When I first discussed my project to write a book about the history of the wealthy with family, friends, and colleagues, I received several comments that gave me pause, which ultimately led to me writing a book that was exactly how I wanted it to be. It led to One such comment (first made by my wife) is that, whatever their true intentions, the rich throughout history have achieved a lot and we continue to benefit from it. is. Consider the city of Venice: wWe would not be able to enjoy sailing along the Canal Grande as much as we do today if generations of extremely wealthy aristocrats had not invested their money in building magnificent palaces on its banks. It would have been. Certainly they did it for their own benefit and to improve their social status.—In simpler terms, to show off and impress fellow aristocrats.—But the fact remains we You can reap aesthetic benefits from their efforts. And the wealthy not only built palaces and villas, but also founded charities, endowed monasteries and other religious institutions, established libraries and universities, and were patrons of the arts. In many cases, we also benefit from all of this.
This argument is solid (my wife is a very smart woman) but requires further thought and analysis. That's why my new book God among humans: A history of the wealthy in the Westdevotes an entire chapter to the activities of the wealthy as patrons, benefactors, and donors.
Let's start by saying that our ancestors had very clear ideas about the nature and motives of the various actions carried out by the wealthy. On the one hand, there was widespread philanthropy. The wealthy of the Middle Ages, even the most selfish, had compelling reasons to be charitable. Christian theology at the time clearly condemned the accumulation of wealth as greed, a deadly sin. Many wealthy people of the Middle Ages were genuinely concerned about life after death. Therefore, they tried to atone for their sins by performing good deeds, such as providing in their wills: Large bequests to charities or religious organizations. Some have gone further. Consider the case of one of the greatest merchants of the 14th century, Francesco di His Marco Datini.most of his wealth establishment of hospitals for the poor, Casa del Ceppo dei Poveri, in his hometown of Prato, Tuscany (the institution is still operating after more than six centuries, pursuing goals in line with the will of its founder). Datini was an innovator in philanthropy, and another portion of the fortune he left behind was intended to be used to establish charities. Spedale degli Innocenti Europe's first orphanage specializing in abandoned children, located in Florence.
Francesco di Marco Datini's charity was the first to be established after his death, so there is no reason to think that he hoped to derive benefits beyond the spiritual from it. But other cases are not so simple. Another Tuscan, Cosimo de' Medici, was born about 50 years after Datini and was a very 15th century man.—As far as the wealthy were concerned, their social and cultural backgrounds were very different. Indeed, by the early 15th century, in the most economically advanced regions of Europe, such as central and northern Italy, the wealthy had become so wealthy and so numerous that it was no longer possible to ignore them as sinners. Their presence within the community was no longer ignored as sinners. It's abnormal. They then had to be assigned roles to play in society.Perhaps the main social role assigned to the wealthy since the end of the Middle Ages was to serve as a reservoir of personal funds available to the community in times of crisis.—This aspect will be discussed in more detail in another chapter of this book and in a guest essay. new york times. But there is one more feature that is relevant, and this is explained very clearly (based on the case of Cosimo de Medici) by the Neapolitan humanist Giovanni Pontano in a treaty published in 1498. It has been.
In our time, the Florentine Cosimo imitated the grandeur of antiquity in the construction of churches and villas, and in the creation of libraries. I believe that he was the first to not only imitate, but also revive the custom of turning personal wealth into the common good and into the ornaments of his homeland. Many men now try to follow this practice, even though they are not as fortunate as him.
According to Pontano, Cosimo used his wealth for the public good by founding charity organizations and building private villas, because he built the city for everyone's benefit. Because it made the whole thing wonderful. And Pontano knew exactly what to call this aspect of the activities of the wealthy “magnificent,” a word that comes from ancient times and means “to do great deeds.” In the classical tradition Pontano refers to, grandeur also had political implications.Elucidated by the Athenian philosopher Plato in the 4th century BC in his treaty Republic, greatness is one of the important virtues that a philosopher-king should have. As a result, dignity was understood to be a quality exhibited by individuals with the ambition to dominate, or at least lead, their society. Later, during the Roman Empire, greatness—the ability and willingness to do (and be paid for) great deeds—continued to be important in building a public career. Consider another Athenian, Herodes Atticus (101-77). C.E.), the youngest son of a very wealthy family who rose to the position of consul in Rome—But only after having it Renowned for his patronage of many public works in Italy and Greece (theatres, baths, aqueducts, etc.), including the radical renovation of the Panathenaic Stadium in Athens, which was rebuilt in marble and expanded to a capacity of 50,000 people. Also included.
So, was Cosimo de' Medici really great? Indeed, as evidenced by the wonderful buildings he built in and around Florence (many of which remain to this day and delight tourists) and his extensive cultural and artistic patronage. , he certainly was. However, when Cosimo founded the Medici Library in the Dominican monastery of San Marco in the 1440s, his compatriots realized that he was doing it to strengthen his role as the de facto ruler of Florence. I knew better, but the library itself was definitely there for that purpose. Public interest.
Today's Westerners are probably less capable than their ancestors of clearly recognizing the nature of what is often called “giving” in modern parlance. Today, greatness as a category of ultra-wealthy behavior tends to be interpreted as “generosity” or generosity (some call it philanthropy, a concept that emerged in the late 18th century). There is an explicit implication that doing nothing is expected in return, even if it is simply influence or an increase in status). But when luxury is confused with generosity, the aspect of society's dependence on the wealthy is lost, along with the wealthy's claim to the right to control implicit in socially useful spending. It turns out. This does not mean that each act of generosity of the wealthy is driven, consciously or unconsciously, by self-interest or a desire to exercise some degree of control over society; This is the nature of the action being performed. In modern society, it is more difficult to differentiate between motives than in previous eras.Today, many billionaires give generously and their generosity is always appreciated, but how much influence do they gain in society and politics in this way? and what do they use it for—Perhaps to contrast policies against their own interests, such as more progressive taxation? These questions are worth asking and give us reason to reflect on the social role that the wealthy play (or should play, but no longer play) in our society. Their roles can be better distinguished by looking at them from the following perspectives: A mirror of history.
Guido Alfani Professor of Economic History at Bocconi University in Milan.he is the author of Disasters and Economy in Renaissance Italy: A Grand Tour of the Knights of the Apocalypse and its co-author The Lion's Share: The Rise of Inequality and Fiscal Conditions in Pre-Industrial Europe.