MOD-WEST

Assignment

Nature and Impact of the 17th Century Crisis

Ans. The period of the 17th century has been described as a period of “crisis” by various historians
due to the major changes that occurred that affected all aspects of human life in Europe though with
some exceptions. The concept of the crisis was first found in the writings of the Famous French
philosopher Voltaire in his Essai sur les moeurs et I’esprit des nations (1756). It was only in the
writings of the late 1900s that the idea of crisis surfaced in the writings of Huge Trever Roper, R.B.
Merriman, Roland Mousnier, Eric Hobsbawm, and many others. Nature and the period of this 17th-
century crisis is a question of debate as has been done by many historians, some calling it a social
and political crisis arising from class conflict, some seeing it in economic terms while others calling it
a demographic one. Before discussing the nature and impact of the crisis and what the crisis was all
about it is important to know the backdrop of the 16th century- the century before the coming of
crisis.

The 16th century was a period of vigorous growth in Europe be in terms of political, social, or
economic grounds. Social attitudes changed with the spread of the Renaissance and Reformation.
The population of Europe in most regions increased manyfold due to the rise in the human standard
of living. The bonds of trade within Europe strengthened and international trade increased which
integrated Europe into a world Economic system. Not only did trade increase but also the production
capacity increased due to changes in strategies in techniques. Capital assumed a major role not only
in the economic organization but also in political life and international relations. The period also
witnessed a northward shift in the center of economic activities first from the Mediterranean to the
Iberian Peninsula and then towards the Atlantic states of Holland and England. An attempt was
made in the sixteenth century to enter the age of the modern economy by breaking the barriers of
medieval structures but it did not succeed and the old feudal mode of production continued in most
regions. To consider that the economy was stable throughout the century would be wrong as
financial crashes of small caliber were a common event. The Period witnessed a boom in agriculture
which acted as the backbone for the trade and the industries. The century also witnessed religious
movements such as the protestant reformation and also economic movements such as the price and
the commercial revolutions.

So did Europe face a crisis of any sort in the 17th century and what was the real nature of the crisis
are the questions that need to be answered. Voltaire believed and states in his work that the ‘crisis’
was not a Europe-only phenomenon rather it affected the other regions of the world such as China
and India. Eric Hobsbawm considered the period to be that of an economic crisis in Europe marking a
shift from feudalism to capitalism and coined it as a ‘general crisis’. Huge Trever Roper in his book
“The Crisis of the Seventeenth Century- Religion, the reformation, and social change” describes the
crisis as that of the renaissance state and part of a political revolution. Some historians such as J.H.
Elliot rejected the entire notion of a crisis by comparing the revolts of the 17 th and the 16th century
and considering the evidence of economic crisis as inconclusive. The opponents of the theory of
general crisis argue that the social or political disorders remained specific to local conditions and
these did not coalesce into broader movements. Though the historians differ in their view most of
them are conclusive that Europe went through a crisis during the 17th century and as the French
scholar Robert Mentet de Salmonet wrote that the century would become famous for its great and
strange revolutions.

Different historians have given different periods in which the actual crisis took place. Ruggiero
Romano who has provided massive data on the economic aspect of the crisis considers that the
exact time for the crisis was 1619-1622. Peter Clark has placed the beginning of the European crisis
in the 1590s supporting his claim with data of crop failure and famine leading to Tyrome’s rebellion.
For most historians, the starting time of the crisis was around the 1630s.

There is a debate among the historian about the origin of the crisis based on 3 major approaches-
one based on economic origin, the 2nd one political in origin, and the 3rd one taking a more critical or
skeptical approach. The economic interpretation is further divided up between those who based
their arguments on classical Marxist interpretation, others basing their argument on economic data,
and the 3rd one arguing based on demographic factors. The Marxist writers including Ruggiero
Romano, Boris Porchnev, E.J. Hamilton, and Peter Kriedte called this period a critical phase in the
transition from feudalism to capitalism. The conflict was seen as a class struggle at two levels- in
eastern Europe, it was a struggle between the peasants and the feudal in which the latter won, and
in Western Europe between the feudal nobility and the bourgeoisie, won by the latter. Hobsbawm
observed that the seventeenth century was not only an era of economic crisis but also a period of
social revolt, later calling it a part of the much wider transition from feudalism to capitalism. , the
Marxist writers saw the seventeenth-century crisis as a crisis of production and the major force
behind at least some of the revolutions was the force of the producing bourgeoisie, restricted in
their economic activities by the obsolete, restrictive, and wasteful productive system of feudal
society. The 2nd grp - Huge Trever Roper was amongst the first historians to point out that it was not
the crisis of the European economy but a crisis in the relations between the state and the society
calling the failing monarchies and its financial burden as the reason for it. R.B. Merriman in his work
Six Contemporaneous Revolutions suggests that all these disturbances could be seen as the social
and political manifestations of a crisis that had been affecting entire Europe and he compares the
various upheavals of the mid-seventeenth century in England, France, Catalonia, Naples, and
Holland. The 3rd group who took a skeptical approach included historians such as J.H. Elliot who gives
out data that Europe witnessed around the same no. of revolts in the 1540s as in the 1640s and tried
to draw attention to a series of tension in the early political structure. Theodore K. Rabb in his work
“struggled for stability in Early Modern Europe” tried to bring about a more precise definition of the
term “crisis”. Niels Steensgaard gave a different thesis that connected economics and politics by
highlighting increasing taxes on individuals and growing state structure expenditure- pushing people
to poverty and creating an economic crisis.

Europe witnessed a population growth in the 16th century which tapered off during the century to
come. One thing to keep in mind is that the figures available with historians for the demographic
trend of the period are scattered and not very reliable but the overall picture is that of a decline.
Peter Kriedte stressed the role played by the 30yr war that led to a loss of population as high as 40%
in some regions of Europe- many states such as Saxony, Brandenburg, and Bavaria lost over half of
their population due to this, some regions even witnessing a loss of 2/3rd population, The Spanish
population fell from 70,68,000 to 50,25,000 between 1587 to 1650 but not all regions declined such
as in the low countries and England the population continued to grow though at a slower rate.
Kriedte considered the demographic crisis as a reflection of both Malthusian theory and the social
crisis that had put a burden on the agriculture production of the region. The Malthusian theory was
given by Thomas R. Malthus in the year 1798 which stated that the natural economy population had
a natural growth rate and grew geometrically whereas the natural resources to support this growth
grew arithmetically which resulted in a crisis which was resolved by a loss of population as seen in
the 17th century. This demographic factor had a long-term impact on the family life and birth
pattern, food habits, and the age of marriage bringing about a change in the reproductive behavior
of the people. The age of marriage rose in many regions such as in Colyton from 27.1 to 29.4 and in
Geneva from 24.6 to 25.7. This led to an overall fall in the economic situation and put the
agricultural landlords in a commanding position.

Many Historians believed that the inflow of money supply played a major role in the crisis. For Earl
Hamilton and Pierre Chaunu, the Atlantic trade and the role of Seville was the major factor in the
financial crisis which was caused due to fall in the money supply. According to Hamilton, the fall in
the bullion inflow was the major reason for the crisis which was temporarily solved by importing
silver from the New World. He provides detailed figures of world silver production and later Pierre
Vilar supplemented these with those for gold. He argues that silver imports from America reached
their peak by 1620 and thereafter it started declining. Hamilton argues that an increase in prices
leads to surplus profit which further supported capital investment in business and industry and on
the other hand, a decline in the rotation of money reduced the profit margin which in turn led to
disinvestment causing the economy and society to suffer- this was the situation in the 17 th century.
Ruggiero Romano suggested that the first half of the century showed clear signs of concentration or
decline in the minting of money which resulted in a shortage of monetary stock. For Romano,
money, prices, exchange or banking were essentially facts of production and distribution and the
prices should not be seen in isolation. Jan De Vries questioned the role of money in the long run- he
does not believe in the view that the European economy rose and fell with the inflow of silver from
the new world but he does consider the role played by monetary instability and several short runs.
Many historians don’t agree with Hamilton’s idea-Their main argument is that silver coming from
America did not stay in Europe for long and it was taken away to the east via the Levant to India and
China. Thus, the impact of the silver influx was not so great.

The Annals school of thought portrays the 17th-century crisis as a conjecture- a crisis not located in
the structures but in several short and long-term factors, forming a part of the economic domain.
For these writers, the seventeenth-century crisis involved the coming together of conjunctural
factors, e.g. crop failure and high grain prices, which were followed by a sharp fall in prices of food
grain, heavy taxation, epidemics, and bad weather. This caused a large number of peasant outbreaks
not only in France but also in many other parts of Europe. The Annals school also emphasized the
role of climatic factors and called it ‘Maunder Minimum’ considering it responsible for agrarian and
demographic shift. According to Gustav Utterstrom, the years 1596-1603,1630,1649-52,1675-7 and
the 1690s were disaster years because of the climatic fluctuations and demographic losses. John
Eddy of America, Cassini of France, and Hevelius of Poland described the period as ‘the Little Ice Age.
A.E. Douglass and G.D. Cassini observed that fewer sunspots were found and declining solar energy
received by the earth which caused an increase in carbon 14. A study of tree trunks shows that the
tree lines were deeper and thick during this period- a phenomenon associated with wet weather
conditions in summer and acute winter. As nearly 80 to 90 % of the European population depended
on agriculture, such climatic changes were bound to affect vegetation and cereal crops.

Historians emphasize the role of the declining population in agriculture in different parts of Europe.
The 16th century was a period of demographic growth as discussed earlier, placing serious limitations
on the expansion of agriculture as during that time with its limited technology was deforestation and
reclamation of land also leading to fragmentation of large landholdings. The demand for food grains
also increased due to population growth leading to inflation on food crops pushing the need for
higher production. After the 16th-century European agriculture showed signs of exhaustion.
According to Kriedte, the index of grain prices in France declined from 100 (1625-50) to 50 (1681-90)
while in Poland grain prices declined from 100 index points in 1580 to about 87 in the 1650s. The
Swedish-Polish War caused further agricultural destruction and pushed the index further down to 43
by 1660. The Taille taxes were increased to exploit the peasants to meet the administrative structure
and pay for the continuous wars. According to N.J.G. Pounds, the index varied- Compared to the
price level of 1601-10, the prices continued to rise in England, Belgium, and Austria to 147,150 and
118 percent respectively. In Germany and the Netherlands, they rose till the 1630s to 186 and 148
percent respectively. The seventeenth-century crisis widened the gap between the eastern and
western and northern and southern zones of Europe. While eastern and central-eastern Europe
witnessed an extension and tightening of serfdom, England and the Netherlands saw the breakdown
of capitalism, and agriculture began to move in the capitalist direction.

According to H.R. Trevor Roper, the 17th-century crisis was not only constitutional rather it was a
crisis in relation between the state and the society. Historians such as Steensgaard and I. Schoffer
talk about the marked increase in the amount of military expenditure done by the state and the
rising cost of maintaining an army- the charges of a soldier increased 5 times and that of fighting war
even more. The Govt. looked for new sources of revenue collection such as Taille and aides in France
and alcabala in Spain. The bureaucratic structure expanded on the one hand and popular resistance
against taxation increased on the other exposing the deep trouble existing between society and the
state. According to Roper, the Renaissance monarchies continued to expand, putting a burden on
society and govt. inefficiency led to an intolerable burden on society. According to him, earlier there
was a need for high-paid offices but later also there was a multiplication of these offices- this pre-
expanding bureaucratic structure became parasitic. The post-1620 depression coincided with a
widespread reaction against the royal courts of the European rulers. H.R. Trevor-Roper attributes all
these rebellions to the same crisis that developed through the tension between the court and the
country but the solutions to these crises were different in different places. Steensgaard rejects
Roper’s court-country concept and considered the crisis as an outcome of dynamic absolutism.
According to Elliot, he rejects the theory of a political crisis, calling the incident of Spain a struggle
between the periphery provinces and the royal authority at the center.

Historians have a differing opinion whether the period of the 17th century was that of the economic
decline of Entire Europe as supported by Hobsbawm or a regional phenomenon. Historians that
agreed to the regional decline thesis included s J.H. Elliott, J.I. Israel, Aston, Domenico Sella, and
Braudel. According to historians, few centers of production faced setbacks and the production and
trade of goods fell but in some other regions, the production increased as in the case of Florence-
the industrial decline of Florence was accompanied by the rise of textile production in Prato and
Siena. There were distinct signs of decline in certain regions of Europe but in some other regions, the
situation was not so bad. In fact, in many parts of northern Europe, it was a period of industrial
growth and economic progress. Important industrial activities such as textile production were still
dominated by artisan mode of production. Many of the French textile centres, such as Amiens,
Reims, Rouen, also declined, and even Beauvais stagnated. However, the situation was not the same
in Holland and England which witnessed steady growth and some regions saw a boom in production
due to draperies or low-quality textiles in place of luxury goods. The rise of new draperies led to the
English domination of the textile market in the Iberian Peninsula and the Mediterranean. During this
period the supply of German silver declined from 360 tonnes per year to 120 tonnes per year due to
the thirty-year war. During the seventeenth century, the commercial and industrial sectors were no
longer supported by agriculture because of the agrarian crisis and we find that in this second half of
the seventeenth century the pace of industrial and commercial expansion was considerably checked.
Two important areas of international trade – the Mediterranean and the Baltic - experienced
significant changes in their trade structure. The seventeenth-century crisis is seen by Marxist
historians, including Hobsbawm as the manifestation of the feudal crisis existing in the mode of
production spreading across the European economy. The old structure did not allow sustained
growth beyond a point. According to Hobsbawm, the crisis demonstrated Europe’s failure to
overcome the obstacles created by the feudal structure to reach the stage of capitalism.

Josej Polisensky considered the thirty-year war (1618-1648) as an integral part of the crisis. This one
is considered as the last religious war in world history, started with the German kingdom of
Bohemia- part of the Holy Roman empire. The religious conflict turned into a political one. Many
historians see it as a war between the two biggest empires (Spain and France) to control Europe.
Some consider it as a revolt against the German Regime and so on. According to Polisensky the
revolt was political and was caused by the deep-rooted economic crisis. The most important result of
the war was the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire. Historians have divided opinions about
the socio-economic impact of the war. One set of historians (called the ‘Disastrous war school)
argues that the war had disastrous consequences and marked the decline of Germany, while the set
of writers (called the Revisionist School) suggest that the impact has been highly exaggerated and
the decline of Germany was not caused by war alone and had started much earlier.

The 17th-century crisis had a far from a uniform impact on the region. On one hand, it fastened the
feudal grip and on the other hand, it created conditions for expansion. The military disruptions and
the diminishing economy placed a burden on the strained govt. resources which in turn led to
increased taxes on common folks. Except for England, the crisis led to the extension of the power of
the rulers over their subjects to extract the maximum from all possible sources. The French crown
emerged much stronger after the crisis. On the other hand, the decline of certain regions and states
proved to be beneficial for other states of the north, like the Dutch Republic and England.

In demographic terms, the crisis led to high mortality in various regions- urban centers were the
hardest struck. Military conflict was the major cause of the deaths along with natural calamities.
Central Europe was the region that faced the wrath of the 30-year war as most wars were fought in
this region. The population losses varied from 25 to 40 percent. Even Denmark lost over 20% of its
population due to the Danish-Sweden war of 1658-1669.

The post-crisis period was dominated by the universal domination of Politics and society by the
aristocrats. The crisis led to the strengthening of serfdom as they could not break free from the
Feudal system. These lords of large estates had come to dominate the governing institutions. Here,
neither royal authority nor the interests of the nascent bourgeoisie were capable of challenging the
authority of the nobility- T.K. Rabb called the period “aristocracy par excellence”.

The after period saw a shift away from the continental countries towards the sea powers. The gap
between west and east Europe widened. The share in the international trading system of eastern
and central Europe declined rapidly while the vigorous growth of the trans-Atlantic trade
contributed to the industrial and commercial expansion of western Europe. Netherlands and
England gained considerably during this period from the influx of skilled craftsmen from Flanders.
The role of merchants expanded enormously and they organized an extensive network of production
and procurement for distant markets.

In Western Europe, the seigniorial class began to expand the Demesne land and started recruiting
waged laborers leading to a rise in agricultural capitalism. This Expansion sometimes took place at
the expense of the community holding or sometimes was made easy due to massive land lying fallow
due to the 30-year war. So in eastern and central Europe, feudalism experienced a fresh twist when
landlords increased their reliance on serf labor services. The war had caused an enormous increase
in taxation. The significance of the peasants as generators of income increased immensely both for
the landlords and for the states. At several places, there was a tendency towards transmutation of
labor services and dues into money payments.

The most important impact of the crisis was the shift of industry to the countryside and the spread
of proto-industrialization in some regions, marking the first phase of industrialization. Merchants
dealt with the crisis in their ways- some shifting to rural regions to exploit the cheap labor available
and manufacturing cheap clothes or draperies. The other method was to increase the volume of
trade with the colonial world to balance the low domestic demands. By the end of the seventeenth
century, woolen, linen, cotton, and blended cloth were being produced in the rural regions of
England, Low Countries, France, Switzerland, and even Germany. As a result, the urban
manufacturing units and guilds were losing out to the rural cottage industry.

In France and elsewhere the feudal lords were unable to consolidate their land due to the protective
laws in favor of the peasantry- The seigneurs imposed feudal dues in the form of mortmain and
banalities. In Poland, the landed nobility forced the peasants to work on their lands. The small
peasants had no freedom to choose even the crops and they lost interest in improvement measures.
It was the improved technology of England, the Netherlands, and northern France that enabled
them to overcome the problem of low prices and make substantial economic progress. The peasants
were able to sell only that produce in the market from which they paid feudal rent and taxes,
interests on their borrowings, and land revenue. They depended on the land to get their food and
clothing.

The crisis of the 17th century could be a crisis in terms of all aspects of human lives and affected
Entire Europe- partially or completely.