HIS1030 EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT Essays - , Term Papers

HIS1030: EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT THE ECONOMIC CRISIS AND THE POLITICAL CRISIS COMPARED The 17th century marked a period of intense upheaval and instability for European nations -it saw states almost topple under economic hardships, mortality rates and subsequent political resistance to such conditions. Whilst academics have reached general consensus about the existence of a crisis in Europe at this period, debate continues today over the nature of this crisis. In consideration of this, I will examine two notable contributions to this field - one arguing that the crisis was economic in both cause and nature, whilst the other assesses the political overtones of the situation, and in doing so I hope to be able to demonstrate how evidence and argument can be constructed to create historical interpretation. As a Marxist historian, it is unsurprising that in his perspective of the general crisis, Eric Hobsbawm elects to focus on economic trends visible across the continent over the course of the century. He argues that methods associated with capitalism failed to take root in a feudalist social framework too premature to support it, and the subsequent social discontent and financial regression that came to epitomise the period arose primarily from this. Particular focus is drawn to the decline of Italy as a demonstration of the parasitic' nature of capitalism on feudal societies, as well as the impacts of the English Revolution in activating a healthy national market. The article presents a focused perspective of events as a crisis of commerce and economic decline that had far reaching implications, but were ultimately the starting point from which crises of a different nature derived. In considerable contrast, Hugh Trevor-Roper's account of the same topic shows little acceptance for even the basic fundaments of Hobsbawm's argument - he is openly dismissive of the classical Marxist interpretation of the crisis as espoused by Hobsbawm, and instead attributes the initial cause and proliferation of crisis to what he identifies as a breakdown in relations between state and society. In evidencing this claim he talks at length of the political events preceding the 17th century, most notably the rise of the so-called renaissance-state' and with that the extensive expansion of bureaucracy, which Roper claims to be the main enemy of the people who participated in revolt endemic throughout Europe. Whilst the argument does not refuse to place any emphasis on the role of economic downturn in the creation of a climate suitable for such revolution, it remains insistence that the general crisis was not one of commerce, nor production, but instead a societal reaction against the a buses of political systems which caused such economic disparity with European societies. Interestingly, in a published response to Trevor-Roper, Hobsbawm does not see the ideas in the two articles to be conflicting; he notes that, "in fact, our articles are complementary rather than competitive". However the extent to which this can be justified is compromised given that Trevor-Roper's argument rests considerably on the assumption that the crisis had a significant political component, which Hobsbawn does not seem to necessarily take for granted. He talks about the rise of absolutist monarchies across Europe as one of the sole indicators of stability within the crisis - a demonstration of political reliability in a period of vast economic uncertainty. The absence of a political crisis is certainly not visible in Trevor-Roper's account of the ineffectiveness of the renaissance state, whose excessive and universal polices of veniality placed great strains on a great number of European populations. However, in presenting this argument he arguably places too much emphasis on feelings of resentment towards the operators of the stat and does not consider that social discontent arose not through deep anti-establishment sentiments but much rather as a resistance against worsening economic situations. This is not to suggest that there was no antagonism - even Hobsbawm identifies that absolutism was reckless in providing financial support for insecure ventures, however I would personally question the notion of the deep and bitter divide between society and state that Trevor-Roper bases his article upon. In addition to struggling to find common ground over the very nature of this general crisis' we are also able to identify discrepancies on how the crisis eventually came to an