Talk:Bank of Venice

Requested move 20 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not move. The OP has withdrawn the proposal and no one else has supported it. Favonian (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Bank of Venice → Chamber of Loans – The bank to which this article's name refers (and which the article formerly described [1]) is a myth. Before the 16th century there was no public "Bank of Venice" nor any one preeminent or eponymous bank there. What existed instead was an office of the Venetian government, the Camera degli Imprestiti (Chamber of Loans), that paid dividends of public revenue in exchange for money previously requisitioned. This was arguably a clever method of public finance, but was no more a bank than the US Treasury has ever been. It does not appear to have been regularly described that way until the 19th century. Then there is a proliferation of histories of the "famous Bank of Venice" and its book-money that agree on scarcely any detail: Was it established in 1157, 1171 or later? Did it have a capital stock and if so, how much? Was only the principal of its loans not paid, or the interest too? Did it take deposits? Dean's History of Banking (1884, ed.) collected accounts from many authors and tried to reconcile them[2] but the method was to assume that the Bank existed and then infer its characteristics from recorded events. This way the actions of the Venetian government regarding its debt and its many private banks were projected into a history of a single nonexistent Bank. Dean's researchers ignored Henry Macleod's warning (1856) that the medieval Bank of Venice was a "great delusion"[3] and Dunbar (1892) summarized the evidentiary case for rejecting the existence of a public bank before 1587.[4] Frederic C. Lane and Reinhold Mueller have written at length on the history of Venetian finance.

Moving this article to "Chamber of Loans", "Chamber of Loans (Venice)" or "Camera degli Imprestiti" would allow a more direct treatment of the historical subject and disambiguation with Banco del Giro, a Venetian public bank founded in 1619. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Leave it in place at this title, as it is referenced under this name in many sources, and is recognizable. Its existence (or non-existence) as a "bank" properly speaking can be explained in the article text.

PS - be careful in assuming the historic use of the term "bank" has anything to do with the modern sense of that term. It was referred to as the "Bank of Venice" by several 17th Century writers, specifically to refer to the collective of the three public debts of Venice (Monte Vecchi, Monte Nuovo and Monte Nuovissimo). Indeed, if you accept Macleod's etymology, then the traditional Italian term "banco" means precisely "public debt" (he contends it is a mere translation between the Italian "monte" and the German "banck", they mean the same thing, and "public loans were indifferently called monti or banchi"). So whatever qualms you have about the modern term "bank", the archaic term "bank" fits and was used that way. The only question (and this is the point of contention) is whether the creditors (receivers of certificates) were ever organized into some sort of semi-official body, that went on to conduct deposit-taking activities. Some contend they did, others that they didn't. IMO, I agree the evidence is weak. While it is clear the pubic debt certificates were payable to bearer and certainly became an important part of Venetian financial life, the allegation of deposit-taking probably comes out of confusion around the money-conversion of the credits received. Because of the immense variety of foreign coins circulating in the city, varying types of money was received to pay for the debt, and the chamber was authorized to issue certificates on bullion received as credits (not deposits) in the form of a certificate restating it in the form of coinage of standard fineness, effectively creating a paper note that circulated well and was widely accepted in the city (more reliable than suspicious coinage). Although technically the note was not on a deposit, but on a credit, it was nonetheless used that way - e.g. instead of "depositing cash" for which I receive a note, I use that cash to "buy a debt" for which I receive a note, which is functionally indistinguishable. So discussing whether or not this "bank" was a bank, depends on what you mean by that term and what you want to emphasize. There are better hills to die on. Walrasiad (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Macleod's etymology is no longer current; present-day lexicographers agree that "bank" comes from "banco" (bench, desk, counter). As for these bullion certificates, do you know of a source that verifies their issue by the Chamber, rather than by private banks or later by the Giro? If the current article title is kept, then I am not sure how the article could be written, given that recent historiography recognizes no BoV except the Giro and its short-lived predecessor. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to get back on the chamber certificates story (it's been a while since I poked around in this). The article should be written the same way the article on any legend is written. You relate the historiography and explain why it is no longer accepted. Changing the title and covering it up like no one ever talked about it, is just begging for someone else to go create a "Bank of Venice" page with less care. Do it here, and do it as well as you can. Walrasiad (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Withdrawn. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.