Those who are acquainted with the Italian method of book-keeping
must allow that it is an ingenious invention, of great utility to
men in business, and that it has contributed to extend commerce and
to facilitate its operations. It requires no less attention, care,
and accuracy, than many works which are styled learned: but it is
undoubtedly true, that most mercantile people, without knowing the
foundation of the rules on which they proceed, conduct their books in
as mechanical a manner as many of the literati do their writings.
The name, Italian book-keeping, _Doppia scrittura_, with several words
employed in this branch of science and still retained in all languages,
make it probable that it was invented by the Italians; and that other
nations borrowed it, as well as various short methods of reckoning,
from their mercantile houses, at the time when all the East-India trade
passed through Italy.
De la Porte says[8], “About the year 1495, brother Luke, an Italian,
published a treatise of it in his own language. He is the oldest
author I have seen upon the subject.” Anderson, in his Historical
and Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce[9], gives the
following account: “In all probability, this art of double-entry
accounts had its rise, or at least its revival, amongst the mercantile
cities of Italy: possibly it might be first known at Venice, about the
time that numeral algebra was taught there; from the principles of
which science double-entry, or what we call merchants’ accounts, seems
to have been deduced. It is said that Lucas de Burgo, a friar, was the
first European author who published his algebraic work at Venice, anno
1494.”
This author, who was one of the greatest mathematicians of the
fifteenth century, and who is supposed to be the first person who
acquired a knowledge of algebra from the writings of the Arabians,
was called Lucas Paciolus, e Burgo S. Sepulchri. He was a Franciscan,
and so surnamed from a town in the duchy of Urbino, on the Florentine
confines, called Burgo S. Sepulchro[10].
Anderson tells us[11], that he had in his possession the oldest book
published in England in which any account is given of the method of
book-keeping by double-entry. It was printed at London, in 1569, in
folio. The author, whose name is James Peele, says, in his preface,
that he had instructed many mercantile people in this art, which had
been long practised in other countries, though in England it was then
undoubtedly new. One may readily believe that Mr. Anderson was not
ignorant of the difference between the method of book-keeping by single
and that by double-entry; but he produces nothing to induce us to
believe that Peele taught the latter and not the former; for what he
says of debit and credit is of no importance, as it may be applied also
to the method by single-entry.
Of this Peele no mention is made in Ames’s Typographical Antiquities;
but in that work (p. 410) there is an account of a still older treatise
of book-keeping, entitled A briefe instruction and manner how to keepe
bookes of accompts, after the order of debitor and creditor, and as
well for proper accompts, partible, &c. by three bookes, named the
memoriall, journall, and leager. Newly augmented and set forth by John
Mellis schole maister. London 1588, 12mo. Mellis, in his preface, says
that he is only the re-publisher of this treatise, which was before
published at London in 1543 by a schoolmaster named Hugh Oldcastle.
From the above title, and particularly from the three account books
mentioned in it, I am inclined to believe that this work contained the
true principles of book-keeping by double-entry.
The oldest German work on book-keeping by double-entry with which I am
at present acquainted, is one written by John Gotlieb, and printed at
Nuremberg, by Frederick Peypus, in 1531[12]. The author in his preface
calls himself a citizen of Nuremberg, and says that he means to give
to the public a clear and intelligible method of book-keeping, such as
was never before printed. It appears, therefore, that he considered his
book as the first of the kind ever published in Germany.
It is worthy of remark, that even at the end of the sixteenth century,
the Italian method of book-keeping began to be applied to finances and
public accounts. In the works of the celebrated Simon Stevin, published
at Leyden in Dutch, and the same year in Latin, we find a system of
book-keeping, as applied to finances, drawn up it appears for the use
of Maurice prince of Orange. To this treatise is prefixed, in Dutch
and Latin, a dedication to the duke of Sully, in which the author
says, that his reason for dedicating the work to Sully was because the
French had paid the greatest attention to improve the method of keeping
public accounts. The work begins with a conversation, which took
place between Stevin and prince Maurice, respecting the application
of book-keeping to public accounts, and in which he explains to the
prince the principles of mercantile book-keeping. This conversation
commences with explaining the nature of debit and credit, and the
principal accounts. Then follow a short journal and ledger, in which
occur only the most common transactions; and the whole concludes with
an account of the other books necessary for regular book-keeping,
and of the manner of balancing. Stevin expressly says, that prince
Maurice, in the year 1604, caused the treasury accounts to be made
out after the Italian method, by an experienced book-keeper, with the
best success; but how long this regulation continued I have not been
able to learn. Stevin supposes, in this system, three ministers, and
three different accounts: a _quæstor_, who receives the revenues of
the domains; an _acceptor_, who receives all the other revenues of
the prince; and a _thesaurarius_ (treasurer), who has the care of the
expenditure. All inferior offices for receiving or disbursing are to
send from their books monthly extracts, which are to be doubly-entered
in a principal ledger; so that it may be seen at all times how much
remains in the hands of each receiver, and how much each has to collect
from the debtors. One cannot help admiring the ingenuity of the Latin
translator[13], who has found out, or at least invented, words to
express so many new terms unknown to the ancient Romans. The learned
reader may, perhaps, not be displeased with the following specimen.
Book-keeping is called _apologistica_ or _apologismus_; a book-keeper
_apologista_; the ledger _codex accepti expensique_; the cash-book
_arcarii liber_; the expense-book _impensarum liber_; the waste-book
_liber deletitius_; accounts are called _nomina_; stock account _sors_;
profit and loss account _lucri damnique ratiocinium_, _contentio_ or
_sortium comparatio_; the final balance _epilogismus_; the chamber of
accounts, or counting-house, _logisterium_, &c.
In the end of this work Stevin endeavours to show that the Romans,
or rather the Grecians (for the former knew scarcely anything but
what the latter had discovered), were in some measure acquainted
with book-keeping, and supports his conjecture by quoting Cicero’s
oration for Roscius. I confess that the following passage in Pliny,
_Fortunæ omnia expensa, huic omnia feruntur accepta, et in tota ratione
mortalium sola utramque paginam facit_[14], as well as the terms
_tabulæ accepti et expensi_; _nomina translata in tabulas_, seem to
indicate that the Romans entered debit and credit in their books on two
different pages; but it appears to me not yet proved, and improbable,
that they were acquainted with our scientific method of book-keeping;
with the mode of opening various accounts; of comparing them together,
and of bringing them to a final balance. As bills of exchange and
insurance were not known in the commerce of the ancients, the business
of merchants was not so intricate and complex as to require such a
variety of books and accounts as is necessary in that of the moderns.
Klipstein is of opinion that attempts were made in France to apply
book-keeping, by double-entry, to the public accounts, under Henry IV.,
afterwards under Colbert, and again in the year 1716. That attempts
were made, for this purpose, under Henry IV., he concludes from a work
entitled An Inquiry into the Finances of France; but I do not know
whether what the author says be sufficient to support this opinion.
[The system of double-entry began from the commencement of the present
century to be adopted by several governments in the management of the
public accounts, among others by those of Austria, France and Holland,
with highly beneficial effects. Some attempts have been more recently
made in this country to introduce it into the government offices,
and from the great success which has attended them, this system will
probably soon be generally used.]