 2012, p.7). He might seem an exception among Peruzzi’s protégés, and he was, in regard to pursuing a political career. In reality, he was an essential part of the Peruzzis’ network, more important for its functioning than any of the others. While the young politicians to be would bring their excellence into the national Parliament and local administrations, along with the ideals and interests of the network, Fontanelli had the vital In 1874, he wrote to Emilia: “If this is the credo of the Right; if to belong I must abiure every belief I have on economics, if I must abstain from every individual judgement, even on secondary questions (…) then I really don’t know into wich party I shouls classify myself” (Sonnino 1989, p.189). 32 scope to divulge the activities of the network and of its adherents far and wide, through newspaper articles, popular booklets, manuals and courses dedicated to as many different audiences as possible (Pallini 2012, pp. 9-10), from popular to female schools, from primary instruction to the renown Social Sciences School of superior studies (Pallini 2012, pp. 15-17). Fontanelli, in essence, extended the number of followers outside the network of Emilia. He created the voters that the young politicians needed to be elected and to enact their policies. Fontanelli embraced this mission and dedicated his life to it (Pallini 2012, p.10). To this end, Ubaldino put him in a neuralgic position in all his institutional initiatives. Fontanelli was so among the first associates of the Società Adamo Smith (Poettinger 2022), editor of the journal L’Economista (Poettinger 2013), vice-secretary of the Circolo Filologico33 and lifelong professor of economics at the Social Sciences School34. Fontanelli also represents the shift of the attention of Tuscan liberals and specifically of Ubaldino Peruzzi from politics and the problem of representation toward economic policies. Liberal economics, ideally represented by the thought of Adam Smith and practically by free-trade movements following the Cobdenian example, had always been an essential part of the Italian Risorgimento. The Piedmontese Count Cavour, the mastermind of Italian Unification, had been a passionate liberalist and Tuscans had a tradition of liberalism that dated back, as seen, to the Lorenian reforms of the 18th century (Poettinger 2022, pp.150-153). From its birth, in 1861, Italy had so embraced liberalism as its official economic ideology. The Franco-Prussian war, though, although it regaled Italy with its coveted capital Rome, also popularised the economic practice of the victorious German Empire: protectionist measures and social reforms. In the 1870s one of the main political battlefields would so become economic policy. Liberalism got under siege. This the reason for the frantic activity of the Peruzzis’ network in trying to spread liberalism in the new parliamentary élite, among the electorate and even in the wider population. A proof of this change in attitude of Ubaldino, in respect to economics, comes from his relationship with the Società italiana di economia politica35. Founded in 1868, thanks to the driving force of Francesco Ferrara, the Society shared many promoters with the Italian Association for the Study of the Proportional 33 On this initiative, see: Carlucci 1998, p.XIII. The pervasive diffusion activity done by Fontanelli on newspapers and journals is difficult to reconstruct, given that many articles were published anonymously. Here just one example taken from one off his letters concerning the opening of the Social Sciences School: “In regard to the School [of Social Sciences] I have written an article for La Nazione, one for L’Economista and I will write another. If the others don’t do the same is not my fault” (Carlo Fontanelli a Emilia Peruzzi s.d. BNCF Fondo Peruzzi 70, 2, 18). 35 On this society, created by Francesco Ferrara on the example of the Parisian Société d’économie politique see: Poettinger 2022, 55. 34 Representance: Luigi Luzzatti, Angelo Messedaglia and Marco Minghetti (Protonotari 1868, p.630). Ubaldino, though, refuted a direct involvement and simply delegated one of his trusted men, Emilio Broglio, to represent him36. The Society rarefied its operations between 1871 and 1872, due to the increased divergence in the political stance of Italian economists. Liberalists coalesced around Francesco Ferrara and Ubaldino Peruzzi, who promoted, in 1874, this time with renewed enthusiasm, the foundation of the Society Adam Smith. The Society reflected the intent of Peruzzi to spread the liberal ideas across Italy’s élite. It was not composed as the aforementioned Italian Political Economy Society mainly by economists who taught in universities and secondary schools, but included politicians, public servants, industrialists and, notably, journalists (Poettinger 2022, pp. 159-160). The need to create the widest possible circle of followers for the liberalist cause was at the forefront and in this sense the role of Emilia as an influencer was paramount37. Fontanelli wrote to Emilia, the 9th October 1874: “I’m very happy that you start to employ your rare and enviable activism in favour of the Adam Smith Society” (Fontanelli 2012, p.252). Emilia, in fact, had immediately sent letters around to gather promoters for the Society. Fontanelli was very clear in stating that Emilia was the one who mobilised the associative base38. So much so that he wrote: “Coming back to the Adam Smith Society, you are really meritorious, and we shall make you honorary president” (Fontanelli 2012, p.254). The insistence of Emilia was relentless. The 30th September 1874, Sonnino would write to her: “I have not been to today’s meeting of the “Adam Smith”. I’m not among the founders – I have associated myself as an ordinary member and wait for the Society to constitute itself. (…) As soon as I will have conquered back the moral equilibrium that I lost today, I will work for the Society and this will be much more useful than putting my name into some list. I hope that they won’t put my name in the Counsel of the Social Sciences School that has to be elected shortly. I won’t accept at any cost, even if to renounce is always unpleasant” (Sonnino 1989, pp. 180-181). In 1872 Sonnino had already tried, in vain, to resign from the board of the Circolo Filologico (Sonnino 1989, p.105). On another occasion, he would complain: “You absolutely want that something be done. I don’t feel this necessity to produce, to publish something every second day. It is better at my age to continue to capitalise. Once you 36 On the contrary, Peruzzi had been directly involved in the originary Political Economy Society, founded in Turin in 1852 that would cease its operations in 1866 (Faucci and Bianchi 2005, p. XXX; Faucci 2005, pp.233-235). 37 Emilia often acted also as a secretary for her husband, managing his correspondence and taking or writing messages on his behalf. As in this example, when Fontanelli wrote to her: “I enclose the notes on the Adam Smith Society. Please tell to Mr. Ubaldino that I sent the invitations for tomorrow at 3 p.m. and if he could please send me the article on Il Sole written by Mr. Luzzatti “(Carlo Fontanelli a Emilia Peruzzi 3 November [1874] BNCF Fondo Peruzzi 70, 2, 20). 38 “The association forms of the associates to the Adam Smith Society that you procured have not arrived at the editorial board of L’Economista” (Carlo Fontanelli a Emilia Peruzzi s.d. BNCF Fondo Peruzzi 70, 2, 15). enter the realm of action, all possibility to study vanishes and you have to continue with all the same ideas. Essential now is not to leave the brain inane and this I do with my limited forces” (Sonnino 1989, p.170). In fact, in the 1870s the theoretical studies of Sonnino, switching from the problem of representation to the German literature on the social problem (Sonnino 1989, pp.61/79/109/123/129), were not idle at all, notwithstanding the scolding of Emilia. In collaboration with Carlo Fontanelli, he translated two major English works, On labour of William Thomas Thornton (1870) (Sonnino 1989, p.131), and Some Leading Principles of Political Economy by John Elliott Cairnes (1874) (Sonnino 1989, p. ). The 1st October 1874 Fontanelli reported back to Emilia: “I will consider your recommendation regarding my dearest Sidney. He is working a lot on our translation. I insisted that he started studying the English legislation on industries. Yesterday evening I also encouraged him to write a long article on this topic. This would be the most appropriate response to the tactic of reformers who have not the courage to reveal themselves as socialists of the historical school and for lack of knowledge or outright malice hide themselves into the shadows of the English liberal flag” (Fontanelli, 2012, p.252). The two translated volumes (Thornton 1875; Cairnes 1877) would become the only two titles of a series, edited by Sonnino himself and Leopoldo Franchetti (1847-1917)39, called Library of Social Sciences, published by the renown Florentine editor Barbera40. An initiative that was closely related to the publication by Carlo Fontanelli of his Manual of Social Economy (Fontanelli 2012). In fact, although their liberal views cannot be disputed, Cairnes was an advocate of cooperatives (Magliulo 2009), while Thornton was in favour of Unionism. The translation of these texts, then, testifies of a certain flexibility in the definition of liberalism that was in use among the protégés of Emilia. Pareto, also, who read the translated Thornton (Pareto 1968a, p.515) would be in favour of the right to strike. Piero Bini (1996) justly remarks that also L’Economista, the journal edited by Carlo Fontanelli that represented the Society Adam Smith, held some conflicting views of liberalism. In respect to Sonnino, Vilfredo Pareto would be a more enthusiastic collaborator of the liberal initiatives of the Peruzzi’s, given that their vision of liberalism was more attuned. In search for a relief from manual work and menial tasks connected with his various works as an engineer, and 39 Leopoldo Franchetti frequented sporadically the salon Peruzzi. The BNCF registers 39 letters written to Emilia between 1873 and 1878. 40 Attilio Brunialti would edit, instead, for the same publisher, the series called Library of Political Science. being a passionate public speaker, he enjoyed, as seen, the conversations in the salon. He also relished in the new friendships. On the 24 September 1872 he would write: “I’m thankful for having met Sonnino at your home, I like him very much. I also had the pleasure of seeing Genala (…)” (Pareto 1968a, p.42). Pareto avidly read what others in the circle of Peruzzi would write, the writings of Fontanelli (Pareto 1968a, p.273/p.508), the translated Thornton, and the articles of Sonnino published on La Nazione. He then offered his own opinion with enthusiasm and candour. So, for example, we come to know that he was in favour of the right to strike but opposed universal suffrage. Pareto also gladly wrote articles and essays on command. Fontanelli recalled: “I will bring the manuscript to the printer because there is no time to be lost. I will take the proofs, have a look at them and immediately send them, amended, to Pareto, who, as I see it, has no wish to see them by himself. (…) In short: I will do whatever possible to abide your wishes” (BNCF Fondo Peruzzi 70, 2, 16). On the question of representation, Pareto embraced the theses of John Stuart Mill and participated to the activities of the Italian Association for the Study of the Proportional Representance. With Carlo Fontanelli and Francesco Genala he wrote a booklet on proportionality, translating it, then, in French (Pareto 1968a, p.117). He also organised a Conference in Genoa to be held the 8th January 1873. In the aftermath he wrote to Emilia: “I will send you the draft of the conference held by Campeggi and me; you, being the centre of the proportionalists, could sent it to Bonghi to have it published. (…) You could also ask Fontanelli to make a shorter version of the same to be publish on La Nazione of Florence” (Pareto 1968a, pp.122-123). The bibliography of Pareto is well known for this period, but it might be interesting to recall his writings on the question of railways, published, in 1876, on L’Economista, La Nazione and even in the journal Italia by Karl Hillebrand thanks to the intermediation of Emilia, because they highlight how the network worked not only in favouring publications and finding venues for articles and essays, but also in forwarding of precious reading materials, from newspapers to volumes (Pareto 1968a, p.566). Emilia, proficient in foreign languages, even occasionally translated writings, particularly for Pareto who knew only French and needed much help in the case of German. Pareto’s enthusiasm, though, sometimes went too far for Emilia. This the case of the Conference that Pareto wanted to organise on the railways’ issue in Genoa. Pareto, in a letter written to Emilia the 6th January 1876, lamented: “Sunday after Christmas, you and Mr. Ubaldino complained, because in the Adam Smith Society no one, particularly the younger associates, did anything. And Mr. Ubaldino noted that on the issue of railways the opinion of Tuscans was given, so that someone from the outside should participate in the debate. Reflecting on this, thinking of all the English journals, the editions of the Sole and the Belgian documents that you managed to have sent here, and forgetting the saying surtout pas de zèle, I thought that exciting the public opinion outside Florence would gain your approval and would be appreciated by the Adam Smith Society. Instead, the opposite is true!” (Pareto 1968a, p.564). The provincialism of Emilia, one of her main limits, emerges clearly from this letter. Florence, even if no more the capital of Italy, should remain, in her wishes, the centre of political activities, at least of those of her network. In fact, the incapacity to transform the local moderates into a nationwide party, or at least a nationwide network of interests was to be, in the end, the cause for the failing of the Adam Smith Society, but also of the political vision of Ubaldino Peruzzi (Poettinger 2022, pp.164-168). A LAST AND LOST LEGACY: SOCIAL EMPIRICAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES While liberalism was doomed in Italy and proportionalism proved to be a lost cause, despite all efforts of the most proficient influencer of the time, Emilia Peruzzi, there is a legacy of her and her husband’s activities that has had a relevant effect even if largely forgotten. The origin of this legacy is to be searched in the cited education of Ubaldino at the École des mines. Ubaldino, as said, learnt there the most advanced principles of empirical sociological analysis from PierreGuillaume-Frederic Le Play. He then applied the new methodology to the analysis of the Tuscan sharecropping system, producing a sophisticated study on the local economy and its effects on the social structure of families (Peruzzi 1877). While he would not personally complete other studies of this kind on his own, Ubaldino passed on this empirical method of analysis to the young protégés of his circle and they used it to launch many enquiries on the Italian economy and society. The first and easiest example that comes to mind consists of the many inquiries completed by Sydney Sonnino, also with the collaboration of Leopoldo Franchetti, on the living and working conditions of peasants and farmers all over Italy. Retracing the steps of Ubaldino, the first analysis of Sonnino, in 1873, was dedicated to the economic and social conditions of the Tuscan sharecroppers (Sonnino 1934). In 1875 he then devoted the summer months to tour Lombardy and Piedmont, analysing both the social dimension of work in the countryside and in the spreading factories (Carlucci 1989, pp.XXXVII-XXXIX). The emphasis in both cases on the social data in respect to the pure economic one – as opposed to the enquiry conducted by Stefano Jacini (1885) – is a direct derivation from the lesson of Le Play and Peruzzi. In 1876 Sonnino toured Sicily with Leopoldo Franchetti, producing, again, a work that was completely different from the results of the official enquiry performed on behalf of the Italian government (Franchetti and Sonnino, 2004). Comparing the questionnaire that Sonnino prepared for his enquiry in Lombardy (Sonnino 1989, pp.329-331) and the one that Le Play sent to Ubaldino for his analysis of Tuscany, the similarities are undeniable and striking, even if Sonnino simplified the original, adapting it to the data he was interested to extract. Emilia was, then, decisive in sending the questionnaires around to many landowners and in fixing appointments and visits, in Lombardy, Piedmont and later Sicily. Sparked by the work of Sonnino, Pareto also began a statistical work on the South of Italy (Pareto 1968a, p.449). The empirical and sociological lesson of Peruzzi was not lost there either. The proof that the empirical study of society, though, became entrenched in the way of thinking of the entire network of the Peruzzis is given by the questionnaires that Emilia herself concocted and distributed in the salon or via letters to friends and correspondents. The one on the emancipation of women, based on The Subjection of Women by John Stuart Mill (1869) has been amply studied (Urbinati, 1988). The questionnaire is here reproduced in Appendix A, in the English translation made by Sidney Sonnino on request of Emilia, who wanted to send it also to her foreign correspondents. The questions elicited, particularly from her protégés, the most extraordinary and passionate declarations in favour of the parity between man and women, invoked as the purest form of liberalism. Curiously women were, mostly, the ones who regarded parity with suspect and Emilia was one of them. Another questionnaire that lies scattered around the vast correspondence of Emilia is dedicated to an analysis of character based on simple questions on moral values, literary tastes, likes and dislikes etc. The questionnaire is reproduced here in Appendix B, with the answers penned down by Carlo Fontanelli. Another one of these tests has been found in the correspondence of Emilio Broglio, dated 25 February 1868 (Faucci and Bianchi 2005, p. 246) but many more are still to be retrieved from untouched correspondence preserved in BNCF. Emilia sent these questionnaires as a form of social game and often wrote about the answers of one correspondent to another. Sidney Sonnino, for example, in October 1872, commented, in one of his letters to Emilia, the answer that Ruggero Bonghi gave to question n.6 (your idea of happiness): “Bonghi’s concept of happiness is beautiful and moralistic, one that must be written in books and preached in schools. To me it appears untrue. To be virtuous fulfilling one’s duties gives satisfaction but has nothing to do with happiness, the main contributions to which come from the hearth, affections and in no minor measure health” (Sonnino 1989, p.71). The questionnaire was also part of the selection process that Emilia operated on the people with which she came in contact, a selection that had to do with ideas, affiliations, and moral attitudes, as much as Ubaldino looked for technical preparation and knowledge. Nonetheless the habit of using quite refined questionnaires to analyse the contemporary economy and society, to the point that they became a social game, was typical of the network created by Emilia and had its origin in the sociological studies of Ubaldino. This legacy would be perpetrated by their protégés, giving rise to a fruitful tradition of empirical analyses. CONCLUSIONS Emilia Peruzzi held more political passion than economic knowledge. Her judgement on economic matters derived from basic common sense and the frequentation of family and friends. Morals, in any case, had always the upper hand when deciding about the value of a certain action or policy. Modernisation, as such, could bring positive as negative effects, according to its consequences on the moral level of the population. Despite all Smithian liberalism preached around in her circle, from her point of view, the economy in itself could never moralise society; men were still the measure and the morality of the world. After her marriage, Emilia set up a complex and vast network of relations, cemented by the conversations held in her salon and by her widespread correspondence. As Vilfredo Pareto immediately understood, this social network obeyed to the rule of authority and was based on sentimental judgements. Emilia used it first to sustain the political career of her husband, then to select and educate a small cohort of protégés. These young affiliates served to perpetuate, in Parliament as in society, the values and ideas of Ubaldino. In this sense the extraordinary efforts of Emilia were in vain. Liberalism and personal representation did not become part of the founding values of the new Italian state. The young generation of followers of Emilia, though, enjoyed extraordinary careers, each one in his own way, diffusing a healthy scepticism against political parties, promoting a profound understanding of social problems, and advancing or disseminating economic theorising. A long lasting but forgotten legacy of Peruzzis’ circle would also be the use of sophisticated empirical analysis, via questionnaires, to study society. Social networks, apparently also in the 19th century, called for big data analysis. APPENDIX A QUESTIONARY ON WOMEN translated into the English by Sidney Sonnino (1989, pp.100-101/111) 1. The modern theory, result of a thousand years’experience, asserts that all concerns in which an individual has a personal interest never succeed as well as when left to his own direction, and that all authoritative intervention can only be of use in protecting the rights of thirds. If this general principle of social science be true, why violate it, by decreeing that the fact in itself of being born male or female should decide the position of each for the whole of his or her life, just as formerly the being born white or black, noble or plebean? Sex should therefore exclude none man or woman, from any social position or any honest occupation. 2. Do justice and the general welfare considered in relation to the present condition of woman, lead us to wish for equality between the sexes in their rights and in intellectual education? 3. If every forward stepof mankind in civilisation goes hand in hand with a proportionate rise in woman’s special position, why not try to lift her still higher? 4. In the present condition of society, is it true that, in every social class, the fact of the husband’s authority over the wife is an obstacle to perfect confidence between them? Is it true that to know a person equality is as necessary as intimacy? And that not being in such conditions of equality, but of superiority and inferiority, men cannot have to know and understand women? Does the inferiority of a woman’s intellectual education not weaken the moral tie between man and wife, and with it the morality of matrimony? 5. Will the allowing or even the giving of an equal direction to the instruction of women as of men, cause the loss in the former of any of their virtues? 6. Would the gain not infinitely surpass any possible loss? 7. The higher the level of education, the stronger and higher the comprehension and feeling of duty? 8. And if this be true, why lower by education the degree of moral elevation to which a half of mankind might hope to rise? APPENDIX B QUESTIONARY ON CHARACTER answered by Carlo Fontanelli (BNFC. Fondo Peruzzi, 70, 3, 5) What is your preferred virtue? The best quality in men The best quality in women Your preferred occupation The main trait of your character Your idea of happiness Preferred colour and flower Who would you like to be? Where would you like to live? Your preferred authors Your preferred poets Your preferred painters and composers Your preferred historical heroes Your preferred historical heroines Heroes from novels Heroines from novels Your preferred food and drink Preferred names The most hateful thing The most hateful historical character Your present state of mind Which error do you condone the most? Your motto The courage of your own convictions To respect oneself Love To observe and investigate To see more frequently the good than the bad in the things of this world It stays were you put it! Celeste - Vanilla Someone who has nothing to answer to this question In Italy in 50 years’ time Machiavelli, Montaigne, Tocqueville Goethe, Foscolo, Leopardi, A. de Musset Leonardo, Ary Scheffer, Kaulbach, Beethoven, Meyerbeer L’Hopital, Giano della Bella, Washington, Cavour Bianca di Castiglia, Vittoria Colonna, M.me Rolland, Lady Jane Franklin, M.me de Stael Ernest Maltravers, Villemar, (?) (nelle Confessioni di un ottuagenario) Eugenie Grandet, Florence de (?) Wine from the Rhine and pies from Strasburg Those of the persons dear to me Hipocrisy Caterina e Cosimo I de Medici, Marat, Francesco II di Modena Anticipation The one made by a sincere friend Excelsior! Bibliography Adilardi G., Lenzi Iacomelli A. (2018), Firenze nell'Ottocento lorenese. Salotti, amori segreti e politica, Firenze, Pontecorboli Editore Anonymous (1847), Banchetto pubblico dato in Firenze per onorare Riccardo Cobden, “Progresso dell’Industria e delle Utili Cognizioni”, 23, I, pp.223-229 Arcangeli, G. (1848), Biografia del cav. Vincenzo Peruzzi gonfaloniere di Firenze, Firenze, Tip. F. Alberghetti Augustins, G. (1989), Comment se perpétuer ? : devenir des lignées et destins des patrimoines dans les paysanneries européennes, Nanterre, Société d’ethnologie Bagnoli, P. (ed.) (1994), Ubaldino Peruzzi, un protagonista di Firenze capitale, Firenze, Festina lente Barsanti, D. (2010), Ricasoli e il primo tentativo di meccanizzazione dell’agricoltura maremmana, “Rivista di Storia dell'Agricoltura”, L, 2, pp. 127-146 Benucci, E. (2007), Introduzione, in: Toscanelli Peruzzi E., Diario (16 maggio 1854-1 novembre 1858), Firenze, Società editrice Fiorentina, IX-CXVII Bini, P. (1996), L'Economista di Firenze al suo esordio, 1874-1884 : storia parallela di due liberalism, in: Augello M. M., Bianchini M., Guidi M. E. L. (eds.), Riviste di economia in Italia, 17001900: dai giornali scientifico-letterari ai periodici specialistici, Milano, Francoangeli Bonaparte Wyse Rattazzi, M. L. (1867), Le chemin du paradis : Bicheville, Paris, A. Cadot et Degorce Broglio, E. (1865), Delle forme parlamentari, Brescia, Sentinella Bresciana Brunialti, A. (1871), Libertà e democrazia: studi sulla rappresentanza delle minorità, Milano, Treves Busino, G. (1989), L'Italia di Vilfredo Pareto: economia e societa' in un carteggio del 1873-1923, Milano, Banca Commerciale Italiana Cairnes, J. E. (1874), Some Leading Principles of Political Economy Newly Expounded, New York, Harper & Brothers Cairnes, J. E. (1877), Alcuni principi fondamentali di economia politica, Firenze, Barbera Carlucci, P. (1998), Introduzione, in: Sonnino S., Lettere di Sidney Sonnino ad Emilia Peruzzi 18721878, Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore, pp.V-XLVII Cuccoli, M. P. (1966), Emilia Toscanelli Peruzzi, “Rassegna Storica Toscana”,XII, pp. 187-211 De Mauro, T. (1963), Storia linguistica dell’Italia unita, Bari, Editori Laterza Dota, M. (2015), La prassi correttoria della vita militare alla luce del carteggio De Amicis-Peruzzi, tesi di dottorato, Milano, Università degli Studi di Milano Fagioli, S. (2015), Vilfredo Pareto nella Toscana del secondo Ottocento : un'antologia di scritti editi e inedita, Firenze, Polistampa Faucci, R. (ed.) (2005), Economisti in Toscana: problemi economici e politico-amministrativi dell'Italia liberale nei carteggi della Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Roma, Ministero per i Beni culturali e ambientali. Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di Stato Faucci R. and Bianchi G. (2005), Introduzione, in: Faucci R. (ed.), Economisti in Toscana: problemi economici e politico-amministrativi dell'Italia liberale nei carteggi della Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Roma, Ministero per i Beni culturali e ambientali. Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di Stato, pp.VI-XLIII Fontana Semeraro S., Gennarelli Pirolo P. (1980) Le carte di Emilia Peruzzi nella Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze, ‟Rassegna Storica Toscana”, 26, pp. 187-245 Fontana Semeraro S., Gennarelli Pirolo P. (1984) Le carte di Emilia Peruzzi nella Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze, ‟Rassegna Storica Toscana”, 30, pp. 283-305 Fontanelli, C. (1864), Del governo rappresentativo. Discorsi di un Maestro di scuola, Firenze, Cellini Fontanelli, C. (1872), Intervento nel dibattito sulla rappresentanza proporzionale (1), “Atti della R. Accademia dei Georgofili”, serie 4, vol. 2, pp. 99-211 Fontanelli, C. (1873), Intervento nel dibattito sulla rappresentanza proporzionale (2), “Atti della R. Accademia dei Georgofili”, serie 4, vol. 3, pp. 115-184 Fontanelli, C. (2012), Manuale popolare di economia sociale; con lettere inedite a Emilia Peruzzi, Firenze, Le Monnier Franchetti, L. and Sonnino, S. (2004) L'inchiesta in Sicilia di Franchetti e Sonnino: la Sicilia nel 1876, [1877] Palermo, Kalos Funaro, L. E. (2017). Ebrei di Firenze: dal ghetto alla Capitale, “Annali di Storia di Firenze”, 11, pp. 169-199 Genala, F. (1871), Della libertà e equivalenza dei suffragi nelli elezioni ovvero della proporzionale rappresentanza delle maggioranze e minoranze. Studio critico, Milano, Vallardi Giacalone Monaco, T. (1965), Due sconfitte elettorali di Vilfredo Pareto, “Cahiers Vilfredo Pareto”, 3, 5, pp. 25-40 Giacalone Monaco, T. (1968), Nota sul “salotto Peruzzi” di Firenze e l’Antella, in: Pareto V., Lettere ai Peruzzi 1872-1900, vol. 1, Roma, Edizioni Storia e Letteratura, pp.XIII-XCVIII Giacalone Monaco, T. (1968b), Introduzione, in: Pareto V., Lettere ai Peruzzi 1872-1900, vol. 1, Roma, Edizioni Storia e Letteratura, pp.XCIX-CIII Giuntini, A. (2002), Soltanto per denaro. La vita, gli affari, la ricchezza di Emanuele Fenzi, negoziante banchiere fiorentino nel Granducato di Toscana (1784-1875), Firenze, Edizioni Polistampa Guadagno, R. E. (2013), Social Influence Online: The Six Principles, in: Liberman C. (ed.), Action from Casing Persuasive Communication, London, Kendall Hunt Publishing Hare, T. (1857), The Machinery of Representation, London, W. Maxwell Hare, T. (1873), The Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal. A Treatise. 4th ed. [1859], London, Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer Imbert, G. (1949), Due salotti fiorentini dell'Ottocento, “Nuova Rivista Storica”, 33, pp. 162-170 Jacini, S. (1885), I risultati della inchiesta agraria, Milano, A. Sommaruga Lazzeri, C. (2006), Un carteggio di fine secolo. Renato Fucini-Emilia Peruzzi (1871-1899), Firenze, Firenze University Press Le Play, P. G-F. (ed.) (1855), Les ouvriers européens, vols. 1-6, Paris, Imprimerie impériale Le Play, P. G-F. (1879) La Méthode sociale. Abrégé des Ouvriers européens. Ouvrage destiné aux classes dirigeantes qui, selon la tradition des grandes races, désirent se préparer par des voyages méthodiques, à remplir dignement les devoirs qu’impose la direction des foyers domestiques, des ateliers de travail ruraux et manufacturiers, des voisinages, du gouvernement local et des grands intérêts nationaux, Tours, Alfred Mame et fils Maglie, D. (2014), Le origini del movimento proporzionalista in Italia e in Europa con particolare riguardo alle associazioni sorte in Svizzera e Belgio, Tesi di Dottorato, Università Roma Tre Magliulo, A. (2009), Gli economisti e la cooperazione, working Paper, 2, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Università degli Studi di Firenze Menconi, S. (2005), Le Toscanelli: donne e famiglia nell'Italia dell'Ottocento, Tesi di dottorato, Napoli, Università degli studi di Napoli L'Orientale Menduni, E. (2013), Entertainment, Bologna, Il Mulino Mill, J. S. (1869), The Subjection of Women, London, Longman Mill, J. S. (1977), Collected Works. vol. XIX. Essays on Politics and Society Part 2, Toronto, University of Toronto Press Mornati, F. (2018), Vilfredo Pareto: An Intellectual Biography Volume I: From Science to Liberty (1848–1891), London, Palgrave McMillan Naville, E. (1864), Les élections de Genève: mémoire présenté au Conseil fédéral et au peuple suisse, Lausanne-Geneve, Bridel Nieri, R. (1980), Il dibattito del 1872-73 all'Accademia dei Georgofili sulla rappresentanza proporzionale, “Bollettino Storico Pisano”, XLIX, pp. 379-392 Padelletti, G. (1869), Nuova fase della democrazia in Svizzera, “Nuova Antologia”, X, pp. 460-510 Padelletti, G. (1870a), Teoria della elezione politica, Napoli, Tip. dell’Università Padelletti, G. (1870b), Il suffragio universale, “Nuova Antologia”, 14, pp. 55-70 Padelletti, G. (1871), La rappresentanza proporzionale in Italia: a proposito di recenti pubblicazioni, “Nuova Antologia”, 18, 9, pp. 161-184 Pallini, L. (2012), Introduzione, in: Fontanelli, C., Manuale popolare di economia sociale; con lettere inedite a Emilia Peruzzi, Firenze, Le Monnier, pp. 1-59 Pareto, V. (1968), Lettere ai Peruzzi 1872-1877, vol. 1, Roma, Edizioni Storia e Letteratura Pareto, V. (1968b), Lettere ai Peruzzi 1878-1900, vol. 2, Roma, Edizioni Storia e Letteratura Peruzzi, U. (1846), Dello stato attuale della fabbricazione del ferro in Toscana e di alcuni miglioramenti che potrebbero esserle adattati, “Continuazione degli Atti dell'i. e r. Accademia economico-agraria dei Georgofili di Firenze”, 24, pp. 176-203 Peruzzi, U. (1848), Della fabbricazione del sale in Toscana, “Continuazione degli Atti dell'i. e r. Accademia economico-agraria dei Georgofili di Firenze”, 26, pp. 192-206 Peruzzi, U. (1857), Di due opere aventi per titolo, l'una 'Budgets èconomiques des classes ouvriéres' di M. Ducpetiaux e l'altra 'Les ouvriers européens' di M. Le Play, “Continuazione degli Atti dell'i. e r. Accademia economico-agraria dei Georgofili di Firenze”, Nuova Serie, 4, pp. 507-529 Peruzzi, U. (1877), Métayer de la toscane, in: Le Play, P. G-F., Les ouvriers européens, 2 ed., vol. 4, Paris, Dentu, pp.121-182 Piretti, M. S. (1990), La giustizia dei numeri: il proporzionalismo in Italia, 1870-1923, Bologna, Il Mulino Poettinger, M. (ed.) (2013), Firenze e l'Europa liberale: L'economista (1874-81), Firenze, Polistampa Poettinger, M. (2017), Famines and freedom: economic crises in Italian journals and literature in the nineteenth century, in: Alcouffe A., Poettinger M., Schefold B. (eds.), Business Cycles in Economic Thought, London, Routledge, pp.191-202 Poettinger, M. (2019), Imprenditorialità, innovazione e limiti strutturali del settore vitivinicolo Toscano dell’Ottocento, in: Ezio Ritrovato, Giovanni Gregorini (eds.), Il settore agro-alimentare nella storia dell'economia europea, Milano, FrancoAngeli, pp. 474-498 Poettinger, M. (2022), Francesco Ferrara, la Società Adamo Smith e L'economista, in: Rogari S. (ed.), Firenze dopo la capitale, Firenze, Polistampa, pp.149-171 Poettinger M., Roggi P. (eds.) (2017), Florence Capital of the Kingdom of Italy (1865-1871), London, Bloomsbury Ponsard, F. (1856), La Bourse: comédie en cinq actes, Beielefeld, Velhagen & Klasing Ragozzino, U. (2013), Lettere familiari inedite di Ubaldino Peruzzi ed Emilia Toscanelli Peruzzi ed altri documenti : dai manoscritti dell'archivio Ragozzino- Adami, Firenze, Edizioni dell’Assemblea Ricci, M. (1888), Giuseppina Alfieri di Sostegno nata Benso di Cavour, “La Rassegna Nazionale”, XLII, X, n.2, pp.332-343 Savoye, A. (2012), le questionnaire de Le Play (c. 1848), un instrument d'étude des familles ouvrières sans budget?, “Les Études Sociales”,1, 155, pp.97-111 Savoye, A., Audren, F. (eds.) (2008), Frédéric le Play et ses eleves. Naissance de l’ingénieur social: Les ingénieurs des mines et la science sociale au XIXe siècle, Paris, Presses des MINES Soldani, S. (1999), Donne della nazione. Presenze femminili nell’Italia del Quarantotto, “Passato e presente”, 46, pp.75-102 Soldani, S. (2002), Emilia Toscanelli Peruzzi, o la passione della politica , in: De Amicis E., Un salotto fiorentino del secolo scorso, pp.11-26 Sonnino, S. (1870), Il suffragio universale in Italia, Firenze, Barbera Sonnino, S. (1872), Del governo rappresentativo in Italia, Roma, Botta Sonnino, S. (1934), La mezzadria in Toscana , in: La mezzadria negli scritti dei Georgofili 1833-1872 , Firenze, Barbera, pp . 53-80. Sonnino, S. (1998), Lettere di Sidney Sonnino ad Emilia Peruzzi 1872-1878, Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore Thornton, W. T. (1870), On Labour: Its Wrongful Claims and Rightful Dues, Its Actual Present and Possible Future, London, Macmillan Thornton, W. T. (1875), Del lavoro, delle sue pretese e dei suoi diritti, del suo presente e del suo futuro possible, Firenze, G. Barbèra Toscanelli Peruzzi, E. (1922), Vita di me, Firenze, Vallecchi Toscanelli Peruzzi, E. (2007), Diario (16 maggio 1854-1 novembre 1858), Firenze, Società editrice Fiorentina Urbinati, N. (1988), Lucifero e l'acqua santa. Una discussione fiorentina su The Subjection of Women, “Giornale Critico Della Filosofia Italiana”, 8 (2), pp.250-273 Urdánoz, J. (2019). John Stuart Mill and proportional representation. A misunderstanding. Political Science, 71, 2, 1–14 Vannucci, M. (1973), De Amicis a Firenze, Firenze, Istituto professionale L. da Vinci Veron, L. (1856), Cinque cento mila franchi di rendita, romanzo di costumi, Milano, Dante Von der Heyden-Rynsch, V. (1993), Salons européens. Les beaux moments d’une culture féminine disparue, Paris, Gallimard, 1993 Wisler, D. (2008), Ernest Naville ou l'invention de la représentation proportionnelle, conference paper, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1158.0642 Protonotari, F. (1868), Società di economia politica italiana, “Nuova Antologia”, 8, 7, pp.627-644.