Enlightened despotism, also called benevolent despotism, a form of government in the 18th

century in which absolute monarchs pursued legal, social, and educational reforms inspired by
the Enlightenment. Among the most prominent enlightened despots were Frederick II (the
Great), Catherine II (the Great), Joseph II, and Leopold II. They typically instituted administrative
reform, religious toleration, and economic development but did not propose reforms that
would undermine their sovereignty or disrupt the social order.
Diderot was the first to use the term, “enlightened despots” or despotism eclaire, referring to
those rulers who ruled despotically and yet, were heavily influenced by the chief ideas of
Enlightenment. The rulers of the second half of the 18th century, especially Catherine of Russia,
Joseph II of Austria and Fredrick II of Prussia were said to be enlightened despots for while they
continued to develop their rule based on principles of absolutism, they were prepared to reform
the administrative structures and formulate policies under the theories of enlightenment.
Stephen J Lee calls it a “marriage of convenience”.
Among the philosophes of the time, they believed that the success of any state depended on
the degree of freedom and happiness it was able to assure its people. As David Hume put it, a
state is justified by the good that is done in its name. Voltaire and Diderdot, in particular,
believed in ''enlightened absolutism." They wanted enlightened monarchs to impose reforms
that would benefit their subjects. Rousseau, however, warned that absolutism and enlightened
thinking were incompatible.
Over the past century there has been widespread disagreement over both the motivation and
sincerity of those later eighteenth-century rulers who professed to be converts to
Enlightenment thought. At the same time, many scholars have questioned the compatibility of
Enlightenment ideals with any form of authoritarian government, especially one that places
limits on the freedom of the individual. While the “enlightened” monarchs often implemented
policies based on enlightenment ideas, many of their actions were also purely motivated by
pragmatic reasons. They implemented common policies such as centralization of government,
subordination of the church, encouragement to new technology, development of economy,
promotion of agriculture and patronage to arts, science and education. Their claims, thereby, of
implementing the new ideas of enlightenment presented a confused picture as few of the
policies they brought about were actually novel. Thus, to M.S. Anderson, there was nothing new
in what these rulers did and therefore, their reforms and policies cannot be associated with
enlightenment. Lefebvre agrees and goes to the extent of rejecting the concept of enlightened
despotism as a whole. Herbert Butterfield took a more critical view of enlightened despotism.
He argued that while the enlightened monarchs of Europe may have had good intentions, their
attempts at reform were ultimately limited by their own self-interest and the constraints of the
absolute monarchies they ruled. For Karl Marx it was an attempt to keep alive, by exploiting
bourgeois doctrines and achievements, the control that was earlier exercised by the feudal
class.
On the other hand, Fritz Hartung makes the assumption that the monarchs were inspired by
benevolent motives, arguing instead that their reforms masked attempts to achieve parallel but
less ''enlightened'' goals. Benevolent kingship meant that the rulers were in fact servants to the
State. The secularization of the State, the disestablishment of the Church, a reduction in
aristocratic privileges and other privileges, a deep concern for general welfare, respect for
natural freedom and rights of the citizens, a broadening interest in economy and improvement
in the efficiency of government administration were popular characteristics of ‘enlightened
despotism’.
Thomas Carlyle saw enlightened despotism as a positive force for change. He believed that the
enlightened monarchs of Europe, such as Frederick II of Prussia and Catherine II of Russia, were
able to use their power to improve the lives of their subjects and create a more just society.
The so-called 'Enlightened despots' needed to increase their power, as they required larger
armies, more sophisticated weapons, great luxurious courts and a large number of officials. In a
period of inflation, they were compelled to search for fresh sources of income. Since there was
an outer limit to the amount that could be squeezed from the peasants and common
townsmen, the obvious solution for the rulers was to end the tax exemptions that had earlier
been granted to the nobles and clergies. They needed control over the church and its property.
These rulers wanted to realize the commercial and industrial potential of the country and they
needed to destroy the privileged status of guilds. To attract the skilled and wealthy immigrants
to carry out the development of the state economy, religious toleration was necessary. They
believed that protecting them against exploitation by the feudal lords could increase the paying
capacity of the peasants. So there was the need to abolish serfdom or at least to weaken it.
Critics of enlightened despotism have also questioned the compatibility of the authoritarian
institutions of absolute monarchy with the basic libertarian principles of the Enlightenment.
Even scholars such as Leonard Krieger who basically accept the notion that the monarchs were
influenced by Enlightenment ideas have stressed the basic contradiction between individual
freedom and those ''organizing principles" of absolutism that placed no limits on the exercise of
sovereignty. Some German historians have dwelled on what Karl Otmar von Aretin has termed
''the dilemma of enlightened absolutism" that could reduce the scourge of corporate privilege
only at the cost of simultaneously reducing individual freedom. Here, scholars confront the
aggression of Catherine the Great, Joseph II, and especially Frederick the Great and the
incompatibility of their militarism with Enlightenment principle.
If we are to judge enlightened absolutism fairly, it seems essential that we recognize that, like
all progressive historical forces, it interacted with established values and institutions that limited
and shaped its thrust. Only then can we avert the philosophes' mistake in exaggerating its
potential or that of modern-day skeptics in rejecting its validity. It is also important to note that
just as enlightenment is not a coherent body of thought and essentially a collection of ideas
which were in vogue among the thinking men of the 18th century, the relationship between
Enlightenment and the despots varied from state to state.

In late eighteenth-century Russia, no one exercised greater influence in spreading the ideas of
the philosophes than Empress Catherine II. Future empress recorded d’Alembert’s remark that,
“from a citizen’s perspective, political liberty consists in the assurance that he is protected by
the laws, or at least in the belief in that assurance.” Catherine held it “a contradiction of
Christian law and of justice” to extend slavery to free peoples; she also expressed the desire to
liberate Russian serfs gradually from their bondage. The biggest influence on Catherine’s
thinking before her seizure of power was Montesquieu. In her opinion, Russia was, in fact, a
despotism, just as Montesquieu had said.
According to Madariaga, before taking power, Catherine’s political thinking was inconsistent: the
future empress endorsed the rule of law but also the idea of unitary centralized power; she held
that Russian nobles had no rights in comparison to their Western counterparts. The
composition that made Catherine’s European-wide reputation as a political thinker was her
Instruction to the Commission for Composition of a New Law Code(1767)—a document also
called the Grand Instruction, or simply Instruction. As Madariaga has noted, the Instruction has
sometimes been mistakenly understood as a “series of laws,” or even as a “constitution” for
Russia. In fact, it was at once a fairly straightforward statement of legislative principles meant to
serve as a template for a new code of laws, a work illustrating the political uses of enlightened
political philosophy, and propaganda advertising the Russian monarch as an enlightened,
progressive European leader.
General Bibikov observed that the Instruction did not make a clear distinction between public
and civil law, that Catherine had not precisely defined the difference between statutory and
moral offenses, and that she had not carefully defined the role of the Senate in making
legislation.
The most critical of the assessments from Sumarokov he rejected her idea that an autocratic
government can govern in a spirit of “moderation.” In Sumarokov’s opinion, monarchies
succeed not by moderation, but rather by the principled administration of justice.
Catherine II attempted to maintain Russia’s Orthodox outlook while simultaneously encouraging
her subjects to think of themselves as Europeans. Her famous Instruction to the Legislative
Commission appealed to Christian law as the foundation of the Russian realm, but it also
quoted verbatim from Western philosophes whose definitions of law were not explicitly
grounded in faith. Her definition of liberty, which emphasized conscience (“the possibility to do
what one ought to do and not being forced to do what one should not do”) and conformity to
law (“the right to do everything the law allows”), was both a restatement of Muscovite ideas
and a translation of Enlightenment dirigisme into a Russian idiom. Catherine’s étatisme,
commitment to social progress, and aversion to arbitrariness did much to set the framework of
public discourse about Russian politics until Napoleon’s invasion of the empire in 1812. In her
Instruction, Catherine simultaneously presented herself as a true daughter of Orthodoxy and as
a benign defender of non-Orthodox confessions. Her method of coping with the tensions in her
position—alternating between efforts to impose state regulation on religious minorities and
latitudinarian recognition of their collective right to worship—was typical of enlightened
absolutists. Russia’s path toward enlightenment had Orthodox Christian origins, and the energy
behind enlightenment before Catherine came mostly from Orthodox sources. Even under
Catherine, most thinkers visualized the enlightened Russian state of the future as an Orthodox
polity. The impact of Western sources on enlightened thinking in Russia should not be
underestimated. Russia’s path toward enlightenment proved generally friendly to the
established Church. It was consequently marked by surprisingly little anticlericalism, yet was
striking for its ethical assertiveness and for treating politics and morality more as conjoined than
as discrete spheres. For these reasons, Russia’s path toward enlightenment from 1500 to 1801
was a precondition for the explosive energy of nineteenth century Russian literature, a literature
known everywhere for its profound moralism, for its preoccupation with the correction of
individual vice and with the eradication of social injustice, for its utopianism and anti-
utopianism, and for its uncanny ability to comprehend everything human.

FRENCH MERCANTILISM
Mercantilism can be defined as the economic theory and practice that was common in Europe
from the 16 till the 18 century, which promoted governmental regulation of a nation's economy
for the purpose of increasing state power at the expense of the rival nations. The word was
coined by Adam Smith, in 1776 in his work "Wealth of Nations". Numerous scholars have
worked on and tried to define the system, the most notable being Schmoller and Heckscher.
Heckscher on one hand, is extremely critical of the mercantilist policies, while Schmoller on the
other was appreciative of it. Although, the fundamental idea remained the same, none of the
European nations followed identical policies, as often their actions were influenced by the
internal atmosphere and circumstances. In this context, the scholar Henri Chambre pointed out
that there as many mercantilisms as there are mercantilists.
Generally, the concept of mercantilism had two main features, one, the idea of prosperity being
closely related to state intervention in economy, and two, benefits for one nation results in the
loss for another. It held that a state's power was represented in actual calculable wealth, that
silver and gold bullion. Wealth was considered as a means of asserting strength rather than an
economic concept. Self-sufficiency was given great importance by the mercantilist states. In this
context, colonies also became an important aspect. To clearly understand and define the
mercantilist system, one needs to study the political and social background and conditions of
not just Europe, but also, every specific nation, at that time. It is only then canwe understand
the nuances of the concept, the differences in how it was followed in different nations during
the same period, and the influences that played a part in creating this difference. This essay will
specifically focus on trying to understand the system of mercantilism in France, especially under
Colbert.
French mercantilist thought developed in close relation with the theory of absolutism. In
contrast to England, where civil society was given relative importance, French mercantilism
considered the state to be the only agency capable of unifying the nation and helping it
progress. The state guaranteed the harmony and unity of the empire. Thus, the mercantilist
ideas in France played a major role in establishing and supporting the absolutist state. In other
words, mercantilism became the economic theory of absolutism. The occurrences if the past
century, had pushed many Frenchmen into supporting absolutism. One, being the civil wars in
the second half of the sixteenth century, two, the demands of the Third Estate to curb the
excessive privileges of the nobility, and of course the draining experience of the T 3/6 War. For
many French scholars, monarchy became the emancipator of France from the evils corrupting
its society. Thus, state became an active participant in the affairs of the civil society.
It was in this general context that French mercantilism developed. Economic prosperity was
considered to be an extremely important aspect of establishing the state's power. For
Frenchmen like Montchrétien, the central state simply had to be both economically and
politically powerful and self-sufficient. French mercantilism saw the economy as an extension of
the royal household Montchrétien points out in his "Traicté" that the administration of the state
economy required an extension of the ideas that were used for administering the economy of
the royal household. Economic issues were viewed from the same viewpoint as viewing fiscal
problems within the royal household. The state was the central figure in the economic analysis.
Montchrétien Traicté saw the formalisation of thisidea. He emphasised the need of France to
establish economic self-sufficiency. He supported the reduction of imports through the
development of domestic industries, and argued that it were the other nations that needed
France's products and not the other way around. He focuses largely on industry and commerce,
and calls it the dynamic sector which alone contributes to the expansion of national wealth by
bringing in a favourable balance of trade. Montchrétien Traicté laid down the basic principles of
French mercantilism very systematically and clearly.
Cardinal Richelieu was the first statesman to have echoed economic principles similar to that of
Montchrétien. Richelieu's mercantilist notions too were rooted in absolutist political philosophy.
His primary mission was to unify and centralise the Crown. He believed that it was his duty to
bring back the lost glory of France. And to this end, he sought to build the nation's military
power. He believed that military power was a part of financial strength, and thus undertook the
role of developing France's economic strength. He did this by focusing on commerce and
industries. He used royal edicts to achieve his objectives, for instance, he created a legislation
against consumption of imported luxury goods. Although, most of his energy was utilised in his
political and diplomatic expeditions. Institutionalising of French mercantilist principles came
only with the ministry of Jean-Baptiste Colbert.
Jean Baptiste Colbert was a minister under Louis XIV, and French mercantilism þ so synonymous
with him, that it is often even referred to as "Colbertism". Upon t me of his employer, Mazarin,
Colbert ascended to the position of Controller General. Under Colbert, mercantilism was at its
peak, and he expressed certain mercantilist notions with unparalleled clarity. He firmly believed
that it was the wealth of a state that determined its glory and power, and considered commerce
to be a kind of war or wit amongst the nations. In typical mercantilist lines, he believed that vital
resources were limited and that an increase in the wealth of one nation meant the loss of
another. To build its wealth and power, a nation needed influx of money from other nations and
not the outflow of money. In other words, import had to be curbed to attain a favorable balance
of power. His mercantilist ideas of Colbert were familiar, he wanted to keep bullion within the
country such that it can benefit the state treasury. He prohibited the export of bullion, and set
up high standards of quality. subsidizes exports and restricted imports until France became self-
sufficient
To implement his principles, Colbert imposed tariffs on imported manufactures, he encouraged
industries by offering them huge financial incentives, he organized overseas trading companies,
and most importantly he strengthened the navy. He promoted the sugar processing, chocolate,
and tobacco industries of the colonies. He laid emphasis on the production of military goods
and textile mills. And most importantly, he focused on the production of French luxury good,
which soon became iconic. Artisans such as glassblowers of Venice, were increasingly brought
in. To maintain French supremacy and as an act against the Dutch and the English, Colbert laid
heavy tariffs on some of their production. Colbert also promoted the planting of mulberry trees
so as to be able to produce fine quality textiles. He even tried to control the quality of the
products. He successfully constructed many roads and canals, especially the Canal du Midi that
linked the Atlantic part of Bordeaux with the Mediterranean part of Narbonne, in order to
reduce transport charges and make trans-oceanic trade more easier. Colbert detested the
idleness of others, and thus reduced a large number of festivals which interfered in production
and the working days. His ultimate aim was to increase the quality of production. He ensured
this by minute scrutiny of the production process, helso supported trade guilds, which he
viewed as allies to maintain standards. Colbert's ideas on taxation clearly reflected a conflict in
interest of people vs the state, "The art of taxation," he said, "consists in so plucking the goose
as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least amount of hissing"Colbert brought the
intellectual and artistic life of the nation under state control. this was done to make sure that art
and intellect served to glorify the king and his works. An enormous amount of money was
poured into palaces and chateaux for the king, the mightiest of which was the Versailles. Colbert
mobilized artists and intellectuals into academies, and supported them by giving them grants
and government projects. The French Academy, the Academy of Painting and Sculpture, and an
academy for architecture, were all given great patronage and importance. He even monopolised
theatres and replaced the French ballet in favour of the Italian opera. Thus, Colbert not only
focused on the financial situation but worked on every sphere of economic activity.
Despite opposition, he maintained his position, so much so that at one point he was driven to
extreme absolutism. He believed his measures were the way to further state progress and
disliked those who did not support him in this venture. His opponents, such as businessmen
who preferred competition or free exchange, were narrow, short-sighted, and selfish; as
compared to his long-run interests of the nation and the nation-state. By promoting mercantilist
ideas, he was not supporting the bourgeoisie, a class he himself belonged to, rather he was
attempting to advance the interests of the absolute monarch. As Cole points out, he was not a
representative of the bourgeoisie rather he represented the courtier class. Colbert only wanted
to change the economy from a loosely govered economy, to a strong centralized mercantilist
economy.
Colbert was increasingly opposed by the Aristocrats, the merchants, the poor, and many
sections of the society. They protested against the heavy tax assessments, the famines, and the
collapse of trade that was taking place. France failed to industrialise its economy, as the French
bourgeoisie was hesitant to invest in the industries. Mercantilism in France was too closely
related to the state, and thus could not flourish.
SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
Up until the 17th century, learning was characterized by the classical style or the Aristotelian
paradigm. However, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, huge advances were made in
scientific knowledge that created an unprecedented understanding of the universe - instead of
just assuming things; intellectuals began to look for specific proof and evidence of the functions
of nature. The theories of ancient scholars were refuted, therefore questioning the very
existence of society and how the universe was created. In the study of the history of science,
the years from Copernicus to Newton, have been known to constitute “the Scientific
Revolution”, and marked the birth of modern science. In the discussion of this period, there is
much debate on whether one can call it a ‘scientific revolution’ or not. Furthermore, while some
see it as a “break from the past”, others saw it as a combination of separate disparate changes.
However, what are important are the factors and conditions that led to the rise of modern
science. Various socio-economic conditions made their contribution to the rise of modern
science.
The beginning of science goes back to the ancient world. The Greeks had shaped knowledge of
science for a very long time. The views of Aristotle in the field of Physics, Ptolemy in astronomy
and Galen in medicine had dominated European thought for centuries. In the medieval period,
scholars studied the world, especially astronomy, based on the conclusions of these classics.
Further on, the Europeans also acquired knowledge of mathematics through the Arabs. One
might justifiably argue that the focal point for studying the rise of modern science ought to be
the evolution and development of the role of the scientist. This internalist view tended to
explain the origins of modern science as a coherent and transformative revolution. It was
supported by scholars such as Alexander Koyre, Herbert Butterfield, Koestler and A. Hall. Others
such as Thomas Kuhn, M. Clagett and A.C. Crombie work within this internalist approach but
theirs is an evolutionary perspective. According to them, Galileo and other scientists owed their
success to the intellectuals of the ancient and medieval periods. For them, Aristotelian views
were not a hindrance, but rather they were important in the development of science.
While placing modern science in the context of society we have to look at the relationship
between religion and science. These were two things that were neither too related nor too
detached. As Robin Briggs writes, knowledge of the natural world was related to the knowledge
of the divine. Many people who started contributing to the field of science were motivated by a
distinct religious spirit. While some scholars look at science and religion as two distinct things.
To begin with, Copernican theory opposes religious grounds. The Catholic Church had
suspended the approval of Copernicus’ book. Earlier, it was believed that the earth is the center
of this closed universe based on the Ptolemaic idea. When Copernicus went against this idea he
was sure of the mass opposition that he was going to face. He gave this idea of the earth’s orbit
around the sun. Copernicus made his new astronomical observations at Cracow and Padua in
the 1490s and 1500s. He also made the humanist rediscovery of earlier classical authors. His
works were a major shift from Ptolemy, a second-century astronomer. Copernicus’s theory was
an intellectual revolution over Ptolemy’s arguments which became rather prominent in later
times. Another major contributor to the scientific revolution was Johannes Kepler. He aligned
mathematics with astronomy. He backed Copernicus on the heliocentric theory and
substantiated three laws of planetary motion. In his book New Astronomy in 1601, Kepler
argued that the planetary motion was an ellipse and not circular. In his first major work, Kepler
tried to prove the number and the distances between the planets.

Early Capitalism & Navigation

It is mainly the Marxist writers that argue that the developments of the Scientific Revolution
arose in direct response to the needs of early capitalism, especially trade and navigation. R.
Hooykaas emphasised that the process of the discovery of the New World was started by the
Portuguese. And it was these discoveries which in turn fueled, scientific development. Ptolemy,
the great authority in astronomy throughout the later Middle Ages and the greatest authority in
geography, too, now turned out to be not wholly reliable. The same was the case with all those
writers of Antiquity who had described peoples, animals and plants. Their knowledge was often
incomplete. In the competition between Reason and Experience, the precedence was now
reversed. Both the scholastic philosophers and the humanists, who persistently clung to ancient
traditions, were deeply shocked, and at first they tried to save the honour and authority of the
Ancients by various exegetical tricks.
The Needs of the Bourgeois Class
Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann are classic examples of Marxist historiography of science.
The crux of Hessen-Grossman interpretation is that certain economic demands or needs are
correlated with certain technical problems or developments, which in turn are correlated with
fields of scientific study. Economics is said to present demands, which pose technical problems,
which generate scientific problems. Thus, there is a correlation between technological and
scientific endeavours. Essentially, scientific development came as a response to needs of the
bourgeois class at the time. Furthermore, Marxist scholars also argue that science should be
seen in the context of contemporary social change. F. Engels stated that science met the
technical needs of society and that there was no place for individual genius in the materialistic
interpretation of history. Edgard Zilsen is one of the most important contributors to the idea
that modern science was the product of a changing society. In the period of early capitalism,
towns became the cultural centres and economic success began to depend on the spirit of
enterprise and competition. The individualism of the new society is a presupposition of
scientific thinking. Urban society needed the knowledge of mathematics for keeping accounts
and calculations to understand the laws of mechanics. Thus, a capitalistic society provided the
necessary conditions for the rise of scientific spirit. However, Hugh Kearney stated that much of
the scientific developments of the time were abstract and theoretical. Therefore, they could not
apply in capitalistic society.
Ethics
Another important link that has been drawn is that between natural and experimental science
with Protestantism. Espousing the hypothesis suggested by Max Weber, R.K. Merton has
examined the growth of science in seventeenth century England. Then he tried to explain this
phenomenon by showing integration between sciences. Merton came to the conclusion that
Puritanism embodied the values of rationalism, empiricism, utilitarianism, secularism,
scepticism and free inquiry. All these values of Puritanism were obviously in harmony with the
institutional values of science. But it is not a sufficient verification. Therefore, Merton sought
the crucial test of his hypothesis in the following behavioural evidence: The norms of Puritanism
were deeply internalised and consciously expressed in their writings and behaviour by Puritan
scientists. The Puritans had greater prospersity for science and technology as against Catholics
in proportion to their total population. The inclination of the Puritans for science and
technology was likewise manifested in the type of education introduced and fostered by them.
Rodney Stark saw the scientific revolution as a product of Christian thinking. R. Hooykaas stated
that Christianity was instrumental in the rise of modern science. S.F. Mason and Christopher Hill
also wrote extensively on the links between the protestant faith and science. Even Luther
himself was a major critic of Copernicus, who is seen as the face of the beginnings of modern
science. T.K. Rabb was one of the leading critics who went on to highlight that many scientific
discoveries happened under Catholic regime. Lotte Mulligan, another major critic, challenges
the views of Merton and Hill.
In his book, The century of Revolution, Christopher Hill has put modern science in the
framework of social history. He associates science as a social phenomenon and links it with the
rise of the bourgeoisie class and Puritanism. He stated that science was a factor responsible for
the English Civil War. He further substantiates his argument by citing examples such as the
establishment of Gresham College to promote the study of science. Similarly, Francis Bacon had
stressed the fact that scientific development should be based on different scientific perspectives
clubbed together for the benefit of society. Hill tries to establish a relationship between
Puritanism and the rise of experimental science but Theodore K. Rabb dismisses this view of
his., He says that such a relationship is only clear after the 1640s and not before that. Rabb
argues that Hill only considered those aspects of Puritanism that facilitated his arguments and
based his study solely on the case study of England which was an obvious loophole. Similarly,
H.F.Kearny was also against the view of Christopher Hill and argued that there was little to no
relationship between economic and scientific development. Several new scientific discoveries
had no practical application. Kearny however, still partly puts his faith in the social impact of the
scientific revolution.
Another important scholar who talks about the relationship between reformation and science is
S.F.Mason. He argues that the scientific activity was seen as a Christian duty. The ideologies of
Calvin's theology were quite prominent in England. Science was more supported by the
Protestant faith like Puritans and Calvinists. It is quite evident from Robin Briggs’ conclusion that
conventional religious beliefs were quite durable even during the scientific revolution and there
were several limitations to early modern natural philosophy. As an industrial society was
gradually emerging to replace the agrarian society, an intellectual revolution was important to
facilitate this long-term process. However, everything was still being put in a religious
framework.
All in all, we saw it through various historiographies, where scholars put it in the context of
renaissance and reformation in Europe and also. This essay covers the evolution of the scientific
method and discusses Several historians like Christopher Hill who put it in a sociological context
and others. Many scholars try to establish a relationship between reformation and science and
several scholars have countered this argument. Others have argued it was the product of urban
society and with the changing society both Protestants and Catholics came to accept the new
reality associated with modern science. The rise of modern science can hence, not be detached
from the context of the socio-economic and cultural background of early modern Europe.
Conclusion
In conclusion, one can effectively say that the rise of modern science cannot be attributed to
any one cause. Rather, it was a culmination of various processes which arose from the prevailing
social and economic conditions of the time, along with a drive from preceding thoughts and
conventions that drew from Ancient knowledge of the Classic. The great change occurred when,
not incidentally but in principle and in practice, the scientists definitively recognized the priority
of Experience over Ancient Knowledge. It led to a reform of all scientific disciplines-not only of
the mathematical-because it influenced the method of all the sciences.

AMERICAN REVOLUTION
The American Revolution separated England’s North American colonies from Great Britain and
led to the formation of USA. This revolutionary war started around 1775 and lasted till 1783.
Majorly it is believed that the war was caused because of social, economical, political,
ideological difference between Great Britain and its 13 North American colonies. Historians are
generally divided into two camps in their interpretation of the American Revolution. Some
historians argue that the Revolution was primarily a colonial rebellion whose aim was simply
independence from Britain. According to these historians, colonial society was essentially a
democratic society. Other historians take a more radical view of the Revolution, seeing it as a
violent social upheaval that was the result of a class conflict in which the lower classes of
colonial society attempted to implement a greater degree of democracy and attain greater
equality. ROBERT E. BROWN (in 1955) and EDMUND S. MORGAN (in 1956) both argued that
most eighteenth-century Americans shared common political principles and that the social and
economic conflicts the progressives had identified were not severe. The rhetoric of the
Revolution, they suggested, was not propaganda but a real reflection of the ideas of the
colonists. While chalking out different causes historian also refer to DEFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE
SYSTEM of the England and the INFLUENCE OF WRITERS AND PHILOSOPHERS like THOMAS
PAINE who in his writing COMMONSENSE inspired the Americans to raise their voice against the
British government. SAMUEL ADAMS through his writings sowed the seed of independence
among the Americans But majorly it was policies of British that were adopted for the regulation
of its colonies. J. FRANKLIN JAMESON, writing in 1926, argued, "Many economic desires, many
social aspirations, were set free by the political struggle, many aspects of society profoundly
altered by the forces thus let loose." ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER mentioned in a 1917 book that
colonial merchants, motivated by their own interest in escaping the restrictive policies of British
mercantilism, aroused American resistance in the 1760s and 1770s.
The Colonial Economy System adopted by the European empire was MERCANTALISM. The
mercantile theory states that colonies exist for the economic benefits of the mother country
and are useless unless they help to achieve profits. The mother country should draw raw
materials from its possessions and sell finished goods back to the subject nation, with a balance
favoring to mother country. Following the mercantile set of ideas, a series of laws were passed
in 1651 known as NAVIGATION ACT. These laws were designed to protect British economic
interests of colonial trade and to make them dependent on the manufactured products of
mother country.
Another act in the year 1663 STAPLES ACT was passed by the parliament which forbade the
colonialist from buying any product grown or manufactured in Africa, Europe or Asia. This act
basically prohibited the importation of every article that was either not produced in England or
was not shipped there first. Thus, if a colonialist wished to buy French silks, Dutch linens or
Indian tea, he would have to buy it from British importer. In 1773 MOLASSES ACT was passed to
protect British West Indies export to the American colonies. It was not designed to raise
revenue but was used as a trade barrier. In 1751 CURRENCY ACT was passed to control currency
depreciation against silver and sterling [ British money] to ensure its value for payments of
debts to British merchants. In the year 1754, the SEVEN YEAR WAR began between the French
and Indians. The war had tremendous influence on American colonies. In the war England
occupied Canada defeating France in 1763. It was a long and costly war and nearly doubled
Britain’s national debt, though on positive hand it greatly expanded the colonial territory of
Britain. Now the parliament’s appetite increased for money income to pay debts off as well as
to secure freshly acquired colony. After 1764, when colonies grew more prosperous, two
themes emerge as the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN BRITISH ECONOMIC POLICY towards
American colonies. The first involved the western land, basically the area acquired from French
i.e. between Alleghany Mountain and Mississippi river. British decided to isolate the area from
rest of the colony. Under the terms of Proclamation Of 1763 and QUEBEC ACT of 1774, the
colonists were not allowed to settle here or trade with the Indians without permission of British
government.
JOHN DARWIN in his UNFINISHED EMPIRE writes "The abrupt prohibition on settler expansion
beyond the Appalachian mountains in the 1763 Proclamation (meant to forestall further
Uprisings like Pontiac's) enraged those for whom it had been the main goal and gain of the
(Seven-Years / French and Indian) war. The second fundamental change involved taxation. As
the British victory came at a very high price so they decide to feed that deficit from the
colonists. The local government, in all 13 colonies, levied taxes on their citizen but now with
these extra taxes infuriated them as it burdened them. These majorly included The Sugar Act,
the Quartering Act and the Stamp Act. In 1764 SUGAR ACT was passed, basically it amended the
Molasses Act of 1733. It increased the duty on molasses. It aimed at ending the smuggling trade
of molasses by French and Dutch. In 1765 parliament came up with the QUARTERING ACT. As
the British wanted to protect their colony from French and dutch attacks. The act required help
and support for the troops in America and required colonial assemblies to provide housing,
food, drinks to British soldiers. It was duty of local legislature to fund their expenditure. The
STAMP ACT of 1765 was particularly seen as offensive. Now, all legal paper products were
subject to tax. Publishers, printers and lawyers objected to this as it affected their professions in
particular.
JOHN DARWIN in his book Unfinished Empire “The Act became a popular bogey - and proof of
the British design to subvert the assemblies and unravel colonial self-government." Colonist
resisted this tax and argued that only their own elective colonial assembly could tax them and
that taxation without representation was unjust and unconstitutional. PIERS BRENDON in his
book THE DECLINE & FALL OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE writes “The Stamp Act, which Boston
greeted with flags flown at half mast and muffled peals of bells, was viewed less as a fiscal
imposition than as a measure of oppression. ‘No taxation without representation’ became the
rallying cry of Americans determined to enjoy ‘the rights of Englishmen’.”
NIALL FERGUSON in his book EMPIRE writes “It was the constitutional principle - the right of the
British parliament to levy taxes on the American colonists without their consent - that was the
bone of contention.” Recognizing stamp act was a lost cause, parliament repealed it in 1766.
Another act named DECLARATORY ACT was passed on March 18, 1766. This act was used as a
justification for the repeal of stamp act. This act stated that colonies are sub-ordinate and
dependant to the imperial crown and the parliament. On the repeal of Stamp act, London
implemented yet another set of taxes that is TOWNSHEND ACT of 1767. The Act imposed
import duties on 72 items including paint, tea, glass and paper. The revenue raised from it was
to provide for the salaries of colonial officers and its administration. In 1773 TEA ACT was
passed, which granted the EIC the exclusive license to import and distribute tea to American
colonists. It was created to prevent the bankruptcy of the British East India Company. This act
eliminated the custom duty on company’s tea and allowed the EIC to sell tea at a lower price
than smuggled Dutch tea. Many colonists rejected the act as they didn’t like the monopoly of
EIC and it damaged the position of independent shippers, smugglers and local shopkeepers.
They organized a boycott of tea act. The most spectacular action occurred in Boston, where on
December 16 a well organized group of men dressed up as Native Americans boarded company
ships and smashed open the chests of tea and dumped their content into Boston harbor. This
episode is popularly known as BOSTON TEA PARTY. ANDREW O'SHAUGHNESSY in his book THE
MEN WHO LOST AMERICA "Following the Boston Tea Party, there was a national mood of
retribution in Britain."
In 1774 as a retaliation of Boston Tea Party British imposed COERCEIVE ACTS. It was basically a
package of 5 laws: BOSTON PORT ACT, MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNMENT ACT, ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE ACT, QUARTERING ACT and QUEBEC ACT. Four of the acts were issued in direct
response of the Boston Tea Party. This act was also regarded as INTOLERABLE ACTS which
violated their constitutional rights. RICHARD HENRY LEE of Virginia described the acts as “most
wicked system for destroying the American liberty”. This particular act also led to the formation
of First Continental Congress. In 1773, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN published a brief history of the
British government's actions during the preceding decade; he writes “Beginning in 1763,
successive British ministries made a series of political missteps that gradually stirred the
colonists to assert American liberties against British oppression.
JONATHAN BOUCHER’S A VIEW OF THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION (1797) was critical of British policies but nevertheless claimed them as
constitutionally valid. Historians such as GEORGE L. BEER, CHARLES ANDREWS, and LAWRENCE
GIPSON, studied British colonial policy and saw Britain’s attempts to manage trade and seek
revenue from the colonies as reasonable policies, especially considering Britain’s war debt and
colonists’ relatively light tax burden. DORA MAE CLARK in her book, BRITISH OPINION AND THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION discusses the British standpoint, displaying great Britain’s prowess in
providing manufacturing materials and market materials to the colonies while the colonies, in
turn, supplied the motherland with “necessaries and delicacies.” Clark further emphasizes this
standpoint, arguing that “in every empire a supreme legislative authority… must exist
somewhere… otherwise it would be an empire without government, without laws, and without
power… the right of levying supplies on the people… is a right inherent in the constitution and
inseparable from it: a right so essential to government that it could not subsist without it.” In
The GLORIOUS CAUSE: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, by ROBERT MIDDLEKAUFF expands on this
by stating, parliament knew what was best for the empire as a whole, granting it the supreme
authority to regulate trade whenever necessary.
Given the nature of British colonial policies, scholars have long sought to evaluate the economic
incentives the Americans had in pursuing independence. In this effort economic historians
initially focused on the period following the Seven Years War up to the Revolution. It turned out
that making a case for the avoidance of British taxes as a major incentive for independence
proved difficult. The reason was that many of the taxes imposed were later repealed. The
incentive for independence might have been the avoidance of the British regulation of colonial
trade. Unlike some of the new British taxes, the Navigation Acts had remained intact throughout
this period. Therefore, it is indeed very true that acts played as a major catalyst to spur the
revolution but definitely it was not the only cause.