Abstract
Handbooks of the history of economic thought typically assume a strict fault line between scholastic economics and mercantilism. Historically, the distinction between the two streams of thought was less evident—especially when it came to the style of argumentation, in which there is much continuity between the scholastic doctors and early mercantilists. However, although the latter did not employ the scholastic method, both traditions frequently called upon classical authorities to strengthen their arguments. What is striking is the high regard for Aristotle among the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth century English mercantilists. By way of illustration, this article reviews the surprising role of Aristotelian ideas, primarily from the Metaphysics and Physics, within the debate between Gerard Malynes and Edward Misselden on England’s economics crisis.
Highlights
Of the handbooks on the history of economic thought that do pay attention to the ‘prehistory’ of economics, most assume a strict fault line between scholastic economics and mercantilism
As parts of voluminous theological and legal works written by university graduates, medieval economic discussions are full of erudite questions, objections, and metaphysical distinctions, and often refer to authorities from a distant past
The controversy between Malynes and Misselden and the role therein of Aristotelian ideas will be further reviewed. This specific case is meant to illustrate that, contrary to what is often suggested, the scholastics and the early English mercantilists frequently reasoned from authorities like Aristotle
Summary
Of the handbooks on the history of economic thought that do pay attention to the ‘prehistory’ of economics, most assume a strict fault line between scholastic economics and mercantilism. The controversy between Malynes and Misselden and the role therein of Aristotelian ideas will be further reviewed This specific case is meant to illustrate that, contrary to what is often suggested, the scholastics (to whom Aristotle was the economic authority par excellence) and the early English mercantilists frequently reasoned from authorities like Aristotle. What is overlooked in the otherwise well-documented 3 debate between the two is that Malynes and Misselden went beyond the Aristotelian commonplaces about money and trade just mentioned Their theories were based on the Politics and Nicomachean ethics—two texts that formed the foundation of scholastic economics and remained influential well into the mercantilist age—and on Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Physics. Before discussing the role of these lesser-known Aristotelian ideas in the writings of Malynes and Misselden, I will first make some introductory remarks on the debate and the debaters more generally
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
