Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilRubriquesColloques2006La ruta de Nápoles en las Indias ...Political Economy and Legislation...

2006
La ruta de Nápoles en las Indias occidentales. Journée d'études Paris, El Colegio de España, 4 de diciembre de 2004

Political Economy and Legislation. The great success of Filangieri´s Scienza della legislazione in Spain (1780-1839)

Jesús Astigarraga

Entrées d’index

Mots clés :

Filangieri (Gaetano)
Haut de page

Notes de la rédaction

For a more complete analysis of this issue, see J. Astigarraga, “I traduttori spagnoli di Filangieri e il risveglio del dibattito costituzionale (1780-1839)”, in A. Trampus, Diritti e costituzione. L´opera di Gaetano Filangieri e la sua fortuna europea, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2005, pp. 231-290. This paper was made possible by a different scholarships awarded to me under the Europe Programme by the D. G. A.-C. A. I. I wish to thank V. Ferrone (University of Torino), A. Trampus (University of Venice) and the professors at the Università Federico II of Naples, G. Muto, A. M. Rao and E. Chiosi. Nevertheless, nothing would have been possible without the invaluable assistance of Montserrat Lamarca (librarian at the University of Barcelona Library); the information and bibliographic references she provided me with were absolutely essential in locating the variety of texts examined in this paper.

Texte intégral

I. Introduction

1It is no coincidence that Gaetano Filangieri’s Scienza della legislazione began to arouse enormous enthusiasm almost from the moment it appeared, not if we read Introduzione in which the author tells us exactly why he wrote the work, that is. No writer on the subject before him had been able to reduce the making of laws to a “reliable and logical science, uniting ways and words and theory and practice”1. This is how the twenty eight year old Neapolitan lawyer put it when the first two volumes of his work appeared in the summer of 1780. He wanted to create a “comprehensive and logical” system for “drafting laws” based on a “few consistent general principles” that would be useful for “all countries, peoples and times”2. The current body of laws was not “relevant to contemporary society”: it was out of date and “contrived, confusing and complicated” by nature3. The perpetuation of feudal traditions and institutions was especially responsible for this state of affairs. This was strikingly evident in the enormous power still enjoyed by the Church and the fact the barones still held that jurisdiction over civil, economic and criminal matters. Filangieri began a crusade against contemporary law. The “cutting edge” of his campaign was his “open and violent attack on the nobles’ system”4. The only way to change southern Italian society was to completely reform juridical basis of the legal code and the process of making laws. This would upset the traditional compromise between feudal and modern society and reduce the enormous legal and economic inequalities5. Thus the law would emerge as the most suitable and efficient way of improving socio-economic conditions in the backward Mezzogiorno. At the same time, it would become the key factor in the creation of a new set of laws for society founded on public well-being; in future this would constitute the underlying principle for political action. The new economic and social order inspired by the Enlightenment began to emerge from the pages of the five volumes of Scienza that the author was able to complete before his untimely death in 1788: the sovereign was assigned the leading role in the struggle to achieve the enactment of “good laws”. For all these reasons Scienza was perfectly in tune with the traditional mainstream of criticism of the current system of law making. These voices favoured a substantial reform of the law and their ideas had been gaining ground amongst enlightened thinkers in Europe (Mably, Morelly, Schmid d’Avenstein, Beccaria…); Filangieri was one of the most outstanding members of this group6.

2The broad strokes of Filangieri’s blueprint for society were in tune with the highest principles of enlightened thought, ranging from the questioning of the fundamental principles of government and economics through to those related to defence, criminal and civil law, judicial procedures, education, popular traditions and religion. The second book of Scienza was entirely devoted to the leggi politiche ed economiche. And the title of the book clearly expressed their main feature. Flangieri aimed at emphasize the links between the political and the economic laws. Therefore, the change of the political and institutional structures was the condition to overcome the restrictions to economic growth imposed by the feudal legacy. As a matter of fact, the Scienza della legislazione has been recently described as an ambitious Republican program (with constitutional content), which is directly oriented towards the defence of individual rights. Indeed, the exciting experience of the Birth the Republic of the United States of America, which inspired Flangieri, is a constant feature in the book [Ferrone 2003]. On the other hand, Filangieri´s economic ideology could be classified as a “quasi-system" of Political Economy, which has been usually characterised as “eclectic” since it was influenced by the late Mercantilism and Physiocracy7. Together Physiocracy, the Scienza della Legislazione was clearly inspired by the literature created and diffussed from the V. Gournay’ circle. Among this literature, the main influence comes from the books by Hume, Forbonnais, but also the ideas coming from two groups of economic treatises published between 1765 and 1780. On the one hand the treatises by Accarias de Serione, Raynal and Robertson concerning the problem of commerce and colonies. On the other, the treatises by Linguet, Mably and Morelly regarding the relevant debate on property right. Nevertheless, the hypothesis of the significance of Physiocracy in the Scienza della Legislazione, and in particular the partial acceptance by Flangieri -Book II- of the natural order of the Physiocrats and the principles of property, freedom and security, is gradually accepted by the historians. Therefore, Flangieri get away from the original  Genovesi’s mould as the first analysis by Villari and the succesive works by Nuccio [1971] and Fiorot [1991]) have demonstrated. Despite the sort of economic liberalism defended by Flangieri was not dogmatic, it should be stressed that it was relatively sophisticated in comparison with other contemporary Italian economic literature. The influence of Physiocracy came probably trough the works by Schmidt d´Avenstein, Le Mercier de la Rivière, Mirabeau and Verri (Flangieri never recognize his influence). However there is a disagreement among historians and Ferrara [1852: 210] do not accept the combination of "la ingerenza e la libertà" as the prevailing argument of the second volume of the Scienza della Legislazione. Finally, from the point of view of the international spread of the Scienza della Legislazione, it should be stressed the integration of the economic content into the ambitious matrix of the Republican ideology.

3On the oher hand, if the truth be told, few works written the eighteenth century that better reflect the creative tension between local and cosmopolitan dimension inherent in the Enlightenment than Scienza. The book was, above all, a particulary significant manifestation of the complex movement for reform generated in the Mezzogiorno by Antonio Genovesi’s intellectual and educational activities. Venturi considers that “the entire Neapolitan Enlightenment, from Longano to Pagano and from Galanti to Filangieri”, is related, either directly or indirectly, to the emblematic figure of the priest from Salerno8. Indeed, Filangieri’s work subscribed to the “most utopian and productive” stream within the lively “Genovesian school” that had begun to gather strength from 1754, under the auspices of the Intieriana Chair of Commerce and Mechanics9. However, at the same time, it was adopted by the reform movement in Naples and Sicily as a model for action and enjoyed undoubted intellectual ascendancy during one of the most fruitful periods of the Enlightenment in southern Italy. This was to culminate in the founding of the Parthenopean Republic of Naples almost twenty years after the appearance of the first volumes of Scienza10. However, Filangieri’s ideas were by no means purely Neapolitan -or even Italian- for that matter; they formed part of that intellectually and spiritually cosmopolitan climate that imbued the eighteenth century. It was so typically European that it is difficult to envisage it existing outside the intense flow of ideas that surged through the Enlightenment in the Old World. More exactly, his ideas emerged at a time when the Enlightenment movement was abandoning “any sort of principled politics” and slowing down a programme of reforms that had experienced “prolonged and wide ranging” application during the previous decades; this was just after Turgot had been dismissed from the French Ministry of Finance and the Republic of the United States of America had been founded11. The Scienza therefore was the product of a period of profound introspection on the causes of the socio-economic backwardness of the Regno delle Due Sicilie, but, at the same time, it represented a cosmopolitan synthesis of one particular moment -and a crucial one at that- in the European Enlightenment movement12.

II. An Overall View

4The European spirit that imbues Scienza constitutes an important factor in explaining its extraordinary circulation throughout the continent shortly after its publication. “It is unlikely that so many and such a variety of editions of the same book have appeared inside or outside Italy in such a short period of time”, wrote Tommasi in 1788 [1788: CXI]. Commentators such as P. Custodi, G. G. Bianchetti and F. S. Salfi or P. Gentile and F. Venturi have all born witness to the extraordinary popularity of the book. It had a significant impact in Spain as well. This can be readily observed in different works, bibliographic studies [Reeder 1978; Cabrillo 1978] or the other nature [Herr 1958; Galindo 1991], and also in a broader, more interpretive work by Lalinde [1984]. Whilst these works do provide us with a partial vision of its impact in Spain, we can however reconstruct the work’s circulation within the country. We have chosen to reconstruct its progress through Spain by looking at the translations of the work that were published. We use the word "translation" in its broadest sense and in the knowledge that translation, which had come to play an important role in intellectual activity during the eighteenth century, is the most reliable guide to the extent of the circulation of ideas at an international level; it also constitutes a key tool in detecting departures from the original and corrections or additions to it. These derive from differences in thought between the country the work comes from and the one in which it is translated. Nevertheless, we must be aware of the risk entailed in identifying the history of a culture of the means of its transmission and intellectual development13.

5The following is a complete list in chronological order of all the versions of Filangieri’s work that were published in Spain (the abbreviated name to be used from here on in the rest of the text appears at the end of each reference in square brackets).

  • 1. [Victorián de Villava]: Reflexiones sobre la libertad del comercio de frutos del Señor Cayetano Filangieri, Caballero del Orden de S. Juan, Madrid, Joaquín Ibarra, 1784 [Reflexiones sobre la libertad del comercio de frutos].

  • 2. Reflexiones políticas sobre la ley de Fernando IV, Rey de las dos Sicilias, que mira a la reforma de la administración de Justicia. Escritas en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri. Y traducidas al castellano, Madrid, Benito Cano, 1787 [Reflexiones políticas].

  • 3. Ciencia de la Legislación. Escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri. Traducida al castellano por Don Jaime Rubio, Abogado de los Reales Consejos, Madrid, Manuel González, 1787-1789, 6 volumes in 5 books; vol. I (1787, book I), vol. II (1787, book II), vol. III (1788, book III, part I), vol. IV, part I (1789, book III, part II), vol. IV, part II (1789, libro III, part II), vol. V (1789, book IV, part I) [Rubio 1787-1789].

  • 4. Félix Amat: "Una prueba de que la Ciencia de la Legislación del Caballero Filangieri debe leerse con desconfianza en lo que cita de antiguo y en lo que piensa de nuevo" (1787), in Félix Torres Amat: Apéndice a la vida del Ilmo. Sr. D. Félix Amat, Madrid, Imprenta que fue de Fuentenebro, 1838, pp. 46-59 [Prueba].

  • 5. Francisco de Paula del Rey: Reflexiones económico-políticas de Don Francisco de Paula del Rey, Abogado de los Reales Tribunales de Castilla y de Navarra, sobre los capítulos VII y XXXVIII del Libro II de la obra intitulada Ciencia de la Legislación, escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, y traducida al castellano por Don Jaime Rubio, Madrid, Benito Cano, 1792 [Reflexiones económico-políticas].

  • 6. Ciencia de la Legislación. Escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, Madrid, Imprenta de Ibarra (volumes I, II, III, IV and V), Imprenta de Fuentenebro (volumes VI and VII) e Imprenta de Alvárez (volumes VIII, IX and X), 1813, 10 volumes; vol. I (book I), vol. II (book II), vol. III (book II), vol. IV (book III, part I), vol. V (book III, part II), vol. VI (book III, part III), vol. VII (book III, part III), vol. VIII (book IV, part I), vol. IX (book IV, part I), vol. X (book V) [Rubio 1813].

  • 7. Ciencia de la Legislación. Obra escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri. Nuevamente traducida por Don Juan Ribera, Madrid, Fermín Villalpando, 1821-1822, 6 volumes; vol. I (1821, book I), vol. II (1821, book II), vol. III (1821, book III, parts I and II), vol. IV (1822, book III, part II), vol. V (1822, book IV, parts I and II), vol. VI (1822, book IV, parts II and III; book V) [Ribera 1821-1822].

  • 8. Ciencia de la Legislación escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, y traducida al castellano por Don Jaime Rubio, abogado de los Reales Consejos. Tercera edición corregida y añadida con discursos analíticos en cada libro, Madrid, Imprenta de Núñez, 1822, 10 volumes in 5 books; vol. I (book I), vol. II (book II), vol. III (book II), vol. IV (book III, part I), vol. V (book III, part II), vol. VI (book III, part III), vol. VII (book III, part III), vol. VIII (book IV, part I), vol. IX (book IV, part I), vol. X (libro V) [Rubio 1822].

  • 9. Ciencia de la Legislación, por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, nuevamente traducida por Don Juan Ribera. Segunda edición, revisada y corregida, Bordeaux, Imprenta de Don Pedro Beaume, 1823, 6 volumes; vol. I (book I), vol. II (book II), vol. III (book III, parts I and II), vol. IV (book III, part II), vol. V (book IV, parts I and II), vol. VI (book IV, parts II and III; book V) [Ribera 1823].  

  • 10. Bernardo Latorre (o La Torre): Compendio de la obra que escribió el Caballero Filangieri, titulada Ciencia de la Legislación, con notas de los autores más clásicos, redactado en el año 1834, Madrid, Imprenta de I. Boix, 1839 [Compendio].

  • 11. Ciencia de la Legislación, por C. Filangieri, ilustrada con comentarios por Benjamin Constant. Tercera edición, revisada, corregida y aumentada, Paris, Librería española de Lecointe, 10 vol in 5 t.; Paris, Librería Americana, 10 vol.; vol. I (book I), vol. II (book I), vol. III (books I and II), vol. IV (books II and III), vol. V (book III), vol. VI (book III), vol. VII (book III), vol. VIII (book IV), vol. IX (book IV), vol. X (book V) [Ribera 1836].

Type of version

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Partial Translation

*

*

*

*

Complete Translation

*

*

*

*

*

Summary

*

Refutation

*

Commentary

*

6The idea of the table that follows is to establish the relationship between the various Spanish versions of Filangieri’s work and the structure of the original (unfortunately, our analysis was made before the last edition of Scienza was published).14 A number of Italian and foreign editions of Scienza included Filangieri’s Riflessioni politiche su l’ultima legge del sovrano che riguarda la riforma dell’amministrazione della giustizia (1774) and also Elogio storico (1788), dedicated to him by D. Tommasi, as well as Commentaire sur l’ouvrage de Filangieri (1822-1824) by B. Constant. Some Spanish editions followed suit. On the other hand, Filangieri’s analysis of An Essay on the National Debt (1787) by Playfair and other brief treatises he produced whilst Advisor to the Supreme Council of Finances of Naples received no exposure in Spain whatsoever15.

Scienza della legislazione  

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Structure

Book I

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Book II

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Book III

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Part 1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Part 2

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Part 3

*

*

*

*

*

*

Book IV

*

*

*

*

*

*

Part 1

*

*

*

*

*

*

Part 2

*

*

*

*

Part 3

*

*

*

*

*

Book V

*

*

*

*

*

Commentaire by B. Constant

*

Elogio by D. Tommasi

*

*

*

*

*

*

Riflessioni Politiche by G. Filangieri

*

*

*

7The publication dates of the Spanish editions of Filangieri’s writings slot into four different periods; these were the years when his work aroused maximum attention in Spain: 1780-1792, 1813, 1821-1823 and 1834-1839. A detailed explanation of these periods is contained in the sections below.

III. The First Period (1780-1792)

8Venturi, whilst examining the initial impact that Scienza made in Spain, recounts the following anecdote16. On the 29th of September 1780, just after the publication of the first two volumes in Italy, a Spanish soldier, Princípe de Monforte, was writing a heart felt letter to Filangieri from Gibraltar. Whilst rendering homage to the work for its contribution to the “science that strives for good of humanity”, he regrets the difficulties that it is experiencing in finding an audience, at least in his immediate surroundings: a military environment where Italian language is little understood. Monforte goes on to assure Filangieri that “your work will meet with a much more sympathetic reception in Madrid. I myself will show it to my friend, the great Campomanes, who will know exactly how to ensure it receives the recognition it deserves”. It seems fairly obvious that this offer expressed a tacit desire for the work to be translated into Spanish as soon as possible. Carlos III ascended the Spanish throne in 1759 and almost immediately set in motion a range of innovative economic and political reforms. At the same time an era of intellectual liberalization began. One of its chief manifestations was a proliferation of translations of foreign works that could provide ideas for these reforms17. Campomanes, the Fiscal General in the Consejo de Castilla, was undoubtedly the most influential political figure in the Monarchy; he played a role in exposing the nation to the mainstream of ideas and books that was flowing through Europe during the Enlightenment. Indeed, some few years earlier he had patronized the Spanish versions, amongst others, of Dei delitti e delle pene by Beccaria [1774] and Galiani’s Dialoghi [1775], published in 1774 and 1775 -the translations of these works have been attributed to a priest called J. A. de las Casas. The influential Fiscal General could play a part in Filangieri’s success for other reasons no less important. In 1779, in conjunction with another member of the Consejo de Castilla, M. de Roda, he had commissioned an ambitious project which entailed the compiling of all the Spanish penal laws. This was to constitute the first step in the preparation of a criminal code which would complement the sweeping reform of this area of Spanish law. He had entrusted the task to M. Lardizábal, a jurist who was well versed in Beccaria’s writings18. This is how, by the end of the seventies, the influential Campomanes represented principal ideological force behind codifying the law and proceeding with profound economic reform as well as translating relevant foreign texts.19 Monforte’s comments are quite deliberately directed at facilitating the introduction of Filangieri’s work in Spain and, indeed, the implications in his words seem clear. As well as creating some sort of continuity for the recent translations of texts by Beccaria and Galiani, they could also provide direction for all the proposals for reform.

9Nevertheless, the idea of translating Scienza was not a government initiative. We do not even know whether or not Campomanes or Floridablanca approved its translation; the latter, also a minister and reformer, patronized the publication of unusual foreign texts in the eighties such as Genovesi’s philosophical work and his Lezioni or Necker’s writings. The members of the Spanish Enlightenment movement alone were responsible for the dissemination of Scienza throughout the country; the government did not intervene in the process. The Inquisition did though: the institution banned the book in 1790 and ended the exposure the work was receiving in the years following the letter written by the soldier Monforte.

10The members of the Spanish Enlightenment movement did not have to wait for the first Spanish translation of Scienza to read Filangieri’s writings however. Just four years after the publication of the first two volumes of the book, Reflexiones sobre la libertad del comercio de frutos appeared on the scene20. This brief text was published anonymously in 1784 and comprised translated extracts from Chapter XI of Book II of Scienza which describe the obstacles to rural growth created by “the lack of freedom to enjoy its fruits” (pages 1-22). These extracts are accompanied by a note (pages 23-39) taken from a text published in 1783 by A. Arteta [1783], an Aragonese economist and distinguished member of the Sociedad Económica Aragonesa. He analyses the economic advantages that Aragon could derive from new legislation proclaimed by the government in 1778 partially deregulating trade with the colonies21. It seems quite plausible that the work was written in Aragon and that in all probability the author was Victorián de Villava, a learned Zaragozan. His purpose was to play a part in determining the direction of the programme for agrarian reform that the Enlightenment government had been working on since 176522. The extracts selected from Filangieri’s work are related to one of the issues involved: the total deregulation of the grain trade. Filangieri appears to drift away from Genovesi’s economic legacy and move more towards agrarian liberal Physiocracy23 to which he had been exposed in particular through the work of Schmid d’Avenstein24. Arteta, on the other hand, held a less radical position on the issue, closer to the official reform proposal. He defended "mercantilist" policies, such as indirect price control of agricultural produce and protection of the internal market. The new system of free trade with the colonies would forcibly result in the opening up of markets and the generation of new exports. This new environment required a fresh approach to trade policy; the new economic possibilities had to be exploited. Filangieri’s ideas for agrarian development emerged as an alternative to Arteta’s. There was one unusual aspect to the situation however: the Physiocrats were almost unknown in Spain and slight influential [Lluch-Argemí 1985], so this brief translation became an indirect but relatively important channel for the introduction of the ideas of this French school of thought into the country.

11The economic content of Filangieri’s reforms was very soon complemented by proposals for juridical changes as well. A translation of Riflessione politiche (1774) was published in 1787. This short work by Filangieri defends the law proclaimed by Tanucci in September of 1774 in Naples; the work is dedicated to him. The law obliged judges to justify the sentences they imposed in writing and also ensure that they based these sentences on a strict interpretation of the law in force at the time. The thinking that motivated this piece of legislation was that the exercise of individual freedom required certain guarantees: respect for the law and the strict definition of judicial powers25. Reflexiones políticas was published anonymously in Madrid and, even though it does diverge from the original in some respects, it is actually a very faithful translation. In spite of the difficulties involved in locating this translation these days, it seems reasonable to assume that it was not a limited edition, especially as one of the most popular journals of the times, Memorial literario instructivo y curioso de la Corte de Madrid (March 1787, pp. 382-3), reported its publication the same year it appeared. The report stated that the work was divided “into two parts to demonstrate the value of the law”.

12The first two volumes of the first Spanish translation of Scienza came out in Madrid in 1787, a year before Filangieri died in Vico Equense26. We have J. Pastor to thank for the few facts we possess about the author’s life27. He was born in Játiva in Valencia in 1753 and studied Philosophy and Law at the University of Valencia. He was a Roales Consejos lawyer and worked in Madrid before the King appointed him as mayor of Vich in Barcelona. He resigned from this post to move to the Court and try to prevent the Inquisition from banning of Filangieri’s work. He died on the 1st of April 1796, seven years after stopping work on the translation; he was only able to complete up to Part 1 of Book IV. Nevertheless, everything points to the fact that he actually translated the entire work. As far as we are aware, his entire literary output amounted to no more than his translation of Filangieri28.

13A comparison of Rubio’s version and the original reveals differences in structure and content. Instead of locating the Piano ragionato dell’opera at the beginning of the work, the Valencian jurist breaks it up and places the contents page for each book at the beginning of its corresponding volume. Likewise, aware that “many readers would like to know something about the author’s life”, he added an “Extracto” from Elogio storico by D. Tommasi to the edition29. His initial idea was to include it at the end of his version, but, seeing he was obliged to “cut the edition down”30, he finally located it at the beginning of the sixth volume, the last to appear in 1789. This was tacit acknowledgement that the effects of Inquisition’s ban were beginning to be felt, although in fact it did not come into force appear until the following year. The speed with which the translation of Elogio storico appeared -just a year had elapsed since the book first came out in Italy- is just one more demonstration of the fact that Spain followed events in Naples closely and that anything related to Filangieri attracted attention, despite the fact that he was no longer living. Nevertheless, Rubio’s “Extracto” form Elogio was very succinct and more intended to communicate the basic facts of Filangieri’s life; it placed lesser emphasis than Tommasi on the inherently reformist nature of his work and the important international recognition it received. Finally, as well as a literal translation of Filangieri’s original Introduzione, Rubio included his own “Prólogos del Traductor” which he located at the beginning of the first, second, third and fifth volumes of his work.

14Indeed, it is these “Prólogos del Traductor” that make it possible to accurately evaluate exactly what the translator thought of Filangieri’s work. Rubio accepted the idea that Scienza formed part of the spirit of renewal introduced by Esprit des lois and therefore felt that it was required reading for anyone who wanted to “improve their understanding of legal science”. Montesquieu and Filangieri were the “two sages” who had demonstrated “the need to reform the old laws”. He echoes Filangieri’s opinion when he suggests that the former had dealt with ”what had been done in the field of law making”, whilst the latter had concentrated “on what needed to be done”. The Italian was not as penetrating as the Frenchman, but his conclusions were “simpler and less prone to error”. That is why his work demonstrated more clearly “the easiest and simplest means to ensure that abundance and peace reigned in their countries”.

15Despite these positive comments, Rubio was also mildly critical of Filangieri’s work. His position became more and more apparent as the various instalments of the translation began appearing. At the beginning of the second volume, Rubio gave notice that his desire was not to agree “completely with all the conclusions of our author”; he went on to say that he would have liked to include his own opinions had Filangieri “not written such lengthy notes”. These criticisms rise in tone in the introduction to the Book III. The Valencian jurist accuses Filangieri of “being poorly informed on Spanish legislation”; if he had been more familiar with it, he would have had to praise it in the same way as he had Roman or British law. He also highlighted the importance of Manuel de Lardizábal. This reference could not have been more pointed. This outstanding Spanish jurist of the eighteenth century had been commissioned by the Consejo de Castilla to make the aforementioned compilation of Spanish penal laws. In 1782, as a result of this undertaking, he published a treatise31 which is considered to be an adaptation, albeit somewhat milder, of Beccaria’s ideas on penal law to Spanish juridical conditions32. According to Rubio, Lardizábal had exposed the “failings of the Spanish legal code” whilst demonstrating at the same time that “criminal law was in worse condition in foreign countries”. Likewise, in a more general sense, Rubio commented that his determination to follow the lay out of the work as closely as possible had lead him to act “contrary to his beliefs and contradict himself” and present conclusions that he did not share. In any case, all these things did not amount to any more than “tiny blemishes” that should not be allowed to “obscure in the least the brilliance” of the work.

16The longest “Prólogo del Traductor” was the one that introduced Volume V. Unlike the previous ones it was a brief monograph on “the importance of a good education”33. Rubio regarded Filangieri’s ideas on education as “excellent” because, “being a good Catholic”, “he did not abandon morality in his doctrine”. Nevertheless, he had two important reservations about his ideas: the tremendous difficulties involved in putting them into practice and Filangieri’s proposal that children waited until the age of five to start training. His comments, which addressed the second matter, were made in the context of the unsatisfactory state of the Spanish school system and they reflect better than anything the translator’s moderate views. Rubio’s idea in writing this brief treatise on childcare was to use “what the Holy Scriptures and Christian writers teach us, whilst not forgetting the worthwhile things found in the philosophers”. However, in practice, although he occasionally quoted Genovesi, Rousseau, Montaigne and, more repeatedly, Locke, his main sources were two conservative members of the Spanish Enlightenment, M. Rosell and L. Hervás. References to them were constantly peppered with quotes from the Holy Scriptures.

17We shall never know whether Rubio was really as conservative as his writing suggests or whether in fact the limited possibilities of Spanish intellectual climate tempered the content; the efforts of Inquisition and its censors were truly stifling. It must also not be forgotten that the translation was being published in the precise moment that the government had revived this traditional function of the Inquisition. It was just one more aspect of the political reaction that swept Spain as a result of the events taking place in France, events which were to culminate in the triumph of the French Revolution34. This marked the end of the remarkable period of intellectual liberalization that characterized the reign of Carlos III right up until his death in 1788.  Nevertheless, a detailed examination of Rubio’s translation, in this case centred on the second volume, reveals that it was lacking in quality and that, in contrast to what the proof reader of the second edition suggested in 1813, this was not entirely due to “insufficient time". Rubio’s version not only contained more omissions than can be put down to voluntary censorship; it also had numerous technical defects of a serious nature. In the original there were some texts in Greek which he failed to include in his version; he translated the proper names and the book titles into Spanish and made numerous errors and used inconsistent criteria for these adaptations (for example, he translated Spirito delle leggi by Montesquieu as Esprit des lois and, on the other hand, Hume’s Discorsi politici became Discursos políticos); he arbitrarily altered the structure of paragraphs; he left out the names of authors (Robertson, for example) or he mixed them up (Vetui instead of Verri); he did not identify the original texts as clearly as Filangieri; he made mistakes in translating the economic terms  (“producto líquido” for “produtto netto”, “corbata” for “corvée”, “menesteres” for “mestieri” or “voluntad” for “voluttà”); and, last of all, in spite of his criticisms of the work’s content, he added only one note of his own -an almost irrelevant comment directed at the Spanish reader on the nature of the Neapolitan currency- and he also omitted nine paragraphs or parts there of and an number of notes from the original.

18It is this aspect, more than any other, that reveals that the need for self imposed censorship. Rubio’s omissions seem to have been selective. They occur mainly in Chapters XIX, XX, XXI and XXII of Scienza and relate to Filangieri’s ideas on trade, the colonial system and the rights of the members of the society. In the paragraphs that dealt with these matters Filangieri maintained that State controlled trade was responsible for creating an unjust system of exclusive privileges and “political abuses”, instead of working in the consumers’ interests. It had created a customs system that treated trade “as the enemy” and represented a constant “affront or threat” to the trader. Finally, it had encouraged illegal traffic to the point that in countries like Spain clandestine activities were replacing “moral and lawful trade”; it encouraged smugglers and “spies”, “easily bought, corrupt souls paid by the State who, despite this, betray it by tormenting the trader and protecting the smuggler and permitting all kinds of outrages and frauds”. This situation is especially serious when trade “determines the fate of nations and the well-being of its citizens” and the people mainly responsible were public authorities and Royal advisors, who talked of nothing else besides trade “whilst persecuting it without cease”. And this was readily demonstrated by international trade agreements and alliances. Instead of binding nations together in peace and improving the population’s quality of life, these agreements and alliances “sowed war and discord”; they contributed to the ruin of trade and served monarchs’ ambitions of conquest, monarchs motivated purely by “illusions”, “personal grudges” or “hypothetical rights and false or dubious titles they claimed for themselves”.

19Rubio also took the self censoring scissors to the most eloquent paragraphs of Scienza defending natural order. This concept was based on the fundamental rights of property and freedom, another of the aspects of the work with clearly Physiocratic overtones. Filangieri believed that society and the laws should be structured to protect these rights. They were the absolutely essential to the existence of society, to the point that they represented “political life, like the body and soul of physical life”, and could not be rescinded or restricted except under very exceptional circumstances. Any violation whatsoever of these rights, even their temporary suspension, was “an appalling injustice, a dangerous attack”; “that sacred institution that we call the public interest” suffered the most detrimental effects of these acts. Amongst these violations Filangieri included the refusal of the colonial powers to grant similar rights to the colonial population, because such rights were acquired at birth and were universal by nature. And it was the issue of the American colonies and the process of coming to terms with their independence and its economic consequences that were a critical problem at the time Filangieri conceived Scienza35; it also constituted the last of the objects of Rubio’s self censorship. Filangieri perceived the birth of the new American nation as “nothing more than a punishment for England’s arrogance” and an eloquent example of what would take place in other parts of the American continent if the European powers did not undertake profound reforms in the way the colonies were administered. He focused on the “erroneous” system of trade which had been designed to serve the economic interests of the mother countries through monopolizing commercial traffic and imposing an endless series of taxes. Logically enough, Filangieri believed that the reforms had to be broader and deeper. One of his most articulate paragraphs was written defending the fact that politics must serve the public interest; it was also censored by Rubio. In this passage Filangieri argues that, by restricting these interests with “excessively oppressive means”, despotic regimes ran the risk that the colonials would react and seize their freedom in a kind of spring like response: “tyrants are unseated by the reactions to the blows that they themselves inflict on their victims from their unsteady thrones”. It was therefore necessary to increase the pace and scope of the reforms because there were still none that combined “justice and both the public’s and the monarch’s interests”.

20In order to fully understand the atmosphere in which Rubio’s translation of Scienza appeared, first of all we have to bear in mind that it was preceded by an enormous lead up. Since the beginning of the eighties Spanish periodicals had waged a long running campaign in support of Scienza and its author. It is highly significant that the two official periodicals of the epoch, Gaceta de Madrid and Mercurio de España, echoed each others’ comments and praised the work highly. However, the best guide to fully understanding this campaign is to be found in the Enlightened press that flourished in Spain during the eighties up until 1790 when Floridablanca threw up the intellectual boundaries around the country so as to prevent any of the shock waves generated by the French Revolution causing tremors in Spain36. In May of 1781, shortly after the first instalments of Italian edition of Scienza began to come out, the Correo Literario de la Europa printed a review of the first volume of the work in its inaugural issue. It attributed the inspiration of the work to Abate Mably’s treatise on law making and claimed that the aim of the work was “to reduce law making to an exact science”; it recommended the book to the legal profession. Five months later it hailed the second volume of the Italian edition as the “masterpiece of all the branches of science in Europe”. Some years later, in 1786, when the fifth, sixth and seventh volumes came out, it stressed once again that the work was “extremely valuable” and that its contents was “of interest for those who had to deal with the subject in societies, schools and studies”.

21Another important periodical with Enlightenment leanings, directed by Cristóbal Cladera, Espíritu de los mejores diarios, devoted special attention to the French translation of Scienza. A first review appeared in July of 1787, the year the first two volumes of the translation by J. A. Gauvain Gallois -he was identified as a lawyer of the Parliament of Paris- was published. This review was also very favourable. It suggested that Filangieri would go down “in history alongside the celebrated Montesquieu”, although, it was claimed, the Neapolitan author had “embraced the true path of the discipline better than the author of Espíritu de las leyes”. The praise reached new heights two years later when the third volume came out. It was then described as “a complete and well reasoned system that embraced all avenues of law making” and the review praised its “methodical and expansive spirit”. Hard on the heels of these notices, there was a call for a Spanish translation to be done and it was reported that such a translation was in fact being undertaken by someone “whose complete knowledge of the Italian language was complemented by the ability to express himself well in ours”.

22A third and final publication, Memorial literario, instructivo y curioso de Madrid, that had printed three reviews of Reflexiones sobre la libertad del comercio de frutos, Reflexiones políticas and the fifth, sixth and seventh volumes of the Italian edition of Scienza in 1784 and 1787, was the primary source of information on the progress of Rubio’s version. In 1787, in the review of the first volume of the translation, the periodical once again highlighted the differences with Montesquieu’s work: “it must be noted that the two have entirely different ends in mind. Montesquieu seeks the spirit of the law and Filangieri the rules; the former attempts to discover the reasons why laws are made, the latter, formulate rules for making them. Finally his conclusions are nearly always different and based on diverse principles”. The three notes that followed during 1788 and 1789 summarized the contents of the second, third and fourth volumes of the Valencian jurist’s translation. All these facts confirm that the campaign in support of Filangieri’s work continued right up until the moment that the Enlightenment press was silenced. More than a dozen reviews of Scienza appeared during the eighties, which placed Filangieri’s work amongst those that had received the most unconditional support from the Enlightenment press. This is irrefutable evidence that the Spaniards had adopted this Neapolitan as one of their own; his death was reported in the Spanish press as a the premature loss of an “extraordinary talent”.

23This vigorous campaign in support of Filangieri did not pass unnoticed in Spanish conservative circles. Scienza was also the object of hostile reactions and one of the first of these was from the Catalan Jansenists. In 1788, one of their leaders, Archbishop Françesc Armanyà, alarmed by the warm reception being given the work in official circles, commissioned the humanist priest Fèlix Amat -canon at this time in the Catalan town of Tarragona- with drawing up a refutation of it [Prueba]. Amat had been aware of the work since 1786 and found in Filangieri “ways of thinking” that were “very critical of Christian monarchies”. Quite an obvious target for his criticism would have been Filangieri’s political, economic or religious ideas, but Amat nevertheless chose to target just one chapter: it dealt with one aspect of education in Ancient Greece. The reason for this was that the scope of the Scienza was “so vast” and that it “was based on a such a profound familiarity with the Ancient world” that he realized that he possessed neither “the learning, the time nor the references to make a critical analysis of the work”37. Amat discovered an infinity of “errors”, “omissions”, “irrelevancies”, “inaccuracies” and many other failings that related to the censorship of the work as a whole: Filangieri displays an “acute disrespect for all the laws that currently regulate the world” and his work should be read with “alarm or mistrust with regards both to what he attributes to the authorities that he quotes and also the unusual ideas he proposes or makes up”38. Nevertheless, his analysis, precisely because of its biased nature, did not satisfy his Jansenist associates. Bonfill Piquer and J. de la Vega, both priests, shared the view that Filangieri’s “quotes were inaccurate and failed to support his opinions adequately” and frequently presented “conclusions and ideas against the State”, but insisted that the book had to be refuted “as a whole”. The letters that members of Jansenist circles were exchanging reveal that in fact a more complete refutation of Scienza was being concocted by this group of clergymen39.

24The consequences of the Inquisition’s attitude were worse. Revitalized by the free hand the government had given it in 1789-90, it pursued Scienza without respite. This attitude was undoubtedly strengthened by the ban imposed by the Roman Indice in 1784. According to J. A. Llorente, the Secretary of the Inquisition and consequently a powerful figure, the first two volumes of Rubio’s translation were denounced shortly after their publication40. The Inquisitors entrusted the censorship to an incompetent Capuchin monk -thought to be Benito de Cárdenas- who “knew no Italian and did not even read the original work” and ruled that it was “abysmal, full of heresies, and that each and every clause exuded an Antichristian, anti-evangelical spirit present only in the false philosophers of the century”. He recommended its immediate prohibition even for those who had dispensations to read banned books. Llorente himself, aware of the act that Filangieri “lived in Naples as a Catholic”, intervened so that the ruling was modified, although he did insist that the Spanish translation excluded “a clause in which Filangieri spoke badly of the Inquisition”. All of this was to no avail however. The Santo Oficio, without calling for the customary second ruling, decreed the prohibition of the work in it’s entirety in an Edict of the 7th of March 1790. The ban applied to the seven tomes printed in 1782 in Venice and the three others printed in Naples in 1785, as well as Rubio’s translation41. All the translator’s precautions had been in vain: the meticulous self censorship, his conservative approach, and the carefully measured tributes to “our beneficent monarch” Carlos III, strategically positioned throughout the translation: work on the translation had been interrupted a year before the edict was issued. As far as editorial censorship was concerned, Filangieri received much the same treatment in Spain as Beccaria: his books were pruned of their most “dangerous” aspects and then published; they were then banned by the Roman Indice, in 1766 and 1784, and next by the Spanish Inquisition in 1777 and 1790. Nevertheless, the silence of the Consejo de Castilla on the Edict banning the Filangieri’s work in 1790 is interesting; it can only be attributed to the difficult times Spain was experiencing between 1789 and 1790. It contrasts sharply with the supportive statements on Beccaria’s text that the Consejo had issued in 178542. The different reception of the Scienza della Legislazione in Spain (very positive by the members of the Late Enlightenment on the one hand, and very negative by the conservatives on the other) must be explained by the Republican and Constitutional character of the ambitious program contained in the book, which was based on the convincing defence of the individuals rights. Undoubtedly, the latter seemed to be very advanced in the context of the period of political and cultural involution which characterized Spain after the French Revolution.

25Even though the ban had its effects, Scienza not only continued to circulate in Spain but also became the subject of analysis by enlightened scholars. Filangieri’s economic ideas were taken up during the last two decades of the century -in some cases attacked- by authors such as Villava, Generés, Calomarde, Peñaranda, Foronda and an anonymous writer in the newspaper El Censor. The best example of this widespread use of Filangieri’s economic ideas is to be found in a text that has remained practically unknown until now. We have no idea what strange circumstances could have enabled the publication of a text entitled Reflexiones económico-políticas… sobre los capítulos VII y XXXVIII del Libro II de la obra intitulada Ciencia de la Legislación, escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, y traducida al castellano por Don Jaime Rubio just two years after the Edict banning Scienza. Its author was Francisco de Paula del Rey; he had legal training, like Rubio, and was a advocate of the Reales Tribunales of Castile and Navarre. His book, the only one he is known to have written, set out to be an analysis of chapters VII and XXXVIII of the second book of Scienza. The entire first chapter, which dealt with the situation of the militia in Europe, appeared in translation; the second, which was a defence of luxury, considered by Perrota [1982] to be extremist and anachronistic, without being a complete translation, quoted entire paragraphs from the original word for word43.

26Rey was highly critical on Filangieri’s treatment of these two areas; especially rejected radically the ambitious matrix of Replublican ideology inherent in the Filangieri´s Scienza. This explains why his text was accepted for publication. Rey opposed the Filangieri’s idea of substituting a fulltime army for an urban militia and he presented his own proposal for the reform of the military system. Nevertheless, the structure of Reflexiones economico-políticas comprised six “Reflexiones” and four of them dealt with the issue of “passive luxury” which, therefore, constituted the main thrust of his work. In Chapter XXXVIII of Book II, Filangieri had proposed that countries like Spain that lacked wealthy colonies, fertile and abundant arable land and rich gold and silver mines should steer their economic development towards agriculture and colonial trade; at the same time, they should implement a policy of “passive” luxury which consisted of the large scale import of foreign manufactured goods. This process would reduce the excess of cash which, if it were to remain in the country, would create uncontrollable inflationary tendencies. The result of this would be a loss of the competitiveness of Spanish products in the foreign market. Rey, on the other hand, felt that a policy of this nature was totally contrary to genuine Spanish economic interests. The quantitative money theory did not behave in a purely mechanical fashion, so that increases in the monetary mass did not necessarily create great inflation -they could even have a positive effect on the real economy and hence the excess of cash. Rather than using this capital to import foreign luxury goods, it should be put to use in the national economy, in particular to finance the ailing manufacturing sector which continued to suffer from a total lack of balanced development. Contrary to what Filangieri held, Rey believed that one of the factors that created most difficulties for population growth and the real value of money was precisely what Filangieri was advocating: constantly turning to outside markets for supplies of manufactured goods -that traditional failing that obliged his country to “sustain its luxury through foreign industry”. Spain therefore had to not only “increase the fertility of its land through appropriate agricultural practices but also stimulate the trades and its own manufactures”44. Filangieri’s argument was to steer economic development towards agriculture in preference to manufacturing, so Reflexiones economico-políticas should be read in terms of the defence of Spanish interests in the context of international trade.

IV. The Second Period (1813)

27In 1813 the second edition of Rubio’s translation appeared; Filangieri’s work had lain dormant for two decades. In the “Prólogo” that introduced the work, Filangieri’s Scienza was described as having been beneficial since the very moment of its appearance. This was attributed to its exemplary rationality, the clarity with which it was written and the fact that it contained a “complete system for law making”. Nevertheless, just as important was to verify that the work’s ideas had made “rapid progress in recent times amongst the people who had begun to familiarize themselves with these important truths”45. These, then were the historical circumstances which explain better that anything else the reasons for this new edition. Behind this edition was the perception of a great opportunity for Spain after the Cádiz Sessions of Parliament during which the Constitution of 1812 had been proclaimed. It was intended to create a new political system and promote the transformation of the society based on liberal principles.

28The new ten volume edition was published in Madrid. It presents some interpretative problems that are difficult to resolve right at this point in time. They are problems that are quite common in editions of this period; translators and editors hid behind anonymity, usually for political reasons. Although the books appeared at a time when there was freedom of expression, the publishers were not confident that such conditions would last and that they would therefore not be subject to persecution in the future. Indeed, this new edition was the work of a new translator, publisher or editor, but it is not exactly clear how much he contributed with respect to Rubio’s original translation. According to the editor himself, his role was to improve the quality of Rubio’s work and he frequently referred to him as “the translator”. The previous version had not been finished “because circumstances of the time had not permitted and this was perhaps also the reason why the translator left out some parts of the original and changed others. This has obliged us to revise the translation, correct its defects and finish it; for the benefit of the younger generation of Spain, we present everything that this celebrated author wrote”46. The editor also took responsibility for having cut down the original “excessively lengthy and tedious” notes contained in Book V and having introduced some of his own that were more concise and intended to facilitate the understanding of “the entire system that the author has invented to explain the polytheism of all the world’s nations”47.

29Nevertheless, the editor’ contribution went further. Unlike Rubio, he positioned the entire Piano ragionato dell’opera at the beginning of the work; on the other hand, following with the original layout, he moved the précis of Tommasi’s Elogio storico to the end of the final volume48. He also included a translation of Rifessioni politiche, without notes of his own49, and a clarification addressed to the reader that the author had never completely finished Scienza. What had been left unfinished had to do with “the great advantages of the Christian religion”, property, “guardianship and the good organization of the family”. All of this is noteworthy, but the principal novelty of the edition lay in the fact that all the volumes included a “Discursos del Traductor” which in some cases appeared as well as a “Prólogos del Traductor” (this is the case in the eighth volume, which retained Rubio’s brief treatise on childcare). It was probably the editor himself who wrote the new “Discursos”. These were long summaries of Filangieri’s work and, in some cases, just as long as the work itself. They were not particularly original; even though there are occasional slight differences or changes in emphasis, they really did little more than preview the author’s ideas. This was normally unnecessary, especially considering that Filangieri generally wrote in a fairly simple style that hardly required a glossary. The “Discursos” appeared stripped of their historical examples and references to authors. They also lacked classification according to chapter. Thus it seems that the idea behind these changes was to make the work easier to read and its contents more accessible to the layman. This policy was deliberately pursued by the editor, who had stressed that to be effective Filangieri’s ideas had to be presented “to the public in such an organized and straightforward fashion that the simplest and least observant souls would relate to them”50.

30The addition of these “Discursos” involved a considerable increase in the bulk of the edition. However, the main problems with them have to do with other issues. The most significant is that once again the work remained incomplete. Whilst the Book V was enlarged, Parts II and III of Book IV -the ones on traditions and public education- did not appear. In addition, and in contrary to what the editor claimed, his corrections can only be described as fairly superficial. Focusing once again on our analysis of Book II, we observe that it still suffered from all the shortcomings of the first edition of the translation and most of the omissions and censored passages. Thus, this edition -incomplete, incorrect and censored- remained an unsatisfactory translation of Filangieri’s work. This is hardly excusable considering that it came out in the same year that the ruling of the Tribunal of the Inquisition was withdrawn.

31Despite their frequent lack of originality, the “Discursos del Traductor” occasionally introduced other ideas apart from Filangieri’s. A very interesting example of this is the “Discurso” that precedes Book I. It makes explicit reference to the Fueros (Charter) of Sobrarbe in Aragon and its five chapters were reproduced in the “Discurso”. The reference to the Fueros is made in the context of a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of different systems of government. The Fueros had been responsible for regulating institutional relations between the King and the nobility of the Kingdom of Aragon whilst the latter enjoyed the political autonomy. It was presented as a shining example of how laws should be “clear and precise” when dealing with the defining of royal powers and as a model unique throughout the whole of Europe for the way it established limits to the use of royal power and thus prevented political systems from degenerating into despotism: “Our celebrated constitution has guaranteed the freedom of the Aragonese people and preserved well-being in the Kingdom for over six hundred years; it has safeguarded the power and glory of our sovereigns and has made them respected and feared by their enemies all over Europe; it has enabled them to confront the most powerful of rulers on equal terms”51.

32This aspect provides us with some additional information regarding the identity of the anonymous editor. It must have an Aragonese author and probably someone who was personally associated with Rubio at some point in time. Lalinde thinks this person was “better educated” than Rubio, but, at the same time, “more conservative”52. He “must have been a liberal Catholic, someone like Martínez Marina”. We share this opinion and, judging from the content of the notes added to Book V and the person’s great familiarity with the classic authors, it could have been a member of the Church. His moderate tendencies are apparent although, to accurately assess this aspect of his identity, we must not lose sight of the fact that in the Spain of the times the conservative forces of society were unrelenting in their vigilance. And all we have to do is read Rafael de Vélez to get an idea of what things were like. The writings of this Capuchin priest and Bishop of Ceuta are “a unique testimony of the intellectual climate during the first part of Ferdinand’s reign”; he insists fervently on the need for absolutism in both politics and religion53. Vélez gave more than enough indications that he was familiar with Filangieri’s work: due to Filangieri’s Regalist background and opposition to the priesthood and the Church of Rome, the reactionary forces at work within Spanish society situated him and his writings at the head of the Anti-Catholic, Anti-absolutist conspiracy of which the country was the victim54. It is no coincidence that when the absolutist governments came to power and silenced Scienza, Vélez’s ideas were to be heard all over the place. These are very eloquent paradoxes of what Spain was like during the reign of Fernando II.

V. The Third Period (1821-1823)

33Indeed, it was not until Spain entered a new period of freedom that interest in Filangieri was revived. This time it was under the government that the liberals installed between 1821 and 1823, after the six years of absolutism. This régime only lasted three years but that was enough time for three new translations of Scienza to appear: two by a new translator, Juan Ribera, in 1821 and 1823, and another in 1822; the latter was the third and final edition of Rubio’s translation. This spate of new versions turned this triennium into the most prolific period as far as the dissemination of Filangieri’s work is concerned (once again, the same thing also happened with Beccaria’s work; four new Spanish editions of his work appeared between 1820 and 1823)55. This was undoubtedly closely related to the return of Parliament as an active force, although the Cortes, controlled by the liberals, were dissolved by the King before they had time to finish their reforms. They proved to be outstanding for their leadership capacity. The currency Filangieri’s ideas enjoyed in parliamentary debates prior to the passing of the first Spanish penal code in 1822 is well known56 (as early version of the Spanish penal code based on Filangieri´s work was drafted by as anonymous author in 178757; it remained unpublished). And something similar has been noted in the framing of laws with economic content as well58. Nevertheless, as far as the history of the lineage of Scienza in Spain is concerned, the dispute that the two translators of Filangieri’s work got tangled up in defending their respective interpretations set the tone for this period.

34We know nothing of Ribera’s private or professional life, but he must have been an eminent jurist and wielded influence in Spanish liberal circles because, at the same time as he was translating Filangieri, he was doing a version of Beccaria’s Dei delitti e delle pene (as we shall explain below, he also translated J. B. Say and B. Constant). The latter work was published in 1821 in Madrid and was a completely revised version of a translation done a year earlier; it set out to explain the principles of law making devised by this member of the Milanese Enlightenment and encourage their application in the framing of the Spanish penal code59. His six volume translation of Scienza appeared in Madrid and it was published as a show of support for the new government and the reforms that were being planned. The work was signed on the 12th of March and dedicated to the “National Congress of Spain”. After declaring that the Neapolitan’s work was the “most perfect ever to be published in the field of law making”, he commended it to “the founders and guardians of political and civil liberty of our great nation”60. Given the new political climate, an immediate application of his ideas was a distinct possibility: “In times of ignorance and calamity the people of Spain were prohibited from reading this work. In these happy times of the Spanish restoration, and under the auspices of a new body of enlightened law makers and a government intent on protecting all useful knowledge, Filangieri’s writings will receive the unrestricted and deliberate attention of all Spaniards that wish to make an effective and intelligent contribution to the good of the homeland”61.

35As well as vindicating his version as historically opportune, Ribera offered a secondary justification: the pressing need to correct the “incomplete and fatally flawed” translation by Rubio. Indeed, his “Prólogo del Traductor” was devoted to stressing this point rather than the virtues of Filangieri’s work. Ribera failed to see why Rubio had reduced the “excellent” Elogio by Tommasi to an extract and why the editor of the second edition had added the aforementioned “Discursos del Traductor” which “took up four volumes of the translation”.62 All in all, his criticisms amounted to an attempt to assess the quality of the 1813 translation. Ribera insisted that Scienza had come into his hands just a few years after its publication and he claimed to have done a word by word comparison between Rubio’s translation and the original edition printed in Philadelphia in 1799. He concluded that Filangieri was “a long way from being as happy in Spain as the Count of Buffon”63: this translation was neither “accurate” nor “elegant”. He actually presented sixteen pages of mistakes from just the first two books of Rubio’s version, so that the Spanish reader could see that his own work held “significant advantages over the first” because he had produced a “faithful and accurate translation”64.

36Ribera’s efforts to achieve an improvement in quality are amply demonstrated by the results. He kept the Introduzione and the Piano ragionato dell´opera at the beginning of the work and, following them, included a complete version of Elogio storico by Tommasi65. He left out all the tedious “Discursos del Traductor” in the 1813 edition and presented a totally new translation in as much as it was not just a mere correction or adaptation of the two previous versions. Importantly his work also constituted the first complete translation and, going on the examination that we made of the Book II, was of far greater quality than Rubio’s. Ribera included the expressions in Greek left out by Rubio; he translated proper names and book titles into Spanish much more accurately; he did not leave any of them out; he followed the original paragraph structure; and, most important of all, he did not censor any notes or parts of paragraphs. Thus, forty one years after the first edition of Scienza and thirty four after the first Spanish translation, readers finally had access to a complete version of the work, in all probability, free of any censorship. Paradoxically, this overlapped with the moment in which attempts were made to correct some of the by now dated aspects of the Scienza. Ribera included some brief notes in his translation with this idea in mind. Given that it was now forty years old Scienza could easily be considered behind the times. More specifically, on economic matters, he referred the reader to a treatise by J. B. Say for a comparison and update on monetary and taxation policy66. Say was the most highly regarded economist of the moment in Spain67.

37Whilst Ribera’s version was being published, Rubio’s heirs were preparing a third edition of his version68. This came out in Madrid in five tomes containing ten volumes; it may have been the work of the editor of the previous edition. It was published with a carefully argued reply to Ribera’s criticisms. The anonymous publisher acknowledged that Rubio’s first translation had “serious shortcomings as many things from the original were omitted, other things were changed, whilst in some parts it was far too free, in others it was too literal”. Despite this, it rarely “neglected to present the writer’s ideas although not quite as vigorously and elegantly as in the original”. Little could be improved in the subsequent edition. It had come out with “some corrections and amendments”, but “the urgency with which it was done did not allow time to correct the proofs with the necessary attention and care, let alone consult the original. That is why there are so many mistakes, as can be readily seen, and its correction was postponed to a more convenient moment”69.

38Once these errors had been acknowledged, the apologetic tone was abandoned and the attack on Ribera began. Even though it had been “done with the peace of mind that we enjoy under the new régime”, it was of poor quality. First he was accused of not having “compared the translation with the original”; then of “failing to understand the subject matter” and of omitting “some essential and necessary things”; finally, of writing in a style that was “uninspired and tedious, due to the constant repetitions”, and rarely “presenting the ideas contained in the original with simplicity”. The conclusion was obvious: it was “essential that the translation be redone and that Mr. Ribera apply himself more assiduously to the task of revising it”70. To support these arguments, the editor included seven pages of errors; they had been detected in a comparison between Ribera’s translation and the 1784 Milan edition of Scienza. The attack concluded by claiming that “the parts of the work that need correction are infinite” and that the translation was neither “accurate, readable nor correct”71. But the reproaches against the other translator did not stop there. They next focused on his assessment of the “Discursos del Traductor” as useless. Rubio’s heirs invoked the authority of Condorcet and other authors who had taken extracts from classical works to defend the role of the “Discursos”; far from being a “useless jumble”, they contained an illuminating summary of the “spirit” of the work72.

39Leaving these reproaches aside, the main interest of the third edition of Rubio’s translation lies in the fact that it was a complete version at last. On the other hand, it had the same formal structure as the 1813 edition: the same Introducción, the extract from Elogio storico, the Riflessione politiche and, despite the criticism that they had aroused, all the “Discursos del Traductor”. There is no doubt that there had been a considerable improvement. There were corrections to the references to the authors and works and also changes in the sense of the text, but the serious problems cited in the 1787-1789 edition remained unresolved. The most serious of these was that some paragraphs were still censored even though to a lesser extent than in the two previous editions.

40The third edition of Rubio’s translation did not remain without reply. The second edition of Ribera’s version, in six volumes, appeared in 182373. It was done in Bordeaux. This leads us to believe that it was published after the liberals’ term in government had come to an end as this French city provided an habitual meeting point for exiled Spanish anti-absolutists. This edition had the same structure and content as the preceding one. The only difference is to be found in the “Prólogo del Traductor”. It is much the same as in the other edition but it omits the errors found in Rubio’s version as being a “long winded and demanding” matter74. This was done no doubt to avoid the exchange of reproaches between the two translators continuing.

VI. The Fourth Period (1836-1839)

41The final phase of the dissemination of Filangieri’s work in Spain occurred during María Cristina’s Regency (1833-1840). This marked the end of ten years of absolutism and the partial restoration of the principles of the old hierarchical society. It also enabled the liberals’ to return to power. The initiative passed back and forth between the two liberal factions, the moderates and the progressives, and intellectual and political tolerance was firmly instated.

42The most important event in this final phase took place in 1836, the year the third edition of J. Ribera’s translation of Scienza was published. It was printed in Paris, surely at two different printers -Lecointe’s Spanish Bookshop and the American Bookshop. Despite this, these days it is by far the least known of all the Spanish editions of this work (in this respect the Spanish experience had more in common with France than Italy: whilst Constant´s Commentaire received a negative reception in France -it was described as "mancata"-, in Italy it went through eight editions between 1826 and 1841)75. The reason for its publication was the “ever growing number of people from all over the place who order it without stop” [Scienza] and “the great scarcity of previous editions”76.  The main difference between this edition and the previous ones was the inclusion of a translation by Ribera of B. Constant’s Commentaire sur l’ouvrage de Filangieri (1822-1824), a work that had received ample exposure by this time, especially in Italy77. Without doubt his feature dominated the character of this new edition. It began with a "Advertencia preliminar" to readers in which Ribera, instead of repeating the customary tributes to Filangieri and his work, limited himself to presenting a complete translation of the reasons that Constant gave for writing an extended and critical refutation of Scienza. Riberas’s idea was to present the Spanish reader with “a number of issues that now commanded more interest than when Filangieri wrote”78. In addition, he took advantage of the edition to revise his previous work. The 1836 version was not just a simple re-issue of the two previous ones of 1821-1822 and of 1823, it was more like a slightly revised re-edition. For example, in Volume II of Scienza, he not only took out the expressions in Greek and made some other minor changes, but he also included some new notes with the idea of clarifying a number of points related to public health for the Spanish reader. He also recommended consulting the Spanish translations of Tocqueville’s work and the fifth edition -to appear shortly- of Say’s Traité (J. Ribera had also been one of the Spanish translators of the fourth edition of Traité by Say)79.

43The translation of Commentaire was not just a simple imitative version either. Ribera broke up the work and placed the chapters after the ones they corresponded to in Scienza; he changed the original paragraph structure; whilst retaining the vast majority of the forty six chapters of Scienza that had been the object of Constant’s criticisms, he did omit some of them, changed their order and even their placement within the work. Despite the changes, there was no appreciable improvement in quality. There are two more features that we must highlight: one was the incorporation of some brief but not particularly relevant original notes80; the other was that he retained the Elogio storico by Tommasi81, instead of using the biography by the Calabrian author, Saverio Salfi. It was his work that normally accompanied the enlarged edition of Scienza that included Commentaire by Constant82. This is how Tommasi ended up becoming Filangieri’s official biographer in Spain.

44The series of texts that comprise the Filangierian library in Spain conclude with Compendio by Bernardo Latorre (or La Torre). This was written in 1834, although it was not published until five years later. The author, once again, was from legal circles. He was Magistrado Honorario and Juez de Primera Instancia in the Castilian city of Toledo. His work was not a translation of Scienza, but rather a summary of the first, second and third books (in the first and second parts). It was a highly condensed summary at that, as the author needed few more than a couple of hundred pages to summarize the content of all those parts of the work together with his own, at times no less lengthy notes. At the end of the book he included a brief original appendix “on the state of prisons and the improvements that they require”83.

45The Compendio was written, above all, in support of the reform of Spanish law and the drafting of a new legal code “so clear that everyone can understand their rights and obligations”. The fact that the Enlightenment had not penetrated Spain to the same extent as other countries was due to “the dark days in which the tyranny of treacherous and ignorant ministers seduced the King into pursuing the most distinguished and respectable men (…); the blame lies with that never ending list of banned books”. On the other hand, once the times of the Queen Governess and the current “wise government” arrived, it had never been more “important to formulate new laws in keeping with the erudition of the State, the nature of the country’s population, the system of government and the century of the Enlightenment”; and, in order to achieve this, it was necessary to stimulate the “study of the sciences that had been forbidden until just recently”.

46Together with these factors, a second key to the understanding of the Compendio was the desire that introduce Filangieri’s ideas into the education system. The university syllabi appeared to be “deliberately designed so that the younger generation never gets to know the true principles”. And given that the Filangieri’s work was so extensive,  Latorre had decided to summarize it. He also justified this by claiming that  “the big books by interpreters and commentators of our laws usually only increase the confusion; they alarm students of the science because their pages are often full of ridiculous subtleties and annoying demonstrations of truths that are of little or no interest”. In the same line he expressed the hope that his summary would be used by professionals to bring themselves up to date given that “it is very unusual that the student, after completing his degree, knows how to find the origin of laws and discuss them from a philosophical point of view”.

47If there is one thing that characterizes the Compendio, it is the author’s desire to compare Filangieri’s ideas with the reality of Spanish legal and economic conditions. The Magistrate confessed that “he had no high-flown pretensions of being a writer; all he had done was to select the [texts] from the other classical authors that had dealt with the science of law making in a philosophical fashion, I have included the notes I considered necessary…both on our laws and the principles that I have seen established by the most respected authors”84. He included numerous references -in some passages they were so numerous that they overshadowed Filangieri’s ideas. In some cases, these references were intended to explain the content of Spanish laws and compare these with Filangieri’s ideas, in others to stress the need for law reform and, finally, and in the majority of cases, to bring his work up to date in the light of the authors that followed him. Latorre’s contribution is greatest in the third book -not surprising considering that he was a professional of the judiciary. The primary sources for his comments were the writings of the Spanish criminologist Gutiérrez as well as Beccaria, Lardizábal, Betham and one of Bentham’s principal Spanish translators, Ramón de Salas. As for the summary of Volume II, it is not particularly accurate and it is pretty obvious that it was written by someone who was not familiar with economics. Latorre used ideas from the writings of Uztáriz, Bentham, Constant, Raynal, Salas and Say. The latter’s Traité is the work that most complements Compendio and is also the most quoted in it. He had just one difference of opinion with Filangieri and it was to do with the taxation system. Whilst Filangieri favoured the impôt unique of the Physiocrats85, Latorre questioned the soundness of throwing the full weight of the tax burden on the land; he was in favour of distributing it amongst “everyone equally” and mainly on “the income that owners spend on useless items”; this was to show how the best system of taxation was the one used in Aragon at the time86.

48The revival that Scienza experienced during María Cristina’s Regency coincided with the final phase of the work’s influence, at least as far as economics was concerned. Filangieri’s economic arguments were used between 1811 and 1845 in the series of debates over the process of freeing from mortmain87 and during the thirties in various different works on economics, such as the Ensayo by G. de Luna (1819-1820) -a translator of A. Smith´s treatise-, the influential Diccionarios by the Minister of Treasury J. Canga Argüelles (1834) and the most important work of the Aragonese liberal M. Torrente (1835) -in this case was due to the fact that this book was mainly based on the economic works of the Italian M. Gioia88. Even though Scienza continued to be quoted in the following decade by authors like N. de Paso (1841) or the free trade economist J. J. de Mora (1843), they were passing references mainly acknowledging Filangieri’s role as a pioneer of free trade.  

VIII. Conclusions

49Scienza’s progress through Europe included a long passage in Spain. The work enjoyed extraordinary success in this country and appeared in a wide variety of formats, ranging from translations, refutations and commented versions through to summaries (it is worth remembering that this great success created very favourable conditions for the dissemination of Scienza in the Spanish American colonies; see Chiaramonte 1964, 1979). The six translations, complete or selective, of Scienza were the most important vehicle for the dissemination of Filangieri’s work in Spain. These translations also included a number of different Spanish versions of Tommasi’s Elogio storico, Filangieri’s own Riflessioni politiche and Constant’s Commentaire. The work enjoyed a long life as well -and Venturi coincides with this assessment-89, first appearing in 1784 and remaining in the public eye until 1839. Scienza was in fact one of the most influential pieces of eighteenth century writing that continued to command an audience in the following century. It was in the nineteenth century that five of the six translations that were made of Scienza appeared.

50Few pieces of writing reflect better than Scienza the enormous difficulties that the interminable agony of the Ancien Régime created for Spain. Indeed, the periods in which his work was disseminated are concentrated in periods of freedom: the reign of Carlos III, the Cortes of Cádiz, the Liberal Triennium and María Cristina’s Regency. Meanwhile, his work did not receive any exposure when the absolutists were in power. It should be stressed the easy introduction of the economic message of the Scienza della Legislazione into Spain, in contrast with the difficulties found by their political content, which created a deep controversy in the last decades of the Eighteenth Century Spain. The reformist program included in the book which grounded on the firm defence of the individual rights seems to be too modern regarding the Spanish cultural conditions at the time. Despite the members of the Late Spanish Enlightenment did accept the political principles of the Scienza della Legislazione, the conservative group rejected them as they were aware of their consequences. Therefore, this contributes to explain the partial and sometimes complete censorship that the book suffered when it was introduced into Spain for the first time. However, years later, between the declaration of the Cortes de Cádiz (1812) and the Liberal Triennium (1820-1823), the work was completely introduced and there was a full reception of the Scienza della Legislazione. So the history of the work’s success also reflects the enormous efforts of the Spanish members of the Enlightenment movement and liberals to ensure that the country did not remain isolated from the world of new ideas. There are some good examples of the lengths they went to in order to achieve this: the enthusiasm they displayed in clearing the obstacles placed in their path by the Inquisition and the more conservative elements of the Catholic Church, the forty one years that elapsed before a complete, uncensored translation became available and the dispute that raged between Ribera and Rubio’s heirs over the improvement of their respective versions -and this was well into the nineteenth century.

51The considerable success that Scienza enjoyed in Spain cannot be explained without making reference to the innumerable ties that stretched between the Regno delle Due Sicilie and the Spanish Monarchy (an overall view in Pinto 1985). When Filangieri wrote his work, these ties were above all political ones, but there were also important cultural ones, as Venturi repeatedly explained in his usual masterly fashion90. As has been pointed in the case of Germany91, the reception given to Filangieri’s work in Spain cannot be directly related to the reception given to the Neapolitan Enlightenment as a whole. This movement was without doubt the fundamental factor in the flow of ideas that originated in the Italian States; it exerted more influence in Spain than the enlightened movement based in the Milan of Austrian Lombardy -except for Beccaria92. It reached Spain mainly through the Aragonese and Valencian Enlightenment93. The Neapolitan Enlightenment seeped its way into the country in roughly the following fashion: first, Genovesi’s antischolastic work on logic and physics developed a following in Spanish Universities94, although not without certain resistance95; next, the parts of the work that were most closely related to economics became known through Galiani’s Dialoghi [1775] and Genovesi’s Lezzioni [1785-1786]; finally, appeared Scienza with it most directly related law making dimension. The latter overshadowed the appearance of writings by Neapolitan disciples of Genovesi and Filangieri (Palmieri, Pagano, Galanti, etc…)96, who were, by in large, not nearly as well known in Spain. Despite this, the period of translation of Neapolitan authors and their intellectual influence in this country went beyond the eighteenth century. This was not due to Filangieri alone, but also to Galiani and Genovesi; the former’s Dialoghi continued exerting influence during the first decades of the nineteenth century and Genovesi’s Lezzioni and his commentated version of Esprit des lois were retranslated around the same time. The three authors spanned a period of influence of seven decades (1770-1840). Perhaps Venturi97 was not able to perceive the true dimensions of this phenomenon: the mark the Neapolitan "partito degli intellettuali" (Galasso) made in Spain was no less important than the one the Spanish enlightened writers made in Italy -this has become clearer thanks to the articles of N. Guasti [1998, 2001]- and without doubt amounted to more than a mere “isolated or superficial” influence.98.

52The superiority of Scienza over the rest of the treatises on law making written during the European Enlightenment is also important. Except for Beccaria, only Bentham bears comparison with Filangieri. His writings were widely circulated in Spain, mainly between 1820 and 184099. This cannot be said, at least to the same extent, in the case of the Frenchman Mably or Schmid d’Avenstein from Switzerland, although they were certainly both known in Spain. All this confirms the importance that this type of treatise had as a means of ideological renewal during prolonged periods of time. Unlike what seems to have taken place with Bentham100, Filangieri’s influence extended well beyond strictly legal matters and moral and political philosophy and into economics; this was aided by the ordered structure of his work aimed at informing his readers.

53The similar nature of the juridical and socio-economic problems of Naples and Spain, particularly those related to those posed by the continuing existence of feudal institutions, undoubtedly stimulated interest in Scienza in the latter country. Nevertheless, we must seek many of the keys to understanding the success of the work in the subject matter itself and look further a field than the individual elements that stand out by their very nature such as its multidisciplinary make up, its Masonic roots, its unified spirit and its aforementioned cosmopolitan scope which extended beyond the specific problems of the Mezzogiorno. The universal vision of the work was especially important: it was based on the distinction between the “bontà assoluta” ("laws of absolute goodness") and the “bontà relativa” ("laws of relative goodness") of laws. This distinction, which originated in a particular interpretation of Esprit des lois101, meant that Scienza was not a strictly rationalist and absolute work; whilst the "laws of absolute goodness" had to observe the general principles of natural order, the "laws of relative goodness" should not lose sight of “the relation between the laws and the state of the nation that receives them”102. This linked Scienza to a relativist methodology that insisted on taking into account the particular physical, economic, political and cultural characteristics of each country when applying his reforms to the mechanisms for law making103. Filangieri’s insistence on the varying nature of laws and institutions, meant that his vision was much more than a mere rational utopian re-construction; it was, in fact, a viable political programme to which it was necessary to make adjustments according to the conditions of the country in which it was to be applied104.

54And, at this level, the gradual philosophy underlying his vision was extremely important. Combined with the importance he attached to education as a tool for spreading knowledge and shaping public opinion, the pacifica rivoluzione that he advocated revolved around the reform of those areas of the law that continued to protect feudal privileges. His reforms required a sustained effort from administration and an efficient use of authority from the State. Thus, time for law making was inseparable from time for governing; the reform of law making, absolutely essential, could only be achieved by a coalition between the throne and the party of the philosophes105 based on a programme that foresaw a gradual phasing out of the Ancien Régime.106 Filangieri’s motto “la filosofia è venuta in soccorso de´governi107 was perfectly in tune with the reformist character of the generations that began grouping themselves around the emblematic figures of Campomanes and Jovellanos during the last four decades of the eighteenth century in Spain. These figures displayed strong interest in law making and significant anti-clerical, anti-feudal and liberalizing tendencies. Filangieri´s work has been described as the starting point of a broader and stronger offensive against the political and economic power oh the baronaggio. He abandoned the "prudente, contenuto e misurato" language used by Genovesi to address the issue. The anti-feudal aspect of Scienza was very important; Galanti, Delfico and Palmieri subsequently took up the issue and it became an important factor in the work being accepted by the second generation of Enlightened Spaniards (Foronda, Jovellanos, etc.). However, there was an important difference in the reformist strategies adopted by the Spaniards and the Neapolitans: wilst the backbone of the approach used during the Spanish Enlightenment was the drafting of an Agrarian Law, Genovesi, Filangieri, Galanti and Delfico rejected this possibility: they claimed it was "utopistico" and "innaturale" and symptomatic of an undesirable and egalitarian radicalism108. In the mean time, the fact that the backbone of Scienza was its juridical content facilitated its acceptance amongst the professionals of the legal world in Spain. There is no doubt that this group played an important role in the introduction of Enlightened ideas and the first wave of liberalism in this country and all we need to do is go over the list of translators of the Neapolitan’s work for further confirmation of this fact.

55Even so, whilst Scienza did not provide a clear alternative to enlightened despotism, it did at least propose some important reforms and, although it made frequent concessions to the former system, it also contained more advanced political and economic ideas, particulary because it aspired to create more egalitarian social and economic conditions. Filangieri gradually lost faith in the Bourbons´ ability to implement reforms and distanced himself from Fernando IV´s moderate policies. His disenchantment with the Bourbons was brought about by territorial changes taking place in Europe while the work was being written109, the American Revolution and the way it contributed to revive the debate over forms of government and the bold reforms implemented by Leopold in Tuscany and Marie Teresa and Joseph II in Lombardy. The book included enough innovative ideas for its author to be proclaimed a "prophet that showes the way" for future generations110. The  long period of success that the passing of decades reserved for Scienza in Spain should not be interpreted as an anachronism, but rather as yet another indication of the sinuous progress of the disappearance of the Ancien Régime in this country. The slow advance of Spanish liberalism turned the old inherited problems into chronic ones; this made it more difficult to renounce the old enlightened legacy or, in this case, to achieve its radical modernization. It is particularly significant that Filangieri’s Spanish translators continued to defend the relevancy and the value of the work even in the twenties and thirties of the nineteenth century. They used much the same terms as those used many years before by their enlightened predecessors. It proved possible to bring Scienza up to date and to make certain corrections, and that is what Ribera and Latorre insisted on doing. Nevertheless, strictly speaking, only in Spain was the work the subject of separate interpretations in times as different as the Revolution and the Restoration111; this was made possible by Constant’s Commentaire. No Spanish liberal equalled the achievement of this great French liberal theorist: pass what were fundamental aspects of Filangieri’s vision -the utopian spirit and the paternalistic principles that supported the existence of an enlightened despot- through the filter of individualistic liberalism with its demands for full personal freedom in economic and juridical areas and its aversion to intervention in law making112. All this in itself demonstrates the extent of the differences involved in passing from enlightened reformism to the emerging liberal thought in each European country and the varying speeds with which the latter took root in each of them. And this also applies to what Galasso termed "the other Europe". As he recently stressed, the only way to arrive at a balanced assessment of relations between Naples and Spain during this period -that is, one untainted by nationalist prejudices- is to focus on the problem from a broader European perspective.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Primary Sources

Amat, Félix [1838]: "Una prueba de que la Ciencia de la Legislación del Caballero Filangieri debe leerse con desconfianza en lo que cita de antiguo y en lo que piensa de nuevo" (1787), in Félix torres amat: Apéndice a la vida del Ilmo. Sr. D. Félix Amat, Madrid, Imprenta que fue de Fuentenebro, pp. 46-59.

Arteta, Antonio [1783]: Discurso instructivo sobre las ventajas que puede conseguir la industria de Aragón con la nueva ampliación de puertos concedida por S. M. para el comercio de América, Madrid, Imprenta Real. Ed. G. Pérez Sarrión, Zaragoza, D. G. A., 1985.

Beccaria, Cesare [1774]: De los delitos y de las penas (1764), Madrid. Ed. Madrid, Alianza, 1982.

[1821]: Tratado de los delitos y de las penas, escrito en italiano por el Marqués de Beccaria, y traducido al castellano por Don Juan Rivera, Madrid, Fermín Villalpando(1764).

Filangieri, Gateano [1774]: Riflessioni politiche su l´ultima legge del Sovrano, che riguarda la riforma dell´amministrazione della Giustizia del Cavalier Gaetano Filangieri. Ed. Raffaele Ajello, Napoli, 1982.

[1786]: La Science de la Législation, par M. le Chevalier Gaetano Filangieri. Ouvrage traduit de l´Italien, d´après l´édition de Naples, de 1784, vol. I, Paris, Chez Cuchet.

[1787]: Reflexiones políticas sobre la ley de Fernando IV, Rey de las dos Sicilias, que mira a la reforma de la administración de Justicia. Escritas en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri. Y traducidas al castellano, Madrid, Benito Cano, 1787.

[1787-1789]: Ciencia de la Legislación. Escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri. Traducida al castellano por Don Jaime Rubio, Abogado de los Reales Consejos, Madrid, Manuel González, 6 vol. in 5 t.

[1813]: Ciencia de la Legislación. Escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, Madrid, Imprenta de Ibarra (vol. I, II, III, IV, V), Imprenta de Fuentenebro (vol. VI, VII) and Imprenta de Álvarez (vol. VIII, IX, X), 10 vol.

[1815]: Opuscoli scelti editi, ed inediti del Cav. Gaetano Filangieri, Palermo.

[1821-1822]: Ciencia de la Legislación. Obra escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri. Nuevamente traducida por Don Juan Ribera, Madrid, Fermín Villalpando, 6 vol.

[1822a]: Ciencia de la Legislación escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, y traducida al castellano por Don Jaime Rubio, abogado de los Reales Consejos. Tercera edición corregida y añadida con discursos analíticos en cada libro, Madrid, Imprenta de Núñez, 10 vol. in 5 t.

[1822b]: Oeuvres de G. Filangieri traduites de l´italien. Nouvelle édition accompagnée d´un Commentaire par M. Benjamin Constant et de l´Éloge de Filangieri par M. Salfi, Paris, P. Dufart, 6 vol.

[1823]: Ciencia de la Legislación, por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, nuevamente traducida por Don Juan Ribera. Segunda edición, revisada y corregida, Bordeaux, Imprenta de Don Pedro Beaume, 6 vol.

[1836]: Ciencia de la Legislación, por C. Filangieri, ilustrada con comentarios por Benjamin Constant. Tercera edición, revisada, corregida y aumentada, Paris, Librería española de Lecointe, 10 vol in 5 t.; Paris, Librería Americana, 10 vol.

[1864]: La Scienza della legislazione. Ed. Pasquale Villari, Firenze, Felice le Monnier.

­­[2003]: La Scienza della legislazione, Venezia, Centro di Studi sull´Illuminismo europeo “G. Stiffoni”, 7 vol.

Galiani, Ferdinando [1775]: Diálogos sobre el comercio de trigo, atribuidos al abate Galiani, Madrid, Joaquín Ibarra.

Genovesi, Antonio [1785-1786]: Lecciones de Comercio, ó bien de Economía Civil, Madrid, Joaquín Ibarra, 3 vol.

[Inquisición] [1805]: Suplemento al Indice expurgatorio del año de 1790 que contiene los libros prohibidos y mandados expurgar en todos los Reynos y Señoríos del Católico Rey de España el Sr. D. Carlos IV, desde el Edicto de 13 de Diciembre del año de 1789 hasta el 25 de Agosto de 1805, Madrid, Imprenta Real.

Latorre (o La Torre), Bernardo [1839]: Compendio de la obra que escribió el Caballero Filangieri, titulada Ciencia de la Legislación, con notas de los autores más clásicos, redactado en el año 1834, Madrid, Imprenta de I. Boix.

Lardizábal, Manuel de [1782]: Discurso sobre las penas contrahido a las leyes criminales de España, para facilitar su reforma. Ed. Manuel Rivacoba, Vitoria, Ararteko, 2001.

Llorente, Juan Antonio [1980]: Historia crítica de la Inquisición en España, Madrid, Hiperion.

Rey, Francisco de Paula del [1792]: Reflexiones económico-políticas de Don Francisco de Paula del Rey, Abogado de los Reales Tribunales de Castilla y de Navarra, sobre los capítulos VII y XXXVIII del Libro II de la obra intitulada Ciencia de la Legislación, escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, y traducida al castellano por Don Jaime Rubio, Madrid, Benito Cano.

Say, Juan Bautista [1839]: Tratado de Economía Política, Gerona, Imprenta y librería de V. Oliva, 4 vol.

Tommasi, Donato [1788]: "Elogio histórico del Caballero Gaetano Filangieri", in G. Filangieri [1821-1822: I, XXXI-CXXVI].

Vélez, Rafael de [1818]: Apología del Altar y del Trono ó Historia de las reformas hechas en España en tiempo de las llamadas Cortes, e impugnación de algunas doctrinas publicadas en la Constitución, Diarios y otros escritos contra la Religión y el Estado, Madrid, Imprenta de Cao, 2 vol.

[Villava, Victorián de] [1784]: Reflexiones sobre la libertad del comercio de frutos del Señor Cayetano Filangieri, Caballero del Orden de S. Juan, Madrid, Joaquín Ibarra.

Secondary sources

Aa. Vv. [1991]: Gaetano Filangieri e l´Illuminismo europeo, Napoli, Guida editori.

Aguilar, Francisco [1981-1995]: Bibliografía de autores españoles del siglo XVIII, Madrid, C. S. I. C. and Instituto Miguel de Cervantes, 8 vol.

Ajello, Raffaele [1976]: Arcana juris. Diritto e politica nel Settecento italiano, Napoli, Jovene editore.

[1982]: "Il tempo storico delle Riflessioni", Introduction to G. Filangieri [1774].

[1991]: "L´estasi della ragione. Dall´Illuminismo all´idealismo. Introduzione alla Scienza di Filangieri", in Aa. Vv. [1991: 13-146].

Almenar, Salvador [2000]: "El desarrollo del pensamiento económico clásico en España", in E. Fuentes Quintana (ed.) [2000b: 7-92].

Andreatta, Alberto [1995]: Le Americhe di Gaetano Filangieri, Napoli, Edizioni scientifique italiane.

Anes, Gonzalo [1969]: "La Revolución francesa y España", in Economía e "Ilustración" en la España del siglo XVIII, Barcelona-Caracas-Méjico, Ariel, pp. 139-198.

Appolis, Émile [1966]: Les jansenistes espagnoles, Bordeaux.

Asso, Pier Francesco (ed.) [2001]: From Economists to Economists. The International Spread of Italian Economic Thought, 1750-1950, Firenze, Polistampa.

Astigarraga, Jesús [1997]: "Victorián de Villava, traductor de Gaetano Filangieri", Cuadernos Aragoneses de Economía, 7-1, pp. 171-186.

[2000]: “Necker en España, 1780-1800”, Revista de Economía Aplicada, 23, pp. 119-141.

[2001]: “The light and shade of Italian Economic Thought in Spain (1750-1850)”, in P. F. Asso (ed.) [2001: 227-253].

Becchi, Paolo [1986]: Vico e Filangieri in Germania, Napoli, Jovene.

Bousquet, G. H. [1960]: Esquisse d´une histoire de la science économique en Italie. Des origines à Francesco Ferrara, Paris, Librairie Marcel Rivière.

Cabrillo, Francisco [1978]: "Traducciones al español de libros de Economía Política (1800-1880)", Moneda y Crédito, 147, pp. 71-103.

Calabro, Giovanna [1966]: "Beccaria a la Spagna", in Atti del Convegno Internazionale su C. Beccaria, Torino, Acc. delle Scienze, pp. 101-120.

Carpanetto, Dino, Ricuperati, Giuseppe [1993]: L´Italia del Settecento, Bari, Laterza.

Casabó Ruiz, José Ramón  [1969]: "Los orígenes de la codificación penal en España: el plan de Código criminal de 1787", Anuario del Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales, Mayo-Agosto, pp. 313-342.

Cervera, Pablo [2001]: El pensamiento económico de la Ilustración valenciana (1760-1826), Doctoral Thesis, Valencia, University of Valencia.

Cordey, Pierrre [1980]: "Benjamin Constant, Gaetano Filangieri et la Science de la législation", Révue éuropeenne des sciences sociales, XVIII, pp. 55-79.

Corts i Blay, Ramón [1992]: L´arquebispe Fèlix Amat (1750-1824) i l´última Il·lustració espanyola, Barcelona.

Cotta, Sergio [1954]: Gaetano Filangieri e il problema della legge, Torino, G. Giappichelli.

[1955]: "Montesquieu et Filangieri. Notes sur la fortune de Montesquieu au XVIII siècle", Révue Internationale de philosophie, IX, 33-34, pp. 387-400.

Chiaramonte, J. C. [1964]: “Gli illuministi napoletani nel Río de la Plata”, Rivista storica italiana, LXXVI-I, pp. 114-132.

[1979]: Pensamiento económico de la Ilustración, Caracas, Ayacucho.

Chiosi, Elvira [1992]: Lo spirito del secolo. Politica e religione a Napoli nell´età dell´Illuminismo, Napoli, Giannini.

Defourneaux, Marcelin [1973]: Inquisión y censura de libros en la España del siglo XVIII, Madrid, Taurus.

Delval, Juan Antonio [1982]: "Beccaria en España", appendix to C. Beccaria [1774: 161-176].

Di Battista, Francesco [1983]: L´emergenza ottocentesca dell´Economia Politica a Napoli, Bari, Facoltà di Economia e Commercio.

Diaz, Furio [1973]: Per una storia illuministica, Napoli, Guida.

Estape, Fabián (ed.) [1973]: Textos olvidados, Madrid, I. E. F.

Faucci, Riccardo (ed.) [1982]: Gli italiani e Bentham, Milano, F. Angeli.

[2000]: L´Economia Politica in Italia, Torino, UTET.

Feola, Raffaele [1977]: Dall´Illuminismo alla Restaurazione. Donato Tommasi e la legislazione delle Sicilie, Napoli, Jovene, 1987.

[1989]: Utopia e prassi: l´opera di Gaetano Filangieri ed il riformismo nelle Sicilie, Napoli, Edizioni Scientifiche italiane.

Ferrer benimelli, J. A. [1986]: La masonería española en el siglo XVIII, 2ª ed., Madrid, Siglo XXI.

[1976]: Masonería, Iglesia e Ilustración, Madrid, F. U. E., 4 vol.

Ferrara, Francesco [1852]: Biblioteca dell´Economista, serie I, vol. III, Torino, Lugini Pomba.

Ferrone, Vincenzo [1989]: I profeti dell´Iluminismo. La metamorfosi della ragione nel tardo settecento italiano, Roma-Bari, Laterza.

Ferrone, Vincenzo [2003]: La società giusta ed equa. Repubblicanesimo e diritti dell´uomo in Gaetano Filangieri, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2003.

Fiorot, Dino [1991]: "Alcune considerazioni sulle idee sociali ed economiche di Gaetano Filangieri", in Aa. Vv. [1991: 337-359].

Frosini, Vittorio [1991]: "Filangieri e Constant: un dialogo fra due secoli", in Aa. Vv. [1991: 361-374].

Fubini, Mario (ed.) [1957]: La cultura illuministica in Italia, Torino, Edizione radio italiana.

Fuentes quintana, Enrique (ed.) [2000a]: Economía y economistas españoles. Vol. III. La Ilustración, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutenberg-Círculo de Lectores.

[2000b]: Economía y economistas españoles. Vol. IV. La economía clásica, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutenberg-Círculo de Lectores.

Galasso, Giuseppe [1989]: La filosofia in soccorso de´governi. La cultura napoletana del Settecento, Napoli, Guida.

[2000]: En la periferia del imperio. La Monarquía hispánica y el Reino de Nápoles, Barcelona, Península.

Galindo, Fernando [1991]: "La Scienza della legislazione en el nacimiento del liberalismo español", in Aa. Vv. [1991: 375-401].

Gentile, Panfilo [1904]: L´opera di Gaetano Filangieri, Bologna, Nicola Zanichelli.

Guasti, Niccolò [1998]: “Forbonnais e Uztáriz: le ragioni di una traduzione”, Cuadernos Aragoneses de Economía, 8-1, pp. 125-141.

[2001]: "Sisternes entre los georgofili de Florencia", Annali dell´Instituto Universitario Orientale, XLII-2, pp. 473-486.

Herr, Richard [1958]: The Eighteenth Century Revolution in Spain, Princeton Uinversity Press. Spanish translation: Madrid, Aguilar, 1964.

Herrero, Javier [1988]: Los orígenes del pensamiento reaccionario español, Madrid, Alianza.

Lalinde, Jesús [1984]: "El eco de Filangieri en España", Anuario de Historia del Derecho español, LIV, pp. 477-522.

Lo sardo, Eugenio [1999]: Il mundo nuovo e le virtù civile: l´epistolario di Gaetano Filangieri, Napoli.

Llombart, Vicent [1992]: Campomanes, economista y político de Carlos III, Madrid, Alianza.

[2000]: “El pensamiento económico de la Ilustración en España (1730-1812)”, in E. Fuentes quintana (ed.) [2000a: 76-89]

Lluch, Ernest [1999]: Las Españas vencidas del siglo XVIII, Barcelona, Crítica.

Lluch, Ernest, almenar, Salvador [2000]: “Difusión e influencia de los economistas clásicos en España (1776-1870)”, in E. Fuentes quintana (ed.) [2000b: 93-170].

Lluch, Ernest, argemi, Lluís [1985]: Agronomía y fisiocracia en España (1750-1820), Valencia, Alfons el Magnànim.

Mateo del peral, D. [1978]: "Sobre Ramón de Salas y la incorporación de la Economía civil a la enseñanza universitaria", Investigaciones económicas, 6, mayo-agosto.

Menéndez pelayo, Marcelino [1930]: Historia de los heterodoxos españoles, 2nd ed., Madrid, Librería General de Victoriano Suárez.

Mongardini, Carlo [1964]: Politica e sociologia nell´opera di G. Filangieri, Milano, A. Giuffrè.

Nuccio, Oscar [1971]: Economisti e riformisti meridionali nel´700, Roma, Bizarri.

Palau y dulcet, Antonio [1951]: Manual del librero hispanoamericano, Madrid-Barcelona, Librería Palau, vol. V.

Pasta, Renato [1981]: "Illuminismo e organizzazione della cultura", Studi storici, 22, pp. 251-276.

Pastor fuster, J. [1827-1830]: Biblioteca valenciana de los escritores que florecieron hasta nuestros días, Valencia, Imprenta de José Ximeno e Ildefonso Mompié.

Passerin, Ettore [1952]: "Gaetano Filangieri e Benjamin Constant", Humanitas, VII, december, pp. 1110-1122.

Pechio, Giuseppe [1829]: Storia della Economia Pubblica in Italia, ossia epilogo critico degli economisti italiani, preceduto da un´introduzione, Lugano, G. Ruggia.

Perrota, Cosimo [1982]: “Il “lusso” negli economisti italiani del Settecento”, in R. Faucci (ed.) [1982: I, 171-189].

Pinto, Mario di (ed.) [1985]: I Borbone di Napoli e i Borbone di Spagna, Napoli, Guida editori.

Rao, Anna Maria [1984]: L´"amaro della feudalità". La devoluzione di arnone e la questione feudale a Napoli alla fine del´700, Napoli, Guida editori.

[1998]: "Introduzione" to Editoria e cultura a Napoli nel XVIII secolo, Napoli, Liguori Editori, pp. 3-55.

Reeder, John [1978]: "Bibliografía de traducciones, al castellano y catalán, durante el siglo XVIII, de obras de pensamiento económico", Moneda y Crédito, 147, pp. 57-86.

Rivacoba, Manuel [2001]: "Estudio Preliminar" to M. de Lardizábal [1782: XV-CXVI].

Romero, Rosario [1957]: "Illuministi meridionali", in M. Fubini (ed.) [1957: 163-188].

Scandellari, Simonetta [1991]: "Alcune note sull´influenza di Filangieri nella codificazione penale spagnola del 1822", in Aa. Vv. [1991: 519-527].

Schwartz, Pedro [1976]: "La influencia de Jeremías Bentham en España", Información Comercial Española, DXVII.

Smith, Robert Sidney [1968]: “English Economic Thought in Spain 1776-1848”, in C. D. W. Godwin et. al. (eds.): The Transfer of Ideas: Historical Essays, Durham N. C., pp. 106-137. Spanish translation: E. Fuentes Quintana (ed.) [2000b: 305-350].

Tagliacozzo, Giorgio [1937]: Economisti napoletani dei Sec. XVII e XVIII, Bologna, L. Capelli editore.

Torres amat, Félix [1835]: Vida del Ilmo. Señor Don Félix Amat, Madrid, Imprenta que fue de Fuentenebro.

Usoz, Javier [1996]: Pensamiento económico y reformismo ilustrado en Aragón (1760-1800), Doctoral Thesis, Zaragoza, University of Zaragoza.

[2000]: "El pensamiento económico de la Ilustración aragonesa", in E. Fuentes Quintana (ed.) [2000a: 583-606].

Venturi, Franco [1962a]: “Economisti e riformatori spagnoli e italiani del´700”, Rivista Storica italiana, LXXIV, pp. 532-561. Spanish translation: F. Estape (ed.) [1973: 203-252].

[1962b]: "Introduzzione" to Iluministi italiani. Tomo V. Riformatori napoletani, Milano-Napoli, Riccardo-Ricciardi editore.

[1969-1984]: Settecento riformatore, Torino, 5 vol.

[1973-1974]: Spagna ed Italia nel secolo dei Lumi. Corso di Storia Moderna, anno accademico, Torino, Tirrenia, s. d.

[1976]: "Nota introduttiva" to Ilumnisiti Italiani. Riformatori napoletani. Gaetano Filangieri. Scritti, Torino, Einaudi, pp. VII-LXIII.

Villani, Pasquale [1964]: "Illuminismo e riforme nel Settecento napoletano", Critica storica, III-1, pp. 81-95.

[1967]: "Il dibattito sulla feudalità nel Regno di Napoli dal Genovesi al Canosa", in Studi sul Settecento italiano, Napoli, Istituto italiano per gli studi storici.

[1973]: Mezzogiorno tra riforme e rivoluzione, Bari, Laterza.

Villari, Lucio [1968]: "Note sulla fisiocrazia e sugli economisti napoletani del´700", in Studi sul Settecento italiano, Napoli, Istituto italiano per gli studi storici, pp. 224-251.

Zamora, Germán [1989]: Universidad y filosofía moderna en la España ilustrada. Labor reformista de Villalpando (1740-1797), Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca.

Haut de page

Notes

1  G. Filangieri, La Scienza della legislazione, Pasquale Villari (ed.), Firenze, Felice le Monnier, 1864, pp. 41-42.
2 D. Tommasi, "Elogio histórico del Caballero Gaetano Filangieri” [1788], in G. Filangieri, Ciencia de la Legislación. Obra escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri. Nuevamente traducida por Don Juan Ribera, Madrid, Fermín Villalpando, 6 vol., 1821-1822, pp. XCI, LII.
3 G. Filangieri, La scienza della legislazione, op.cit., pp. 40-41.
4 F. Diaz, Per una storia illuministica, Napoli, Guida, 1973, p. 454.
5 V. Ferrone, I profeti dell´Iluminismo. La metamorfosi della ragione nel tardo settecento italiano, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 1989, p. 340.
6 S. Cotta, Gaetano Filangieri e il problema della legge, Torino, G. Giappichelli, 1954, p. 49.
7 P. Gentile, L´opera di Gaetano Filangieri, Bologna, Nicola Zanichelli, 1904, p. 100; G. Tagliacozzo, Economisti napoletani dei Sec. XVII e XVIII, Bologna, L. Capelli, 1937, p. LXII; R. Romero, "Illuministi meridionali", in M. Fubini La cultura illuministica in Italia, Torino, Edizione radio italiana, 1957, pp. 163-188; G.H. Bousquet, Esquisse d´une histoire de la science économique en Italie. Des origines à Francesco Ferrara, Paris, Librairie Marcel Rivière, 1960, p. 53.
8 F. Venturi, Settecento riformatore, Torino,  1969-1984, vol. I,  p.586.
9 F. Venturi, “Introduzione" to Iluministi italiani. Tomo V. Riformatori napoletani, Milano-Napoli, Riccardo-Ricciardi, 1962, p. 133.
10 R .Feola, Utopia e prassi: l´opera di Gaetano Filangieri ed il riformismo nelle Sicilie, Napoli, Edizioni Scientifiche italiane, 1989, pp. 10-11.
11 F. Venturi, Settecento riformatore , op.cit., vol. IV, p. 329.
12 R. Ajello, "L´estasi della ragione. Dall´Illuminismo all´idealismo. Introduzione alla Scienza di Filangieri", in Aa. Vv., Gaetano Filangieri e l´Illuminismo europeo, Napoli, Guida, 1991, pp. 13-146.
13 R. Pasta, "Illuminismo e organizzazione della cultura", Studi storici, 22, 1981, pp. 251-276.
14 G. Filangieri, La Scienza della legislazione, Venezia, Centro di Studi sull´Illuminismo europeo “G. Stiffoni”, 7 vol., 2003.
15 G. Filangieri, Opuscoli scelti editi, ed inediti del Cav. Gaetano Filangieri, Palermo 1815
16 F. Venturi, "Nota introduttiva" to Illumnisiti Italiani. Riformatori napoletani. Gaetano Filangieri. Scritti, Torino, Einaudi, 1976, pp. VII-LXIII.
17 J. Reeder, "Bibliografía de traducciones, al castellano y catalán, durante el siglo XVIII, de obras de pensamiento económico", Moneda y Crédito, 147, 1978, pp. 57-86; V. Llombart, “El pensamiento económico de la Ilustración en España (1730-1812)”, in E. Fuentes Quintana, Economía y economistas españoles. Vol. III. La Ilustración, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutenberg-Círculo de Lectores , 2000.
18 M. Rivacoba, "Estudio Preliminar" to M. Lardizábal, Discurso sobre las penas contrahido a las leyes criminales de España, para facilitar su reforma[1782], Vitoria, Ararteko, 2001, pp. XLIXss
19 V. Llombart, Campomanes, economista y político de Carlos III, Madrid, Alianza, 1992.
20 V. de Villava, Reflexiones sobre la libertad del comercio de frutos del Señor Cayetano Filangieri, Caballero del Orden de S. Juan, Madrid, Joaquín Ibarra, 1784.
21 J. Usoz, Pensamiento económico y reformismo ilustrado en Aragón (1760-1800), Doctoral Thesis, Zaragoza, University of Zaragoza, 1996, pp.  264-314
22 V. Llombart, Campomanes, economista y político de Carlos III, op.cit., pp. 155-190.
23 O. Nuccio, Economisti e riformisti meridionali nel´700, Roma, Bizarri, 1971, pp. 213ss
24 P. Cordey, "Benjamin Constant, Gaetano Filangieri et la Science de la législation", Révue éuropeenne des sciences sociales, XVIII, 1980, pp. 55-79
25 R. Ajello, "Il tempo storico delle Riflessioni", Introduction to G. Filangieri, Riflessioni politiche su l´ultima legge del Sovrano, che riguarda la riforma dell´amministrazione della Giustizia del Cavalier Gaetano Filangieri [1774], Napoli, 1982.
26 J. Rubio, Ciencia de la Legislación. Escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri. Traducida al castellano por Don Jaime Rubio, Abogado de los Reales Consejos, Madrid, Manuel González, 6 vol., 1787-1789.
27 J. Pastor, Biblioteca valenciana de los escritores que florecieron hasta nuestros días, Valencia, Imprenta de José Ximeno e Ildefonso Mompié, 1827-1830, vol. II, “Rubio”.
28 F. Aguilar, Bibliografía de autores españoles del siglo XVIII, Madrid, C. S. I. C. and Instituto Miguel de Cervantes,  1981-1995, vol. VII, p. 329.
29 J. Rubio, op.cit., vol. V,  pp. III-XLVI.
30 J. Rubio op.cit., vol. V,  p.  III.
31 M Lardizábal, op.cit.
32 M. Rivacoba, op.cit.
33 J. Rubio op.cit., vol. V,  pp. XLVII-XCVIII.
34 M. Defourneaux, Inquisión y censura de libros en la España del siglo XVIII, Madrid, Taurus, 1973.
35 F. Venturi, “Nota introduttiva”, op.cit.
36 G. Anes, "La Revolución francesa y España", in Economía e "Ilustración" en la España del siglo XVIII, Barcelona-Caracas-Méjico, Ariel, 1969, pp. 139-198.
37 F. Amat, "Una prueba de que la Ciencia de la Legislación del Caballero Filangieri debe leerse con desconfianza en lo que cita de antiguo y en lo que piensa de nuevo" (1787), in F. Torres Amat, Apéndice a la vida del Ilmo. Sr. D. Félix Amat, Madrid, Imprenta que fue de Fuentenebro, 1838, pp. 46-59.
38 Ibid., pp. 46, 59
39 F. Torres Amat, op.cit., pp. 42-43
40 J.A Llorente, Historia crítica de la Inquisición en España, Madrid, Hiperion, 1980, vol. II, pp. 24-25.
41 Suplemento al Indice expurgatorio del año de 1790 que contiene los libros prohibidos y mandados expurgar en todos los Reynos y Señoríos del Católico Rey de España el Sr. D. Carlos IV, desde el Edicto de 13 de Diciembre del año de 1789 hasta el 25 de Agosto de 1805, Madrid, Imprenta Real, 1805, p. 21.
42 J.A. Delval, "Beccaria en España", appendix to C. Beccaria, De los delitos y de las penas, Madrid. Ed. Madrid, Alianza, 1982, p.168
43 F. P. Del Rey, Reflexiones económico-políticas de Don Francisco de Paula del Rey, Abogado de los Reales Tribunales de Castilla y de Navarra, sobre los capítulos VII y XXXVIII del Libro II de la obra intitulada Ciencia de la Legislación, escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, y traducida al castellano por Don Jaime Rubio, Madrid, Benito Cano, 1792, IV-XXI, 193-218.
44 Ibid., reflexion II
45 G. Filangieri, Ciencia de la Legislación. Escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, Madrid, Imprenta de Ibarra, 1813, vol.  I, p. VI.
46 Ibid., vol. I, pp. VIII-IX.
47 Ibid., vol. I, p, IX.
48 Ibid., vol. X, pp. 1189ss.
49 Ibid., vol. V, pp. 209-266
50 Ibid., vol. I, pp. VI-VII
51 Ibid., vol.  I, pp. CXXXVII-CXXXVIII, CXLI-CXLII.
52 J. Lalinde, "El eco de Filangieri en España", Anuario de Historia del Derecho español, LIV, 1984, pp. 477-522.
53 J. Herrero, Los orígenes del pensamiento reaccionario español, Madrid, Alianza, 1988, pp. 292ss.
54 R. de Vélez, Apología del Altar y del Trono ó Historia de las reformas hechas en España en tiempo de las llamadas Cortes, e impugnación de algunas doctrinas publicadas en la Constitución, Diarios y otros escritos contra la Religión y el Estado, Madrid, Imprenta de Cao,  1818, vol. I, pp. 41, 83, 163-164, 308, 463; vol. II, p. 41.
55 J.A. Delval, op.cit., p. 189.
56 S. Scandellari, "Alcune note sull´influenza di Filangieri nella codificazione penale spagnola del 1822", in Aa. Vv., Gaetano Filangieri e l´Illuminismo europeo, op.cit., pp. 519-527.
57 J.R. Casabo Ruíz, "Los orígenes de la codificación penal en España: el plan de Código criminal de 1787", Anuario del Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales, Mayo-Agosto 1969, pp. 313-342.
58 R.S. Smith, “English Economic Thought in Spain 1776-1848”, in C. D. W. Godwin et. al. (eds.): The Transfer of Ideas: Historical Essays, Durham N. C., 1968, pp. 106-137.
59 C. Beccaria, Tratado de los delitos y de las penas, escrito en italiano por el Marqués de Beccaria, y traducido al castellano por Don Juan Rivera, Madrid, Fermín Villalpando, 1821, pp. V-VI.
60 J. Ribera, Ciencia de la Legislación. Obra escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri. Nuevamente traducida por Don Juan Ribera, Madrid, Fermín Villalpando, 1821-1822, vol. I, p. V.
61 Ibid., vol. I, p. VI.
62 Ibid., vol. I, p. X.
63 Ibid., vol. I, p. XI.
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid.
66 Ibid., vol. II, pp. 216, 225-226.
67 E. Lluch, S. Almenar, “Difusión e influencia de los economistas clásicos en España (1776-1870)”, in E. Fuentes Quintana (ed.), Economía y economistas españoles. Vol. IV. La economía clásica, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutenberg-Círculo de Lectores, 2000, pp. 93-107; S. Almenar, "El desarrollo del pensamiento económico clásico en España", in E. Fuentes Quintana (ed.), Economía y economistas españoles. Vol. IV., op.cit., pp. 7-92.
68 G. Filangieri, Ciencia de la Legislación escrita en italiano por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, y traducida al castellano por Don Jaime Rubio, abogado de los Reales Consejos. Tercera edición corregida y añadida con discursos analíticos en cada libro, Madrid, Imprenta de Núñez,  1822, 10 vol.
69 Ibid., vol. I, pp. 1-2.
70 Ibid., vol. I, p. 6.
71 Ibid., vol. I, pp. 6, 14.
72 Ibid., vol. I, pp. 4-5.
73 J. Ribera, Ciencia de la Legislación, por el Caballero Cayetano Filangieri, nuevamente traducida por Don Juan Ribera. Segunda edición, revisada y corregida, Bordeaux, Imprenta de Don Pedro Beaume, 6 vol., 1823.
74 Ibid., vol. I, p. XII.
75 V. Frosoni, "Filangieri e Constant: un dialogo fra due secoli", in Aa. Vv. 1991, Filangieri e l’illuminismo europeo, op.cit., pp. 361-374.
76 G. Filangieri, Ciencia de la Legislación, por C. Filangieri, ilustrada con comentarios por Benjamin Constant. Tercera edición, revisada, corregida y aumentada, Paris, Librería española de Lecointe, 1836, vol. I, p. 5.
77 P. Cordey, op.cit.
78 G. Filangieri, Ciencia de la Legislación, por C. Filangieri, ilustrada con comentarios por Benjamin Constant. Tercera edición, revisada, corregida y aumentada, op.cit., vol. I, pp. 7-17.
79 Ibid., vol. III, p. 191; vol. IV, pp. 76-77, 128-129.
80 Ribera 1836: III, 238-329; IV, 111
81 Ribera 1836: I, 25-159
82 G. Filangieri, Oeuvres de G. Filangieri traduites de l´italien. Nouvelle édition accompagnée d´un Commentaire par M. Benjamin Constant et de l´Éloge de Filangieri par M. Salfi, Paris, P. Dufart,  1822, vol. I.
83 B. Latorre, Compendio de la obra que escribió el Caballero Filangieri, titulada Ciencia de la Legislación, con notas de los autores más clásicos, redactado en el año 1834, Madrid, Imprenta de I. Boix, 1839, pp. 205-224.
84 Ibid., p. X.
85 O. Nuccio, op.cit., p. 237.
86 B. Latorre, op.cit., pp. 62-63, 65.
87 E. Lluch, S. Almenar, op.cit., p. 125.
88 Ibid., pp. 125-127.
89 F. Venturi, “Nota introduttiva”, op.cit., p. LV.
90 F. Venturi, “Economisti e riformatori spagnoli e italiani del´700”, Rivista Storica italiana, LXXIV, pp. 532-561; Spagna ed Italia nel secolo dei Lumi. Corso di Storia Moderna, anno accademico, Torino, Tirrenia,1973-1974; Settecento riformatore, op.cit., vol. II, pp. 44-64, vol. IV, pp. 239-328.
91 P. Becchi, Vico e Filangieri in Germania, Napoli, Jovene 1986, pp. 100-102.
92 J. Astigarraga, “The light and shade of Italian Economic Thought in Spain (1750-1850)”, in P. F. Asso (ed.), From Economists to Economists. The International Spread of Italian Economic Thought, 1750-1950, Firenze, Polistampa, 2001, pp. 227-253.
93 J. Usoz, Pensamiento económico y reformismo ilustrado en Aragón (1760-1800), op.cit.; "El pensamiento económico de la Ilustración aragonesa", in E. Fuentes Quintana (ed.), Economía y economistas españoles. Vol. III. La Ilustración, op.cit., pp. 583-606; P. Cervera, El pensamiento económico de la Ilustración valenciana (1760-1826), Doctoral Thesis, Valencia, University of Valencia, 2001.
94 G. Zamora, Universidad y filosofía moderna en la España ilustrada. Labor reformista de Villalpando (1740-1797), Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca, 1989.
95 F. Venturi, Settecento riformatore, op.cit., vol. I, pp. 535-536.
96 F. Di Battista, L´emergenza ottocentesca dell´Economia Politica a Napoli, Bari, Facoltà di Economia e Commercio, 1983; Faucci, L´Economia Politica in Italia, Torino, UTET, 2000, pp.  99ss.
97 F. Venturi, “Economisti e riformatori spagnoli e italiani del´700”,  op.cit., p. 250.
98 Astigarraga, op.cit.
99 F. Cabrillo, "Traducciones al español de libros de Economía Política (1800-1880)", Moneda y Crédito, 147, 1978, pp. 71-103; Schwartz 1976
100 P. Schwartz, "La influencia de Jeremías Bentham en España", Información Comercial Española, DXVII, 1976, p. 49.
101 S. Cotta, "Montesquieu et Filangieri. Notes sur la fortune de Montesquieu au XVIII siècle", Révue Internationale de philosophie, IX, 33-34, 1955, pp. 387-400.
102 G. Filangieri, La Scienza della legislazione (1864), pp. 43-44.
103 S. Cotta, Gaetano Filangieri e il problema della legge, op.cit., pp. 104-108.
104 R. Feola, Dall´Illuminismo alla Restaurazione. Donato Tommasi e la legislazione delle Sicilie, Napoli, Jovene, 1977, p. 4.
105 R. Feola, Utopia e prassi: l´opera di Gaetano Filangieri ed il riformismo nelle Sicilie, op.cit., pp. 9-16; F. Diaz, Per una storia illuministica, op.cit., pp. 452-455.
106 V. Ferrone,  I profeti dell´Iluminismo. La metamorfosi della ragione nel tardo settecento italiano, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 1989, p. 324.
107 G. Galasso, La filosofia in soccorso de´governi. La cultura napoletana del Settecento, Napoli, Guida,1989.
108 P. Villani, Mezzogiorno tra riforme e rivoluzione, Bari, Laterza, 1973, pp. 155-212; "Il dibattito sulla feudalità nel Regno di Napoli dal Genovesi al Canosa", in Studi sul Settecento italiano, Napoli, Istituto italiano per gli studi storici, 1967; A.M. Rao, L´"amaro della feudalità". La devoluzione di arnone e la questione feudale a Napoli alla fine del´700, Napoli, Guida, 1984, pp. 39ss.
109 D. Carpanetto, G. Ricuperati, L´Italia del Settecento, Bari, Laterza, 1993, pp. 363-366.
110 V. Ferrone, op.cit., 1989, pp. 353, 356.
111 V. Frosoni, op.cit., p. 365.
112 E. Passerin, "Gaetano Filangieri e Benjamin Constant", Humanitas, VII, december, 1952, pp. 1110-1122; P. Cordey, op.cit.
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Jesús Astigarraga, « Political Economy and Legislation. The great success of Filangieri´s Scienza della legislazione in Spain (1780-1839) »Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos [En ligne], Colloques, mis en ligne le 18 mars 2006, consulté le 26 juillet 2021. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/nuevomundo/1911 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/nuevomundo.1911

Haut de page

Auteur

Jesús Astigarraga

Departamento de Estructura e Historia Económica y Economía Pública,  University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain. astigarr@unizar.es

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Nuevo mundo mundos nuevos est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search