Name: Elizabeth Saji

Paper: Rise of the Modern West - II

Class: II BA (hons.) History
Semester: IV

RISE OF THE MODERN WEST - II: ASSIGNMENT

Q. Critically examine the seventeenth century crisis in the light of the recent writing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The period of geographical and economical expansion that began in the second half of the
16th century slowly came to an end by the 1600 and 1620 for many regions in Europe. Some
areas experienced decelerated growth; some stagnated, while some others witnessed a steady
decline. During this period the long-distance trade with Asia, Africa and the New World
resulted in the shift of economic centre of Europe from the Mediterranean cities to the
Atlantic coast of north-west Europe. The 16th century was also marked by the price and
commercial revolution. The economy grew at a steady rate, trade activities were at a peak. It
was a period which also saw the growth of certain social groups like the gentry, bourgeoisie
etc. An attempt was made, in this century, to break free from the barriers of medieval
structures and enter into an age of modern economy. However, this was also a period when
the divide between the rich and the poor grew bigger as the rise in prices did not match with
the pace at which wages grew, with absolutist states at helm the taxes rose even higher.
The 17th century, in contrast, was a period that witnessed the reversal of some of the 16 th
century trends. It was a period that witnessed an overall contraction of the European
economy, the commercial and industrial sectors began to lose their drive because of the lack
of support of agriculture. Many parts of Europe experienced uprisings, major conflicts, wars
and breakdown of political structures. Demographically also many parts of Europe showed
decline or stagnation.
All this has led many scholars to conclude that the seventeenth century was a period of crisis
in Europe. The decline of the Mediterranean states has been particularly highlighted by
scholars. However, the north-western region of Europe mainly Holland and England
experienced unrivalled growth and prosperity. Capitalism also started to develop during this
period. In the political sphere we see the coming of up new kind of participatory
governments. There has been a lot of debate among scholars on whether the 17th century was
a period of crisis or not, and if so, what was its nature and extent. Various scholars and
schools of thought have contributed to this debate immensely. According to some scholars
the century was marked by economic, intellectual, cultural as well as socio-political
breakdown. Some historians such as J.H. Elliott, J.I. Israel, Domenico Sella and F.
Braudel emphasize that this period was not one of complete regression, as suggested by E.J.
Hobsbawn, instead only regional decline took place while, some others consider this to be a
period of industrial crisis affecting manufacturing, trade and commerce. The Marxist
historians like Hobsbawn view the seventeenth century decline as the crisis of production.
We shall, as we progress through this essay look at the various interpretations given by the
scholars on the 17th century. But first, we will have a detailed look at the characteristics of
17th century Europe.
The decline of the Iberian and the Italian peninsula has been particularly highlighted in this
period by several scholars. Despite being politically, culturally and socially divided the
Mediterranean region had a certain sense of economic unity. The whole area was stimulated
by trade. The large volume of transactions of currencies and commodities created prosperity
and Venice, Italy was centre of this economy directly operating in the Mediterranean via
intermediaries. The trading networks connected to the Baltic, Northern and Western Europe
and through the Levant ports in the east to the Indian Ocean and northern Africa. Some
Italian cities had become the centre of industries since the mid-fourteenth century and Venice
along with its extended network of trade and fleet of trading vessels became the epicentre of
the world economy.
Similarly, under the united efforts of the crown of Castile and Aragon, Spain rose as a leading
power in the sixteenth century as the importance of Venice waned, the zenith of Spanish
hegemony was reached in the 1580’s. By this time, Spain had under its control Portugal,
several states of Italy, Netherlands, the Philippines and territories in north and central
America. It had become the mightiest military power in Europe and possessed the rich mines
of the new world (one of the major reasons for its economic growth and importance during
this period). Antwerp in southern Netherlands emerged as the economic centre of the world
economy, having replaced Venice. During this time Antwerp was under the Spanish control.
However by the mid-seventeenth century the domination of the Mediterranean states drew to
a close and these powers were pushed outside the main network of world economy, Antwerp
lost its significance to Amsterdam, which many think symbolises the seventeenth century
shift in economic balance from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic.
Italy had been the leading economic power for centuries with trade and manufacturing being
its greatest sources of revenue. The Venetian merchants had held control of the trade in the
Mediterranean. However, in the 17th century we witness the decline of the Italian economy.
Trade declined due to the emergence of new alternative trade routes causing the importance
of routes controlled by Italians to gradually decline, the Italian merchants also lost the
monopoly they had enjoyed for a long time. In addition to that other states started to
introduce better shipping and navigational technology, causing Italy to fall behind. Since
trade was the most important aspect of the Italian economy, its loss had terrible consequences
for the Italian peninsula.
Another major sector of decline was manufacturing. The textile industry in Italy had been on
the top for centuries. However, with the rising popularity of the English, French and Dutch
fabrics the Italian textile goods were ousted from the market. While taking up the case of
textile production most historians agree that the Italian textiles had during the seventeenth
century virtually disappeared from the export market. Flemish wool industry which had been
expanding in the previous century also underwent contraction. Many French textile centres
like Amiens, Reims and Rouen dwindled. However, in Holland and England the textile
industry actually grew, especially with the introduction of ‘draperies’. Leiden, a city in
Holland, emerged as one of the most important centres of industrial production in Europe.
In England the rise of the new draperies led to the domination of the English in the Iberian
and the Mediterranean markets. The success of the textile industry led to an increase in
employment opportunities in England and Holland, while northern Italy, Germany and Spain
had to deal with unemployment of artisans and their socio-economic displacement caused by
the destruction of the textile industry in their respective countries.
The agrarian sector in Italy was never very developed, its revenue was mainly from the
various cities on the peninsula. But when the cities went into decline the landed elites
returned to their lands in the countryside leading to a process of re-feudalisation. Besides, the
demand of agrarian goods was down due to a decline in population, thereby making it
difficult for the sector to expand. Elsewhere in Europe, we can see a agrarian decline which
some scholars call an agrarian crisis. Capitalism first starts in the agrarian sector. Peter
Kriedte talks about similarities between this period and the 14th century crisis. He says there
was a strain on land and technology was still obsolete.
After a period of relative growth of population, the Italian region began to experience a
demographic decline, especially between 1600-1675 CE. In Venice the population declined
from 18,20,000 in 1600 to about 13,40,000 in 1650. In the kingdom of Naples the population
was 30,45,000 in 1600 then it shot down to 28, 13,000 in 1650. Similar trends were seen in
other places like Mantua. However demographic decline was not universal, in some states
like Genoa and Sardinia. Decline in population was not just confined to the Italian peninsula,
all over Europe we can see a decline or stagnation in population growths. Countries like
Spain, Germany and Portugal experience a kind of demographic crisis. However, certain
regions like the Low Countries and England actually experience growth in population.
The declining demographic trends during this period can be attributed to – famines,
epidemics, plagues and wars. These were especially devastating to the urban areas as towns
were more exposed to epidemics owing to the population density and wars caused blockades,
invasions and destruction. The decline in population had a long term repercussions on the
fortunes of these cities, caused de-urbanisation and severely restricted their economic
opportunities. According to Hollen Lees and Hohenberg the rural population grew and the
town’s population shrunk as a consequence of inter-regional changes and de-urbanisation.
There was a loss in overseas possessions of some cities and the social mobility between states
declined as well. Due to continuous warfare massive dislocation occurred in this region.
Northern states in Italy faced political decline as a consequence of the invasions. These
invasions utterly destroyed the economies of the cities and resulted in heavy losses. The
merchant bankers transferred capital from the Italy to the safer regions. Industrial centres like
Como, Brescia, Bologna and Milan were destroyed. According to (Harry) Miskimin
production fell faster than the population. The plague of 1575-57 inflicted a severe blow on
the Venetian economy. Fernand Braudel suggests of ruralisation of the Italian economy as a
result of this demographic crisis. He argues that by the end of the 16 th century wealthy
patricians from cities like Venice abandoned trade and concentrated on farming instead.
According to Braudel the flight to cultivation, from a more risky trade should not be seen as a
sign of decline since Venice remained the busiest port throughout the 17 th century because of
foreign shipping. However his view is not generally shared by most economic historians.
Most of the Spanish economy had expanded in the previous century under the colonial
impetus. Spain’s industries were fed by its overseas colonies. With the liquid flow of gold
and silver from the Americas, the Spanish were able to stay on top of the world economy.
Trade between Spain and her colonies increased during this period and the Spanish navy and
shipping industry also expanded. However, within this vast empire lay the several
weaknesses of the Spanish which eventually led to its demise, these weak points manifested
themselves once the period of Spanish glory had ended. Carlo M. Cipolla believes that
Spain’s decline in the 17th century was due to the fundamental fact that Spain was never
really developed to begin with. Poverty was still widespread even after the economic boom as
they did not exert themselves to grow. From the 1620’s the volume of the Spanish imports
started to decline. Earl J. Hamilton suggests that the inflow of liquid assets created a love
for luxury and extravagance, an aggressive foreign policy and contempt for manual arts. Due
to the liquid flow of currency the purchasing power of Spaniards increased but this ultimately
led to the growth of other economies like Holland, France and England that would eventually
eliminate Spain as a major economy. The decline in the influx of silver and gold from the
Americas was mainly because of diminishing production and partly because the colonies
were increasingly becoming independent of the Spanish control.
This was a period of political unrest in most parts of Europe with wars and revolts being a
very common occurrence. Given the intensity of the conflicts that occurred, the revolts of this
period are very different from the previous periods. We also see the manifestation of truly
international conflicts.
As mentioned earlier, there are many different interpretations to the characteristics of 17 th
century Europe. The debates amongst the historians are regarding the nature of the crisis, the
concept of the crisis itself and the time period of the crisis.
From contemporary records we get a sense that the period was viewed as one of turbulence
with terms like, “times of troubles” and “days of universal shaking.” Voltaire, writing in the
1740’s propounded the existence of a crisis. He argued of not a pan-European, rather a world-
wide period of crisis. He linked the decline in Europe to the demise of other powers like the
Mughals, Ottomans and the Mings. Geoffrey Parker says that Voltaire was the first one to
give a world dimension to the idea of the crisis.
Among modern historians it was Paul Hazard who first talked of the crisis in his work,
“Crisis of the European Mind.” He saw the period as a time of fundamental change. R.
Mounier characterized the period between 1598 and 1715 as a ‘century of crisis.’ He talked
of a crisis in demography, polity, diplomacy, climate and ecology.
But the debate took off only with Marxist writer EJ Hobsbawm’s article “The Crisis of the
Seventeenth Century.” He postulated the existence of a general crisis. He argued, unlike most
historians before him, that the crisis was not political in nature, rather it was an economic
crisis. He argued that it was actually a crisis in the European mode of production. For
Hobsbawm the revolts and rebellions and other 17th century upheavals were the last phase of
transition to capitalism. He believes that the capitalism which developed in the 16 th century
was still within the feudal framework. He said this period was feudal since, feudal ties were
still very much prevalent, there was no mass production for the market, the economy was yet
to be fully monetised, there was no specialisation of labour and certain bottlenecks like
stagnant technological growth kept the economy trapped within a rural setup. However, in
17th century capitalism expanded further and it could not be any longer contained within the
feudal matrix. The attempt to break free from this system was manifested as the crisis of the
17th century.
For him, it was a major crisis in the European economy and it marked a decisive shift from a
feudal to a capitalist order. The economic manifestation of the crisis can be seen in the rapid
industrial decline experienced by Mediterranean, France and Germany. This was true of
many other regions too. Hobsbawm argues that England and Holland had already bypassed
the crisis and therefore were able to grow and prosper. He argues that commerce in Europe
was on a decline, commercial centres in the Mediterranean and the Baltic declined as the
problems in the 17th century affected the economic activities of these areas. According to
Hobsbawm, even England and Holland, during this period, do not see a growth in commerce
– there are no new colonies and the volume of international trade declined. Hobsbawm
believes that the leading group behind the crisis were the bourgeoisie and he assigns the time
period 1620’s – 1680’s to the crisis.
Hobsbawm’s views are not accepted by all Marxists, his leading critic is Hugh Trevor-
Roper. EJ Hobsbawm’s interpretation is contested by several other scholars on many
grounds. Some say that his views are very Anglo-centric. He is also criticised on his belief
that the bourgeoisie was the leading group behind the crisis but in fact the bourgeoisie was
not a developed group during this period. He is also criticised for his apparent ignorance of
the role of politics and state and the factors that he calls bottleneck were present in the 17 th
century as well.
Trevor-Roper agrees with Hobsbawm on two counts:
i. There was a general crisis
ii. There were similarities between various regions.
However he doesn’t agree with EJ Hobsbawm’s explanation. Roper argues that it was a crisis
between the society and state of the time, therefore he does not stress on an economic crisis
unlike Hobsbawm. Roper studied the various regions in Europe and concluded that the crisis
was due to internal or structural flaws within the European monarchy and not because of
external factors. The universality of political disturbances lead him to believe that there was
some serious structural flaw in European monarchies. Roper bases his arguments on the
English revolution and says that a breakdown happened due to the bureaucratic and
paraceutical nature of European states at the time. The old tensions between the crown and
nobility surfaced and for him the nobility were the leading group behind the crisis. He
proposes the time period to be 1640’s – 1660’s. Roper argues that the state was growing
autocratic, too extensive and wasteful. The society hated the lavish and wasteful court.
According to him the English monarchy was the most autocratic and out of touch resulting in
the big rebellions – the English revolution.
Trevor Roper’s view have also been criticised especially by R. Mounier and JH Elliot. They
say that firstly, Roper does not define what he means by state and does not differentiate
between the levels of bureaucracy. Mounier counters that the crisis was not really between
the state and the society and rather it was a crisis within the state i.e. the emerging elite and
old elite. JH Elliot argues that the crisis was due to the policies of the state (which according
to Elliot were the result of other factors like war and declining economy) and not because of
the nature or character of the state.
The Annales school views the 17th century in terms of long term trends in the spheres of:
climate, demography and price. Prominent scholars from this school who propose this are –
Marc Bloch, Lucien Febvre and Fernand Braudel.
G Parker argues that the 17th century crisis was not monocausal at all i.e. it was a
combination of factors that contributed to the crisis. He argues that one should look at the
changes during the period in totality and that the role of climate cannot be denied. This was
the period of the ‘little ice age.’ There is evidence for an overall fall of one degree in
temperatures. This restricted the growing season for plants by three-four weeks and reduced
the maximum altitude for cultivation by about 500 feet. With the expansion of population in
the 16th century and the decline in productivity, it became hard to produce enough for the
population to survive. Diminished food reserves led to overpopulation and introduced an
array of diseases. There were only three options lefts for people – migration, death and revolt.
Writers like Marc Bloch and Ladurie postulate that Europe was undergoing a subsistence
crisis during 1555-1665 lowland England might have been an exception to this. In mid-17 th
century there were 3 famines in 1643-4, 1649-50 and in 1652-3these harvest failings were
recorded throughout Europe and were accompanied by industrial and commercial paralysis
since there was a sharp rise in food prices resulting in fall in the demand for manufactured
goods which ultimately resulted in widespread unemployment. To add on to the harvest
failures and trade regression, there was a sudden increase in taxes as well in most parts. In
such a situation common reaction was rebellion.
On the other end of the spectrum there are writer who do not believe in that there was a crisis
at all. They do not see the importance in the developments of the the 17th century.
In conclusion, the concept of a general crisis has now been largely given up, but the crisis of
the 17th century was characterized by a series of war, revolts, decline of population and
political and social changes. But the link between these various events remains tenous and
unproven. But one thing that most scholars agree upon is that the 17th century did witness a
slowdown in growth unlike the previous century.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Bibliography:
1. Geoffrey Parker and Leslie M Smith – The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century
2. Arvind Sinha – Europe in Transition: from Feudalism to Industrialization
3. Peter Kriedte – Peasants, Landlords and Merchant Capitalists: Europe and the World
Economy 1500 – 1800
4. DU Virtual Learning Environment (vle.du.ac.in)
5. Class notes