No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Demonstrating the Natural Order: The Physiocratic Trials in Baden, 1770–1802
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 July 2019
Abstract
This article examines attempts to demonstrate the truth of physiocratic principles in eighteenth-century Baden. Emphasizing the importance of the so-called net yield (produit net), a surplus product understood to be created primarily in agriculture, the physiocrats advanced a new science of material prosperity and moral welfare. Despite its alleged “self-evidence,” physiocracy invited strong criticism from those who denied the force of its abstractions. Ultimately regarded as ill-fated and unconvincing, these trials were significant for their attempt to offer an experiential demonstration aimed at persuading doubters and silencing critics. The apparent failure notwithstanding, the episode illustrates how the idiom and practice of experiment served as a powerful resource for generating conviction in the eighteenth century, even in matters extending beyond the emerging natural sciences.
Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die in der Markgrafschaft Baden im 18. Jahrhundert stattfindenden Versuche, die Wahrheit der physiokratischen Prinzipien zu demonstrieren. Indem die Physiokraten die Bedeutung des sogenannten Reinertrags (produit net), einen in erster Linie von der Landwirtschaft produzierten Überschuss, betonten, trieben sie eine neue Wissenschaft materiellen Wohlstands und moralischen Wohlergehens voran. Obwohl die Physiokratie auf ihre angebliche „Selbstverständlichkeit“ verwies, wurde ihr von Seiten derer, welche die Überzeugungskraft ihrer Abstraktionen bestritten, mit heftiger Kritik begegnet. Die Versuche, eine auf Erfahrung beruhende Demonstration physiokratischer Theorien durchzuführen, um Zweifler und Kritiker zu überzeugen beziehungsweise zum Schweigen zu bringen, wurden zwar letztlich als unglücklich und nicht überzeugend angesehen, waren aber bedeutend. Trotz ihres Scheiterns zeigt diese Episode nämlich, wie bedeutend Idiom und Praxis des Experiments im 18. Jahrhundert bei der Meinungsbildung waren – sogar in Angelegenheiten außerhalb der sich in der Entstehung befindenden Naturwissenschaften.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Central European History Society of the American Historical Association 2019
Footnotes
I would like to thank David Warren Sabean and the two anonymous readers who kindly read earlier drafts of this article and offered helpful suggestions to improve it. I would also like to express my gratitude to the staff of the Generallandesarchiv in Karlsruhe, and to Konstantin Huber, the director of the Kreisarchiv des Enzkreises in Pforzheim, for offering me their friendly and professional assistance with the archival research.
References
1 Disputes concerning the physiocratic trials in Baden appeared immediately after their initiation. Significant treatments of German physiocracy, Schlettwein, and the village reforms can be found in von Drais, Karl Wilhelm, Geschichte der Regierung und Bildung von Baden unter Carl Friederich, vol. 1 (Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, 1816), 315–28Google Scholar; Emminghaus, Arwed, “Carl Friedrichs von Baden physiokratische Verbindungen, Bestrebungen und Versuche, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Physiokratismus,” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 19 (1872): 1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krebs, Alfred, J. A. Schlettwein: Der deutsche Hauptphysiokrat. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Physiokratie in Deutschland (Leipzig: Wilhelm Fugman, 1909)Google Scholar; Zimmermann, Clemens, Reformen in der bäuerlichen Gesellschaft (Ostfildern: Scripta Mercaturae, 1983), esp. 170–89Google Scholar; Tribe, Keith, Governing Economy: The Reformation of German Economic Discourse, 1750–1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), esp. 119–31Google Scholar; Priddat, Birger, Produktive Kraft, sittliche Ordnung und geistige Macht. Denkstile der deutschen Nationalökonomie im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert (Marburg: Metropolis, 1998), 49–64Google Scholar; idem, Le concert universel. Die Physiokratie: Eine Transformationsphilosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts (Marburg: Metropolis, 2001), esp. 121–36Google Scholar; Gerald Maria Landgraf, “‘Moderate et prudenter‘–Studien zur aufgeklärten Reformpolitik Karl Friedrichs von Baden (1728–1811)” (PhD Diss., University of Regensburg, 2008) (https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/10710/1/Moderate_et_prudenter.pdf); Peukert, Helge, “Johann August Schlettwein (1731–1802): The German Physiocrat,” in Physiocracy, Antiphysiocracy and Pfeiffer, ed. Backhaus, Jürgen (New York: Springer, 2011), 71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Jacob, Margaret C. and Stewart, Larry, Practical Matter: Newton's Science in the Service of Industry and Empire, 1687–1851 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Golinski, Jan, Science as Public Culture: Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain, 1760–1820 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Stewart, Larry, The Rise of Public Science: Rhetoric, Technology, and Natural Philosophy in Newtonian Britain, 1660 –1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Schaffer, Simon, “Natural Philosophy and Public Spectacle in the Eighteenth Century,” History of Science 21, no. 1 (1983): 1–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
3 On physiocracy, see Vardi, Liana, The Physiocrats and the World of the Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Backhaus, Physiocracy, Antiphysiocracy and Pfeiffer; Priddat, Le concert universel; Larrère, Catherine, L'invention de l’économie au XVIIIe siècle. Du droit naturel à la physiocratie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992)Google Scholar; Steiner, Philippe, La “science nouvelle” de l’économie politique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1998)Google Scholar; Vaggi, Gianni, The Economics of François Quesnay (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth, The Origins of Physiocracy: Economic Revolution and Social Order in Eighteenth-Century France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Oncken, August, Geschichte der Nationalökonomie. Erster Theil: Die Zeit vor Adam Smith (Leipzig: C. L. Hirschfeld, 1902)Google Scholar. Also see the following works by Weulersse, Georges: Le mouvement physiocratique en France (de 1756 à 1770), 2 vols. (Paris: Aclan, 1910)Google Scholar; La physiocratie sous les ministères de Turgot et de Necker (1774–1781) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1950)Google Scholar; La physiocratie à la fin du règne du Louis XV (1770–1774) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1959)Google Scholar.
4 See Quesnay, “Évidence,” in François Quesnay et la Physiocratie, vol. 2 (Paris: INED, 1958), 397Google Scholar.
5 Physiocracy captivated Karl Friedrich and many, though not all, of his officials. Krebs dates the margrave's “conversion” to physiocracy to no later than 1768. See Krebs, J. A. Schlettwein, 17, 109.
6 The early deliberations of this society can be found in Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe (GLAK), Großherzogliches Hausfideikommiss: Handschriften (Hfk-Hs), Nr. 400, “Protokolle der Societät 1762.”
7 Letter from Karl Friedrich to Mirabeau, Sept. 22, 1769, in Carl Friedrichs von Baden brieflicher Verkehr mit Mirabeau und Du Pont, vol. 1, ed. Knies, Carl (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1892), 4-5Google Scholar.
8 Tribe, Governing Economy, 124–25.
9 Discussing requests to emigrate from the village, a report from the Pforzheim district office (Oberamt) indicated the level of distress in Dietlingen and one of its neighbors: “Every location [in the district] exhibits the same kind of adversity, though, of course, not to the same degree as Dietlingen and Niefern, which, tragically, are exceptional in this respect.” See GLAK, 229/18955, May 8, 1769.
10 Reforms were carried out by Schlettwein in three villages: Dietlingen, Balingen, and Teningen, the latter two located farther south in the Oberamt Hochberg (Emmendingen). This article focuses on the efforts in Dietlingen because Schlettwein presented his most detailed public exposition of the measures and their rationale in this village, which was, in any event, the original site of the reforms. He had much more control over what happened there, given its proximity to Karlsruhe. Whereas the physiocratic operation continued in this village until 1802, the reforms in more distant Balingen and Teningen went awry from the beginning, leading even Schlettwein to advocate early on for their repeal.
11 Schlettwein refers here to the work of his teacher in Jena, the “great” Joachim Georg Darjes. See Schlettwein, Johann, Die Metaphysik zum Gebrauch in den höhern Wissenschaften (Jena: Georg Michael Marggraf, 1759), 21Google Scholar. For an engaging treatment of cameralism, see Wakefield, Andre, The Disordered Police State: German Cameralism as Science and Practice (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Schlettwein, Johann, “Vorrede,” Bemühungen in der Naturkunde und andern nützlichen Wissenschaften (Jena: Georg Michael Marggraf, 1756), n.pGoogle Scholar.
13 See Schlettwein's letter to the margrave, dated Oct. 13, 1773, in GLAK, Großherzogliches Familienarchiv (FA) 5 Corr 38, 100. See also Schlettwein, , “Fortsetzung der vollständigen und beurkundeten Nachricht von der im Jahr 1770 geschehenen Einführung des physiokratischen Staatswirthschafts-Systems,” in Neues Archiv für den Menschen und Bürger in allen Verhältnissen 5 (1788): 45–46Google Scholar. On efforts to promote both stall feeding of animals and fodder cop cultivation in Baden, especially clover, see von Drais, Geschichte der Regierung und Bildung, 1:112–16.
14 Schlettwein, “Fortsetzung,” 47. Building on a point made by Emminghaus (“Carl Friedrichs von Baden physiokratische Verbindungen,” 37), Zimmermann suggests that, following Bischoff's death, an antireform faction gained ascendancy, after which, by 1781, the community began to send negative assessments and complaints to Karlsruhe and Pforzheim. See Zimmermann, Reformen, 184–85. Bischoff, however, appears to have signed an early petition of complaint, dated Jan. 30, 1781; see GLAK 229/18972. On Bischoff, see von Drais, Geschichte der Regierung und Bildung, 2:79 (Appendix 12); Zimmermann, Reformen, 134, note 277.
15 Schlettwein's first account was published as “Opérations faites pour l'amélioration de la culture, & pour la réforme de l'impôt dans les Etats de S.A.S. Mgr. Le Margrave de Bade-Dourlach,” in the physiocratic monthly Éphémérides du citoyen ou bibliothèque raisonnée des sciences morales et politiques 7 (1771): 190–216Google Scholar. This brief notice was then incorporated into a more comprehensive apology for physiocracy, titled Les Moyens d'arrêter la misère publique et d’ acquitter les dettes des états (Karlsruhe: Michel Macklot, 1772)Google Scholar. A German translation soon followed: Die Mittel das allgemeine Elend aufzuhalten und die Schulden eines Staats zu tilgen (n.p.: n.p., 1772). The text was immediately subjected to a ferocious attack in Teutsche Anmerkungen über die franzözische Schrift: Les Moyens d'arrêter la misère publique (Frankfurt/Main: Metzler, 1772)Google Scholar. Les Moyens, together with the Teutsche Anmerkungen and Schlettwein's critical commentary on the latter, were published in his Erläuterung und Verthaidigung der natürlichen Ordnung in der Politik (Karlsruhe: Michael Macklot, 1772)Google Scholar. In addition, after leaving the margrave's service, he elaborated on his early investigation of Dietlingen and on the measures designed to improve the village. See “Vollständige und beurkundete Nachricht von der im Jahr 1770 geschehenen Einführung des physiokratischen Staatswirthschaftssystems in dem Baden-Durlachischen Orte Dietlingen, und von den Wirkungen dieser politisch-ökonomischen Reformationen,” published in Schlettwein, Neues Archiv für den Menschen und Bürger 3 (1786): 480–508Google Scholar; and its continuation in the “Fortsetzung” cited in note 13. Despite their titles, these later accounts remained incomplete.
16 The case of these Dietlingen petitioners and the rationale for the resulting investigation have been analyzed in Fertig, Georg, “‘Man müßte es sich schier fremd vorkommen lassen.’ Auswanderungspolitik am Oberrhein im 18. Jahrhundert,” in Migration nach Ost- und Südosteuropa vom 18. bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts. Ursachen—Formen—Verlauf—Ergebnis, ed. Dahlmann, Matthias Beer und Dittmar (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999), 79–87Google Scholar.
17 Schlettwein, “Vollständige und beurkundete Nachricht,” 485.
18 These calculations, including tables, can be found in ibid., 485–98. He explained that “able persons” (tüchtige Personen) furnished him with these figures, thereby giving him the “data” necessary for properly “conducting further research, asking questions, and judging” in the matter of his upcoming visit to the village (p. 485). Schlettwein calculated the total monetary loss in village prodution (including grain, straw, and wine) to be approximately 86,537 Gulden (fl.) during the period 1745–1768. He imagined that Baden—indeed, the world around him—faced catastrophic economic decline, a predicament that only physiocracy could remedy. Von Drais offered a different view of Baden's conditions at the time, including a strong criticism of Schlettwein's generalizations; see Geschichte der Regierung und Bildung, 1:103–60 (esp. the note on pp. 109–10). For an additional corrective to Schlettwein's exaggerated depiction of impending calamity, see Nebenius, Karl Friedrich, Karl Friedrich von Baden, ed. von Weech, Friedrich (Karlsruhe: Chr. Fr. Müller, 1868)Google Scholar.
19 Schlettwein, “Opérations faites,” 192; idem, Les Moyens, 80.
20 Schlettwein, “Vollständige und beurkundete Nachricht,” 499 (the questions, including the answers provided by the leadership, are on pp. 498–508).
21 Ibid., 502.
22 Popplow, Marcus, “Die Ökonomische Aufklärung als Innovationskultur des 18. Jahrhunderts zur optimierten Nutzung natürlicher Ressourcen,” in Landschaften agrarisch-ökonomischen Wissens. Strategien innovativer Ressourcennutzung in Zeitschriften und Sozietäten des 18. Jahrhunderts, ed. Popplow, Marcus (Münster: Waxmann, 2010), 2–48Google Scholar. See also Jones, Peter, Agricultural Enlightenment: Knowledge, Technology, and Nature, 1750–1840 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Justi, Johann, Abhandlung von den Mitteln die Erkenntniß in den Oeconomischen und Cameral-Wissenschaften dem gemeinen Wesen recht nützlich zu machen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1755), 14Google Scholar, cited in Popplow, “Die Ökonomische Aufklärung,” 7.
24 See Sabean, David Warren, Property, Production, and Family in Neckarhausen, 1700–1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 21–22Google Scholar.
25 Gayling's report described how the villagers had come to realize the value of an iron harrow for clearing grass from arable land, after they had seen one used effectively on Schultheiß Bischoff's own fields. Several citizens (Bürger) bought one to share, which prompted Gayling to recommend that several more be given to the village and made available for individual use at a small daily fee. Karl Friedrich later approved the purchase and donation. Gayling also explained that the villagers exhibited “remarkable industry” in their viticulture—so much so that, according to Bischoff, a competitition of sorts had developed, resulting in several thriving plots. In order to increase the motivation, Bischoff requested that a prize be awarded every fall for the best ones among them. The Schultheiß was also well regarded for his own efforts to deploy and propagate innovative methods. For example, Gayling reported that Bischoff had adopted a method of growing and producing wine recently developed by a local improver named Georg Friedrich Gaupp. Hoping to induce other villagers to follow his lead, the Schultheiß also set aside a portion of his own vineyard to demonstrate its effectiveness. A winegrower with an estate (Freigut) near Pforzheim, Gaupp spelled out his method in Der verbesserte Weinbau; eine Abhandlung (Stuttgart: J. B. Mezler, 1776)Google Scholar. Gayling's report of March 20, 1777, can be found in GLAK, 229/18971.
26 On these complex interactions, and with particular attention to visitations and information gathering in eighteenth-century Baden, see Holenstein, André, “Gute Policey” und locale Gesellschaft im Staat des Ancien Régime: Das Fallbeispiel der Markgrafschaft Baden (-Durlach), 2 vols. (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica, 2003)Google Scholar. See also Landwehr, Achim, Policey im Alltag: Die Implementation frühneuzeitlicher Policeyordnungen in Leonberg (Frankfurt/Main: Klostermann, 2000)Google Scholar.
27 In a short essay titled “On Moral Experience” (De experientia morali), originally delivered as part of his “Marburg Leisure Hours” in 1731, Christian Wolff emphasized the importance of effective theoretical perspectives for achieving suitable experience. See Wolff, Christian, “De experientia morali,” in Horae Subsecivae Marburgenses Anni MDCCXXXI (Frankfurt/Main: Renger, 1735), 688Google Scholar. For a German translation, see “Von der moralischen Erfahrung,” in Des weyland Reichs-Freyherrn von Wolff übrige theils noch gefundene Kleine Schriften und Einzele Betrachtungen zur Verbesserung der Wissenschaften (Halle: Renger, 1755), 474Google Scholar.
28 Schlettwein, “Fortsetzung,” 42.
29 He broadcast his efforts and even solicited local donations to realize his project. In an appeal circulated in Karlsruhe in November 1769, Schlettwein exhorted “Friends of Humanity” to support his plan to aid poor villages. See “Meine Bitte an Menschenfreunde für arme Dörfer,” in “Fortsetzung,” 49–52. Noblewomen at court and also Karl Friedrich pitched in, thereby enabling Schlettwein to purchase cattle for the villagers, provided that the latter incorporated fodder crops, notably clover and sainfoin, into their rotations.
30 “Fortsetzung,” 53. Emphasis in original.
31 GLAK, FA 5 Corr 38, 84, letter from Schlettwein to Karl Friedrich, July 2, 1770.
32 Schlettwein, “Opérations faites,” 204–5; idem, Les Moyens, 87–88.
33 Schlettwein, “Opérations faites,” 206; idem, Les Moyens, 88–89. This line of reasoning became a source of contention with Du Pont, who insisted that the single tax on the produit net, paid by the land, did not, in fact, cost anyone anything at all, and that it enabled the state to cover its needs without expensive regulation and collection. See Schlettwein, “Opérations faites,” 207, note 10.
34 Schlettwein, “Opérations faites,” 206–08; idem, Les Moyens, 89.
35 A 1784 report by Kammerrat Johann Friedrich Juncker described these donations, which, he suggested, accounted for an initial (but temporary) improvement in the village's condition. See GLAK, 229/ 18972, “Das Gesuch der Gemeinde Dietlingen um Wiederaufhebung des dortigen neuen Schazungs-Systems btr.,” Feb. 4, 1784. In addition, a 1794 report drafted by another Kammerrat, Johann Christoph Volz, claimed that much of the dissatisfaction in the village about Schlettwein's operation resulted from the unreasonable expectations it had aroused. See GLAK, 229/18972, “Die Veränderung des Schazungswesens zu Dietlingen btr.,” Oct. 1, 1794.
36 Geheimrat Wilhelm von Edelsheim noted this skepticism in a report submitted in 1791. See GLAK, 229/18970, “Das Schazungswesen zu Dietlingen btr.” The report is undated, but, according to an excerpt from the Geheimratsprotokoll of April 26, 1791, it was sent to the Rentkammer for consideration. See Landgraf, “’Moderate et prudenter,’” 283, note 670.
37 Official investigations into the apparently deteriorating state of the village, which were conducted after Schlettwein's departure, remarked on this point. See, e.g., Juncker's report, “Das Gesuch der Gemeinde Dietlingen.”
38 Schlettwein, “Opérations faites,” 208–09; idem, Les Moyens, 89–90. In the latter, Schlettwein claimed that the tax on vineyards amounted to one-nineteenth of the net yield.
39 Schlettwein, “Opérations faites,” 210–13; idem, Les Moyens, 91–92. The latter states that the tax on vineyards was reduced to one-twenty-fifth.
40 Schlettwein, Les Moyens, 92. Slightly different phrasing can be found in “Opérations faites,” 213.
41 For documentation pertaining to the rescript, see GLAK 229/18968.
42 According to the official account, the head of the Pforzheim district office, Obervogt Rues, and a tax collector named Eccard visited Dietlingen on September 18 and publically announced the reform, specifying the tax that was to be paid by the citizenry (Bürgerschafft), who allegedly agreed. See GLAK 229/18968, report of Oberamt Pforzheim, Sept. 24, 1770; “Actum Dietlingen den 18. Septr. 1770.” See also Emminghaus, “Carl Friedrichs von Baden physiokratische Verbindungen,” 34.
43 Schlettwein, “Opérations faites,” 214–16; idem, Les Moyens, 92–93. In his correspondence with Karl Friedrich, Schlettwein described his visits to several Hochberg villages from late October through November, 1770: Balingen (Oct. 29), Denzlingen (Nov. 3), Teningen (Nov. 11). He claimed that the reception to the Natural Order was very favorable in these locations. If his account is to be believed, Schlettwein supposedly convinced “all” the citizens (Bürger) of Balingen, who now fervently desired to see the reformed system of taxation (modeled after the one introduced in Dietlingen) implemented in their village. He continued: “I am hopeful that the communities of Teningen, Denzlingen, Bickensohl, etc., will also quite willingly give me their consent, and I am convinced that the intended reform will, with the greatest ease, be applied in all of the Markgrafschaft Hochberg.” See GLAK, FA 5 Corr 38, 85, letter from Schlettwein to Karl Friedrich, Oct. 29, 1770.
44 Schlettwein, Les Moyens, 93. Slighly different phrasing can be found in idem, “Opérations faites,” 216.
45 See Emminghaus, “Carl Friedrichs von Baden physiokratische Verbindungen,” 42–60; Zimmerman, Reformen, 170–89.
46 For a recent contextualization of physiocracy in the culture of the Enlightenment, see Vardi, Physiocrats.
47 The quoted phrase is taken from the preface to David Gooding, Trevor Pinch, and Simon Schaffer, eds., The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), xvi. See also Jacob and Stewart, Practical Matter; Golinski, Science as Public Culture; Stewart, Rise of Public Science; Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette and Blondel, Christine, eds., Science and Spectacle in the European Enlightenment (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2008)Google Scholar.
48 Börning, Holger, Schmitt, Hanno, and Siegert, Reinhart, eds., Volksaufklärung: Eine praktische Reformbewegung des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts (Bremen: edition lumière, 2007)Google Scholar.
49 Quesnay, François, Essai physique sur l'oeconomie animale, vol. 3, 2nd ed. (Paris: Guillaume Cavelier, 1747), 340Google Scholar. See the paragraph with the heading, “Les connoissances intellectuelles sont insensibles à ceux qui font peu d'usage de l'attention.” My analysis here follows Philippe Steiner, La “science nouvelle,” 110–16.
50 “Maximes générales du gouvernement économique d'un royaume Agricole,” in Quesnay, François Quesnay et la Physiocratie, 2:950.
51 François Quesnay, “Despotisme de la Chine,” in François Quesnay et la Physiocratie, 2:920. This essay, which first appeared serially in the March–June issues of the Éphémérides du citoyen (1767), is cited by Steiner, La “science nouvelle,” 112. For an examination of Chinese influence on Quesnay, see Priddat, Le concert universel, 87–119.
52 This continued later as Nouvelles Éphémérides économiques (1774–1776, 1788).
53 “Réforme de l'impôt dans le Marcgraviat de Bade-Dourlach,” in Éphémérides du citoyen 5 (1771): 199–200Google Scholar.
54 Ibid., 202–3.
55 Ibid., 203–4.
56 Schlettwein, “Opérations faites,” 190–216.
57 Du Pont despised Schlettwein, questioned his understanding of physiocracy, and later, in 1774, submitted to Karl Friedrich a scathing critique of the trials in Balingen and Teningen—even though he had initially and publicly praised the reforms. Gabriel Sabbagh has recently (and correctly) emphasized the deficiencies and deviations in Schlettwein's early grasp of physiocratic doctrine. Yet, his categorical assertion that Schlettwein “was not a physiocrat at all in September 1771,” is untenable. See Sabbagh, Gabriel, “An unrecorded Physiocratic précis by Charles Richard Butré and the experiment of Karl Friedrich of Baden-Durlach in Dietlingen,” in European Journal of Economic Thought 24, no. 1 (2017): 3, 13–14Google Scholar. Like Karl Friedrich, Schlettwein had clearly been inspired by the physiocrats, and he sought, through the village reforms, to pave the way for the realization of the Natural Order in Baden. Missteps in that effort were acknowledged and, to some extent, later rectified. The history of this episode reminds us that physiocracy, like every science, was something not merely to be known, but also to be communicated, learned, and done, exhibiting in the living complexity of its context and circumstances a noticeable degree of doctrinal adaptability and imprecision.
58 Schlettwein, “Opérations faites,” 215, note 12.
59 Trosne, Guillaume-François Le, De l'ordre social (Paris: Frères Debure, 1777), xv–xviGoogle Scholar. In the German translation of Le Trosne's text, the expression “vous avez fait luire aux yeux … ces mêmes vérités …” is rendered “Sie haben … die Augen über eben die Wahrheiten aufgethan…” See Lehrbegriff der Staats-Ordnung, trans. Wichmann, M. Christian August (Leipzig: Jacobäer und Sohn, 1780), xiiiGoogle Scholar. Le Trosne included in the eighth “Discourse” of this text Schlettwein's account of the Dietlingen operation (published in the Éphémérides), including Du Pont's favorable assessment. See De l'ordre social, 340–45, note 7. A royal advocate at the Court of Orléans from 1753–1774, Le Trosne also helped establish the Société d'agriculture d'Orléans. De l'ordre social (1777), a key physiocratic text, grew out of a series of lectures he held in 1770–1771 at the Académie des sciences, arts et belles-lettres de Caen, where he was a member.
60 GLAK, Hfk-Hs, Nr. 397, “Akten und Protokolle der Ökonomischen Gesellschaft 1764/65, 1769,” Nov. 10, 1764. The Karlsruhe Economic Society was one of many so-called economic societies, established in the 1750s and 1760s, that aimed to promote economic improvement. On the importance of these societies in eighteenth-century Germany, see Lowood, Henry, Patriotism, Profit, and the Promotion of Science in the German Enlightenment: The Economic and Scientific Societies, 1760–1815 (New York: Garland, 1991)Google Scholar. For a useful examination of the activity of such societies as examples of an emerging “culture of innovation,” see Popplow, “Die Ökonomische Aufklärung.” See also Schindler, Norbert and Bonß, Wolfgang, “Praktische Aufklärung–Ökonomische Sozietäten in Süddeutschland und Österreich im 18. Jahrhundert,” in Deutsche patriotische und gemeinnützige Gesellschaften, ed. Vierhaus, Rudolf (Munich: Kraus, 1980), 255–353Google Scholar; Holenstein, André, Stuber, Martin, and Gerber-Visser, Gerrendina, eds., Nützliche Wissenschaft und Ökonomie im Ancien Régime. Akteure, Themen, Kommunikationsformen (Heidelberg: Palatina, 2007)Google Scholar.
61 According to the “Protokolle der Societät 1762,” the meetings of the Society first took place in 1762, roughly twice a month. They broke off after August 20, when a novel and cheap seeder plow was exhibited, tested in the riding house, and found to be unsuitable. The Society began to convene again in 1764, under Schlettwein's direction. On this hiatus, the result of a lack of suitable agricultural knowledge on the part of the participating members, see Krebs, J. A. Schlettwein, 14.
62 Nachricht an die gesammte Einwohner und Unterthanen des Marggräflich-Baden-Durlachischen Landes von den Absichten und der Einrichtung einer von des regierenden Herrn Marggrafen Hochfürstlichen Durchlaucht in Höchstdero ResidenzStadt Carlsruhe gnädigst errichteten Gesellschaft der nützlichen Wissenschafften zur Beförderung des gemeinen Besten (Karlsruhe: Wilhelm Friedrich Lotter, 1765)Google Scholar.
63 Ibid., 7.
64 Ibid., 7–8.
65 Jacob and Stewart, Practical Matter, esp. 61–92. For the German context, see Oliver Hochadel, “The Sale of Shocks and Sparks: Itinerant Electricians in the German Enlightenment,” in Bensaude-Vincent and Blondel, Science and Spectacle, 89–101.
66 Lind, Gunter, Physik im Lehrbuch, 1700–1850. Zur Geschichte der Physik und ihrer Didaktik in Deutschland (Berlin: Springer, 1992), 185–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
67 Madonna, Luigi Cataldi, “Vernunft und Erfahrung. Zur Entwicklung der empirischen Methodologie in der rationalistischen Tradition des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts,” in Christian Wolff und das System des klassischen Rationalismus: Die philosophia experimentalis universalis (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2001), 47–82Google Scholar; École, Jean, “De la notion de philosophie expérimentale chez Wolff,” Les Études philosophiques 4 (1979): 397–406Google Scholar. Also see Vanzo, Alberto, “Christian Wolff and Experimental Philosophy,” in Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, vol. 7, ed. Garber, Daniel and Rutherford, Donald (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 225–55Google Scholar. I wish to thank Alberto Vanzo for kindly making available a copy of his article before its publication.
68 First published as Philosophia rationalis sive logica, methodo scientifica pertractata et ad usum scientiarum atque vitae aptata (Frankfurt/Main: Renger, 1728)Google Scholar.
69 Ibid., 708. While teaching at Jena, Schlettwein published his own textbook on logic: Der Weg zur Wahrheit auf das kürzeste gezeiget (Jena: Georg Michael Marggraf, 1757)Google Scholar. Taking a broadly (though much more streamlined) Wolffian approach, his work highlights, in particular, the significance of persuading by means of arguments founded on properly constructed “experiential propositions” (Erfahrungssätze).
70 In his essay “On Moral Experience,” Wolff suggested that careful observations and experiments can clarify the intrinsic goodness and evil in human activity, notably by exposing the extent to which specific actions advanced or diminished human “perfection”—an insight whose realization practical philosophy was supposed to make plain. See Wolff, “De experientia morali,” 681–82. A well-known “Sinophile,” Wolff admired Confucius and his approach to statecraft, suggesting that the ancient Chinese had relied heavily on observation and experiments, not only to learn, teach, and live virtuously, but also to manage affairs of state effectively. See Wolff, Oratio de Sinarum philosophia practica (Rede über die praktische Philosophie der Chinesen), trans. and ed., Albrecht, Michael (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1985)Google Scholar. In Vernunftlehre, Hermann Samuel Reimarus also emphasized the importance of expanding experience for the sake of improving the social order, recommending state-sponsored observations and experiments. See the chapter “Von der Erfahrung, Wissenschaft und Glauben,” in Reimarus, H.S., Die Vernunftlehre, als eine Anweisung zum richtigen Gebrauche der Vernunft in der Erkenntniβ der Wahrheit (Hamburg: Johann Carl Bohn, 1756), esp. 258–64Google Scholar.
71 Obser, Karl, “Aufzeichnungen des Staatskanzlers Fürsten von Hardenberg über seinen Aufenthalt am Oberrhein im Jahre 1772,” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, 61 (Neue Folge 22) (1907): 157–64Google Scholar.
72 Ibid., 158, 161.
73 Ibid., 161.
74 According to Hardenberg, Schlettwein aroused much opposition and was, “at times, perhaps too speculative.” His impression might have been influenced by Reinhard von Gemmingen, the president of the Finance Ministry (and, formally speaking, Schlettwein's immediate boss). Blind and going deaf, the aging minister, Hardenberg noted, was a good cameralist who “liked to talk” and who showed no hesitation in expressing his contempt for the new economics: “Cammerpräsident Gemmingen is not fond of it—says, it's all metaphysical nonsense.” See Obser, “Aufzeichnung,” 158, 162.
75 The forceful critic of physiocracy, Johann von Pfeiffer, argued in this way against making generalizations based on geographically limited trials of the kind that Schlettwein carried out. See Pfeiffer's critique of the second and third volumes of Schlettwein's Archiv für den Menschen und Bürger in Berichtigungen berühmter Staats-, Finanz-, Policei-, Cameral-, Commerz-, und ökonomischer Schriften dieses Jahrhunderts 4 (1783): 78–80Google Scholar.
76 Teutsche Anmerkungen über die Französische Schrift: Les Moyens d'arrêter la misère publique (Frankfurt/Main: Metzler, 1772)Google Scholar.
77 Schlettwein, Erläuterung und Verthaidigung, 165–66. In an ironic inversion of (for example) Wolff's point concerning the persuasive power of experiment (see note 69), the anonymous critic suggested that the trial in Dietlingen served less to justify physiocratic arguments than to avoid the trouble of having to make them; see the text in ibid., 60.
78 The specific reasons for Schlettwein's departure are unclear. He formally quit in October 1773, after coming to believe that Karl Friedrich no longer backed him and that his standing among his colleagues had thereby suffered. It is safe to say, however, that his difficult personality easily made enemies, and that, by the time of his resignation, serious problems in the trials had begun to surface, especially in the Hochberg. See Emminghaus, “Carl Friedrichs von Baden physiokratische Verbindungen,” 12–13, 14–16, note 8.
79 Hunger, Johann Gottfried, Kurze Geschichte der Abgaben, besonders der Konsumptions- und Handels-Abgaben in Sachsen, 2nd ed. (Dresden: Johann Samuel Gerlach, 1783), 1–2Google Scholar. For Schlettwein's response, see “Des Herrn Sekretär Hungers Angriffe auf das physiokratische Staatswirthschaftssystem und auf die Physiokraten aus dessen Geschichte der Abgaben in Sachsen mit Schlettweins Anmerkungen,” Archiv für den Menschen und Bürger in allen Verhältnissen 7 (1784): 41–99Google Scholar.
80 Schlettwein, “Des Herrn Sekretär Hungers Angriffe,” 41–43, note 1.
81 Ibid., 43, note 1. From 1777 to 1785, Schlettwein taught politics, cameralism, and finance at the University of Giessen, where he also served as the head of the recently established Economic Faculty. See Klippel, Diethelm, “Johann August Schlettwein and the Economic Faculty at the University of Gießen,” History of Political Thought 15, no. 2 (1994): 203–27Google Scholar.
82 These are detailed in the archival sources. For Dietlingen, which was analyzed most entensively, see esp. Juncker, “Das Gesuch der Gemeinde Dietlingen”; also see the subsequent report by Geheimrat Wilhelm von Edelsheim in GLAK, 229/18972, “Gutachten über die geschickte und wohlgefasste Abhandlung H[ochfürstlichen] Kammerrath Junckers über den Dietlinger Schatzungsfus,” March 20, 1784. For the villages of Balingen and Teningen, see the discussion based on a report by Juncker in GLAK, 229/105265, “Extractus Fürstl. Rennt-Cammer Protocolli de 10. Dec. 1774.” Du Pont also submitted a critical analysis of the reforms in the Hochberg to Karl Friedrich in 1774, in which he stressed the difficulties of the limited nature of the trials. See GLAK, Hfk-Hs, Nr. 468, “Affaires de Son Altesse Sérénissime Monseigneur le Margrave,” 1774, D. 18–19.
83 The petitions from the village are largely contained in GLAK, 229/18970 and 229/18972. Karl Friedrich's 1783 abolition of serfdom throughout his territories infuriated the villagers, because it appeared to exclude them from fully enjoying the benefits of this enactment. In effect, this abolition entailed the cancellation of assorted fees. The introduction of physiocracy in 1770, with its single tax, had technically abolished serfdom in Dietlingen: with its territorial abolition, the community received no corresponding reduction in their annual single tax, however, and its members complained bitterly about it. For example, see the petition of Aug. 16, 1783, in GLAK, 229/18972.
84 GLAK, 229/18972, petition of the Gemeinde, Nov. 26, 1781.
85 For a brief elaboration of this point, see Richard Bowler, “Die Wirtschaftstheorie der Physiokratie am Beispiel der physiokratischen Reform in Dietlingen (1770–1802),” in Der Enzkreis: Historisches und Aktuelles vol. 16, ed. Konstantin Huber (forthcoming).
86 Further investigation found a village divided, however, with large support for Schlettwein's reforms among the poorer farmers, who hesitated to give them up; after all, the single tax had shifted the burden of taxation to the more wealthy and productive. See GLAK, 229/18972, report of Kammerrat Volz, Oct. 1, 1794. In his report circulated in 1784, Edelsheim made it clear that the operation in Dietlingen had been arranged contrary to key physiocratic precepts; as a result, “nothing can be concluded about the principles of the Natural Order from the effects of such a perversely contrived arrangement.” See Edelsheim‘s “Gutachten über die geschickte und wohlgefasste Abhandlung.” After Schlettwein's departure, Edelsheim was, apart from Karl Friedrich, the most prominent physiocrat in Baden. While serving as chief minister, he drafted, some time in late 1790 or early 1791, the guidelines for modifying the taxation in the village. See Landgraf, “‘Moderate et prudenter,’” 283, note 670.
87 On the significance of physiocracy for the development of economic science, see Groenewegen, Peter, Eighteenth-Century Economics: Turgot, Beccaria, and Smith and their contemporaries (London: Routledge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
88 Jacob, François, The Statue Within: An Autobiography, trans. Philip, Franklin (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 8–9Google Scholar, partially cited in Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg, An Epistemology of the Concrete: Twentieth-Century Histories of Life (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 244CrossRefGoogle Scholar.