17th century General Crisis PDF

Preview

Summary

17 century crises...

Description

Ishita Roy 21816162 History Hons. 2nd Year (English Medium)

In 1978, Parker and Smith talked voluminously about The General Crisis of Seventeenth

Century, suggesting ‘The General Crisis theory.’ Even though this argument died away gradually after this theory was given, however a new debate in and around the ‘general crisis’ emerged which suggested that the crisis affected all of Eurasia and gave shape to both global economy and the functioning of states. 1 The 17th Century crisis stir a debate and for the first time threw light on the intervening period between two significant historical events- Reformation and Enlightenment. By 16th Century, the centre of economy shifted from Mediterranean states (Italy and other states) to Iberian states of Spain to western states of Atlantic especially Holland and England. Italy being an important trade centre emerged as important Italian cities like Venice, Milan, Geneva and Florence expanded. According to Braudel, this economic activity went beyond the empires as Christian merchants could be seen in Syria, Egypt, Istanbul and North Africa, while Levantine, Turkish and Armenian reached Atlantic Sea. By 16th century as the importance of Italy waned, Spanish hegemony rose at its peak and extended its Grand Empire including Portugal, Italy, Netherlands and Philippines and large territories of Central and South America possessed with rich mines in silver. Spain’s main source of power was its richness and wealth which was derived from silver bullion. It was considered that since Spain dominated Europe’s economic activities therefore the decline of Grand Empire resulted into a general crisis all over. A group of Spanish writers called arbitristas who wrote that Spanish decline took place in isolation; however J.H Eliot disagrees and calls it a rather overall decline in 17th Century. Whereas scholars like Carlo M Kipola and Henry Kamen believe that Spain never developed so to begin, therefore it never reached a peak and thus there is no decline as there is no rise. Earl J Hamilton mentioned that it was the silver imports from the New World (America) that led to rise of Spain and as the volume declined from 1620s, so did the Spanish power. Dennis O Flynn adding onto that mentioned that the cost of mining production with high recessions could not keep up with silver reduction because it got addicted to influx of American treasure. Spanish rulers overestimated availability of resources and in 17th century the availability declined whereas the spending on crown increased and therefore the Spanish rulers were bankrupt. They borrowed at high rate of interests from foreign banks by mortgaging future cargo and were unable to make payments to fighting for Spain. This reduced the inflow of treasure and high debts led to increase in taxation types and policies where the peasants and middle class businessmen were forces to pay taxes and the unproductive rich classes remained exempted. 1

Vries, Jan de, The Economic Crisis of Seventeenth Century after Fifty Years, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Autumn, 2009, p.152-153

Ishita Roy 21816162 History Hons. 2nd Year (English Medium) Scholars like EJ Hamilton point to role of Sevile – Atlantic trade in causing European economic crisis. Frequent debasement of coinage throughout Europe in 16th and 17th century were manifestation of a chronic shortage of currency. It was temporarily solved by Spain’s silver bullion. The economic diminished once the silver imports started declining. Ruggario Romano states the intense and sudden fall of economy in 1619-22 took place against the background of chronic contraction and therefore came a period of stagnation in mining which led to shortage of monetary stock and price of money fell progressively. According to Jan De Vries and Ralph Davis, in the decline of the Grand Empire, certain social factors were involved. Former believed that there had been a social prejudice against trade as it was seen as an intermediary stage of social hierarchy by society of pre-modern times. Ambition of prosperous merchants was to escape taxation proved ruinous for State in long-run and Spain nobility remained aloof of the trading business. Latter mentions that the re-conquest of Spain left its rulers with an exceptionally large class of people, bidalgos, who claimed privileges of nobility, constituted nearly a tenth of population in Castile not more than 2%. Spain also had several loss of population as plague hit and killed around 2million of its population from 1595 to 1602. With-in a span of twenty years, as it was coping up, Spain was again hit by several famines, and epidemics at several intervals between 1647-52 and reduced around 80% of its population causing a dislocation in economy. John Lynch also believed that it was not only the natural factors, but also certain Spanish policies which led to a steep decline in its population and affected the economy of the overall state. Spain adopted harsh religious policies against the Jews and Moors. Around 2,000 Jews were burned alive and 1,20,000 were forced to settle outside, similarly Moors were expelled too. This paralyzed the Spanish economy as Jews were vital elements of community of entrepreneurs and possessed considerable capitals. Moors too were agriculturists and wool producers. This created an imbalanced economy and a shortage of food grain and therefore Spain started large scale imports of food grains. Jan de Vries and Dennis O Flynn agree on the fact that Spain spent a large amount on its military campaign and emptied the treasury. Braudel also mentioned that there was a policy that promoted sheep rearing in order to expand the wool industry but the demand was of coarses variety which was indeed made of Spanish wool but was produced by Dutch and English companies. According to Ralph Davis, Spanish wool industries were the greatest examples of industrial decline. Spanish ship-building was also unable to keep up with the pace of American demand and therefore the ship-building industries never reached the “take-off” stage. Due to stagnant technology and rising population leading to heavy demand on food grains utilization of marginal land and deforestation took place. There were fragmentation of holdings of the Spanish land which showed a sign of exhaustion in agriculture. Peter Kriedte states that

Ishita Roy 21816162 History Hons. 2nd Year (English Medium) the Index of grain prices all over the Europe therefore declined. In France it went from 100 in 1625-50 to 50 in 1681-90, while in Poland from 100 in 1580s, to 87 in 1650s. After the SwedishPolish war, further destruction of the Index was caused to 43 by 1660. As a result, many pastoral lands were turned into fields. EJ Hamilton whereas sees the Spanish decline as an overall decline, scholars like J.H Eliot, J.I. Israel, Domenico Sella and Braudel refer to it as a regional decline. Some scholars also refer this to be the Industrial Crisis, whereas the Marxists scholars call it the Crisis of Production. However it is important to note that the European economy was uneven therefore the crisis would be varied and therefore there would be no uniform setbacks in overall Europe. Jan De Vries has successfully questioned this phenomenon of applying the theory of crisis throughout the European states. It is questioned the periodization of crisis whether it is a proper label. A new study revisited the debates and analyzed the economic cycles and realized that in each of these cycles, the components of the overall price indexes showed systematic movements relative to each other. These new patterns liberated economic history from the conventional periodization and labels. New periodization raised questions of interpretation: what caused these price trends and what were the consequences? New interpretation challenged the traditional theory of Hamilton’s silver bullion. Schumpeter placed special attention on the fifty-year Kondratieff cycles. In the desperate conditions of deflation and contraction, innovative entrepreneurs pressed their less efficient competitors to the wall. Through a process of “creative destruction” involving new technologies and improved business methods, the fir survivors of a period of economic distress laid the foundation for a new cycle of growth. This was also identified as the reversal of price trends and was interpreted as an evidence of Malthusian theory by the scholars of Annales School. Population has the power to grow exponentially whereas subsistence can only grow arithmetically. As the price rises, the growth of demand outnumbers the growth of supply; population therefore collapses due to subsistence crisis, prices fall. 2 The population of Europe did decline. However, there are also different cycles of demographic changes which could be observed in different areas of Europe. For instance, in Mediterranean region, famines in 1590s and plague in 1599, from 1629 to 1631 and from 1627 to 1650 reduced the population of Italy by 16 percent and of Spain by 14 percent. In Central Europe, the thirty Years’ War created a disorder. In the lands of the Holy Roman Empire, a population decline of 35 to 40 percent could be seen; elsewhere too the population did slow down, however it would not be correct to say that the population absolutely declined. In England and in the maritime

2

Le Roy Ladurie, The Peasants of Lauguedoc, 1974

Ishita Roy 21816162 History Hons. 2nd Year (English Medium) provinces of Netherlands population continued to grow until 1660s and it only experienced a slow down by 5 percent. Historians have further explained movement of population by finding the natural ally of the crisis concept: Little Ice Age- an extended period of colder average temperatures in Europe. Though there are debates regarding the dates of beginning, but there is consensus that the coldest periods were concentrated in the 17th century. It could be derived from the figure that the average for the 17th century period is 0.50◦ C lower than for any of the later centuries. It could not be ignored that extreme winters were more common in the mid-seventeenth century than in later centuries. Parker and Smith emphasized “a general deterioration of the global climate” as a cause of worldwide upheavals of the mid-seventeenth century in General Crisis. The Little Ice Age brought shortened growing periods and more frequent extreme events that forced farmers to abandon marginal lands, shift to the cultivation of hardier grains, or shift from grain to livestock farming. The impact of climatic change could though be difficult to detect among the other variables of market economy; however, it would be correct to say that this would have a more direct effect on mortality.3 According to Wallerstein, the term “crisis” should not be taken synonymously to cyclical shift. The notion of an economic crisis originated as a contribution to Marxist scholars as a transition to capitalism. Eric Hobsbawm located the 17th century crisis in the last phase of transition from feudalism to capitalism and believed that the 17 th century crisis was more than just an economic crisis. The important question asked by Hobsbawm was that why did the crisis of 15th and 16th century not lead to industrial revolution as it did in 17th century? Accrding to him, capitalist elements expanded in a feudal social framework and were not strong enough to shift the mode of production, therefore crisis represented an ultimate success of a new mode of production that surrendered the feudal social order and gave a new mode of productioncapitalism. 4 Marxist historiography infused the period of reversal with a deep meaning, dismissing the crisis concept altogether.

3

Vries, Jan de, The Economic Crisis of Seventeenth Century after Fifty Years, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Autumn, 2009, p.164 4 Hobsbawm, Eric, The Crisis of Seventeenth Century in Trevor Aston (ed.), Crisis in Europe, 1560-1660, 1965, p. 15, 28

Ishita Roy 21816162 History Hons. 2nd Year (English Medium) Trevor-Roper has criticized Hobsbawm’s views by stating that the 17 th century crisis was not the crisis of production and it is wrong to identify the revolution that took place as simply bourgeois revolution. There is no evidence as such that could prove the hypothesis right and that social changes may take peacefully without the need of any revolution. He considers the 17th century crisis to be a crisis between the State and the Society, a crisis caused by abnormal rise in the cost of state organization.5 According to this, the princes who emerged between 15 th and 16th centuries subdued church, extended their jurisdiction, immobilized the countryside and created the apparatus of Renaissance state. They taxed the cities, patronized trade and encouraged art and architecture. Courts became expansive, splendid and geographical discoveries added to their glory. These princes owed their permanence to the machinery of the government they created and improved. Offices became important and sale of offices for prestige was common, competition for offices and cost of living led to indiscipline as carnal profits of offices grew. Church as a part of state machinery was also parasitic with absentee clergy, tithe eating laity and those who lived on beneficial leases of Church land. Bureaucratic machinery was expanding and creating more “waste”, thus impoverishing Crown. 17th Century crisis was thus a Political Crisis. The crisis was the result of a conflict between a puritanically minded opposition and a parasitic bureaucracy created by the Renaissance state during the boom of 16th century and because unendurable during the period of decline and the lengthy wars in the 17th century. He goes so far as to assert that Hobsbawn was looking for capitalistic, violent revolution that fir Marxist historical thought, as opposed to viewing the data objectively and then drawing the conclusions. For Trevor-Roper, each state was faced with the need to decrease this ‘parasitic bureaucracy’ and renew its efforts at a mercantilist policy. He used examples of Spain, the United Provinces, France and England to determine how each managed the crisis. He found that France manged to change enough to maintain the ancient regime for another 150 years. England was not hit by any such cleansing revolution, yet it benefitted from the crisis. There is no doubt that economic changes did come to much of Europe. A starting point of study could be Spain itself, as mentioned earlier. A succession of catastrophes- harvest failures and plague epidemics intensified a reversal of demographic trends. Overall Italian population fell by 15%, but many cities and regions suffered even larger contractions. The Holy Roman Emperor, the electoral states, and the territorial princes were all attempting to expand their powers at each other’s expense. This struggle caused every level of state authority to increase taxation and involve itself in new sectors of social life, which, in turn, disrupted the balance of power among social groups. Economic life in France was less severely affected than it was in the 5

Roper, H.R. Trevor, The General Crisis of the 17th Century, The Past and Present Society, Oxford University Press, 1969, p. 31-64

Ishita Roy 21816162 History Hons. 2nd Year (English Medium) other areas. Much of the northern French agriculture experienced sharp crisis of productivity from 1625-50 and remained low in agricultural prices. However, unlike Iberia, Italy, and the German lands, France did not suffer a significant decline of population in this period; neither did it experience a steep rise. Woolen cloth was England’s major export, which accounted to 85% of all domestic exports in 1640. Entering 17th century, its sale remained the exclusive privilege of London merchant guilds, each with an exclusive export territory secured by Crown charter. Brenner argued that English did not lose market share to their rivals, rather all producers faced a crisis of demand, the English no less than producers in the southern Netherlands. Both sought new markets for their cloth further afield; the English went into head-to-head competition with Italians for the Mediterranean markets. 6 It is to be noted that the sharp economic contraction was not simply a cyclical downturn as it exhibited a structured feature. The contraction was not primarily a Malthusian crisis centered in agriculture, even though harvest failures figure as catalysts in certain places. The decline was not limited to the “exhaustion” of Mediterranean economies. Braudel argued that from the high Middle Ages onward, the vast economic space was led by a single city that stood at the apex, the predominance of Venice followed by Antwerp, followed by Genoa. The changes of leadership were always the consequences of major geopolitical challenges, which was identified as “decentering and recentering”. The most dramatic, drawn-out and unforeseen of these episodes was the decentering of the European world economy that led between 1590 and 1610, to the demise of Genoese primacy and the consolidation of economic leadership in Amsterdam. 7 Leadership was passed from one city to another, while the new city enjoyed the same privileges of dominance and therefore the economic decline was not simply an affair of the Mediterranean, rather it was a much broader process of a shift in economy. There are evidences of population growth of the northwestern Europe while elsewhere it declined or stagnated. The urban populations in the northwest grew even faster, leading to a distinctly higher urbanization rate in the region. Population did not decay in the ports of Atlantic and the North Sea, rather it emerged as the important commercial cities. The North Sea ports extended from Emden to Hamburg grew by 60% in the same period. Likewise, the Atlantic ports from Bordeaux to Dieppe grew by 30%. Thirty cities stretching from Bordeaux to Copenhagen accounted for 13% of Europe’s total urban population in 1600 and grew by 21% in 1650. 8

6

Brenner, Merchants and Revolution, p. 23-24 Vries, Jan de, The Economic Crisis of Seventeenth Century after Fifty Years, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Autumn, 2009 p.175-176 8 Ibid p. 179-180 7

Ishita Roy 21816162 History Hons. 2nd Year (English Medium) However in 1600, Europe as a whole possessed nearly 600 cities and this accounted for total 11% of its population. Fifty years later both, the number of cities and the population declined but this period also saw growth of 21 capital and port cities, which contained more than one-quarter of the total urban population of Europe. Therefore it could be said that every period has its gainers and losers but no period of fifty years has seen such sharp contraction, which is why the concept of general crisis arrived. Though it would not be correct to imply and label the period as a general crisis, however, it cannot be ignored that the new studies had emerged, such sharp contractions were to be believed as an implication in the entire Europe. Whether or not to label this period as a general crisis depends upon various schools and scholars, however what cannot be ignored are the repercussion of such drastic changes which took place in 17th century. Due to demographic crisis, a large scale dislocation of trade and industry took place. Military operations, economic disruptions and population losses caused severe strain on government resources. It therefore placed heavy strains on already burdened European states and increased the rate of taxation. Except England, all rulers extracted maximum from resources from their subjects and led to over exploitation. Decline of a certain state was beneficial for Dutch Republic and England as England was successful in overthrowing the feudal monarchy and led to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and emerged as representative Democracy. Atlantic trade also contributed to the new growth and expansion of Western Europe. Displacement of industries to countryside and spread of proto-type industrialization in Western and Central Europe led to the First Phase of Industrialization and moved manufacturing to countryside as labour cost rose higher in the urban centres and urban ind...