BHIC 106: Rise of Modern West-1

(TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENT)

Course code: BHIC-106

Assignment Code: BHIC-106/ASST/TMA/2021-22
Marks: 100

Note: There are three Sections in the Assignment. You have to answer all questions in
the Sections.

Assignment - I

Answer the following in about 500 words each.

!. Discuss Maurice Dobb’s and Guy Bois’s views on the debate on

transition from feudalism to capitalism.
20
2
2co.lTohneizG
atrieoant.Diiscuosvse.ries of the fifteenth century were a part of European exploration and
20

Assignment - II

Answer the following questions in about 250 words each.

3. Comment on the nature of early plantation economies.

10
4. Discuss the nature of rise in prices in the early modern Europe.

5. Comment on the nature of impact Reformation had on early modern Europe.

10

10

Assignment - III

Answer the following questions in about 100 words each.

6. Renaissance 6
7. The print culture in early modern Europe 6
8. Paul Sweezy on trade and decline of feudalism 6
9. The concept of “calling” in the early modern Europe 6
10. Features of Western Absolutism 6

3
 ASSIGNMENT SOLUTIONS GUIDE (2020-2021)
BHIC-106: Rise of Modern West-1
Disclaimer/Special Note: These are just the sample of the Answers/Solutions to some of the Questions
given in the Assignments. These Sample Answers/Solutions are prepared by Private
Teacher/Tutors/Authors for the help and guidance of the student to get an idea of how he/she can
answer the Questions given the Assignments. We do not claim 100% accuracy of these sample
answers as these are based on the knowledge and capability of Private Teacher/Tutor. Sample
answers may be seen as the Guide/Help for the reference to prepare the answers of the Questions
given in the assignment. As these solutions and answers are prepared by the private teacher/tutor so
the chances of error or mistake cannot be denied. Any Omission or Error is highly regretted though
every care has been taken while preparing these Sample Answers/Solutions. Please consult your own
Teacher/Tutor before you prepare a Particular Answer and for up-to-date and exact information, data
and solution. Student should must read and refer the official study material provided by the
university.

Assignment - I
Answer the following in about 500 words each.
Q1. Discuss Maurice Dobb’s and Guy Bois’s views on the debate on transition from feudalism to
capitalism.
Ans. The Brenner debate was a major debate amongst Marxist historians during the late 1970s and
early 1980s, regarding the origins of capitalism.
It began with a 1976 journal article by Robert Brenner.
Historians Trevor Aston and C. H. E. Philpin (1985) characterised the debate as 'one of the most
important historical debates of recent years'.
Background: The debate has been seen as a successor to the so-called "transition debate" (or Dobb-
Sweezy debate) that followed Maurice Dobb's 1946 Studies in the Development of Capitalism, and Paul
Sweezy's 1950 article "The Transition From Feudalism To Capitalism"), in the journal Science & Society.
(These articles were subsequently collected and published as a book, also entitled The Transition from
Feudalism to Capitalism, in 1976. It began with Brenner's 1976 article "Agrarian Class Structure and
Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe", in the influential historical journal Past & Present.
The debate: Brenner's thesis was the focus of a symposium in around 1977, several contributions to
which also appeared in the pages of Past & Present. Brenner's article and the discussions that followed
it have a broad significance for understanding the origins of capitalism, and were foundational to so-
called "Political Marxism".
In 1978, Michael Postan and John Hatcher characterised the debate as attempting to determine
whether Malthusian cyclic explanations of population and development or social class explanations
governed demographic and economic change in Europe. The debate challenged the prevalent views
of regarding class relations in the economy of England in the Middle Ages in particular – and
agricultural societies with serfdom in general, as well as engaging the broader historiography of the
economics of feudalism from the 20th century (in both the west and the Soviet Union).
Even though Brenner's key ideas have not achieved consensus, the debate has remained influential in
21st century scholarship,
In the view of Shami Ghosh, Brenner's thesis proposed an explanatory framework for the evolution of
what he called "agrarian capitalism", in England, during the 15th and 16th centuries.
[A] transformation of relationships between landlords and cultivators led to the creation of a largely
free and competitive market in land and labour, while simultaneously dispossessing most of the

1
peasants. Thus from the old class divisions of owners of land on the one hand, and an unfree
peasantry with customary rights of use to land on the other, a new tripartite structure came into
being, comprising landlords, free tenant farmers on relatively short-term market-determined leases
and wage labourers; this Brenner defines as ‘agrarian capitalism’. Wage labourers were completely
market-dependent – a rural proletariat – and tenant farmers had to compete on the land market in
order to retain their access to land. This last fact was the principal motor of innovation leading to a
rise in productivity, which, coupled with the growth of a now-free labour market, was essential for
the development of modern (industrial) capitalism. Thus the transformations of agrarian class
structures lay at the root of the development of capitalism in England.[
Publication: Brenner's original article, and the symposium on it, led to a series of publications in Past
& Present:
• Brenner, Robert (1976). ‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-
Industrial Europe,’ Past & Present, 70, February, pp. 30–75.
• Postan, M. M. & John Hatcher (1978). ‘Population and Class Relations in Feudal Society,’ Past
& Present, 78, February, pp. 24–37.
• Croot, Patricia & David Parker (1978). ‘Agrarian Class Structure and the Development of
Capitalism: France and England Compared,’ Past & Present, 78, February, pp. 37–47
• Wunder, Heide (1978). ‘Peasant Organization and Class Conflict in Eastern and Western
Germany,’ Past & Present, 78, February, pp. 48–55.
• Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel (1978). ‘A Reply to Robert Brenner,’ Past & Present, 79, May,
pp. 55–59
• Bois, Guy (1978). ‘Against the Neo-Malthusian Orthodoxy,’ Past & Present, 79, May, pp. 60–69
• Hilton, R. H. (1978). ‘A Crisis of Feudalism,’ Past & Present, 80, August, 3-19
• Cooper, J. P. (1978). ‘In Search of Agrarian Capitalism,’ Past & Present, 80, August, pp. 20–65
• Klíma, Arnošt (1979). ‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial
Bohemia,’ Past & Present, 85, November, pp. 49–67
• Brenner, Robert (1982). ‘The Agrarian Roots of European Capitalism,’ Past & Present, 97
November, pp. 16–113
These studies were republished with some additional material in The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class
Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe, ed. by Trevor Aston and C.H.E. Philpin,
Past and Present Publications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), ISBN 0521268176,
which was to be reprinted many times.
A related and parallel debate also took place in the pages of the New Left Review:
• Brenner, Robert (1977). ‘The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian
Marxism‘, New Left Review, I/104, July–August pp. 25–92.
• Sweezy, Paul (1978). ‘Comment on Brenner,’ New Left Review, I/108, March–April, pp. 94–5
• Brenner, Robert (1978). ‘Reply to Sweezy,’ New Left Review, I/108, March–April, pp. 95–6
• Fine, Ben (1978). ‘On the Origins of Capitalist Development,’ New Left Review, I/109, May–
June, pp. 88–95
As of 2016, Brenner's most recent statements of his ideas, making some small modifications to his
earlier claims, were:
• Brenner, R., 1985. ‘The Social Basis of Economic Development’. In Analytical Marxism, ed. J.
Roemer, 25–53. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Brenner, R., 2001. ‘The Low Countries in the Transition to Capitalism’. Journal of Agrarian
Change, 1: 169–241.
• Brenner, R., 2007. ‘Property and Progress: Where Adam Smith Went Wrong’. In Marxist
History-Writing for the Twenty-First Century, ed. C. Wickham, 49–111. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

2
Q2. The great discoveries of the fifteenth century were a part of European exploration and
colonialization. Discuss.
Ans. In the 100 years from the mid-15th to the mid-16th century, a combination of circumstances
stimulated men to seek new routes, and it was new routes rather than new lands that filled the minds
of kings and commoners, scholars and seamen. First, toward the end of the 14th century, the
vast empire of the Mongols was breaking up; thus, Western merchants could no longer be assured of
safe-conduct along the land routes. Second, the Ottoman Turks and the Venetians controlled
commercial access to the Mediterranean and the ancient sea routes from the East. Third, new nations
on the Atlantic shores of Europe were now ready to seek overseas trade and adventure.
The sea route east by south to Cathay: Henry the Navigator, prince of Portugal, initiated the first
great enterprise of the Age of Discovery—the search for a sea route east by south to Cathay. His
motives were mixed. He was curious about the world; he was interested in new navigational aids and
better ship design and was eager to test them; he was also a Crusader and hoped that, by sailing
south and then east along the coast of Africa, Arab power in North Africa could be attacked from the
rear. The promotion of profitable trade was yet another motive; he aimed to divert the Guinea trade
in gold and ivory away from its routes across the Sahara to the Moors of Barbary (North Africa) and
instead channel it via the sea route to Portugal.
Expedition after expedition was sent forth throughout the 15th century to explore the coast of Africa.
In 1445 the Portuguese navigator Dinís Dias reached the mouth of the Sénégal, which “men say comes
from the Nile, being one of the most glorious rivers of Earth, flowing from the Garden of Eden and
the earthly paradise.” Once the desert coast had been passed, the sailors pushed on: in 1455 and
1456 Alvise Ca’ da Mosto made voyages to Gambia and the Cape Verde Islands. Prince Henry died in
1460 after a career that had brought the colonization of the Madeira Islands and the Azores and the
traversal of the African coast to Sierra Leone. Henry’s captain, Diogo Cão, discovered the Congo
River in 1482. All seemed promising; trade was good with the riverine peoples, and the coast was
trending hopefully eastward. Then the disappointing fact was realized: the head of a great gulf had
been reached, and, beyond, the coast seemed to stretch endlessly southward. Yet,
when Columbus sought backing for his plan to sail westward across the Atlantic to the Indies, he was
refused—“seeing that King John II [of Portugal] ordered the coast of Africa to be explored with the
intention of going by that route to India.”
King John II sought to establish two routes: the first, a land and sea route through Egypt and Ethiopia
to the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean and, the second, a sea route around the southern shores of
Africa, the latter an act of faith, since Ptolemy’s map showed a landlocked Indian Ocean. In 1487, a
Portuguese emissary, Pêro da Covilhã, successfully followed the first route; but, on returning
to Cairo, he reported that, in order to travel to India, the Portuguese “could navigate by their coasts
and the seas of Guinea.” In the same year, another Portuguese navigator, Bartolomeu Dias, found
encouraging evidence that this was so. In 1487 he rounded the Cape of Storms in such bad weather
that he did not see it, but he satisfied himself that the coast was now trending northeastward; before
turning back, he reached the Great Fish River, in what is now South Africa. On the return voyage, he
sighted the Cape and set up a pillar upon it to mark its discovery.
The seaway was now open, but eight years were to elapse before it was exploited. In 1492 Columbus
had apparently reached the East by a much easier route. By the end of the decade, however, doubts of
the validity of Columbus’s claim were current. Interest was therefore renewed in establishing the sea
route south by east to the known riches of India. In 1497 a Portuguese captain, Vasco da Gama, sailed
in command of a fleet under instructions to reach Calicut (Kozhikode), on India’s west coast. This he
did after a magnificent voyage around the Cape of Storms (which he renamed the Cape of Good
Hope) and along the unknown coast of East Africa. Yet another Portuguese fleet set out in 1500, this
one being under the command of Pedro Álvarez Cabral; on the advice of da Gama, Cabral steered
southwestward to avoid the calms of the Guinea coast; thus, en route for Calicut, Brazil was
discovered. Soon trading depots, known as factories, were built along the African coast, at the
strategic entrances to the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, and along the shores of the Indian peninsula.

3
In 1511 the Portuguese established a base at Malacca (now Melaka, Malaysia), commanding the straits
into the China Sea; in 1511 and 1512, the Moluccas, or Spice Islands, and Java were reached; in 1557
the trading port of Macau was founded at the mouth of the Canton River. Europe had arrived in the
East. It was in the end the Portuguese, not the Turks, who destroyed the commercial supremacy of
the Italian cities, which had been based on a monopoly of Europe’s trade with the East by land. But
Portugal was soon overextended; it was therefore the Dutch, the English, and the French who in the
long run reaped the harvest of Portuguese enterprise.
Some idea of the knowledge that these trading explorers brought to the common store may be gained
by a study of contemporary maps. The map of the German Henricus Martellus, published in 1492,
shows the shores of North Africa and of the Gulf of Guinea more or less correctly and was probably
taken from numerous seamen’s charts. The delineation of the west coast of southern Africa from the
Guinea Gulf to the Cape suggests a knowledge of the charts of the expedition of Bartolomeu Dias. The
coastlines of the Indian Ocean are largely Ptolemaic with two exceptions: first, the Indian Ocean is no
longer landlocked; and second, the Malay Peninsula is shown twice—once according to Ptolemy and
once again, presumably, according to Marco Polo. The Contarini map of 1506 shows further advances;
the shape of Africa is generally accurate, and there is new knowledge of the Indian Ocean, although it
is curiously treated. Peninsular India (on which Cananor and Calicut are named) is shown; although
too small, it is, however, recognizable. There is even an indication to the east of it of the Bay of Bengal,
with a great river running into it. Eastward of this is Ptolemy’s India, with the huge island of
Taprobane—a muddled representation of the Indian peninsula and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). East
again, as on the map of Henricus Martellus, the Malay Peninsula appears twice. Ptolemy’s bonds
were hard to break.
The sea route west to Cathay: It is not known when the idea originated of sailing westward in order
to reach Cathay. Many sailors set forth searching for islands in the west; and it was a commonplace
among scientists that the east could be reached by sailing west, but to believe this a practicable
voyage was an entirely different matter. Christopher Columbus, a Genoese who had settled in Lisbon
about 1476, argued that Cipango lay a mere 2,500 nautical miles west of the Canary Islands in the
eastern Atlantic. He took 45 instead of 60 nautical miles as the value of a degree; he accepted
Ptolemy’s exaggerated west–east extent of Asia and then added to it the lands described by Marco
Polo, thus reducing the true distance between the Canaries and Cipango by about one-third. He could
not convince the Portuguese scientists nor the merchants of Lisbon that his idea was worth backing;
but eventually he obtained the support of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain.
The sovereigns probably argued that the cost of equipping the expedition would not be very great;
the loss, if it failed, could be borne; the gain, should it succeed, was incalculable—indeed, it might
divert to Spain all the wealth of Asia.
On August 3, 1492, Columbus sailed from Palos, Spain, with three small ships manned by Spaniards.
From the Canaries he sailed westward, for, on the evidence of the globes and maps in which he had
faith, Japan was on the same latitude. If Japan should be missed, Columbus thought that the route
adopted would land him, only a little further on, on the coast of China itself. Fair winds favoured
him, the sea was calm, and, on October 12, landfall was made on the Bahama island of Guanahaní,
which he renamed San Salvador (also called Watling Island, though Samana Cay and other islands
have been identified as Guanahaní). With the help of the local Indians, the ships reached Cuba and
then Haiti. Although there was no sign of the wealth of the lands of Kublai Khan, Columbus
nevertheless seemed convinced that he had reached China, since, according to his reckoning, he was
beyond Japan. A second voyage in 1493 and 1494, searching fruitlessly for the court of Kublai Khan,
further explored the islands of “the Indies.” Doubts seem to have arisen among the would-be
colonists as to the identity of the islands since Columbus demanded that all take an oath that Cuba
was the southeast promontory of Asia—the Golden Chersonese. On his third voyage, in 1498,
Columbus sighted Trinidad, entered the Gulf of Paria, on the coast of what is now Venezuela, and
annexed for Spain “a very great continent…until today unknown.” On a fourth voyage, from 1502 to
1504, he explored the coast of Central America from Honduras to Darien on the Isthmus of Panama,

4
seeking a navigable passage to the west. What passage he had in mind is obscure; if at this point he
still believed he had reached Asia, it is conceivable that he sought a way through Ptolemy’s Golden
Chersonese into the Indian Ocean.
Columbus’s tenacity, courage, and skill in navigation make him stand out among the few explorers
who have changed substantially ideas about the world. At the time, however, his efforts must have
seemed ill-rewarded: he found no emperor’s court rich in spices, silks, gold, or precious stones but
had to contend with mutinous sailors, dissident colonists, and disappointed sovereigns. He died
at Valladolid in 1506. Did he believe to the end that he indeed had reached Cathay, or did he,
however dimly, perceive that he had found a New World?
Whatever Columbus thought, it was clear to others that there was much to be investigated, and
probably much to be gained, by exploration westward. Not only in Lisbon and Cádiz but also in other
Atlantic ports, groups of men congregated in hopes of joining in the search. In England, Bristol, with
its western outlook and Icelandic trade, was the port best placed to nurture adventurous seamen. In
the latter part of the 15th century, John Cabot, with his wife and three sons, came to Bristol
from Genoa or Venice. His project to sail west gained support, and with one small ship, the Matthew,
he set out in May 1497, taking a course due west from Dursey Head, Ireland. His landfall on the other
side of the ocean was probably on the northern peninsula of what is now known as Newfoundland.
From there, Cabot explored southward, perhaps encouraged to do so, even if seeking a westward
passage, by ice in the Strait of Belle Isle. Little is known of John Cabot’s first voyage, and almost
nothing of his second, in 1498, from which he did not return, but his voyages in high latitudes
represented almost as great a navigational feat as those of Columbus.
The coasts between the landfalls of Columbus and of John Cabot were charted in the first quarter of
the 16th century by Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese sailors. Sebastian Cabot, son of John,
gained a great reputation as a navigator and promoter of Atlantic exploration, but whether this was
based primarily on his own experience or on the achievements of his father is uncertain. In
1499 Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian merchant living in Sevilla (Seville), together with the Spanish
explorer Alonso de Ojeda, explored the north coast of South America from Suriname to the Golfo de
Venezuela. His lively and embellished description of these lands became popular,
and Waldseemüller, on his map of 1507, gave the name America to the southern part of the continent.

Assignment - II
Answer the following questions in about 250 words each.
Q3. Comment on the nature of early plantation economies.
Ans. A plantation economy is an economy based on agricultural mass production, usually of a
few commodity crops grown on large farms called plantations. Plantation economies rely on
the export of cash crops as a source of income. Prominent crops included cotton, rubber, sugar
cane, tobacco, figs, rice, kapok, sisal, and species in the genus Indigofera, used to produce indigo dye.
The longer a crop's harvest period, the more efficient plantations become. Economies of scale are also
achieved when the distance to market is long. Plantation crops usually need processing immediately
after harvesting. Sugarcane, tea, sisal, and palm oil are most suited to plantations, while coconuts,
rubber, and cotton are suitable to a lesser extent.
Conditions for formation: Plantation economies are factory-like, industrialised and centralised forms
of agriculture, owned by large corporations or affluent owners. Under normal circumstances,
plantation economies are not as efficient as small farm holdings, since there is immense difficulty in
proper supervision of labour over a large land area. However, when there are large distances between
the plantations and their markets, processing to reduce the bulk of the crop greatly lowers shipping
costs. Hence, large plantations which produce large quantities of the good are able to achieve
economies of scale from these expensive processing machinery, as the per unit cost of processing is
greatly diminished. This economy of scale can be achieved best with tropical crops that are harvested
continuously through the year, fully utilising the processing machinery. Examples of crops that are
suitable to be processed are sugar, sisal, palm oil, and tea.

5
North American plantations: In the Thirteen Colonies, plantations were concentrated in the South.
These colonies included Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. They had
good soil and long growing seasons, ideal for crops such as rice and tobacco. The existence of
many waterways in the region made transportation easier. Each colony specialized in one or two
crops, with Virginia standing out in tobacco production[3]
Slavery: Planters embraced the use of slaves mainly because indentured labor became expensive.
Some indentured servants were also leaving to start their own farms as land was widely available.
Colonists tried to use Native Americans for labor, but they were susceptible to European diseases
and died in large numbers. The plantation owners then turned to enslaved Africans for labor. In 1665,
there were fewer than 500 Africans in Virginia but by 1750, 85 percent of the 235,000 slaves lived in
the Southern colonies, Virginia included. Africans made up 40 percent of the South’s population.[4]
According to the 1840 United States Census, one out of every four families in Virginia owned slaves.
There were over 100 plantation owners who owned over 100 slaves.[5] The number of slaves in the 15
States was just shy of 4 million in a total population 12.4 million and the percentage was 32% of the
population.
• Number of slaves in the Lower South: 2,312,352 (47% of total population) 4,919 million.
• Number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208,758 (29% of total population) 4,165 million.
• Number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population) 3,323 million.
Fewer than one-third of Southern families owned slaves at the peak of slavery prior to the Civil War.
In Mississippi and South Carolina the figure approached one half. The total number of slave owners
was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free African Americans), amounting to approximately
3.8% of the Southern and Border states population.
On a plantation with more than 100 slaves, the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital
value of the land and farming implements. The first plantations occurred in the Caribbean islands,
particularly, in the West Indies on the island of Hispaniola, where it was initiated by the Spaniards in
the early 16th century. The plantation system was based on slave labor and it was marked by
inhumane methods of exploitation. After being established in the Caribbean islands, the plantation
system spread during the 16th,17th and 18th century to Mexico, Brazil, Britain’s southern Atlantic
colonies in North America and Indonesia. All the plantation system had a form of slavery in its
establishment, slaves were initially forced to be labors to the plantation system, these slaves were
primarily native Indians, but the system was later extended to include slaves shipped from Africa.
Indeed, the progress of the plantation system was accompanied by the rapid growth of the slave
trade. The plantation system peaked in the first half of the 18th century, but later on, during the
middle of 19th century, there was a significant increase in demand for cotton from European
countries, which means there was a need for expanding the plantation in the southern parts of United
States. This made the plantation system reach a profound crisis, until it was changed from being
forcing slave labour to being mainly low-paid wage labors who contained a smaller proportion of
forced labour. The monopolies were insured high profits from the sale of plantation products by
having cheap labours, forced recruitment, peonage and debt servitude.

Q4. Discuss the nature of rise in prices in the early modern Europe.
Ans. During the 16th century we observe a steady price increase in all European countries: at the end
of the century prices were three to four times higher than at the beginning of the century. This
amounts to an annual inflation rate in the range of 1% to 1.5% which looks small given the
inflationary experience of the 20th century. Indeed this inflation rate is close to the target inflation rate
of price stability oriented central banks of today. However, given the fact that the monetary regime of
the 16th century was a metallic standard mainly based on silver this secular inflation is remarkable as
such a monetary regime has an intrinsic price level stabilization property: rising commodity prices
lead to a fall in the purchasing power of the monetary metal and correspondingly less incentive to
mine it and more incentive to use it for non-monetary purposes. This endogenous adjustment of the
money supply leads to long run stability of the price level even if permanent shifts in money demand

6
occur over time. Therefore long run inflation can only be explained either by debasement of coins or
by shifts in the supply of the monetary metal: a permanent ceteris paribus increase in the productivity
of mining the monetary metal leads to a fall of its relative price which is accomplished by rising prices
for the other commodities. This process only comes to an end if the purchasing power of the
monetary metal is equal to its production costs.
Therefore, the obvious candidate for the great price revolution from the economic viewpoint is the
discovery of new silver and gold deposits and the productivity increase in the silver mining industry
in the 16th century. This process started in Central Europe around the beginning of the century.
According to an estimation by North (1994, p. 74) central European silver output doubled between
1470 and 1520 and increased further in the 1520s with the new mine of Joachimsthal. In the 1530s,
however, it declined sharply. Between 1492 and 1550 a substantial amount of gold, looted in the New
World was brought to Europe by the Spanish and Portuguese. From the 1540s a rising supply of silver
was shipped to Europe from the newly discovered mines in Mexico and Peru, where the silver
mountain of Potosi was discovered in 1545. The output of the Potosi mine rose strongly in the 1560s
after mercury deposits had been discovered in the Andes. Mercury was necessary to process the
silver. According to Hamilton (1934) the total imports of treasure (gold and silver) from the New
World during the 16th century amounted to 206.6 million pesos, of which only about 15 % were
imported before 1555 (Figure 1.1). A peso had a silver content of 18.95 g. Thus, the total amount
corresponded to about 3915 metric tons of silver. But as Kindleberger mentions: “It is generally
recognized that Hamilton's estimates understate imports for the early years of the seventeenth
century, because he counted only those imports recorded by the official Casa de Contratacion in
Seville. Dutch and English East India ships directly in Cadiz, downstream from Seville. In addition,
considerable amounts of silver went from Peru to Acapulco in Mexico between 1573 and 1815, and
from thence to the Philippines ...” (1998, p.3). The same should also hold for the second half of the
16th century, though to a lesser degree.
The “monetary” view of the price revolution is questioned by historians who attribute the secular
increase of commodity prices to population and income growth as well as urbanization and wars (see,
e.g. Outhwaite 1969 and North 1990). Thus it is argued that the rise of prices began well before the
arrival of gold and silver from the New World. But as has already been mentioned the production of
silver grew substantially in Central Europe at least since the beginning of the century, and quite
substantial amounts of gold were imported during its first half. Further, the critics argue that their
hypothesis that the rise of the price level was a consequence of population and income growth is
supported because the prices of victuals rose more than that of other goods and wages (see e.g. Figure
2.1). But with this argument only the change of relative prices can be explained. The critics' view is
based on a misinterpretation of Irving Fisher’s equation of exchange, as has been clearly outlined by
Flinn(1984). In fact most of the causes mentioned lead to an increase in money demand and therefore
to short to medium deflationary pressure with a tendency for long run price stability. For instance, if
the population is growing with the same real per capita income, the demand for money will increase.
For with an unchanged money supply a pressure on the general price level will result, though it is
possible that the prices for some foodstuffs, notably grain may rise even in absolute terms.
Nevertheless, together with strong fluctuations in harvests these money demand shifts, though they
cannot explain the rising price level, may be important for the considerable variability of price
changes we observe during the 16th century.
This paper provides an empirical analysis of the relative importance of money demand and supply
shocks using price data for Old Castile and Leon and New Castile over the 16th century. To this end
we apply the Structural Vectorautoregression model (SVAR) which allows us to identify a permanent
(money supply caused) and transitory (money demand caused) component of the price level.

Q5. Comment on the nature of impact Reformation had on early modern Europe.
Ans. The Protestant Reformation was a reform-oriented schism from the Roman Catholic
Church initiated by Martin Luther and continued by John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, and other

7
early Protestant Reformers. It is typically dated from 1517, lasting until the end of the Thirty Years'
War (1618-1648) with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. It was launched on 31 October 1517 by Martin
Luther, who posted his 95 Theses criticizing the practice of indulgences to the door of the Castle
Church in Wittenberg, Germany, commonly used to post notices to the University community. It was
very widely publicized across Europe and caught fire. Luther began by criticizing the sale
of indulgences, insisting that the Pope had no authority over purgatory and that the Catholic doctrine
of the merits of the saints had no foundation in the gospel. The Protestant position, however, would
come to incorporate doctrinal changes such as sola scriptura and sola fide.
The Reformation ended in division and the establishment of new church movements. The four most
important traditions to emerge directly from the Reformation were Lutheranism, the Reformed (also
called Calvinist or Presbyterian) tradition, Anglicanism, and the Anabaptists. Subsequent Protestant
churches generally trace their roots back to these initial four schools of the Reformation. It also led to
the Catholic or Counter Reformation within the Roman Catholic Church through a variety of new
spiritual movements, reforms of religious communities, the founding of seminaries, the clarification
of Catholic theology as well as structural changes in the institution of the Church.[1]
The largest Protestant groups were the Lutherans and Calvinists. Lutheran churches were founded
mostly in Germany, the Baltics and Scandinavia, while the Reformed ones were founded in
Switzerland, Hungary, France, the Netherlands and Scotland.
The initial movement within Germany diversified, and other reform impulses arose independently of
Luther. The availability of the printing press provided the means for the rapid dissemination of
religious materials in the vernacular. The core motivation behind the Reformation was theological,
though many other factors played a part, including the rise of nationalism, the Western Schism that
eroded faith in the Papacy, the perceived corruption of the Roman Curia, the impact of humanism,
and the new learning of the Renaissance that questioned much traditional thought.
There were also reformation movements throughout continental Europe known as the Radical
Reformation, which gave rise to the Anabaptist, Moravian and other Pietistic movements.
The Roman Catholic Church responded with a Counter-Reformation initiated by the Council of Trent.
Much work in battling Protestantism was done by the well-organised new order of the Jesuits. In
general, Northern Europe, with the exception of most of Ireland, came under the influence of
Protestantism. Southern Europe remained Roman Catholic, while Central Europe was a site of a fierce
conflict, culminating in the Thirty Years' War, which left it devastated.
Church of England: The Reformation reshaped the Church of England decisively after 1547. The
separation of the Church of England (or Anglican Church) from Rome under Henry VIII, beginning in
1529 and completed in 1537, brought England alongside this broad Reformation movement; however,
religious changes in the English national church proceeded more conservatively than elsewhere in
Europe. Reformers in the Church of England alternated, for decades, between sympathies for ancient
Catholic tradition and more Reformed principles, gradually developing, within the context of
robustly Protestant doctrine, a tradition considered a middle way (via media) between the Roman
Catholic and Protestant traditions.
Consequences of the Protestant Reformation: The following outcomes of the Protestant Reformation
regarding human capital formation, the Protestant ethic, economic development, governance, and
"dark" outcomes have been identified by scholars.
Historiography: Margaret C. Jacob argues that there has been a dramatic shift in the historiography of
the Reformation. Until the 1960s, historians focused their attention largely on the great leaders and
also the theologians of the 16th century, especially Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. Their ideas were
studied in depth. However, the rise of the new social history in the 1960s look at history from the
bottom up, not from the top down. Historians began to concentrate on the values, beliefs and
behavior of the people at large. She finds, "in contemporary scholarship, the Reformation was then
seen as a vast cultural upheaval, a social and popular movement and textured and rich because of its
diversity."

8
Age of Enlightenment: The Age of Enlightenment refers to the 18th century in European philosophy,
and is often thought of as part of a period which includes the Age of Reason. The term also more
specifically refers to a historical intellectual movement, The Enlightenment. This movement
advocated rationality as a means to establish an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, and logic.
The intellectual leaders of this movement regarded themselves as a courageous elite, and regarded
their purpose as one of leading the world toward progress and out of a long period of
doubtful tradition, full of irrationality, superstition, and tyranny, which they believed began during a
historical period they called the Dark Ages. This movement also provided a framework for
the American and French Revolutions, the Latin American independence movement, and the Polish–
Lithuanian Commonwealth Constitution of May 3, and also led to the rise of liberalism and the birth
of socialism and communism. It is matched by the high baroque and classical eras in music, and
the neo-classical period in the arts, and receives contemporary application in the unity of science
movement which includes logical positivism.

Assignment - III
Answer the following questions in about 100 words each.
Q6. Renaissance
Ans. The Renaissance was a fervent period of European cultural, artistic, political and economic
“rebirth” following the Middle Ages. Generally described as taking place from the 14th century to the
17th century, the Renaissance promoted the rediscovery of classical philosophy, literature and art.
Some of the greatest thinkers, authors, statesmen, scientists and artists in human history thrived
during this era, while global exploration opened up new lands and cultures to European commerce.
The Renaissance is credited with bridging the gap between the Middle Ages and modern-day
civilization.
From Darkness to Light: The Renaissance Begins
During the Middle Ages, a period that took place between the fall of ancient Rome in 476 A.D. and
the beginning of the 14th century, Europeans made few advances in science and art.
Also known as the “Dark Ages,” the era is often branded as a time of war, ignorance, famine
and pandemics such as the Black Death.
Some historians, however, believe that such grim depictions of the Middle Ages were greatly
exaggerated, though many agree that there was relatively little regard for ancient Greek and Roman
philosophies and learning at the time.

Q7. The print culture in early modern Europe.

Ans. For centuries, silk and spices from China flowed into Europe through the silk route. In the
eleventh century, Chinese paper reached Europe via the same route. Paper made possible the
production of manuscripts, carefully written by scribes. Then, in 1295, Marco Polo, a great explorer,
returned to Italy after many years of exploration in China. As you read above, China already had the
technology of woodblock printing. Marco Polo brought this knowledge back with him. Now Italians
began producing books with woodblocks, and soon the technology spread to other parts of Europe.
Luxury editions were still handwritten on very expensive vellum, meant for aristocratic circles and
rich monastic libraries which scoffed at printed books as cheap vulgarities. Merchants and students in
the university towns bought the cheaper printed copies.
As the demand for books increased, booksellers all over Europe began exporting books to many
different countries. Book fairs were held at different places. Production of handwritten manuscripts
was also organised in new ways to meet the expanded demand. Scribes or skilled handwriters were
no longer solely employed by wealthy or influential patrons but increasingly by booksellers as well.
More than 50 scribes often worked for one bookseller.
But the production of handwritten manuscripts could not satisfy the ever-increasing demand for
books. Copying was an expensive, laborious and time-consuming business. Manuscripts were fragile,
awkward to handle, and could not be carried around or read easily. Their circulation therefore

9
remained limited. With the growing demand for books, woodblock printing gradually became more
and more popular. By the early fifteenth century, woodblocks were being widely used in Europe to
print textiles, playing cards, and religious pictures with simple, brief texts.
There was clearly a great need for even quicker and cheaper reproduction of texts. This could only be
with the invention of a new print technology. The breakthrough occurred at Strasbourg, Germany,
where Johann Gutenberg developed the first-known printing press in the 1430s.
Gutenberg and the Printing Press: Gutenberg was the son of a merchant and grew up on a large
agricultural estate. From his childhood he had seen wine and olive presses. Subsequently, he learnt
the art of polishing stones, became a master goldsmith, and also acquired the expertise to create lead
moulds used for making trinkets. Drawing on this knowledge, Gutenberg adapted existing
technology to design his innovation. The olive press provided the model for the printing press, and
moulds were used for casting the metal types for the letters of the alphabet. By 1448, Gutenberg
perfected the system. The first book he printed was the Bible. About 180 copies were printed and it
took three years to produce them. By the standards of the time this was fast production.
The new technology did not entirely displace the existing art of producing books by hand.
In fact, printed books at first closely resembled the written manuscripts in appearance and layout.
The metal letters imitated the ornamental handwritten styles. Borders were illuminated by hand with
foliage and other patterns, and illustrations were painted. In the books printed for the rich, space for
decoration was kept blank on the printed page. Each purchaser could choose the design and decide
on the painting school that would do the illustrations.
In the hundred years between 1450 and 1550, printing presses were set up in most countries of
Europe. Printers from Germany travelled to other countries, seeking work and helping start new
presses. As the number of printing presses grew, book production boomed. The second half of the
fifteenth century saw 20 million copies of printed books flooding the markets in Europe. The number
went up in the sixteenth century to about 200 million copies. This shift from hand printing to
mechanical printing led to the print revolution.

Q8. Paul Sweezy on trade and decline of feudalism.

Ans. The centrality of trade in both the rise of feudalism and its decline was established by the
Belgian historian Henri Pirenne in the 1920s and 30s in his books, Medieval Cities: Their Origin and
the Revival of Trade, Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe and Mahomet and
Charlemagne. For Pirenne, long distance trade, or ‘grand trade’ as he called it, was the driving force
of all flourishing civilisations and its disruption, for whatever reason, brought the onward march of
civilisation to a halt.
It was thus that European civilisation in Antiquity had attained glorious heights owing to trade across
the Mediterranean, for it was not only an economic motor of society, but became the conduit for the
cross fertilisation of ideas and cultures across long distances. Once trans-Mediterranean trade was
disrupted by the Muslim-Arab invasions in the seventh century, and the Arab capture of crucial entry
points to the Sea in both the East (Alexandria) and the West (Gibraltar) and the control of Sardinia in
the middle, the European economy turned inwards and was ruralised; consequently it became
sluggish, even as petty trade continued in pockets. Pirenne called it ‘the break up of the economic
equilibrium of the ancient world’. This also signalled the end of urban life, which could only be
sustained by long distance trade, and the end of great ideas travelling long distances; life became dull.
This was feudalism. However, the Crusades in the 11th century pushed the Arabs back into the
Middle East, their homelands, and Europe was thus liberated. ‘Grand trade’ was revived and urban
centres came to life once again. This marked the beginning of the end of feudalism. He quotes the
saying ‘city life makes a man free’ to emphasise the transformation.
Pirenne thus established a fundamental dichotomy between feudalism and trade; one was
irreconcilable with the other. This was a watershed in conceptualising European feudalism and
became the centre point of emulation and discussion among historians for a long time. Its influence
spread far beyond Europe’s boundaries and the feudalism/trade dichotomy formed the basis of the

10
construction of the notion of Indian feudalism, for example, and the one in the Near East (developed
by E. Ashtor); both follow its contours almost to the last detail.
In some fundamental ways Pirenne’s thesis altered history-writing altogether by widening its canvas
so extensively as to encompass the whole society, whereas hitherto only small scale, particular causes
were sought out to explain the rise and decline of feudalism. One theory in the nineteenth century
even traced the origin of feudalism to the horse stirrup! The discussion of the Pirenne thesis
understandably led to its questioning, and ultimately its complete rejection, especially its centre piece,
the trade/feudalism dichotomy.
Among the most serious challenges to the thesis was posed by a Marxist economic historian of the
rise of capitalism, Maurice Dobb at the University of Cambridge. In 1946 he published Studies in the
Development of Capitalism, in which he began by examining the decline of feudalism. The question
of trade was crucial for his examination. As a Marxist he would not accept trade as the autonomous
agent in the working of an economic system. Trade on its own, for him, did not have the force to alter
any economic system, for it could subsist with any and all of these, be it slavery, feudalism,
capitalism, or any other. It would remain subservient to what he called the system’s ‘internal
articulation’, i.e. inherent class struggle. To elaborate this view, he recalled Frederick Engels’
nineteenth century observation that far from dissolving feudal relations, the revival of trade in
Eastern Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries led to ‘the second serfdom’ there.
Serfdom was for Marxists like Dobb the very hallmark of feudalism. Trade and feudalism were in his
view thus quite compatible with each other.
What then in Dobb’s perception caused the decline of West European feudalism was its ‘internal
crisis’, a mode of analysis very dear to Marxists. The eleventh century Crusaders who pushed the
Arabs back into the Near East went chasing them right into their home territories. There they were
introduced to the hitherto unheard of Oriental luxuries, like perfumes, silks and spices etc. Having
performed their duties as religiously fired crusaders, they now turned traders and sold these
luxurious items back home to European aristocrats at fabulous prices. The introduction of Oriental
luxuries to the West gravely altered the cultural and economic scenario, for the aristocracy began to
long for them and would pay any price. If this longing encouraged low volume high value trade
between Western Europe and the Middle East, it created a crisis of resources at home. For, the
incomes of the class of landlords had become inelastic because the productivity of land – the chief
source of income – had reached a plateau because of the ‘low level of technology’. Thus the demands,
and therefore the expenditure, of this class were rising, but the incomes remained static. There was
however one mode of raising resources: squeezing the peasant further. The peasant in the agricultural
economy being the primary producer of wealth could still be squeezed an extra bit to yield that extra
money

Q9. The concept of “calling” in the early modern Europe.

Ans. The squabbling kingdoms of western Europe were unable to stop the rise of two huge new states
to their east. The first of these was the Ottoman empire, which, even before its conquest of
Constantinople, had acquired extensive territories in the Balkans. throughout the later 15th, 16th and
17th centuries this empire expanded far up into central Europe, twice besieging the city of Vienna
(1529 and 1683), the capital of the Hapsburgs.
The other state was Russia. Although practicing the Orthodox Christian faith and therefore, in
religious matters, within the orbit of Constantinople, the Russians had since the 13th century been
politically – and to some extent culturally – a part of the Asiatic empire of the Mongols.
In the 15th and 16th centuries, however, under the leadership of the Grand Princes of Muscovy the
Russians had gradually liberated themselves from the political domination of the Mongols (by now
known, in western Asia, known as the Golden Horde). Since then, the Russians had expanded
westward into Europe, at the expense of the Poles, and southwards towards the Black Sea at the
expense of the Ottoman Turks (for Russia’s expansion, compare the maps for eastern Europe
in 1453, 1648 and 1789).

11
During this process the Russians had also become increasingly westernized. Under a succession of
Tsars, above all Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, the Russian elite had increasingly adopted
European dress and culture. By the end of the early modern period they were counted as one of the
great European powers, alongside Austria, France, Britain and the rising state of Prussia.

Q10. Features of Western Absolutism.

Ans. Absolutism, the political doctrine and practice of unlimited centralized authority and
absolute sovereignty, as vested especially in a monarch or dictator. The essence of an absolutist
system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency,
be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral. King Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France
furnished the most familiar assertion of absolutism when he said, “L’état, c’est moi” (“I am the
state”). Absolutism has existed in various forms in all parts of the world, including in Nazi Germany
under Adolf Hitler and in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.
The most commonly studied form of absolutism is absolute monarchy, which originated in early
modern Europe and was based on the strong individual leaders of the new nation-states that were
created at the breakup of the medieval order. The power of these states was closely associated with
the power of their rulers; to strengthen both, it was necessary to curtail the restraints on centralized
government that had been exercised by the church, feudal lords, and medieval customary law. By
claiming the absolute authority of the state against such former restraints, the monarch as head of
state claimed his own absolute authority.
By the 16th century monarchical absolutism prevailed in much of western Europe, and it was
widespread in the 17th and 18th centuries. Besides France, whose absolutism was epitomized by
Louis XIV, absolutism existed in a variety of other European countries, including Spain, Prussia, and
Austria.
The most common defense of monarchical absolutism, known as “the divine right of kings” theory,
asserted that kings derived their authority from God. This view could justify even tyrannical rule as
divinely ordained punishment, administered by rulers, for human sinfulness. In its origins, the
divine-right theory may be traced to the medieval conception of God’s award of temporal power to
the political ruler, while spiritual power was given to the head of the Roman Catholic Church.
However, the new national monarchs asserted their authority in all matters and tended to become
heads of church as well as of state, as did King Henry VIII when he became head of the newly
created Church of England in the 16th century. Their power was absolute in a way that was
impossible to achieve for medieval monarchs, who were confronted by a church that was essentially a
rival centre of authority.
More pragmatic arguments than that of divine right were also advanced in support of absolutism.
According to some political theorists, complete obedience to a single will is necessary to maintain
order and security. The most elaborate statement of this view was made by the English
philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651). A monopoly of power also has been justified on the
basis of a presumed knowledge of absolute truth. Neither the sharing of power nor limits on its
exercise appear valid to those who believe that they know—and know absolutely—what is right. This
argument was advanced by Vladimir Ilich Lenin to defend the absolute authority of the Communist
Party in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
Absolutist rulers who emerged later in the 20th century, in addition to Hitler and Stalin,
included Benito Mussolini of Italy, Mao Zedong of China, and Kim Il-Sung of North Korea, whose
son (Kim Jong Il) and grandson (Kim Jong-Un) continued the pattern of absolutist rule in the country
into the 21st century.

12