Pacioli's Lens: God, Humanism, Euclid, and the Rhetoric of Double Entry

Abstract

This paper investigates why, in 1494, the Franciscan friar and teacher of mathematics, Luca Pacioli, published an instructional treatise describing the system of double entry bookkeeping. In doing so, it also explores the rhetoric and foundations of double entry through the lens of Pacioli's treatise. Recent findings on Pacioli's life and works, his writings, and the medieval accounting archives are combined to identify how he was inspired by his faith and his humanist beliefs to give all merchants access to the practical mathematics and the bookkeeping they required. The paper finds that Pacioli's teaching method was inspired by Euclid, his Franciscan education, and his humanist beliefs, and that Pacioli reveals a simplicity in the then-unrecognized axiomatic foundation of double entry that has been largely overlooked. The findings represent a paradigm shift in how we perceive Pacioli, his treatise, and double entry.

Manzoni’s sixteenth-century ‘Quaderno Doppio’: The evolution of accounting education towards modern times

“…Sangster's work has two foci: (i) accounting education before Pacioli published his double entry bookkeeping manual in 1494 (Sangster, 2015(Sangster, , 2018cSangster & Rossi, 2018); and, (ii) the innovative approach Pacioli adopted in his teaching of accounting (Sangster et al, 2007(Sangster et al, , 2008(Sangster et al, , 2011(Sangster et al, , 2014Sangster, 2010Sangster, , 2018aSangster, , 2018b).…”

“…In several studies, Sangster (2007Sangster ( , 2010Sangster ( , 2018aSangster ( , 2018bSangster et al, 2007Sangster et al, , 2014and Sangster & Scataglinibelghitar, 2010) has investigated Pacioli's pedagogical approach and the place of his manual in the development of accounting education. In particular, he identified Pacioli's style of teaching as a cognitive apprenticeship (Sangster & Scataglinibelghitar, 2010) and recognized several pedagogical devices in the manual (Sangster et al, 2007;Sangster, 2010;Sangster et al, 2014), such as the presence of a summary announcing what is going to be covered and why; the use of backward and forward linking to other parts of the manual (and to other parts of the book); frequent contextualization; and the use of examples embedded in his theoretical material to aid understanding.…”

“…In particular, he identified Pacioli's style of teaching as a cognitive apprenticeship (Sangster & Scataglinibelghitar, 2010) and recognized several pedagogical devices in the manual (Sangster et al, 2007;Sangster, 2010;Sangster et al, 2014), such as the presence of a summary announcing what is going to be covered and why; the use of backward and forward linking to other parts of the manual (and to other parts of the book); frequent contextualization; and the use of examples embedded in his theoretical material to aid understanding. From an accounting perspective, Pacioli introduced a mathematical explanation of the double entry method (Geijsbeek, 1914;Sangster, 2018b), so defining a "universal… model that could be used to understand all [such] phenomena characterized by duality" (Colli Franzone, 2012: 284). He also defined a syllabus to be followed in teaching the method.…”

Konsep Akuntansi Syariah Dalam Budaya Mahar

“…Ketika melakukan penyajian laporan keuangan syariah, entitas "syariah" harus disesuaikan dengan Pedoman Standar Akuntansi (PSAK) 101. Dalam dimensi lain paradigma akuntansi sosial spritual adalah sebagai bentuk pelaporan dan instrumen untuk mendekatkan diri kepada Sang Khalik (Thomson, 2014;Sangster, 2018). Perintah Allah SWT melalui surat al-Baqarah ayat 282 secara jelas disebutkan pentingnya pencatatan dan akuntansi (proses akuntansi) sebagai bukti transaksi.…”

Does Stewardship Still Have A Role?

“…The printed guidance available to them at the time echoed earlier Italian texts in asserting that the reasons for keeping accounts were to eliminate errors, prevent fraud, calculate the probate value of businesses, track personal accounts, inventory and partners' capital, and provide evidence in courts of law [Yamey et al 1963;Carruthers and Espeland, 1991;Oldroyd 1998;Sangster, 2016;2017].…”