The Translations: War of Ideas in Spain 1800-4

The supposed delay in the reception of economic thought elaborated beyond the Spanish borders was partially rejected due both to consideration of the volume of publications in other countries (after the appearance of Wealth of Nations) as well as to the speed with which some of the translations and reeditions of the main works of economic thought were published, especially in France and Italy, particularly after the French Revolution.

As regards the French publications before and during the Revolution, Gilbert Faccarello and Philippe Steiner proved that in the period between 1789 and 1803, there was a theoretical elaboration and that the supposed delay was similar to that occurring in other European countries (1991, 10-12). They suggested consulting Louis Auguste Blanqui’s Histoire de l'economie politique, which distinguishes three periods: a first, “tem­pered,” period of the Revolution, between 1789 and 1792, in which the influence of the physiocracy ceased to be felt in the Assembly and physiocratic ideas were associated with those of liberalism in general, even though they were considered terrible and containing several errors, such as the single tax (impot unique).

A second period, the cruelest of the Revolution, in which the ideas of the physiocracy were abandoned, and they resorted to the formula audaciously brandished by Jean-Paul Marat: “De l’audace, encore l’audace et toujours de l’audace” (ibid., 10-12).

And finally, a third period in which Say’s Traite would appear (1803) and later on, dur­ing the Empire, different publications such as those of Garnier, Charles Ganilh, Louis Dutens, Jacques Peuchet and Franςois Ferrier.¹¹

If the period prior to the Revolution is considered, Faccarello and Steiner show that the theoretical delay in the publications after the appearance of Wealth of Nations was gen­eralized and that even Smith’s work did not exercise a great deal of influence on economic policy, nor an absolute preeminence, because authors like James Steuart or the agrarian- but-not-physiocrat Young continued to be influential.

Whatever the case, Smith became the property of everyone in his diverse inter­pretations, leading to a heated controversy between the modern interpreters of Smith recovered by the preindustrialist Say and those considered neophysiocrats (like his contemporaries Garnier and Peuchet), to the more direct heirs such as Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, who in turn classified the previous ones as eclectic.

Taking into account the differences in time and other particular circumstances, this last controversy was brought to Spain between 1800 and 1804 and had a special reflec­tion, which serves as a guide for analyzing the policy of translations, beyond the afore­mentioned prohibitions of the Inquisition (Sanchez, 2006, 92).

In 1800, the Principios de Economia Politica, by Swiss economist Herrenschwand (initially published in French in 1786), was translated in Spain and led to an animated controversy in the Spanish press, especially in regard to the ideal size of agricultural exploitations, between the supporters of large extensions of crops and those who defended smaller exploitations with a greater number of owners (Alfaya, 1924, 24-25).¹² A few months later, in October of the same year, a letter to the director praised Herrenschwand’s work:

Our politicians should study and meditate this book and no other, [...] and in view of these principles, all of our economic systems which our modern leaders have wanted to convince us were infallible for the achievement of Spanish happiness, are confused and damaging. That the multiplicity of owners is ruinous for agriculture; that the division of the land in small proportions is a bad idea, and recommending it would surely attract to the kingdom most promptly misery and desolation: that the maximum liberty and protection is not applicable to our state.

Just a month later, the previously cited letter was replied to in the same newspaper:

And I say that what better study could our politicians make than traveling and examining the land and the system of the most populated nations; because the population is without a doubt the child of industry and agriculture; and if in these more numerous communities with flourishing agriculture, the rules of the referenced author continue, we would agree. To the contrary, no. II, Says: That the multiplication of owners is ruinous for agriculture: that the division of the land into small proportions is a bad idea, and that recommending it would surely attract to the kingdom most promptly misery and desolation: that the maximum liberty and protection is not applicable to our state. I have reflected on this and I have concluded quite the contrary [.]. With a few owners of all the land, the end result is that many are left without property and their subsistence has to depend on the assets of others [.]. When this number of excess individuals, which the landowner may need or want, see themselves in the country of their birth without property or possible subsistence, they will feel they have no other recourse but to emigrate. And will they return then to their country? Remedy: How can you attract these individuals back to their country? By assigning them a property. (F.M.E., 1800)¹⁴

The Swiss economist proposed a system that was called “relative agriculture founded on a system of manufactures,” which had supposedly replaced absolute agriculture and relative agriculture, founded on a system of slavery, but it did not cease to be a neophysio- cratic recreation, which in the end made all the weight of the system fall on the consump­tion of the farm owners who defended the large extensions of exploitations.

The controversy takes on special significance if we add that in the hectic year of 1804, Herrenschwand’s Principios de Economia Politica was imposed as an obligatory text for the teaching of economics at the Seminario de Nobles of Madrid, one of the privileged edu­cational institutions for the training of elite leaders.

This controversy shows that at least some officials were interested in a model for agrarian development as opposed to other positions of an industrialist nature, as the one formulated by Polo y Catalina that same year. As we have already stated, it is hard to believe, even though it does not cease to be significant, that in 1804, a book whose trans­lation was as complex as the text itself, was recommended for teaching economics at such an important institution (Sanchez, 2006, 95).

This line of defense of agrarianism would be reinforced with translations during the same period of the works of English agrarians—not physiocrats—which were read more in Spain than the physiocrats themselves, and of which Young is the clear exponent. He had a great influence in that country because his texts were reproduced extensively in the highly popular Semanario de Agricultura y Artes and were discussed in the economics classes given in the Economics Chairs created by the Sociedades Economicas de Amigos del Pais, as we have mentioned (Diez Rodriguez, 1980).

If we return to the subject of translations for the period 1800-4, we can see how the Count of Rumford’s Essay, Political, Economical and Philosophical was translated precisely in 1800, at the request of the influential Sociedad Economica Matritense. Many extracts of this work and that of Young, among others, were published in the Semanario de Agricultura y Artes and in the Diario de Madrid (Diez Rodriguez, 1980).

In 1801, the publication of Instituciones politicas, by Jacob Friedrich Bielfeld (ini­tiated in 1767), was concluded. In 1801 and 1802, works by Young, Crumpe and Franςois de Neufchateau were also translated, and the following year, the Lecciones de comercio, o bien de economia civil, by Antonio Genovesi, and the Compendio (Esquisse) on Wealth of Nations (published in the Bibliotheque de l'homme and attributed to Condorcet), were republished.

All of this abounds in the peculiar introduction that the physiocratic ideas had in Spain, for if the thesis of the authors of the agrarian reform movement—such as Young—were widespread, this was not the case for the leading representatives of the physiocracy.

Also in 1802, in the Semanario de Agricultura y Artes, extracts were published of some economic texts by Jeremy Bentham, and also in the decisive year of 1804 even though, as we mentioned, there was stiff censorship and translations of Mably and Condillac were prohibited, along with several issues of the magazine La Decade.

The Principes d'economiepolitique by Canard was translated, a work that corroborates the introduction of mathematical economics in Spain.¹⁶ From the end of 1804 to 1807, Traite d'economiepolitique, by Say, was translated and published, just a year after its appearance in French, and it was at that time that Polo y Catalina wrote his Tratado sobre la Industria de Espana.

It was in 1804 as well, as we have pointed out, that Herrenschwand’s book, Principios de Economia Politica, was made obligatory reading in the Seminario de Nobles de Madrid, and in 1805-6, the translation of Smith’s Wealth of Nations, prepared in 1794 by diplomat Jose Alonso Ortiz, was published as a revised edition.

A year later, a text entitled Breve exposition de la doctrina de Adan (sic) Smith comparada con la de los economistas franceses y metodo particular para el estudio de su obra titulada Investigation de la naturaleza y causas de la Riqueza de las Naciones was added to that translation.

Its purpose, according to its anonymous editor (who signed with the pseudonym N. N.) was expressed as follows: “We are taking advantage now to set the record straight and at the same time forewarn those enthusiastic followers among us of that same doctrine (the physiocracy) who need to be informed of the false results and consequences which an inexact and unfair judgment might produce” (N. N., 1807).

The text that was considered for some time to correspond to Garnier’s Abrege, was none other than the first two parts of the three making up the French translation by Garnier of Wealth of Nations. We have already discussed the significance of this revised edition of Smith’s work through Garnier’s text (Sanchez, 2006, 94-95).

6.