Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:52:30.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IN THE SHADOW OF LACEDAEMON: LUXURY, WEALTH AND EARLY-MODERN REPUBLICAN THOUGHT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2019

Nikola Regent
Nikola Regent*
Affiliation:
Australian National University, nikola.regent@anu.edu.au.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article examines Sparta’s influence on the treatment of luxury and wealth in early-modern republican thought, analyzing three key thinkers: Francesco Guicciardini, Montesquieu and Abbé de Mably. In this view, unnecessary wealth and, particularly, consumption over a certain limited level, is a pernicious extravagance that harms virtue and leads to corruption of the commonwealth that allows it. Both the direct influence of the Spartan example and the correlative Platonic ideal, inspired by the Lacedaemonians, are analyzed; the influence of Plutarch is emphasized. Special attention is given to the distinction between the Platonic account, with the twin dangers of both wealth and poverty, and a simpler, binary opposition of virtuous poverty vs. corrupting wealth. Guicciardini’s and Mably’s views are closely examined; for Montesquieu, the article traces the decisive role Plato plays in Montesquieu’s account of luxury, and analyzes his almost unknown work, Dialogue de Xantippe, showing the importance of Sparta for Montesquieu’s idea of republic.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 477 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank the editor, Jimena Hurtado, and the three JHET referees for their comments. The research for this article was supported by the Australian Research Council grant DE140101358.

References

REFERENCES

Appian. 1912. Roman History. Volume 1: Books 1–8.1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1935. Eudemian Ethics. In The Athenian Constitution, Eudemian Ethics and On Virtues and Vices. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 189–481.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1932. Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Keith Michael. 1990. “A Script for a French Revolution: The Political Consciousness of the Abbé Mably.” In Inventing the French Revolution: Essays on French Political Culture in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 86–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Keith Michael. 2001. “Transformations of Classical Republicanism in Eighteenth-Century France.” Journal of Modern History 73 (1): 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Christopher J. 1994. The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical Investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cambiano, Giuseppe. 1974. “Montesquieu e le antiche repubbliche greche.” Rivista di filosofia 65: 93–144.Google Scholar
Carrithers, David W. 2001. “Democratic and Aristocratic Republics: Ancient and Modern.” In Carrithers, David W., Mosher, Michael A., and Rahe, Paul A., eds., Montesquieu’s Science of Politics: Essays on The Spirit of Laws. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 109–158.Google Scholar
Cartledge, Paul. 1999. “The Socratics’ Sparta and Rousseau’s.” In Hodkinson, Stephen and Powell, Anton, eds., Sparta: New Perspectives. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, pp. 311–337.Google Scholar
Cheney, Paul. 2010. Revolutionary Commerce: Globalization and the French Monarchy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1912. Letters to Atticus. Volume 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Constant, Benjamin. [1810] 2003. Principles of Politics. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Constant, Benjamin. [1819] 1988. “The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with That of the Moderns.” In Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 307–328.Google Scholar
De Viti de Marco, Antonio. 1936. First Principles of Public Finance. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Destutt de Tracy, Antoine. 1819. Commentaire sur l’Esprit des Lois de Montesquieu. Paris: Delaunay.Google Scholar
Dijn, Annelien de. 2014. “Was Montesquieu a Liberal Republican?” Review of Politics 76 (1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dio, Cassius. 1914. Roman History. Volume 1: Books 1–11. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Diodorus, Siculus. 1952. Library of History. Volume 7: Books 15.20–16.65. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Siculus, Diodorus. 1957. Library of History. Volume 11: Fragments of Books 21–32. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Douglass, Robin. 2012. “Montesquieu and Modern Republicanism.” Political Studies 60 (3): 703–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, Émile. [1892] 1960. Montesquieu’s Contribution to the Rise of Social Science. In Montesquieu and Rousseau: Forerunners of Sociology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 1–64.Google Scholar
Ferrand, Julie. 2013. “Mably and the Liberalisation of the Grain Trade: An Economically and Socially Inefficient Policy.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 20 (6): 882–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrand, Julie, and Orain, Arnaud. 2017. “Abbé de Mably on Commerce, Luxury, and ‘Classical Republicanism.’” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 39 (2): 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrand, Julie, and Orain, Arnaud. Forthcoming. “Sensualism, Modern Natural Law and ‘Science of Commerce’ at the Heart of the Controversy between Mably and the Physiocrates.” In Kaplan, Steven L. and Reinert, Sophus, eds., The Economic Turn: Recasting Political Economy in Eighteenth-Century Europe. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
Guerci, Luciano. 1979. Libertà degli antichi e liberta dei moderni: Sparta, Atene e i philosophes nella Francia del Settecento. Napoli: Guida.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Francesco. 1857. Ricordi politici e civili. In Opere inedite. Volume 1. Firenze: Barbèra, Biahchi e comp., pp. 81–224.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Francesco. 1858. Del modo di mantenere il Governo popolare col Consiglio Grande, dopo che fu deciso nella Dieta di Mantova, dagli Imperiali, dagli Spagnuoli e dal papa, di rimettere i Medici in Firenze [Discorso di Logrogno]. In Opere inedite. Volume 2. Firenze: Barbèra, Biahchi e comp., pp. 262–315.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Francesco. 1867a. La Decima scalata. In Opere inedite. Volume 10. Firenze: M. Cellini e comp., pp. 353–378.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Francesco. 1867b. Delle buone leggi e della forza. In Opere inedite. Volume 10. Firenze: M. Cellini e comp., pp. 379–381.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Francesco. 1867c. Del suicidio per ragione di libertà o di servitù. In Opere inedite. Volume 10. Firenze: M. Cellini e comp., pp. 382–388.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Francesco. 1932a. Dialogo del Reggimento di Firenze. In Dialogo e discorsi del Reggimento di Firenze. Bari: Laterza, pp. 1–172.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Francesco. 1932b. La decima scalata. In Dialogo e discorsi del Reggimento di Firenze. Bari: Laterza, pp. 196–217.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Francesco. 1932c. Del modo di ordinare il governo popolare [Discorso di Logrogno]. In Dialogo e discorsi del Reggimento di Firenze. Bari: Laterza, pp. 218–259.Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Francesco. 1933. Ricordi. In Scritti politici e Ricordi. Bari: Laterza, pp. 239–335.Google Scholar
Helvétius, Claude-Adrien. [1773] 1810. A Treatise on Man. Two volumes. London: Vernor, Hood and Sharpe.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. [1977] 1997. The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hont, Istvan. 2008. “The ‘Rich Country—Poor Country’ Debate Revisited: The Irish Origins and French Reception of the Hume Paradox.” In Wennerlind, Carl and Schabas, Margaret, eds., David Hume’s Political Economy. London: Routledge, pp. 243–323.Google Scholar
Hume, David. [1751] 1983. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Indianapolis: Hackett.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David. [1752] 1987. “Of Refinement in the Arts.” In Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp. 268–280.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. [1936] 1973. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lacy, Phillip H. de, and Einarson, Benedict. 1959. Introduction to Plutarch, De cupiditate divitiarum / On Love of Wealth. In Moralia. Volume 7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 2–5.Google Scholar
Larrère, Catherine. 2001. “Montesquieu on Economics and Commerce.” In Carrithers, David W., Mosher, Michael A., and Rahe, Paul A., eds., Montesquieu’s Science of Politics: Essays on The Spirit of Laws. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 335–373.Google Scholar
Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de. [1749] 1770. Observations on the Greeks. Lynn: W. Whittingham.Google Scholar
Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de. [1751] 1792a. Observations sur les Romains. In Oeuvres complètes. Volume 4. Lyon: J.B. Delamolliere, pp. 223–517.Google Scholar
Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de. [1757] 1792b. Principes des négociations, pour servir d’introduction au droit public de l’Europe, fondé sur les traités. In Oeuvres complètes. Volume 5. Lyon: J.B. Delamolliere, pp. 1–198.Google Scholar
Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de. [1758] 1792c. Des droits et des devoirs du citoyen. In Oeuvres complètes. Volume 11. Lyon: J.B. Delamolliere, pp. 245–472.Google Scholar
Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de. [1763] 1792d. Entretiens de Phocion, sur le rapport de la morale avec la politique. In Oeuvres complètes. Volume 10. Lyon: J.B. Delamolliere, pp. 1–203.Google Scholar
Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de. [1764a] 1792e. Observations sur l’histoire de la Grèce. In Oeuvres complètes. Volume 4. Lyon: J.B. Delamolliere, pp. 1–222.Google Scholar
Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de. [1764b] 1792f. Le droit public de l’Europe, fondé sur les traités. In Oeuvres complètes. Volume 5 (pp. 199–576), Volume 6 and Volume 7. Lyon: J.B. Delamolliere.Google Scholar
Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de. [1768] 1792g. Doutes proposées aux philosophes économistes sur l’ Ordre naturel et essentiel des sociétés politiques. In Oeuvres complètes. Volume 11. Lyon: J.B. Delamolliere, pp. 1–244.Google Scholar
Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de. [1775] 1792h. De l’étude de l’histoire, à monseigneur le prince de Parme. In Oeuvres complètes. Volume 12. Lyon: J.B. Delamolliere, pp. 1–318.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, Niccolò. [c. 1513–19] 1971. Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio. In Tutte le opere. Firenze: Sansoni, pp. 73–254.Google Scholar
Momigliano, Arnaldo. 1990. “Tacitus and the Tacitist Tradition.” In The Classical Origins of Modern Historiography. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 109–131.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. [c. 1717] 2002. Discourse on Cicero. In Political Theory 30 (5): 733–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. [c. 1727] 1892. Dialogue de Xantippe et Xénocrate. In Mélanges inédits. Bordeaux: G. Gounouilhou, pp. 99–105.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. [1734] 1854a. Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur decadence. In Oeuvres completes. Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, pp. 125–188.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. [1748] 1854b. De l’Esprit des Lois. In Oeuvres completes. Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, pp. 189–528.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. [1748] 1989. The Spirit of the Laws. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. 2012. My Thoughts. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Nelson, Eric. 2004. The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrotta, Cosimo. 2004. Consumption as an Investment: The Fear of Goods from Hesiod to Adam Smith. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platania, Marco. 2007. Montesquieu e la virtù. Torino: UTET.Google Scholar
Plato. 1926. Laws. Two volumes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Plato. 1929. Epistles. In Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus and Epistles. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 383–627.Google Scholar
Plato. 1930–1935. Republic. Two volumes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1914a. Lycurgus. In The Parallel Lives. Volume 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 203–303.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1914b. Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa. In The Parallel Lives. Volume 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 383–401.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1916. Alcibiades. In The Parallel Lives. Volume 4. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–115.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1919. Phocion. In The Parallel Lives. Volume 8. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 143–233.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1921. Cleomenes. In The Parallel Lives. Volume 10. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 50–141.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1931a. Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata / Sayings of Kings and Commanders. In Moralia. Volume 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–153.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1931b. Apophthegmata Laconica / Sayings of Spartans. In Moralia. Volume 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 239–421.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1931c. Instituta Laconica / The Ancient Customs of the Spartans. In Moralia. Volume 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 423–449.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1936a. De fortuna Romanorum / On the Fortune of the Romans. In Moralia. Volume 4. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 319–377.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1936b. De vitando aere alieno / That We Ought Not to Borrow. In Moralia. Volume 10. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 313–339.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1959a. De cupiditate divitiarum / On Love of Wealth. In Moralia. Volume 7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1959b. De genio Socratis / On the Sign of Socrates. In Moralia. Volume 7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 361–509.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 1975. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 1985. Virtue, Commerce, and History: Essays on Political Thought and History, Chiefly in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 2003a. Barbarism and Religion. Volume 3: The First Decline and Fall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 2003b. Afterword to the second edition of The Machiavellian Moment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 553–583.Google Scholar
Polybius. 1922. Histories. Volume 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rahe, Paul A. 2009. Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rawson, Elizabeth. 1969. The Spartan Tradition in European Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Regent, Nikola. 2008. “A ‘Medical Moment’: Guicciardini and Lycurgus’ Knife.” History of European Ideas 34 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regent, Nikola. 2011. “Machiavelli: Empire, Virtù and the Final Downfall.” History of Political Thought 32 (5): 751–772.Google Scholar
Regent, Nikola. 2014. “Guicciardini’s La Decima scalata: The First Treatise on Progressive Taxation.” History of Political Economy 46 (2): 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regent, Nikola. 2016. “Montaigne and the Lessons of Ancient History.” Global Intellectual History 1 (2): 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. [1750] 1987. Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts. In Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. [1752a] 2012a. Histoire de Lacédémon. In Oeuvres completes. Volume 9. Genève: Éditions Slatkine, pp. 45–51.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. [1752b] 2012b. Parallèle entre les républiques de Sparte et de Rome. In Oeuvres completes. Volume 9. Genève: Éditions Slatkine, pp. 51–58.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. [1762] 1987. Social Contract. In Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 139–227.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. [1954] 1986. History of Economic Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shklar, Judith N. 1990. “Montesquieu and the New Republicanism.” In Bock, Gisela, Skinner, Quentin and Viroli, Maurizio, eds., Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 265–279.Google Scholar
Shovlin, John. 2008. “Hume’s Political Discourses and the French Luxury Debate.” In Wennerlind, Carl and Schabas, Margaret, eds., David Hume’s Political Economy. London: Routledge, pp. 203–222.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1990. “The Republican Ideal of Political Liberty.” In Bock, Gisela, Skinner, Quentin and Viroli, Maurizio, eds., Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 293–309.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 2002. Visions of Politics. Volume 2: Renaissance Virtues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. [1763] 1982. Lectures on Jurisprudence. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. [1776] 1904. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
Sonenscher, Michael. 2002. “Republicanism, State Finances and the Emergence of Commercial Society in Eighteenth-Century France—or from Royal to Ancient Republicanism and Back.” In van Gelderen, Martin and Skinner, Quentin, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonenscher, Michael. 2008. Sans-Culottes: An Eighteenth-Century Emblem in the French Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, Céline. 2003. “Montesquieu: Critique of Republicanism?” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 6 (1): 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, Céline. 2006. Montesquieu et l’émergence de l’économie politique. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Spector, Céline. 2012. “Was Montesquieu Liberal? The Spirit of the Laws in the History of Liberalism.” In Geenens, Raf and Rosenblatt, Helena, eds., French Liberalism from Montesquieu to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, David. 2000. “Helvétius: From Radical Enlightenment to Revolution.” Political Theory 28 (3): 307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Johnson Kent. 1997. A Classical Republican in Eighteenth-Century France: The Political Thought of Mably. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Johnson Kent. 2002. “The Idea of a Republican Constitution in Old Régime France.” In van Gelderen, Martin and Skinner, Quentin, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xenophon. 1925. Constitution of the Lacedaemonians. In Scripta Minora. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 135–189.Google Scholar