During any of these sessions, the French diplomatâs only official interest was in determining whether these girls and young womenâall of whose names were on lists before himâwere still alive (still alive, a mere six months after the last time he had conducted such an exercise). If they were alive and present to be counted, France owed money to the girlsâ fathers and uncles, cousins and brothers, many of whom were bankers who themselves owed money to investors all across Europe. If, by chance, one of them had died, the French stateâs debt was slightly reduced. If, in some horrible conflagration, the entire female population of Geneva had perished simultaneously, it might have been as much as 40 percent of the French monarchyâs short-term borrowing that was redeemed in an instant.2
As peculiar and unfamiliar as these regularly repeated headcounts may seem today, they were central to the workings of international credit in the final years of the Old Regime.3 We know that credit mattered in those years because highly charged debates about the size of the monarchyâs debt and the need for higher taxes dominated French public life throughout the 1780s. Yet creditâs day-to-day functioningâthe contracts written, the goods acquired, and even the young women countedâis often overshadowed by our knowledge that those political debates ended in what we now call âthe French Revolution.â Usually studied because they precipitated something so very unanticipated, our familiarity with those debates about the royal debt has made it increasingly difficult to see what people in the 1780s expected the future to be like. While many of those expectations came to little, we need to take them into account nonetheless, for they were the basis upon which the people of France borrowed money, lent funds, and lived their lives. This chapter therefore leaves aside the public, political debates to focus on how borrowing and lending, debt and credit actually operated. For as other scholars have argued, credit was the basic glue of early-modern societies.4 At the local level, as at the international; for artisans, as for princes; over months and years as over decades (and even longer)ârelations of debt and credit united communities and gave individuals a strong sense of their own place in the world. Its politicization in the 1770s and 1780s has blinded us to how very routine, stable, and nonrevolutionary the kingâs borrowing (and that of his subjects) actually was. It was not the size of the debt, per se, but the scale of political agitation around it, that increased dramatically in the final years of the Old Regime.
Thirty Girls from Geneva
As of the mid-eighteenth century, it had become standard operating policy for the French government to raise short-term funds through a sort of disguised loan contract known as a rente viagĂšre (âlifetime annuityâ is a close, but not perfect, translation).5 With such a rente, an investor made a lump-sum payment to the French state. In exchange, he or she received a certain percentage of that amount on a semiannual basis for as long as some individual specified in the rente contract remained alive. When that named individual died, the payments stopped immediatelyâhence the name âviagĂšreâ (from the root vivre, âto liveâ). In legal terms, a rente was not a loan and the state was neither repaying the money in increments nor paying âinterestâ on it; rather, it was a situation in which a creditor/investor/âlenderâ (crĂ©direntier) used a certain sum to purchase a future regular income from another party (the dĂ©birentier or âborrower,â in this case, the French monarchy through the intermediary of the Paris city government).
Rentes of all kindsâwhether contracted between two individuals or between individuals and corporate entities (such as states, cities, or monastic orders), whether contracted for a lifetime or foreverâwere debt-credit relations that emerged in the thirteenth century as ways of getting around religious prohibitions on usury.6 Since the heyday of the medieval commercial revolution, jurists and theologians had repeatedly drawn on an extraordinary variety of authorities (including Aristotle, the early Church fathers, and the sixth-century Justinian Code) to buttress their definition of usuryâby which they meant any interest-bearing loanâas a sin against both charity and justice. Many of their arguments turned on claims about moneyâs inherently âsterileâ and inert qualities. Unlike livestock, or even a plot of land on which new crops sprouted every year, money did not reproduce itself organically. Money, Thomas of Aquinas argued, was simply a âmeasure of utility,â and while useful things might become more or less available, the measure had to remain constant. âWhence to receive more money for less,â he concluded, âseems nothing other than to diversify the measure in giving and receiving, which manifestly contains iniquity.â7 (Think of it this way: if an individual went from slim to obese, we would think it fraudulent if he insisted that his weight in pounds was constant but the number of ounces in a pound had changed.) From this perspective, it was legitimate to expect a borrower to return a sum he had been lent, but there was no logical reason to expect that the money had somehow grown in the interim. Medieval law and theology hence considered interest-bearing loans to be unnaturalâthis was why usurers and sodomites occupied the same circle in Danteâs Inferno.
Rentes, defined not as loans but as forms of sale, made it possible for cash-strapped borrowers and money-burdened lenders to arrange matters among themselves without sinning. With a rente, an individual did not legally lend money; rather, the would-be lender alienated a lump sum in exchange for a regular income stream at a fixed rate. Since the alienation of property was a final saleâthat amount of cash was now the dĂ©birentierâs to do with as he liked and it, or the goods acquired with it, would pass to his heirs and then to theirsâmany rente contracts guaranteed a perpetual income. For decades, or even for centuries, the right to collect and the obligation to pay passed to the descendants of those originally involved. Fixed, and in theory eternal, these perpetual rentes were classed by French property law as a form of immeuble, or immovable property. In contrast, a rente viagĂšre was treated as a meuble, or piece of movable property. Of finite duration, a lifetime rente had none of the permanence predicated by jurists of immovable goods. Life, after all, was far from perpetual (especially in early-modern Europe, where high infant mortality rates made average life expectancy at birth under thirty). If, in legal terms, a perpetual rente was a âcommutativeâ contract guaranteeing that each party received what he expected, a lifetime rente could offer no such assurance. French jurists hence classed rentes viagĂšres as they did investment in long-distance shipping; both were âaleatory,â or subject to chance, both involved elements of risk impossible to predict. âIn a rente viagĂšre,â explained one legal dictionary, âthe sum received ⊠is not inherently the equivalent of what the recipient then gives, for the person on whose life the contract was based could happen to die a few days after the rente was constituted ⊠and hence one party will effectively have given nothing for the money he received.⊠one cannot say that the trade was fair and equal.â8
Insofar as it seemed plausible for France to raise (rather than lose) money by selling them, rentes viagĂšres belonged to a risk culture in which death was assumed to be as likelyâin many ways more likelyâthan life. CrĂ©direntiers in the eighteenth century nonetheless found ways to prolong the income they received from these rentes. Since the life specified in a rente contract (known as the tĂȘte, or âheadâ) did not have to be the person providing the funds, it became common for middle-aged or elderly people to invest their lifeâs savings while simultaneously picking a healthy, younger family member as the contractâs tĂȘteâthis ensured that payments continued to be made long after the original investor had died and the initial capital had been repaid. With state-issued rentes viagĂšres paying at least 6 or 7 percent, the sum alienated could easily be regained in sixteen years and if the rente had been issued on the âheadâ of a healthy teenager, many further years of payments could be anticipated. Very good money could be made by finding the right heads.
In the aftermath of the Seven Yearsâ War and especially following its costly participation in the American War of Independence, the French state relied heavily on rentes viagĂšres to raise funds. To ensure that they were fully subscribedâand hence that the monarchy had the money it needed to meet monthly operating expensesâthese new rentes paid ever more attractive rates (up to 10 percent), and the paperwork involved in issuing them was simplified. Yet in order to collect the twice yearly payments, it still had to be established that the âtĂȘteâ named in the contract was actually alive. Many rentes viagĂšres were therefore issued on the head of the king or the life of the pope, but even more were issued on âthirty girlsâ or âthirty headsâ from Geneva. In this latter configuration, wealth was divided across multiple rente contracts, thereby minimizing the chance of a dramatic loss. Individuals had made use of such strategies for years. For example, rather than investing 3,000 livres on just one of his many children, the Swiss pastor and librarian Antoine JosuĂ© Diodati could invest 500 livres on the âheadâ of his daughter Colombine and an equal amount on each of her five sisters. His total capital outlay would still be 3,000 livres and his revenue from the rentes would be the same, but by dividing his investment he would have greatly reduced the chance of losing his entire income overnight. In the 1770s, a group of Genevan bankers turned this family-based strategy into a business model when they began subscribing large sums of money on the heads (that is, on the lives) of their own daughters, granddaughters, nieces, and cousinsâin short, any affluent young female they could find (including, in fact, Colombine Diodati and at least four of her sisters).9 Knowing from life-expectancy tables compiled by members of the local learned academy that women, on average, lived longer than men, and wanting to limit their potential losses as much as possible, the bankers pooled their investments: they consistently placed their money not on a single head, but spread across âthirty young ladies from Genevaâ (trente demoiselles de GenĂšve). Should one die, twenty-nine thirtieths of their investment would nonetheless remain intact. By 1789, rente contracts written on âthirty headsâ made up a sizeable percentage of the French stateâs debt. It was up to the French kingâs representative in Geneva to keep track of those heads.
The small and closed nature of Genevan society meant that participationâeither as an investor or as one of the âheads from Genevaââquickly extended far beyond any narrow circle of bankers and their children. Already in 1773, Voltaire commented testily that the city was soon to be more famous for rentes viagĂšres than for its printers âor even for Calvin.â10 Nearly every member of the cityâs intellectual elite was involved: the mathematician and professor Louis Bertrand had four daughters, all of whom were numbered among the âgirls from Geneva,â as were at least six of his nieces. So, too, were the daughters and nieces of Horace-BĂ©nĂ©dict de Saussure, rector of the Academy of Geneva, founder of the Journal de GenĂšve, and renowned Alpine explorer; of the historian and one-time tutor to the crown prince of Denmark Henri Paul Mallet; of the pastor and Orientalist Gedeon Le Cointe; and of the publishers who partnered to reprint Diderotâs EncyclopĂ©die, Gabriel Cramer and Samuel de Tournes. Ticking off names on the first of July 1784, the French kingâs representative noted the presence of Jeanne CathĂ©rine and Elisabeth Anne Rilliet, daughters of the cityâs former First Syndic; of Marie ThĂ©rĂšse Liotard, the portrait painterâs daughter; and of ninety-nine othersâthis in a city with a population of roughly 20,000.11 If the best known of Genevan bankersâ daughters, Germaine de StaĂ«l (nĂ©e Necker), seems never to have been among the âheadsâ enumerated, many of her cousins most definitely were.12
Connected by ties of blood and marriageâthe mathematician Bertrand, for instance, was married to a bankerâs granddaughter and his brother-in-lawâs brother was a partner in the Paris bank, Necker et Compagnie13âthese families also shared a patrician culture in which this scheme made intellectual, financial, and even theological sense. While eighteenth-century Geneva remained profoundly Protestant, its Calvinism was neither as severe nor as ascetic (nor, indeed, as democratic) as it had been a century and a half earlier. No longer a faith that held human depravity as axiomatic, Genevan Calvinism had become âanthropologically optimistic.â14 The prominent midcentury theologian Jacob Vernet (also the editor of Montesquieuâs Spirit of the Laws), maintained that man was born âto live in society ⊠he is endowed with the faculty of reason [and hence] of reflecting on all sorts of subjects and foreseeing the future.â In the writings and sermons of Vernet, faith and rational calculation often coincided. Observing the world, establishing its patterns, and even âforeseeing the futureâ all belonged to a natural theology in which âthere is nothing more beautiful for an intelligent creature than to study in Nature the ways of Supreme Wisdom.â15
It is therefore not surprising that at least three of Vernetâs own granddaughters figured among the âgirls from Geneva.â16 A wide variety of factorsâfrom the impressive completeness of its vital-records archives and the insularity of its ruling oligarchy to trends in religious thought and attitudes toward...