Grand Tour

It is not possible to speak of an “agrarian tour” until well into the 18th century, when the question of agriculture took on new importance in the eyes of society. The Accademia dei Georgofili was founded in 1753, on the initiative of Ubaldo Montelatici, with the aim of carrying out «continual and well regulated experiments, and observations, so as to bring to perfection the greatly beneficial Art of Tuscan cultivation». This public association was repeatedly entrusted by the grand-ducal government of the Lorraine with the study and solution of major agricultural problems of the day. The reforms adopted by Peter Leopold, such as the abolition of “protective duties” on agricultural products and the establishment of free trade, found keen supporters and well-prepared collaborators in the Georgofili. This right to trade freely was, in fact, one of the inalienable principles of the economic and political battles fought by the members of the academy. The climate of renewed interest in agrarian topics was recorded by travelers, often in the tones of a scientific report.

It is true that an attention to aspects of the state of farming turns up here and there in travelers' writings, even before the time of the professional reports. Speaking of Arezzo, for example, Deseine (1699) does not fail to mention the reclamation work carried out in the Val di Chiana at the behest of the grand duke, which had turned the marshy banks of the river into productive land that brought him «an income of a hundred thousand scudi».

But it was in the Age of Enlightenment that travelers became capable of going beyond the enchanting beauty of the landscape and grasping its strong points and weaknesses.

Peter Beckford (1787) refers to the decree of 1767 that had such a crucial effect on the economy of Tuscany by establishing free trade first in grain and then in livestock and putting an end to centuries of oppression of rural areas by the towns and cities. He displayed skepticism about the general utility of the measures, however, as they had, in his view, led to the impoverishment of the cities and the ruin of industry. On the other hand Forsyth (1802) leaned toward a more positive verdict, applauding the release of agriculture from the old shackles.

Observing how well cultivated Tuscany was in 1767, Duclos added significantly: «where it is in fact cultivable,» introducing the subject of the difficulty of farming land in the region. The long and intense activity of the naturalists, landowners and grand-ducal officials had in fact wrested everything possible from a fairly arid and barren soil, and had done so long before the effort became a scientific and economic program under the auspices of the Accademia dei Georgofili. Lalande (1765) also lingered over the description of the Tuscan plains, paying more attention to utilitarian aspects than to the charms of the scenery. He saw widespread fertility and, for him, the beauty was a consequence of it. Lalande came up with a political explanation, declaring that it was the government that had encouraged the inhabitants to look for crops and methods that were best suited to the different zones, «so that there are pieces of land where crops are harvested up to three times a year». Especially in the past, there had been physical factors that prevented agriculture from flourishing in full, such as floods and winds, which would then by followed by famine and deaths. But «it seems that the ruling prince has found a remedy for this with wise precautions, liberalizing trade and renewing the efforts to promote agriculture».

In short the pleasant and tidy appearance of the countryside deceived visitors about neither the labor it had cost nor the social consequences that stemmed from it. Young (1789) made this clear when he stated that on the whole the land in Tuscany was not in itself favorable to cultivation, and that not just the valley of the Arno but even the environs of Florence, so lush and romantic in appearance, were not suited by nature for such a rich production (Bossi, 1993). For his part, Chateauvieux (1813) noted that the dwellings of the peasants were very spartan and their diet less than frugal, concluding that the hard-won fertility of the Valdarno had been obtained at the expense of the sharecroppers, whose conditions were very different from the landowners who lived in the city and enjoyed the fruits of those investments. Even the enthusiastic Forsyth (1802) criticized the irresponsible conduct of the landowning nobility that had grown rich thanks to improvements to which they had made no contribution: «Thus the landholders are undeservedly enriched by improvements to which they do not contribute. Born and bred in the city, they seldom visit their estates, but for the Villegiatura in autumn; and then, not to inspect or improve their possession; not even to enjoy the charms of nature or the sports of the field; but to loiter round the villa just ad they loiter round the town».