Introduction

This paper offers a reflection on the resonances of Physiocratic debates in the Società Patriotica, an eighteenth-century academy for agriculture founded by Maria Theresa of Austria in Milan in 1776, as well as on the thought and political actions of two of its most renowned members, Pietro Verri and Cesare Beccaria. It elaborates on how the Società and the intellectuals and scientific practitioners who were involved in its activities approached such debates, however not endorsing Physiocratic agendas. More specifically, the paper explores the separation between economic theories and practices of reform, as well as the failure of enlightened universalism. It also deals with Ferdinando Galiani's question, in his analysis of eighteenth-century grain trade, about whether it is possible to apply general measures to all countries in all circumstances. In the special case of the Physiocrats, these measures were represented by the liberalization of the grain trade, which entailed the theme of panification and economic milling, the creation of an economy based on agriculture and not on manufacturing, and an agricultural policy which would privilege large-scale over small-scale cultivation. Some of these ideas, such as economic milling and the preference for large-scale agriculture cannot be defined as strictly Physiocratic, since they actually predated Physiocracy. However, they were both appropriated by the Physiocrats and incorporated in the Physiocratic canon, thus becoming – whether right or wrong – two of the epitomes of eighteenth-century Physiocracy.

With regard to the protagonists of this debate, the choice of keeping Verri and Beccaria at the core is motivated by two elements: first, by their critical approach to Physiocracy, which emerges not only in their writings but also in their decision-making and which awarded them a place in the phalanx of contemporary Antiphysiocrats, and, second, by their prominent roles both in the Società and other institutions which were central in the making of policies and reforms in the State of Milan. The paper is of course very far from being a complete account of the reception, fortunes and misfortunes of Physiocracy in the eighteenth-century State of Milan, or a comprehensive picture of the personalities who were involved in its diffusion. For example, it will not explore the role of Alfonso Longo (1738–1804).