Dominique Iogna-Prat’s latest book, Cité de Dieu, cité des hommes. L’Église et l’architecture de la société, 1200–1500, follows on both intellectually and chronologically from La Maison Dieu. Une histoire monumentale de l’Église au Moyen Âge (v. 800–v. 1200). It presents an essay on the emergence of the town as a symbolic and political figure of society (the “city of man”) between 1200 and 1700, and on the effects of this development on the Church, which had held this function before 1200. This feeds into an ambitious reflection on the origins of modernity, seeking to move beyond the impasse of political philosophy—too quick to ignore the medieval centuries and the Scholastic moment—and to relativize the effacement of the institutional Church from the Renaissance on. In so doing, it rejects the binary opposition between the Church and the state, proposes a new periodization of the “transition to modernity,” and underlines the importance of spatial issues (mainly in terms of representation). This last element inscribes the book in the current of French historiography that for more than a decade has sought to reintroduce the question of space at the heart of social and political history. Iogna-Prat’s stimulating demonstration nevertheless raises some questions, notably relating to the effects of the Protestant Reformation, the increasing power of states, and the process of “secularization.” Above all, it raises the issue of how a logic of the polarization of space was articulated with one of territorialization in the practices of government and the structuring of society—two logics that were promoted by the ecclesial institution even before states themselves.

Based on the private records of a prominent sixteenth-century merchant bank (Salviati of Lyon), this article focuses on an important instrument of trade finance in the early modern period: the fair deposit. While the financial history of deposit banking has often been separated from that of merchant banking, this study demonstrates that during the sixteenth century a specific type of deposit banking emerged at fairs, intrinsically connected to merchant banking and international trade. As analysis of the Salviati archives reveals, the fair deposit was an instrument of both clearing and credit, sustaining the financing of large-scale European trade. Credit mostly derived from international trade and banking, where it was reinjected almost immediately. Investments were stimulated by the numerous advantages offered by the fairs held at Lyon: licit lending at interest, a choice of investments, and the possibility of making purchases and rapid transfers. Loans to local and foreign businessmen nourished the trade of commodities and, above all, the exchange business, conferring on Lyon a crucial position in the European trade and exchange system. This form of deposit banking was closely related to the development of merchant banks that worked mostly on commission, drawing substantial profits from it without becoming specialists or even deposit banks.

The Argentinean pianist Miguel Angel Estrella was arrested in Montevideo during Operation Condor in December 1977. Accused of being a member of the Montoneros, a Peronist guerilla movement, he was tortured and held incommunicado before being transferred to Libertad, where political prisoners from Uruguay were assembled. Thanks to an intensive and international solidarity campaign, launched by his friends in Paris and led by classical music celebrities as well as diplomats, human rights activists, and a myriad of anonymous music-lovers, Estrella was released and expelled to France in February 1980. Drawing on archival materials from the Estrella support committee, diplomatic files, interviews, and recently declassified documents from the Uruguayan military court, this article retraces the construction of an exceptional “cause,” shedding new light on the relations between music and diplomacy during the Cold War. It examines the musician’s experience in prison, where he painfully managed to play Beethoven sonatas on a silent piano, as if mirroring the media’s portrayal of him as a Beethovian hero, a sort of modern Florestan. It also analyzes the connections between ethics and aesthetics, and the role of emotions in international political mobilizations.

A recent and influential research methodology, mainly endorsed by economists, proposes to renew historical analysis based on the notions of natural experiment and causality. It has the dual ambition of unifying various disciplines around a common understanding of causality in order to tackle major historical questions (such as the role of colonization, political regimes, or religion in economic development) and of making the analysis of history more scientific. The definition of causality it promotes—of the “interventionist” type—tends to liken historical events to laboratory experiments. This is articulated with a neo-institutionalist perspective aimed at measuring the long-term effects of past institutional changes, which are considered exogenous. In the first part of this article, we present the ambitions, contributions, methods, and hypotheses (implicit and explicit) of this approach, showing how it differs from more traditional quantitative economic history and placing it in the context of the recent empirical and neo-institutionalist “turns” of the economic discipline. In a second stage, we consider the criticism—often scathing—voiced by historians or economists against this method and its objectives. Finally, we emphasize the many difficulties posed by this approach when it comes to taking into account the historicity of phenomena, to producing general statements based on particular cases, and to providing a complete and coherent definition of causality in history.

Published in 1977 by the OECD in a context of widespread stagflation, the McCracken report has become emblematic of the “neoliberal turn” in international economic cooperation. This study undermines this shared teleological interpretation by revisiting the sense of what was acceptable among the actors mobilized in its writing, and the structural uncertainty into which they were plunged by their attempt to anticipate the economic and political future. Rather than an uncontested victory of neoliberalism, the sociogenetics of this bureaucratic text uncover the coping strategies of the “international Keynesianism” inherited from Bretton Woods and the plausibility structures of this space situated at the confluence of the political, bureaucratic, and academic fields. The dynamic of production is analyzed as a situational logic through which the Secretariat of the OECD was exposed to polymorphic external rationales and resources that collided with and were measured against one another. The report form allowed for this confrontation of informational, bureaucratic, and political capital, in a way objectifying their differential value or exchange rate for the participants. The socially structured expectations of what was feasible, costly, or risky are traced throughout the collective process of composition based on four key moments: the commissioning of the report, the establishment of its framework, the constitution of the group, and the crystallization of the report. The article thus proposes another way of investigating the nature of “turns.”

The grand narratives of modernization often describe the period between 1750 and 1850 as marking a transition from embedded economic relationships (relying on kinship or community ties) to impersonal market transactions supported by legal arrangements. This article questions these narratives by studying three corpora of tools employed by early modern and modern merchants on a daily basis: initial-contact letters, circulars, and notarized proxy forms. Systematic quantitative and qualitative analysis of these documents reveals few traces of a revolution or even a consistent linear evolution. To the contrary, it challenges the opposition between embedded and completely disembedded relationships. Indeed, there is strong evidence that personal and impersonal supports for economic transactions complemented rather than substituted one another. In addition, other types of embeddedness also played an important role: on the one hand, repeated interactions and relational chains involving intermediaries; on the other, a homophilic sociability among merchants that was partly based on the shared language of commerce.

The centuries-long path to German industrialization must be understood as a gradual institutional evolution in response to new circumstances, new opportunities, and new scarcities. Efforts to identify a single deus ex machina—whether Napoleon, Prussian reformers, or some other exogenous driver—do not lead to convincing results. Gradualism offers a plausible account of how a market economy and capitalism took root in German society. Only those German regions that had successfully launched gradual institutional reforms in the eighteenth century were well situated, by the early years of the nineteenth century, to move quickly to an identifiable market economy. Against this background we discuss the role of Prussia and Napoleon in modernizing the institutional framework of the German economy. The Prussian model of agrarian reforms and economic freedom represents a profound event in the history of economic development. A comparable strategic approach was absent in all French-controlled territories before or after 1815. Prussian reformers were the first in history to embrace a multi-sectoral strategy of rural development, enabling them to successfully combine growth with equity.