A Dissertation Entitled Paradigm and Praxis: Seventeenth-Century Mercantilism and the Age of Liberalism By Jeffery L. Irvin, Jr. Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy in History Dr. Glenn J. Ames, Advisor College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo December 2008 Copyright © 2008 This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of Paradigm and Praxis: Seventeenth-Century Mercantilism and the Age of Liberalism Jeffery L. Irvin, Jr. Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Doctor of Philsophy degree in History The University of Toledo December 2008 At the end of the seventeenth century Western Europe, and perhaps the whole world, had experienced a ‘general crisis’ within the economy. It is the purpose of this dissertation to analyze the responses of England and Portugal with respect to these changes. Within the conceptual framework of the world-capitalist system, which arguably began in the sixteenth century with European expansion, we can see that not all were able to respond effectively to the changes that were taking place. While Portugal had dominated for nearly a century the trade between Asia and Europe that position of dominance was quickly eroded as a result of Spanish domination from 1580 through 1640, the virtual destruction of its navy, and most importantly—as this dissertation will argue—the continued adherence to a socio-political and intellectual perspective that would not meet the challenges of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. England, on iii the other hand, would develop a thoroughly secular perspective of the world which was made possible by the full acceptance of humanist scholarship, the break with the Roman Catholic Church, the alternative to canon law in the form of common law, and the development of a premier naval force that would allow them to dominate trade around the world. Had Portugal been able to break free from the seigneurial system of land tenure and the stilted intellectual tradition of scholasticism they might have had a chance to participate fully in the capitalist economic development of the world. However, Portugal’s ability to do so was limited not only by their socio-political and intellectual milieu but also by the contstraints of geography, culture, and international politics. It is for this reason that this work argues that the structural impediments to change in Portugal were simply too overwhelming for them to seriously contemplate participation in the world-capitalist system; and, that even had they been able to eliminate these domestic impediments they would still have been faced with a whole host of international problems that would have diminished their capacity to respond to the changes brought about by the rise of the world-capitalist system. iv Acknowledgements The list of people I have to thank for helping me along in this process is simply too long to list here. So, I will have to limit myself to listing specifically those who have directly contributed to this project, and remain content to acknowledge the general support of family, friends, and my colleagues. I would first like to thank Dr. Glenn J. Ames. He has gone above and beyond the call of duty by allowing me to invade his house when most visitors should know that they have taken on the odor of three-day old fish. He has been an ever-present source of encouragement and feedback—even when we disagreed. Most importantly, Dr. Ames was able to help me focus my naturally diffuse and eclectic intellectual interests so that I could produce something approximating a monograph. Because of my evening invasions of Dr. Ames’ home, I would also like to thank Beth, Ethan, and Miranda for putting up with these invasions. Reading the work of another, especially when the subject is not particularly stimulating, is difficult. For this reason I would also like to thank Dr. Richard E. Boyer, Dr. David Black, and Dr. Michael Jakobson. Their willingness to put themselves out on my behalf is greatly appreciated; and, I only hope that I can repay them by “paying it forward” once I have a job. Thank you all. v In addition to those directly involved in my dissertation project I would like to thank those who have supported me in one way or another throughout this process. Deborah MacDonald and Karen Mockenstrum have both been great helps in completing my paperwork and in guiding me through the labyrinthine maze that is The University of Toledo bureaucracy. I would like to thank my family, friends, and colleagues who all contributed in some respect to the completion of this project and my degree. This may have been done by simply encouraging me to complete my work when I saw no light at the end of the tunnel. For the hundreds of dinners, conversations, games of trivial pursuit, and beers, I thank you all. Finally, I would like to acknowledge that in very few countries in the world could someone like me have had the opportunities I have been given. Considering my socio- economic background what I have achieved would have been difficult, if not impossible, without a well-funded public education system. It is my hope that this strength of our system will continue, and that I will be in a position to encourage others like me to pursue the same goals. vi Table of Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgments v Table of Contents vii Introduction 1 I. Scholasticism, the Papacy, and the Investiture Contest 18 II. Feudalism and the Myth of Absolutism 54 III. Mercantilism: An Overview 95 IV. England and the Secularization of Political Economy 150 V. Portugal and the Rent-Seeking Society 190 Conclusions: Mercantilism, the General Crisis, and the World-System 234 Select Bibliography 255 Appendix A 268 vii Introduction This dissertation highlights the differences between England and Portugal at the end of the seventeenth century and why those differences yielded different results when attempts were made by each government to introduce mercantile and manufacturing policies at the national level. The English and the Portuguese shared much in common: a centralized government, a national consciousness, and a history as an ocean-going nation of trade. However, the differences between the two help to explain better why Portugal never had a chance of implementing a full-blown mercantilist program of trade and manufacturing. I will argue that there were too many structural impediments to implementing such a program, and that those who pushed for more manufacturing, or import prohibitions, were not necessarily mercantilists of the English type. Some have suggested that a lack of capital, the exclusion of New Christians, or the Church’s overbearing operation in Portuguese society explains why they did not break out of their feudal and static socio-economic system. I believe this is true; but, it does not explain everything. In addition to all the impediments listed above we must include the intellectual isolation of Portugal which, because it did not experience the Enlightenment, was left with a scholastic view of its economy. The scholastics, although they fully developed many of the economic concepts that we take for granted today, could not separate their economic theories from their conception of the just society, a 1 society in which most were protected by the Church from the soul-corrupting influence of materialism. It was not that the scholastics could not support manufacturing, trade, or import/export prohibitions; they simply did not see the need to go beyond the immediate needs of this life. 1 Luxury or power was not something the scholastics would have encouraged; they would have instead preached a message of self-abnegation and obedience to the Church. It is for this reason that I believe the greatest difference between Portugal and England was their religious and intellectual history, although they were different in many other ways as well. Portugal and England had both fought for independence. Portugal fought against the Spanish monarchy, which had ruled over Portugal for sixty years from 1580 to 1640. England sought to overthrow the arbitrary rule of Charles I. This was one thing the Portuguese and the English had in common: they had both just finished a war that left them more free, independent, and nationalistic. In addition they shared two other similarities at the end of the seventeenth century: they had a long history of centralized government and they had both always been trading nations. Portugal had established a strong centralized monarchy under the house of Aviz in the fourteenth century, a century after the completion of the Reconquista . England had established a strong centralized government under the Norman rule of William III and subsequent kings. As for trade, England began trading early with other countries, for example, they sent raw wool to 1 In chapter one I quote Pope Gregory the Great who once said that no one should strive to procure anything beyond what they need right now. This parsimonious view of life is related to the notion that each day brings the Christian one day closer to when the Lord returns and that man should endeavor to build riches in heaven rather than upon this earth. As Jesus asked, “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” Matthew 16:26 2 Flanders as early as the eleventh century. 2 Portugal had also been involved in trade early on, and began trading extensively with England after a ‘perpetual alliance’ between the two nations was signed in 1386.