No abstract

This paper argues that August Ludwig Schlözer's (1735-1809) early work Essay on General History of Trade and of Seafaring (first published in Swedish as Försök til en allmän historia om handel och sjöfart uti the äldsta tider in 1758) was a contribution to the contemporary debates on natural history, economy, and politics. As such it exemplifies the porosity of the history of trade as a genre. It is a key text through which to understand the various currents within eighteenth century Swedish and German political economy, as well as Schlözer's own economic and political thought. The book is a history of civilisation that emphasises that the progress of civilisations is reliant on the natural inclination of human beings to trade. In it its author explored the causes of the rise and fall of ancient Phoenician trade in order to argue that commerce created societies and enhanced communication, which in turn further supported the expansion of trade and the unity of mankind. Integrating Schlözer's political and economic thought into the contemporary European transnational debates on natural history, and into the political life of the time makes his reasoning clear. This includes the early development of the German's long-lasting anti-aristocratic sentiment. The chapter concludes that Schlözer's history of trade allowed him to develop ideas springing from a variation of cameralism founded on natural history.1 August Ludwig Schlözer was born in Hohenlohe, Germany. He studied at the Universities of Wittenberg, Göttingen and Uppsala. He earned his first income in the cities of Göttingen, Lübeck, Altona, Stockholm and St. Petersburg. His first academic post was in St. Petersburg, and in 1765 he became a professor in Russia. In 1769 he was appointed professor of Russian literature and history at the philosophy faculty of the University of Göttingen, and it was there that he began giving lectures on general world history. For a short biography of Schlözer and his European networks, see Martin Espenhorst, "Der 'mobile' Europäer -Zur historischen Konstruktion des europäischen Menschen bei Schlözer," in August Ludwig (von) Schlözer in Europa, ed.

According to the existing scholarship, cameralists were generally in favour of a closed protectionist state. This was often conceptualised with reference either to Spartan or Chinese virtues. This so-called "philosophical way" or "isolated way", so they argued, would lead the German states into long-lasting happiness. However, closer scrutiny of the thoughts of late cameralists, particularly Johann Heinrich Gottlob von Justi, reveals a counter approach to international order and trade that challenges current understandings of a cameralist penchant for autarky. This chapter argues that Justi did not consider an exit from interstate competition feasible for Prussia nor for any European state. The "philosophical way" had become impossible in Europe because of the depth of ties created by interstate trade. Justi instead contended that the only way for European states to go was that of the "man of the world". The chapter reveals that Justi, often heralded as late cameralism's greatest theoretician, in fact suggested the emulation of British practices of international trade by Prussia. The principle advocate of "cameral sciences", which have been considered as a land-locked discipline, was, in fact, deeply embedded in his transnational world.

This article reinterprets late Cameralists’ contribution to the reorientation of Cameral sciences in the second half of the eighteenth century. It analyses the conceptual changes to the central concept of happiness during the second half of the eighteenth century that resulted from the rethinking of the natural law foundations of the discipline. Understanding the political philosophical underpinnings of universal Cameral sciences, as they were formulated using the language of natural law, enables a new interpretation of the history of Cameralism. The shift from duties based on natural law to an emphasis on inalienable natural rights helped the late Cameralists build a political theory of an economic state, which relied on the motivating forces of legitimate self-interest and passions. The late Cameralists redescribed happiness in terms of freedom, thereby accomplishing a shift from Cameral sciences’ legitimization of fatherly rule to a political thought that had its legitimacy in the provision of freedom, security, and wealth to householders, who in their part were the main agents and movers of the economic state.