home » Winter » Antoine Montchretien is a representative of the school of economic thought. The views of Antoine de Montchretien

Antoine Montchretien is a representative of the school of economic thought. The views of Antoine de Montchretien

(1575-1622) - French subject, the man who introduced the term “political economy” into scientific literature, a representative of the Physiocratic school. He was a poor French nobleman during the times of Henry VI and Louis XIII. M.'s life is filled with adventures worthy of d'Artagnan. A poet, duelist, exile, close associate of the king, rebel and state criminal, M. ended his life under the blows of swords and in the smoke of pistol shots, having been ambushed by enemies. However, such an end was good luck for the rebel, because if he had been captured alive, he would not have escaped torture and a shameful execution. Even his body, according to the verdict of the court, was subjected to desecration: the bones were crushed with iron, the corpse was burned and the ashes were scattered to the wind. M. was one of the leaders of the uprising French Protestants (Huguenots) against the king and the Catholic Church. He died in 1621 at the age of 45 or 46 years, and his “Treatise of Political Economy” was published in 1615 in Rouen. It is not surprising that the “Treatise...” was consigned to oblivion, and the name M. mixed with dirt.

However, long before his death, M. visited England. Having become acquainted with the teachings of the mercantilists in England and having witnessed the rapid development of the English economy, trade, and crafts, M. became an active supporter of the development of national industry in France and the creation of a state economy, of which he tried to convince the king. To this end, in 1615 he published his only economic work, A Treatise of Political Economy for the King and Queen, dedicating it to the young Louis XIII and the Queen Mother. Like all mercantilists, M. advocates stimulating the export of goods and limiting their import. He compares foreign merchants to a pump that pumps its wealth out of the country. At the same time, he has a deeper view of the nature of wealth than simply identifying it with gold, which is reflected in the very title of his book. How to interpret this name? The word “economy” (the laws of home economics) was borrowed by him from the ancient Greeks. “Politeia” translated from Greek means social order. This means that “Treatise of Political Economy” can be translated as “Treatise on the Laws of Social Economy”. It is unlikely that M. imagined that he was giving a name to a new science. However, with the term “political economy” he clearly wanted to emphasize the importance for France of creating a national economy. M.'s merit lies not only in the fact that he gave his book such a successful name. The main thing is different: it was one of the first works in Europe specifically devoted to economic problems. It highlighted a special subject of research, different from the subject of other social sciences. Political economy was declared to be the science of the laws of development of the social economy.

With the publication of M.'s book, economic science has been developing as political economy for more than 300 years. And only in the last century did alternative terminology appear: “economics”, mainstream, economic theory, etc.

Antoine Montchretien de Watteville(fr. Antoine Montchrestien de Watteville ; -) - French playwright and economist who first proposed the term “political economy”.

Biography

The son of a pharmacist, Montchretien was orphaned at an early age and was engaged in literary work from a young age. He led a hectic lifestyle; Having killed his opponent in a duel, he was forced to flee to England, where he was warmly received by King James I, the son of Mary Stuart, the heroine of the most famous of his works. James I even sent a letter to King Henry IV asking for Antoine's pardon. A few years later, Montchretien returned to France a changed man. He left poetry and devoted himself to another activity - translation psalms and writing a History of Normandy. He founded a hardware workshop in Châtillon-on-Marne, specializing in the production of cutlery. He sided with the Protestants; died in battle; his body was burned.

Dramatic creativity

Montchretien the playwright is considered one of Corneille's predecessors and at the same time the heir to the stage traditions of the French Renaissance. At the age of twenty, he composed the first of his tragedies - “Sofonisba" ( Sophonisbe, ); it is based on Trissino's play of the same name and was then radically revised on the advice of François Malherbe. In 1601 he published a collection of tragedies: “The Lacedaemonian Women” ( Les Lacenes), "David" ( David), "Aman" (Aman), "The Scottish Woman, or Mary Stuart" ( L'Ecossaise ou Marie Stuart) and a number of others. In addition, Montchretien wrote the prose “Pastoral” ( La Bergerie) and the poem "Susanna". The last of Montchretien's tragedies, Hector ( Hector, ), is marked by mature dramatic skill.

Economic views

Interest in economics arose during his stay in England, where Montchretien fled in 1605 after a duel that ended in the death of his opponent.

Excerpt characterizing Montchretien, Antoine de

They were silent.
- But why go to St. Petersburg! - Natasha suddenly said, and she quickly answered herself: - No, no, this is how it should be... Yes, Marie? That's how it should be...

Seven years have passed since the 12th year. The troubled historical sea of Europe has settled into its shores. It seemed quiet; but the mysterious forces that move humanity (mysterious because the laws determining their movement are unknown to us) continued to operate.
Despite the fact that the surface of the historical sea seemed motionless, humanity moved as continuously as the movement of time. Various groups of human connections formed and disintegrated; the reasons for the formation and disintegration of states and the movements of peoples were prepared.
The historical sea, not as before, was directed by gusts from one shore to another: it seethed in the depths. Historical figures, not as before, rushed in waves from one shore to another; now they seemed to be spinning in one place. Historical figures, who previously at the head of the troops reflected the movement of the masses with orders of wars, campaigns, battles, now reflected the seething movement with political and diplomatic considerations, laws, treatises...
Historians call this activity of historical figures reaction.
Describing the activities of these historical figures, who, in their opinion, were the cause of what they call the reaction, historians strictly condemn them. All famous people of that time, from Alexander and Napoleon to m me Stael, Photius, Schelling, Fichte, Chateaubriand, etc., are subject to their strict judgment and are acquitted or condemned, depending on whether they contributed to progress or reaction.
In Russia, according to their description, a reaction also took place during this period of time, and the main culprit of this reaction was Alexander I - the same Alexander I who, according to their descriptions, was the main culprit of the liberal initiatives of his reign and the salvation of Russia.
In real Russian literature, from a high school student to a learned historian, there is not a person who would not throw his own pebble at Alexander I for his wrong actions during this period of his reign.
“He should have done this and that. In this case he acted well, in this case he acted badly. He behaved well at the beginning of his reign and during the 12th year; but he acted badly by giving a constitution to Poland, making the Holy Alliance, giving power to Arakcheev, encouraging Golitsyn and mysticism, then encouraging Shishkov and Photius. He did something wrong by being involved in the front part of the army; he acted badly by distributing the Semyonovsky regiment, etc.”
It would be necessary to fill ten pages in order to list all the reproaches that historians make to him on the basis of the knowledge of the good of humanity that they possess.
What do these reproaches mean?
The very actions for which historians approve of Alexander I, such as: the liberal initiatives of his reign, the fight against Napoleon, the firmness he showed in the 12th year, and the campaign of the 13th year, do not stem from the same sources - the conditions of blood , education, life, which made Alexander’s personality what it was - from which flow those actions for which historians blame him, such as: the Holy Alliance, the restoration of Poland, the reaction of the 20s?
What is the essence of these reproaches?
The fact that such a historical person as Alexander I, a person who stood at the highest possible level of human power, is, as it were, in the focus of the blinding light of all the historical rays concentrated on him; a person subject to those strongest influences in the world of intrigue, deception, flattery, self-delusion, which are inseparable from power; a face that felt, every minute of its life, responsibility for everything that happened in Europe, and a face that is not fictitious, but living, like every person, with its own personal habits, passions, aspirations for goodness, beauty, truth - that this face , fifty years ago, not only was he not virtuous (historians do not blame him for this), but he did not have those views for the good of humanity that a professor now has, who has been engaged in science from a young age, that is, reading books, lectures and copying these books and lectures in one notebook.
But even if we assume that Alexander I fifty years ago was mistaken in his view of what is the good of peoples, we must involuntarily assume that the historian judging Alexander, in the same way, after some time will turn out to be unjust in his view of that , which is the good of humanity. This assumption is all the more natural and necessary because, following the development of history, we see that every year, with every new writer, the view of what is the good of humanity changes; so that what seemed good appears after ten years as evil; and vice versa. Moreover, at the same time we find in history completely opposite views on what was evil and what was good: some take credit for the constitution given to Poland and the Holy Alliance, others as a reproach to Alexander.
It cannot be said about the activities of Alexander and Napoleon that they were useful or harmful, because we cannot say for what they are useful and for what they are harmful. If someone does not like this activity, then he does not like it only because it does not coincide with his limited understanding of what is good. Does it seem good to me to preserve my father’s house in Moscow in 12, or the glory of the Russian troops, or the prosperity of St. Petersburg and other universities, or the freedom of Poland, or the power of Russia, or the balance of Europe, or a certain kind of European enlightenment - progress, I must admit that the activity of every historical figure had, in addition to these goals, other, more general goals that were inaccessible to me.

Antoine de Montchretien (c. 1575-1621) - French economist, author of the term "political economy". Montchretien was one of the prominent representatives of mercantilism. He thought of the country's economy primarily as an object of public administration. He considered foreign trade, especially the export of industrial and handicraft products, to be the source of the wealth of the country and state (king). Montchretien's main work is “Treatise of Political Economy” (1615). This was one of the first works in France and Europe specifically devoted to economic problems. It singled out and limited a special subject of research, different from the subject of other social sciences.

Despite the loud name, he wrote a purely practical essay, in which he tried to convince the government of the need for comprehensive protection of French industrialists and merchants.

Montchretien advocates customs protectionism- high duties on foreign goods so that their import does not interfere with national production. He glorifies work and sings unusual praise for his time to the class, which he considered the main creator of the country's wealth: “Good and glorious artisans are extremely useful to their country; I dare say that they are necessary and should be respected.”

Labor is no longer under a curse, but is one of the factors of political stability, productive labor and the accumulation of wealth, Montchretien came to this logical conclusion: “the happiness of people lies mainly in wealth, and wealth lies in work.”

In addition to agriculture, in his study of the structure of society, Montchretien also turned to the study of industry and trade. Since exchange became the basis of most productive labor, sellers and "merchants" began to play a central coordinating role. Profit, being their main incentive, was to be encouraged and protected (by the state): merchants are more than useful, and their concern for income, which is carried out in work and industry, creates/is the cause of a large part of public wealth. For this reason, they should be forgiven for the love of gain and the desire for it. From this naturally follows the statement of the mercantilists about the need for state assistance in improving the well-being of nations.

Montchretien's main achievement is that he singled out economic problems as a special independent subject of study. In this way he separated economics from other social sciences.

For the first time emphasizing the close relationship between politics and economics, it was Montchretien who christened political economy a work that included simple evidence about how the wealth of a nation is produced, distributed and exchanged, and which were systematically studied only a century and a half later.

MONTCHRETIEN Antoine (c. 1575-1621) The person who first introduced the term into socio-economic literature political Economy, name was Antoine Montchretien, Sieur de Watteville. He was a poor French nobleman during the times of Henry IV and Louis XIII. Montchretien's life is filled with adventures worthy of d'Artagnan. A poet, a duelist, an exile, a close associate of the king, a rebel and a state criminal, he ended his life under the blows of swords and in the smoke of pistol shots, having been ambushed by enemies. However, such an end was for the rebel luck, because if he had been captured alive, he would not have escaped torture and a shameful execution. Even his body, according to the verdict of the court, was subjected to desecration: the bones were crushed with iron, the corpse was burned and the ashes were scattered to the wind. Montchretien was one of the leaders of the uprising of French Protestants ( Huguenots) against the king and the Catholic Church. He died in 1621 at the age of 45 or 46 years, and his “Treatise of Political Economy” was published in 1615 in Rouen. It is not surprising that the “Treatise” was consigned to oblivion, and Montchretien’s name is mixed Unfortunately, it so happened that the main source of biographical information about him is the biased and downright slanderous reviews of his ill-wishers.These reviews bear the stamp of a brutal political and religious struggle. Montchretien was honored as a highwayman, a counterfeiter, a lowly greedy man who allegedly converted to the Protestant religion only in order to marry a rich Huguenot widow.

Almost 300 years passed before Montchretien's good name was restored, and his place of honor in the history of economic and political thought was firmly secured to him. Now it is clear that his tragic fate is not accidental. Participation in one of the Huguenot uprisings, which were to a certain extent a form of class struggle of the disenfranchised French bourgeoisie against the feudal-absolutist system, turned out to be a natural outcome of the life of this commoner by birth (his father was a pharmacist), a nobleman by chance, a humanist and a warrior by vocation.

Having received a good education for his time, Montchretien at the age of 20 decided to become a writer and published a tragedy in verse on an ancient plot. It was followed by several other dramatic and poetic works. It is also known that he composed the “History of Normandy”. In 1605, when Montchretien was already a famous writer, he was forced to flee to England after a duel that ended in the death of his opponent.

A four-year stay in England played the same role in his life as a stay in Holland several decades later in Petty’s life: he saw a country with a more developed economy and more developed bourgeois relations. Montchretien begins to take a keen interest in trade, crafts, and economic policy. Looking at the English order, they mentally try it on in France. Perhaps the fact that in England he met many French Huguenot emigrants was important for his future fate. Most of them were artisans, many very skilled. Montchretien saw that their work and skill brought England considerable benefit, and France, forcing them to emigrate, suffered a great loss.

Montchretien returned to France as a convinced supporter of the development of national industry and trade, a defender of the interests of the third estate. He began to put his new ideas into practice. Having married a rich widow, he founded a hardware workshop and began selling his goods in Paris, where he had his own warehouse. But his main occupation was working on the Treatise. Despite the loud name, he wrote a purely practical essay, in which he tried to convince the government of the need for comprehensive protection of French industrialists and merchants. Montchretien advocates customs protectionism - high duties on foreign goods so that their import does not interfere with national production. He glorifies work and sings unusual praise for his time to the class, which he considered the main creator of the country's wealth: “Good and glorious artisans are extremely useful to their country; I dare say that they are necessary and should be respected.”

Montchretien was one of the prominent representatives mercantilism, oh which will be discussed in the next chapter. He thought of the country's economy primarily as an object of public administration. He considered foreign trade, especially the export of industrial and handicraft products, to be the source of the wealth of the country and the state (king).

Montchretien presented his work, which he dedicated to the young King Louis XIII and the Queen Mother, to the Keeper of the State Seal (Minister of Finance) immediately after its publication. Apparently loyal in form, the book was initially well received at court. Its author began to play a well-known role as a kind of economic adviser, and in 1617 he took the post of mayor in the city of Chatillon-on-Loire. He probably received nobility at this time. It is unknown when Montchretien converted to Protestantism and how he ended up in the ranks of the Huguenot rebels. He may have become disillusioned with his hopes for the active and real implementation of his projects by the royal government, and was indignant to see them instead fanning the flames of a new religious war. Perhaps he came to the conclusion that Protestantism was more consistent with his established principles, and, being a decisive and courageous man, he took up arms for it.

But let us return to the Treatise of Political Economy. Why did Montchretien call his work that and was there any special merit in it? Hardly. The last thing he thought was that he was giving a name to a new science. This or a similar combination of words, so to speak, was in the air - in the air of the Renaissance, when many ideas and concepts of ancient culture were resurrected, rethought and given new life. Like any well-educated person of his time, Montchretien knew Greek and Latin and read ancient authors. In the Treatise, following the spirit of the times, he refers to them every now and then. Undoubtedly, he knew the meaning of the word saving And economy had in Xenophon and Aristotle in the writers of the 17th century. these words still meant housekeeping, family and personal management. A little later than Montchretien, an Englishman published a book called “Economic Observations and Advice.” The author defined economy as “the art of good management of home and fortune” and dealt, for example, with such a problem as a gentleman’s choice of a suitable wife. According to his “economic” advice, one should choose a lady as a wife who “will be as useful during the day as pleasant at night.”

Obviously, this was not exactly the kind of economy that interested Montchretien. All his thoughts were aimed precisely at the prosperity of the economy as state, national community. Of course, we were not talking about the state that Aristotle knew and depicted, But the affairs of this state remained affairs political. It is not surprising that before the word economical he defined political.

For a good 150 years after Montchretien, political economy was considered primarily as a science of state economy, about the economy of nation states, ruled, as a rule, by absolute monarchs. Only under Adam Smith, with the creation of the classical school of bourgeois political economy, its character changed and it began to turn into a science about the laws of economics in general, in particular about the economic relations of classes. The German Friedrich List, an ardent nationalist in economics, had to emphasize his difference from the cosmopolitan universality of the classical school already in the 40s of the 19th century. Title your essay “National System of Political Economy.” If he had simply written “political economy,” he would not have been understood in the same way as Montchretien was understood two centuries earlier.

Montchretien's main merit, of course, is not that he gave his book such a successful title page. This was one of the first works in France and Europe specifically devoted to economic problems. It singled out and limited a special subject of research, different from the subject of other social sciences.

French economist, author of the term “political economy”. Montchretien was one of the prominent representatives of mercantilism. He thought of the country's economy primarily as an object of public administration. He considered foreign trade, especially the export of industrial and handicraft products, to be the source of the wealth of the country and state (king). Montchretien's main work is “Treatise of Political Economy” (1615). This was one of the first works in France and Europe specifically devoted to economic problems. It singled out and limited a special subject of research, different from the subject of other social sciences.

Economic theory as a science is the result of long historical development. The origins of economic science are the Greek thinker Aristotle, who was the first economist to use the terms “economy” and “economics” in the same sense. Aristotle, for the first time in the history of economic science, analyzed the main economic phenomena and patterns of society of that time.

Economics received its name in the 17th century. The Frenchman Antoine Montchretien first introduced the term into socio-economic literature political economy: in In 1615 he published the Treatise of Political Economy. With this, Montchretien proclaimed that economic science deals with the economy, economy within the framework of national states (politics - state). However, Montchretien's main merit is that he singled out economic problems as a special independent subject of study. In this way he separated economics from other social sciences.

Economics received its name in the 17th century. The Frenchman Antoine Montchretien first introduced the term political economy into socio-economic literature: in 1615 he published the Treatise of Political Economy. With this, Montchretien proclaimed that economic science deals with the economy, economy within the framework of national states (politics - state). However, Montchretien's main merit is that he singled out economic problems as a special independent subject of study. In this way he separated economics from other social sciences.

A century and a half after Montchretien, political economy was viewed primarily as the science of state management. Only with the creation of the classical school of bourgeois political economy, the founder of which was the English economist Adam Smith, did its character change, and it began to turn into a science about the laws of economics in general.

Antoine de Montchretien (1575-1621)

Montchretien's place in the history of economics is probably more a result of the title than of the contents of the Traicte de l'oeconomie. Never before have the words "political" and "economics" been combined on the title page of a volume purporting to be a treatise that involves the systematic treatment of a single topic. For some this is Montchretien's only merit, others believe that he was engaged in the painstaking work of separating the analytical wheat from the chaff of factual data. Montchretien's contribution to economics, even if partly lacking in originality, introduces for the first time some important elements what was to serve as the standard for the mercantilist way of thinking. Sharing the political credo of his contemporary Jean Bodin, Montchretien was nevertheless the first to add (to foreign wars) the search for wealth as a means of ensuring the stability of the social order of France, formed around the king. Traicte is one of the first works to explicitly question the old Aristotelian claim about the independence of politics from (and its superiority over) other aspects of social life, including economic activity.

the merchants are more than useful, and their concern for income, which is carried out in work and industry, creates/is the cause of a large part of the public wealth. For this reason, they should be forgiven for the love of gain and the desire for it.

From this naturally follows the statement of the mercantilists about the need for state assistance in improving the well-being of nations. For the first time emphasizing the close relationship between politics and economics, it was Montchretien who christened political economy a work that included simple evidence about how the wealth of a nation is produced, distributed and exchanged, and which were systematically studied only a century and a half later.

As an independent field of knowledge, economic science can only be discussed starting from the 16th-18th centuries. And the first attempts are theoretical, i.e. in the form of a certain system of views, describe economic activities associated with the ideas of the mercantilist school. Mercantilism as a theory spread widely in Europe and went through two stages in its development. Among the most famous mercantilists are the Englishmen T. Mena and W. Stafford, the Frenchmen F. Colbert and A. Montchretien, the Italian A. Scaruffi, the Spaniard Serra, the Russians A. Ordyn-Nashchokin and I. Pososhkov. The mercantilists reflected the ideology of the emerging bourgeoisie in the era of primitive accumulation of capital, and therefore tried to explore the problem - what is the wealth of society and how it can be increased. Answering this question, they come to the conclusion that wealth is money (gold and silver), and the source of its receipt was considered primarily foreign trade. Therefore, mercantilists focused on studying purely economic phenomena: foreign trade and trade balance, money and interest rates. The ideas of mercantilism became the basis of economic policy, which was reduced to protectionist measures and was carried out by almost all countries. However, mercantilism did not become a scientific theory, since it studied external economic forms, limiting itself to describing the appearance of their manifestation.

Political economy (this term for economic knowledge was introduced into scientific circulation by the mercantilist A. Montchretien, who published his “Treatise on Political Economy” in 1615) becomes a truly scientific theory in the works and ideas of representatives of the classical school of bourgeois political economy, which developed in the 17th-18th centuries. The most famous of them were W. Petty (1623-1687), F. Quesnay (1694-1774), A. Smith (1723-1790), D. Ricardo (1772-1823). Their merit lay primarily in the fact that they were the first, and indeed from a scientific position, using the methodology of logical abstraction, to consider the development of society as a natural process, with its inherent internal laws, so they tried to penetrate into the essence of economic processes and phenomena, and were not limited only their external description. The undoubted merit of the classic of bourgeois political economy is the transfer of the study of the origin of wealth from the sphere of exchange to the sphere of production. And although this issue was considered by the classic in different ways (for example, the school of physiocrats led by F. Quesnay considered only agricultural production as a wealth-creating industry), they all correctly define the main sphere of enrichment - material production. This objectively reflected the interests of strengthening the economic and political dominance of the bourgeoisie, which then brought with it new, progressive relations.

Views