Northern Lights: Political Economy and the Terroir of the Norwegian Enlightenment*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Northern Lights: Political Economy and the Terroir of the Norwegian Enlightenment* Sophus A. Reinert Harvard Business School On May 27, 1776, the Scottish immigrant John Robertson Brand, sometimes known as John Brandt, was awarded a silver medal by the Royal Norwegian Sci- entific Society in the church of the fishing village of Hustad, south of the Trond- heim Fjord in central Norway. Though below the Arctic Circle, Hustad lies slightly off the sixty-third parallel north, which runs through Canada’s Nunavut and Yukon Territories, the Davis Strait, and the deep Russian tundra—a decidedly hyperbo- rean region compared to the traditional latitudes of Enlightenment. And yet, step- ping into the small wooden church’s aisle on that spring day to deliver a speech marking the occasion, District Governor Even Hammer of Romsdal (1732–1800; fig. 1) summoned a language of reform, improvement, industriousness, civic vir- tue, public happiness, jealousy of trade, and political economy that would have resonated deeply and widely across the European world, a language indebted to international currents but resolutely inflected by local conditions in what he ap- propriately called “our cold North.”1 Few cases better justify the great Turinese * Rolv Petter Amdam first introduced me to Even Hammer, and I would like to ex- press my gratitude to him; to Mads Langnes at Romsdalsmuseet in Molde, Norway, for going well beyond the call of duty in facilitating my work on this intriguing figure; and, particularly, to Marit Sjelmo for jovial research assistance and to John Brewer, Rob- ert Fredona, Steven L. Kaplan, Erik S. Reinert, Hugo Reinert, John Robertson, John Shovlin, Andre Wakefield, Carl Wennerlind, and Sophie Wilkowske for suggestions. I am furthermore grateful to Ann Thomson and Richard Whatmore for the kind invitation to present on Hammer at the European University Institute in Florence, and to Alexandra Chadwick, Rory Cox, Franz Leander Fillafer, Konrad M. Lawson, and Koen Stapelbroek for comments there. Finally, I would like to thank the journal’s three incisive reviewers for their feedback, and Isabelle Lewis for preparing the map. This article develops my earlier “Even Hammer: Politisk økonomi i den norske opplysningstiden,” in Årbok 2017: Opplysningstida i Romsdal 1700–1814 (Molde, 2017), 9–39. 1 Even Hammer, Vinskibeligheds høye Fornødenhed og ærefulde Løn . (Copenha- gen, 1776), 12. The pamphlet is exceedingly rare, but I have consulted the copy classified R.Ark.1264/H/L0003 in Romsdalsmuseet, Molde, Norway. For a review, see Kritisk Tilskuer over Indenlansk og Udenlandsk Literatur, nos. 47–48 (1776), 369–71. On “the North Sea and Baltic region” as a “northern, colder and poorer reflection of Braudel’s Mediterranean,” as well as illuminating caveats, see Hanno Brand and Leos Müller, “In- troduction,” in The Dynamics of Economic Culture in the North Sea and Baltic Region in The Journal of Modern History 92 (March 2020): 76–115 © 2020 by The University of Chicago. 0022-2801/2020/9201-0003$10.00 All rights reserved. Political Economy and the Norwegian Enlightenment 77 Fig. 1.—Anonymous portrait of Even Hammer. Domkirkeodden Photoarchive, Hamar, Norway. Color version available as an online enhancement. the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period, ed. Brand and Müller (Hilversum, 2007), 7– 12, 7, as well as the volume’s essays. The reference is of course to Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, 2 vols., trans. Siân Reynolds (Berkeley, 1996). 78 Reinert historian Franco Venturi’s admonition, a few days before his death, to “the young and the less young” to remember “always that local roots and the great ideas that break the skies of Europe can never be separated.”2 So how were the two—local roots and great ideas—related in the case of Dis- trict Governor Hammer, and what might it tell us about the larger questions of the Enlightenment? What cursory scholarship about him that exists, including even the Norwegian Biographical Dictionary, argues doggedly but with little evidence that “French Physiocracy” was the “starting point” for his work and that he was essentially a boreal recipient of François Quesnay’s doctrines ex- pounding laissez-faire, large-scale capitalist landowning, and the exclusive power of agriculture to create wealth.3 Hammer may have been a figure of the Enlighten- ment, in short, but hardly more than a dim reflection at the utmost periphery of the movement. Only Rolv Petter Amdam has suggested that scholars may have exag- gerated the influenceofphysiocracyinNorwayingeneralandonHammerinpar- ticular. This article builds on his observation to provide a more nuanced portrayal of Hammer’s world and of his vision as a means of integrating Norway’s expe- rience into our understanding of the emergence and internationalization of polit- ical economy in the eighteenth century—what Steven L. Kaplan and I have called “the Economic Turn”—and, more broadly, into the European Enlightenment.4 For 2 FrancoVenturi, quoted inLeonardoCasalino,“Notaintroduttiva ebiografica,”in Franco Venturi, La lotta per la libertà: Scritti politici, ed. Leonardo Casalino (Turin, 1996), liii–lxv, lxv. On Venturi see, among others, Adriano Viarengo, Franco Venturi, politica e storia nel novecento (Rome, 2014). On his vision of the Enlightenment, see John Robertson, “Franco Venturi’sEnlightenment,” Past & Present 137, no. 1 (1992): 183–206. 3 ArneApelseth,“EvenHammer,”February13,2009,https://nbl.snl.no/Even_Hammer; Asbjørn Øverås, “Upplysningstida i Romsdal: Amtmann Even Hammer,” Syn og Segn 41 (1935): 274–84, and Øverås, Romsdals Soga, vol. 2, Dansketida (Trondheim, 1941), 283–301; Arne Odd Johnsen, “En amtmann fra oplysningstiden: Etatsråd Even Hammer; fremskrittsmannen og patrioten,” Heimen 5, no. 4 (1939): 177–96, 178; Sven Erik Skarsbø and Jógvan Hammer, “Knut Ellingsgaard—tresfjordingen som vart plogkar på Færøyane,” Romsdal Sogelag Årsskrift [Molde] 72 (2008): 274–96, 281–82. On the physiocratic experiment, see Steven L. Kaplan, Bread, Politics, and Political Economy in the Reign of Louis XV, 2nd ed. (London, 2015), and, for the most recent literature, Kap- lan, The Stakes of Regulation: Reflections on Bread, Politics and Political Economy Forty Years Later (London, 2015). On the international influence of physiocracy, see Bernard Delmas, Thierry Demals, and Philippe Steiner, eds., La diffusion internationale de la phys- iocratie (XVIIIe–XIXe) (Grenoble, 1995). On the numerous alternatives to physiocracy at the time, and indeed the prevalence of explicit “Antiphysiocracy,” see the essays in Gérard Klotz, Philippe Minard, and Arnaud Orain, eds., Les voies de la richesse? La physiocratie en question (1760–1850) (Rennes, 2017), and Steven L. Kaplan and Sophus A. Reinert, eds., The Economic Turn: Recasting Political Economy in Enlightenment Europe (London, 2019). 4 Rolv Petter Amdam, “Norske fysiokratar—fanst dei?,” in Det som svarte seg best: Studier i økonomisk historie og politikk, ed. Edgar Hovland, Even Lange, and Sigurd Political Economy and the Norwegian Enlightenment 79 not only does a closer reading of Hammer’s work reveal a far more complex eco- nomic vision than has hitherto been acknowledged, one indebted to cameralism rather than physiocracy; it can also serve as a beachhead from which we may better assess the Norwegian Enlightenment as such, which remains a woefully ne- glected yet fertile field for further studies, and ultimately—and perhaps more signif- icantly—the nature of political economy when it was first codified in eighteenth- century Europe.5 Indeed, the case of Even Hammer’s political economy and how it developed at the northern extreme of the European Enlightenment suggests that intellectual historians would benefit from considering the ideation, reception, appropriation, and development of ideas in relation to not merely shifting cultural, economic, and political contexts but also more fundamental environmental and geological conditions, that is, to their physical ecologies. Though an intellectual portrait of Hammer is interesting for what it teaches us about the varieties of political econ- omy in the European Enlightenment, it more fundamentally—and broadly— challenges us to take the terroir of intellectual history more seriously: that is, Rysstad (Oslo, 1990), 19–30, 20 and 26. On physiocracy’s more complex reception in Sweden, see Lars Herlitz, Fysiokratismen i svensk tappning 1767–1770 (Gothen- burg [but Lund], 1974), and, more broadly, Carl Wennerlind, “Theatrum Oeconomicum: Anders Berch and the Dramatization of the Swedish Improvement Discourse,” in New Perspectives on the History of Political Economy, ed. Robert Fredona and Sophus A. Reinert (Basingstoke, 2018), 103–30, and Lars Magnusson, “Physiocracy in Sweden: A Note on the Problem of Inventing Traditions,” in Kaplan and Reinert, The Economic Turn, 585–605. On “the Enlightenment” as essentially a matter of “political economy,” see also John Robertson, The Case for the Enlightenment: Scotland and Naples, 1680– 1760 (Cambridge, 2005); Sophus A. Reinert, Translating Empire: Emulation and the Origins of Political Economy (Cambridge, MA, 2011), and Reinert, The Academy of Fist- icuffs: Political Economy and Commercial Society in Enlightenment Italy (Cambridge, MA, 2018). 5 Axiomatically, Norway was excluded even from Roy S. Porter and Mikuláš Teich, eds., The Enlightenment in National Context (Cambridge, 1981), long the Bible of those interested in the national varieties of Enlightenment. For a comparative sketch of the Scandinavian Enlightenment,