![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
In the seventeenth century and the early decades of the eighteenth, there occurred a conceptual reversal regarding the relationship between land and labour as agents of production of wealth. Authors of the seventeenth century attributed to labour – as “form” and “father” – a fundamental role in producing wealth, and they considered land as “matter” and “mother”, while Physiocrats attributed reproductive capacity only to land, and viewed labour as either mere support of nature or “sterile” transformative activity. These conceptions about the formation of wealth emerged not only from theoretical analyses but also from metaphors which had an important role in providing preliminary conceptual frameworks.
Acknowledgements
I thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and comments.
Notes
1 Schabas (Citation2005, 5) remarks that “until the mid-nineteenth century, economic theorists regarded the phenomena of their discourse as part of the same natural world studied by natural philosophers”.
2 According to a large body of literature, metaphors help to explore unknown phenomena by reusing through analogy terms and concepts borrowed from other fields of human experience and from other sciences, because they preliminarily organize our ideas about certain phenomena, especially when a comprehensive theory is not available. In this sense, they are not simple linguistic phenomena, but conceptual tools which coexist and interact with theoretical discourses. The literature on the cognitive nature of metaphors is huge. However, at least five authors should be mentioned: Max Black, Mary Hesse, Richard Boyd, and Lakoff and Johnson. Black (Citation1962) explained that metaphors reorganize our ideas about a certain object. Hesse (Citation1966) showed the relation between deductive models of scientific explanations and metaphors. Boyd (Citation1993, 490) maintained that metaphors “represent one strategy for the accommodation of language to as yet undiscovered causal features of the world”. Also Lakoff and Johnson (Citation1980) argued that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical.
3 Although his analysis presents many deficiencies, Petty dealt with the “mysterious nature” of rents (Aspromourgos Citation1996, 24; see also Roncaglia Citation1977, Chapter 7), and applied his theory of agricultural surplus to the analysis of the “social division of labour” (Aspromourgos Citation1996, 22). Cantillon, in the context of the surplus analysis, considered the allocation and distribution of the agricultural product as the relationship between city and country, and calculated that the labour of 25 persons provides subsistence to 100 persons (Cantillon Citation2015, Chapter 16). In his view, wages are “determined independently of prices and outputs” (Aspromourgos Citation1996, 82) and, he was of the opinion that “Wages are (‘probably’) set by ‘the custom of the place’, but subject to the landowners choice” (Brewer Citation1992a, 53). Moreover, Cantillon considered “the determination of rents” as “a kind of conventional division of agricultural product” (Aspromourgos Citation1996, 83), while - like Petty - he “had any clear concept of capital” (Brewer Citation1992b, 717). Also in Quesnay the concept of surplus was relevant. He attributed to land the capacity to produce physical surplus, but he regarded wealth also in terms of value (Vaggi Citation1987, Chapter 2) which is distributed especially to landlords as rent (Ibidem, 121), and it is used to sustain the effectual demand. Finally, Vaggi (Ibidem) points out that the physiocrats also considered the profit of farmers as part of the social surplus.
4 I prevalently consider debates which focused not on inanimate nature, but on living nature.
5 Among living beings, which are characterized by sexual reproduction, “the male provides both the form and the source of movement while the female provides the body, i.e. the matter” (GA, I (A), 20, 729 a, 9–12).
6 Some scholars have criticized Aristotle’s reduction of female to inert matter (see Dean-Jones Citation1994, 14–15 and 177). By contrast, others maintain that in Aristotle’s writings the female is not reducible to raw material, and performs a more active role in sexual reproduction (see Mayhew Citation2004; Connell Citation2016).
7 These traces were not mere commonplaces. In general, Aristotelian biology continued to affect the sciences of life of the seventeenth century both in conceptual and metaphorical terms, for example in Harvey’s physiology.
8 As discussed in this section, for example, traces of Aristotle are in William Petty’s writings, although he was influenced by anti-Aristotelian philosophers like Bacon and by Hobbes (Aspromourgos Citation1996, Chapter 4; Ullmer Citation2011).
9 The concept that labour prevails over matter was shared by many cultural traditions, and it appears also in the Bible (Citation1994). In Genesis, God works and his labour is creation (Gen. 1, 1 and 2, 3). He uses his hands to give form and life to inert matter (the “ground” from which man and animals are moulded (Gen. 2, 7 and 19)). And man, who similarly works, in some way through his labour is associated with Divinity.
10 This image can be compared to the non-metaphorical explanation of the rise of rent in terms of surplus: “Suppose a man could with his own hands plant a certain scope of Land with Corn […] I say, that when this man hath subducted his seed out of the proceed of his Harvest, and also, what himself hath both eaten and given to others in exchange for Clothes, and other Natural necessaries; that the remainder of Corn is the natural and true Rent of the Land for that year” (Petty Citation1662, 43).
11 “[L]a natura dà la materia e’l soggetto, ma sottigliezza e l’arte dell’huomo dà l’inennarrabile varietà delle forme” (Botero Citation1588, 40).
12 Privation is not simple negation, but the predisposition of matter to acquire a certain form. Some aspects of the debate on matter, form and privation in the seventeenth century are illustrated in Manning (Citation2012, 16–32).
13 Aristotle, Misselden (Citation1623, 11) maintained, reduced “principles” of natural things to “matter, form and privation”, but he “excludeth Privation from the Being of natural things”. Therefore, “principles” and “essence” of things have to be distinguished. “Principles” of natural and artificial things depend on the fact that form appears in two ways, since a certain form that initially lacks (form absent as “terminus a quo”) can appear subsequently (form present as “terminus ad quem”) (Ibid. 11–12). By contrast, “essence” of things is composed exclusively of “matter and form” (Ibid., p. 9). In the course of time these themes were marginalised in consequence of the emergence of new traditions of thought. An example is Dudley North (Citation1691, 11), who opposed Descartes’ method to hypothetical reasoning, where this latter includes the Aristotelian concepts of “matter, form and privation”.
14 As regards Aristotle’s influence on Malynes and Misselden see Finkelstein (Citation2000, Chapters 2 and 3), and Magnusson (Citation2015, 151). According to Appleby (Citation1978, 244), Misselden and Mun reasoned “in the spirit” of Francis Bacon, although on this point Magnusson (Citation2015, 152) rightly is more cautious.
15 “Deprivation” is an “imperfection” of matter in the sense that only in our imperfect world things change form. By contrast, in the perfection of the Heaven neither “generation” nor “corruption” occur (Malynes Citation1622, 500).
16 The idea of an opposition between art and nature was prevalent in other periods. Dear (Citation1995, 155) remarks that in Scholastic philosophy the opposition between art and nature rested on the idea that “The natural course of a process could be subverted by man-made, artificial causes, because art replaced nature's purposes with human purposes”.
17 Also Rossi (Citation1968, 26), although he maintains that Bacon departed from the traditional opposition between art and nature, emphasizes this point. Newman (Citation2004, 259–260) interprets Bacon’s view as coherent with the Scholastic tradition. He also maintains that even Boyle did not eradicate the distinction between art and nature (pp. 256–257).
18 Barbon’s re-use of the Aristotelian distinction between natural and artificial goods is discussed in Finkelstein (Citation2000, 210–211).
19 Malynes traced this distinction back to Aristotle (see Aristotle Citation1936 II, 192 b 8): “Aristotle saith, that riches is either naturall or artificiall. The naturall riches as lands, vines, forrests, meddowes, and such like. The artificiall, as money, gold, silver, wooles cloth, and all other moveables and houshold stuff. Nowe as this artificiall riches is proceeding of the naturall riches, and that both these doe receive their price and estimation by money […] so reason requireth a certaine equalitie betweene the naturall riches of lands, and the artificiall riches of commodities proceeding of the same” (Malynes Citation1601, 5–6).
20 “[P]lenty dependeth (next to God's favour) merely on the labour and industry of men” (Hobbes Citation1651, 163). Christensen (Citation1989, 704–705) remarks that Hobbes’ view on relationships between nature and labour echoes the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica, and that this perspective reappears in Petty and Cantillon.
21 “Art partly completes and partly imitates the work of nature” (Aristotle Citation1936, II 8 199a, 15). The idea of art as imitation of nature suggests that art is subordinate to nature, because nature is the model for art (Close Citation1971). It was widespread in classical antiquity from Plato onwards and developed in manifold forms over the centuries, especially in the Renaissance (Close Citation1971).
22 Art prevails over nature, and “fundamentally alter[s] nature” (Bacon Citation1623, 294). Moreover, nature can be oriented, because its “secrets” can be revealed “under the vexations of art” (Bacon Citation1620, 95).
23 The union of land and labour, however, reveals an antagonist process. Human labour denaturalizes matter: he who collects water from a fountain and puts it in a pitcher “hath taken it out of the hands of nature” (Locke Citation1690, § 29). Labour cooperates with, but at the same time opposes nature because the hands of man take something away from the hands of nature, and this subtraction constitutes the source of legitimacy of property rights.
24 Things “wrought by the cuning hand of man, are of much more, and of far greater price and estimation, than such things as nature doth produce” (Botero Citation1606, 49) (“[L]e cose prodotte dall’artifitiosa mano dell’huomo sono molto più e di molto maggior prezzo, che le cose generate dalla natura” (Botero Citation1588, 39)).
25 Mun wrote England's Treasure by Forraign Trade in circa 1630, but it was published posthumously in 1664.
26 “[L]’entrate che si cavano dalle miniere del ferro non sono grandissime, ma dell’utilità che si traggono dal lavoro e dal traffico d’esso ferro vivono infiniti che lo cavano, che lo purgano, che lo colano, che lo vendono ingrosso, e a minuto, che ne fabricano machine da guerra, arme da difesa e offesa, ferramenti innumerabili per l’uso dell’agricoltura […]” (Botero Citation1588, 40).
27 Trace (Citation2017) provides a large body of evidence showing that Bacon, Mun, Misselden, and other authors were influenced by Botero.
28 According to Bacon (Citation1625, 84), “it cometh many times to passe, that Materiam superabit opus [the workmanship will surpass the material]; that the worke, and carriage is more worth than the material, and enricheth a State more”. These arguments were developed one century later by Cary, Janssen and the authors of The British Merchant, a publication edited by Defoe (Magnusson Citation2015, 118–120).
29 “[N]on si deve facilmente prestar fede a nuove invenzioni, se l’esperienza non le ha prima autorizzate” (Botero Citation1589, 116).
30 A labourer by art “can do the Work of five men by one, effects the same as the begetting four adult Workmen” (Petty Citation1691b, 118).
31 He also considered “an Equation […] between Labour, and Favour, Acquaintance, Interest, Friends, Eloquence, Reputation, Power and Authority” (Petty Citation1691a, 182).
32 Brewer (Citation1992b, 718) remarks that the surplus theories of Petty and Cantillon are essentially similar. However, in Political Anatomy of Ireland Petty set out a different theory in which rent derives from the capacity of land to produce without labour input (Petty Citation1691a, 181).
33 The book was written in the early 1730s but not published until 1755.
34 “[L]a terre ne produit que peu ou rien qui nous soit propre, sans le travail de l’homme” (Mirabeau Citation1756, 17).
35 “La nourriture, les commodités & les douceurs de la vie sont la richesse. La terre la produit, & le travail de l’homme lui donne la forme. Le fonds & la forme sont la terre & l’homme. Qu’y a-t’il par-delà? Par-tout la forme est nécessaire au fonds […] Si l’homme est nul, la terre l’est aussi” (Ibidem, 34).
36 “[L]a terre est la matière, & le travail est la forme” (Ibid., 197).
37 Cantillon (Citation2015, part I, Chapter 15) maintained that subsistence determines population; nonetheless, Mirabeau criticises Cantillon for neglecting the fact that wealth and subsistence depend on nature.
38 This conception characterized Linnaeus’ system in subsequent years: “plants produce seeds, but they are entirely unfit for propagation, unless foecundation precedes, which is performed by an intercourse between different sexes, as experience testifies. Plants therefore must be provided with organs of generation, in which respect they hold an analogy with animals” (Linnaeus Citation1749, 59, emphasis in original).
39 In some way contrasting with the idea that abundance engendered by nature is always desirable (see “Nature and labour in Quesnay’s approach”), but with reference to inanimate nature, Christopher Polhem, in Sweden, in the 1720s, remarked that abundance of iron and copper produces a fall in prices (Magnusson Citation1977, 258).
40 “[L]a liqueur prolifique des Animaux, est fournie d'animacules qui fécondent les oeufs” (Quesnay Citation1747, 156).
41 “[L]a liqueur de la pouissiere des Etamines des Fleurs contient aussi les germes qui fécondent les Semences” (Ibid., 156).
42 From the 1740s onwards, in consequence of more accurate observations of animal generation, due also to the use of the microscope (Leeuwenhoek was the first to see single-celled organisms invisible to the naked eye in 1676), nature appeared to be characterized by distinctive vitality and creative capacity. Theories of pre-formation and pre-existence, which maintained that the embryo pre-exists and that nature is deprived of vital powers because all organisms were originally formed at the time of Creation, were rejected. Also mechanical philosophy, which reduced biological phenomena to mechanical-physical ones, declined. By contrast, epigenesis – the theory of gradual development of the embryo - reappeared along with vitalism. In these perspectives, life does not depend on inert matter reducible to mechanical and motion laws. However, the transition from theories of preformation, pre-existence and ovism (the view that life comes from an egg) to vitalism was gradual, and these approaches often coexisted and influenced each other (Bernardi Citation1980, 14–21).
43 Physiocratic ideas were attacked after the mid-1760s. Among those who opposed certain tenets of Physiocracy were Galiani and Necker. Necker, in particular, argued against a rapid liberalization of the market, and was in favour of a slight regulation of the foreign grain trade. He also criticized from a pragmatic point of view (a perspective which also characterized Galiani) the abstract generalizations of economic behaviour of the Physiocrats. On these themes see Faccarello (Citation1994).