Isaac de Pinto (1717–1787):
An Enlightened Economist and
Financier
José Luís Cardoso and
António de Vasconcelos Nogueira
The name Isaac de Pinto does not appear as an entry in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, which was published in 1987. The
equivalent nineteenth-century dictionary dedicates just a few brief lines
to Pinto to mention, with a certain air of disdain, that his main work
“contains many sound and ingenious ideas, but he is rarely quoted except for the extravagance of his paradoxes” (Coquelin and Guillaumin
1854, 2:405). A search for this author in the index of any manual or general work on the history of economic thought will prove fruitless, unless
we include the inevitable footnote that Joseph Schumpeter (1954, 237)
could not avoid making.
Pinto’s main work, Traité de la circulation et du crédit, was originally published in 1771 in French and had a limited circulation. The
subsequent editions were aimed at a very restricted public capable of
Correspondence may be addressed to José Luís Cardoso, ISEG, Technical University of Lisbon, Rua do Quelhas 6, 1200–781 Lisbon, Portugal; e-mail: jcardoso@iseg.utl.pt. António de
Vasconcelos Nogueira is affiliated with the University of Aveiro, Portugal. Preliminary versions of this article were presented at the Iberian meetings on the history of economic thought
in Granada in December 2003; at the annual conference of the European Society for the History of Economic Thought in Treviso in February 2004; and at the conference “French Political
Economy: 1650–1850,” at Stanford University in April 2004. We are grateful for the comments
provided by the participants at these conferences. We would particularly like to thank Richard
van den Berg, Gilbert Faccarello, Arnold Heertje, Antoin Murphy, Ida Nijenhuis, Ian Ross,
Margaret Schabas, Donald Winch, and two anonymous referees of this journal for their useful
and insightful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies. All translations from
French, German, and Portuguese to English are ours.
History of Political Economy 37:2 © 2005 by Duke University Press.
264
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
venturing into the realms of non-English languages (Amzalak 1960; Pinto [1771] 2000). The English translation (Pinto [1774] 1969) also has
fairly limited availability.
The main biographical account of Isaac de Pinto’s life has been explored only by erudite noneconomists (Wijler 1923; Révah 1966), while
the most systematic and complete academic study on his life and work
is available only to those who read Dutch (Nijenhuis 1992).1
In view of this somewhat disheartening panorama, the inevitable question must be asked: Is this author yet another victim of neglect, or does
such neglect result naturally from the fact of his being a secondary and
minor author?
Of course, there is a wide range of studies devoted to the specific aspects of Pinto’s work—perhaps a surprisingly large number for those
who think that we are talking about an illustrious unknown—to which
we shall refer in due course. And there are also testimonies that reveal
the impact that Pinto’s writings had on contemporary authors. Yet the
inevitable doubt remains: Is it worth devoting any fresh attention to the
work of this economist?
In this article, we shall seek to show that it is definitely worth making
such an effort. It is worth the effort not only for the opportunity of rediscovering the originality and relevance of Pinto’s writings on circulation,
luxury, credit, and public debt—the themes that have most interested the
commentators on his work—but also because of the series of problems
and situations that Pinto experienced as one of the characteristic figures
of the Age of Enlightenment. These make it possible for us to better understand the economic and financial matters that he chose to deal with.
One of the central issues of Pinto’s biography is how he moved from
being someone with a successful career in financial affairs to someone
with a literary career who engaged in a permanent and lively discussion
with his contemporaries about economic, philosophical, and political
matters. Isaac de Pinto enjoyed close relationships and engaged in direct
dialogue with writers such as Hume, Voltaire, Diderot, and Mirabeau.
His texts are spaces of conversations and debates with such authors as
Pierre de Boisguilbert, the Abbé de Saint-Pierre, Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
Ferdinando Galiani, George Berkeley, Josiah Tucker, and Abbé de Guillaume-Thomas Raynal, to mention just some of the best-known people
whose influence Pinto expressly acknowledged in his work, or whom he
1. See also Nijenhuis 2003, which offers an excellent summary in English of Isaac de
Pinto’s biography.
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
265
specifically opposed. The possibility of improving our knowledge of this
ongoing dialogue that Isaac de Pinto maintained with some of the most
important figures of the European Enlightenment is more than enough
reason to make this fresh attempt to reconstruct his career as both an
economist and a financier.
This article is designed to provide an integrated approach to the legacy
of this somewhat neglected figure in the history of economic, philosophical, and political thought in the second half of the eighteenth century.
After a brief biographical note, the article proceeds with an overview of
the various topics Isaac de Pinto wrote about, namely Jewish questions,
games and speculation, the tax system, luxury goods, freedom of trade,
national debt, public credit, and colonies. An attempt is also made to link
these bits and pieces together, in order to offer the reader a complete appraisal of Isaac de Pinto’s life and work.
We will necessarily come across the interpretations of some specific
points already put forward by a few other scholars. It is not our purpose
to critically assess those interpretations, nor even to offer any alternative ones. We deliberately follow an overall, general approach trying to
make sense of the several particular features that one may find in the
writings of Isaac de Pinto. We believe this is the best way to rescue his
life and work from oblivion. Given the nature of the problems addressed
by Pinto, a better knowledge and awareness of his contributions is particularly welcome among the community of historians of economics. We
hope this article will also provide a new background and a useful starting point to allow for a deeper analysis of each of the topics emerging
from the reading of his texts.
Biographical Sketch and Context
Born in 1717, Isaac was one of the three children of David Pinto, one
of the richest members of the Amsterdam Sephardic community in the
first half of the eighteenth century. Just like many other Jewish families of Portuguese origin who had fled from the Inquisition, the Pinto
family passed through the cities of Bordeaux, Antwerp, and Rotterdam
before settling in Holland’s most important commercial and financial
center.2 The Pintohuis, which even today is an important landmark in
Amsterdam’s historic center, is the most obvious and permanent sign of
2. For an overall presentation of Isaac de Pinto’s genealogy, see Pinto [1681] 1975, a manuscript by Isaac de Pinto’s grandfather.
266
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
the dimension and success of the golden period enjoyed by the Pinto
family.3
Isaac de Pinto followed in his father’s footsteps and took up his financial business, becoming one of the most widely respected figures in the
political and financial life of Amsterdam and being particularly active
until the end of the 1750s. Isaac’s marriage to Raquel Nunes Henriques,
a descendant of another rich and important family of Portuguese Jews
who had settled in Amsterdam, enabled him to consolidate his prestigious position in the hierarchy and network of the Jewish community.
He was a director as well as a shareholder of both the Dutch East India
Company and the Dutch West India Company. He attained the directorships in 1748 and 1749, respectively, thanks to the prestige that he had
achieved as an adviser and supporter in financial matters to the Stadholder William IV of Orange. Pinto also made a colossal loan to England
from his own resources for the sum of 6.6 million pounds (representing
roughly 22 percent of the total English public debt). Pinto had first-hand
knowledge, then, of the practices followed in the creation of public debt
through government securities, which was certainly of great use to him
in developing his arguments in the 1771 Traité de la circulation et du
crédit.
The crash that occurred in the Dutch West India Company at the end
of the 1750s, and the consequent financial loss to Pinto, led to a significant change in his public career, as he sought to carve out a niche for
himself as a philosopher and a man of letters. After 1761, Paris was to
become the city where he would seek out his next contacts and triumphs.
Thanks to his earlier services and the good relationship that he enjoyed
with the House of Orange, he was involved in the peace negotiations between France and England that resulted in the signing of the Treaty of
Paris, in 1763, which put an end to the Seven Years’ War. Isaac de Pinto
played a decisive role in changing some of the clauses of the treaty, to
the benefit of English trading interests—particularly those of the East
India Company. This was to prove crucial for the development of his
career, for two interconnected reasons. First, this achievement provided
him with a lifelong pension of 500 pounds paid by the East India Company on behalf of the English government. Second, in order to obtain
such a pension, Pinto established a direct contact with David Hume, who
3. Other places owned by the Pinto family in Amsterdam included the summer house
Tulpenberg in Oudekerk and another mansion by the Herrengracht Canal. See Wijler 1923,
12, 15.
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
267
at the time held the position of chargé d’affaires at the British embassy
in Paris.
The details that Hume has left us about his meetings with Pinto clearly
reveal the pressure and insistence with which Pinto achieved his aim,
recalled by Hume with subtle irony.4 Yet they also reveal that there was
some mutual sympathy and understanding between the two men.5
Some years later, Pinto was to say that when these meetings took
place in Paris, between 1763 and 1764, he talked at length and showed
Hume the preparatory materials for his Traité de la circulation et du
crédit. Regardless of any impact and direct influence that may have occurred, there is no doubt that Isaac de Pinto would always fondly remember his personal relationship with David Hume, as we shall see when
discussing his proposals about public finance.
Returning to Holland in 1765, after passing through England to settle matters relating to his pension, Pinto devoted himself to the preparation and publication of the writings that will be analyzed in the ensuing
sections of this article. He died in 1787, at the age of seventy, without
leaving any direct descendants.
Jewish Questions
The close contact and the hierarchical and paternal role that Isaac de
Pinto enjoyed with the Jewish community of Amsterdam are clearly demonstrated in the very first text that he published, in Portuguese, in which
he pointed out possible solutions for the difficult financial situation affecting the Jews of Iberian origin in particular (Pinto 1748). Poverty was
a condition that beset a considerable section of the Sephardic community
4. In discussing this curious episode in the relationship between Hume and Pinto, it is hard
to resist reproducing the letter in which Hume ([1764] 1932, 423) declares to the secretary
of the ambassador Lord Hertford: “Manifold have been the persecutions, dear Sir, which the
unhappy Jews, in several ages, have suffered from the misguided zeal of the Christians, but
there has at last arisen a Jew capable of avenging his injured nation, and striking terror into
their proud oppressors; this formidable Jew is Monsr. De Pinto, and the unhappy Christian,
who is chiefly exposed to all the effects of his cruelty, is your humble servant. He says, that
you promised to mention him to me; I do not remember that you did: he says that he has done
the most signal services to England, while the Duke of Bedford was Ambassador here; I do not
question it, but they are unknown to me: he says that he is poor and must have a pension for his
reward; I wish he may obtain it, but I cannot assist him. . . . This, dear Sir, is a very abridged
account of the dialogue which passes every day between M. Pinto and me, that is, every day
when he can break in upon me, and lay hold of me.”
5. On the relationship between Hume and Pinto and for a detailed analysis of Hume’s letters
and Pinto’s search for his pension, see Popkin 1970, 1974.
268
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
that, for political and religious reasons, found that access to economic
activities capable of providing means of subsistence was barred to them.6
Pinto basically proposed two measures.
First, he suggested encouraging roughly one-third of the poor population to set sail for the Dutch and English colonies in the West Indies,
namely Suriname, Curaçao, Jamaica, and Barbados. Sponsors of such a
measure, he said, would not need to worry about the cost of this diaspora,
since less money would be needed in the future for charitable activities
and public assistance in Amsterdam. Furthermore, the cost of the travel
expenses could be repaid by the beneficiaries themselves, once they had
settled into profitable activity in the promised lands.
The second measure that Pinto proposed was that the Jewish community set up an accumulation fund (increase fund, to use the author’s
expression) destined to provide assistance to the poor and needy. In this
way, Isaac de Pinto revealed his belief that poverty was an inevitable,
permanent circumstance in the Jewish community. The fund was to have
a diversified composition, consisting of capital and accruing interest from
subscriptions, income transfers from the slaughterhouse, legacies and
taxes paid to the Jewish community, and the levying of monetary fines.
The skillful and rigorous management of this fund would make it possible to overcome situations of vulnerability and urgency, while at the
same time guaranteeing the peace of mind of the community as a whole.
Isaac de Pinto went on to point out other solutions that would certainly have more consistent effects, such as obtaining permission to install a large factory that could absorb the work of 300 to 400 people.
But this type of measure required a reformed attitude from the authorities about both the dignity and the social and political health of the Portuguese nation that had settled in Amsterdam.
Of particular note is that Pinto tried to find solutions for his community’s problems, at a time when the success of his career demonstrated
that the condition of being a Jew was not a stigma that made it impossible for him to enjoy a dramatic rise in the social hierarchy of the Amsterdam financial market. Moreover, his 1748 Reflexões políticas [Political Reflections] is important for the way in which it reveals and heralds
6. It is not our purpose to address here the economic problems affecting the Portuguese
Jewish community (usually referred to as the Portuguese nation) in Amsterdam. This context
is, however, crucial for understanding the networking of the Jewish community in economic
and financial activities. For a detailed survey, see Bloom [1937] 1969. For a discussion of issues
concerning the community’s identity and organization, see Bodian 1997.
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
269
interesting facets of the author’s philosophical, political, and financial
thought. See, for example, the way in which he presented his conception of social order and public virtue, arising from individual efforts and
interests:
Whenever noble incentives were lacking to impel men to contribute to
the public good, private interest and self-respect would excite them, for
prudence has taught them how much their own preservation depends
thereon. The various interests are reconciled and combined through
the reciprocal convenience between the diverse members of society,
which produces the harmony in which good order consists. (Pinto
1748, 1)
This idea of the spontaneous harmony of private interests will be seen
to be crucial for understanding the economic and financial phenomena
later posited by the author.
Equally important is the way in which he denounces the inadequate
fulfillment of the duties of public positions, stating that “the abuses committed in the administration of public affairs are normally attributed to
the ministers, who, in order to satisfy their personal interests, sacrifice
those of the public, which is ordinarily the victim of its own passions”
(Pinto 1748, 4).
But Pinto most clearly expresses his idea of the bold mentality of
an audacious businessman prepared to take risks when he philosophizes
about the circumstance of risk itself being, after all, the very essence of
business:
Prudence consists less in avoiding all inconveniences, than in getting
to know the nature of these, choosing as a good that which is inferior
to others: whoever seeks to wait for all opportunities, prepare all comforts, guard against all accidents, avoid all dangers, will either never
undertake any enterprise or will have no success in the enterprise that
he undertakes; which caused a famous politician to say that nothing
leads more quickly into danger than the excessive care of wishing to
forestall it; and, in such a case, prudence degenerates into imprudence.
(Pinto 1748, 20)
Undoubtedly revealing his own direct involvement in risky activities in
the financial market of Amsterdam, this testimony is an integral part of
a text in which he also reveals his concern with defending the interests
and stability of the Portuguese nation. It is this same concern that can be
270
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
noted in the controversial debate that Pinto engaged in with two of the
leading figures in the French Enlightenment, Voltaire and Diderot.
The great hostility shown toward Judaism by Voltaire and other important figures of the European Enlightenment has not gone unnoticed
by the scholars of the period, especially when seen in the light of the relationship between religion and the intellectual and scientific movement
(see Hertzberg 1968 and Sutcliffe 2000). The philosophical cult of tolerance did not involve any concessions on the part of Christianity to the
domain of pagan culture, nor did it diminish the intellectual and social
isolation of members of the Jewish religious culture (see Gusdorf 1972,
157–68).
The Jews who were contemporaries of Voltaire clearly understood
that they were stigmatized and reacted against the predominant spirit of
the time. Isaac de Pinto played an important role here, for it was under
his influence and pressure that a collection of letters addressed to Voltaire
by Portuguese, German, and Polish Jews was published in 1769, according to the publisher of the eighth edition of this work (Guénnée [1769]
1817).
The collection includes two letters written by Pinto, serving as an
advertisement for his Apologie pour la nation Juive, which had been
published as a leaflet in 1762 and which was again printed in this volume.7 Pinto defended the honor of the Jewish nation, both Sephardic
and Ashkenazi, against Voltaire’s abuse of their character. Voltaire said
bad things about them all indiscriminately, making no distinction about
their habits, customs, or capacities for adapting to the different social environments in which they were forced to live. But what most upset and
disturbed Pinto was the way in which Voltaire depicted the supposed ignorance of the Jews at the scientific level and their lesser importance in
literary and artistic spheres (see Nijenhuis 1993).
Voltaire replied courteously to Pinto, admitting that he might have
been wrong in confusing the whole with the parts. But the ironic tone
with which he ended his short missive clearly explains what he was actually thinking: “Remain a Jew, for this is what you are. . . . But be a
philosopher, that is the best that I can wish for you in this short life”
(Guénnée [1769] 1817, 18). Or, in other words, it was not his condition
as a Jew that would prevent Pinto from entering the republic of letters,
however arduous the path might be. If any doubts still existed about
7. It is in one of these letters that Pinto provides details of his direct contacts with Voltaire
in Holland (Guénnée [1769] 1817, 17).
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
271
Voltaire’s opinion of the Jews, various entries later published in his Dictionnaire philosophique were to corroborate his belief that “it is a singular example of human stupidity that we have for so long regarded Jews
as a Nation that taught everything to the others” (Voltaire [1764] 1964,
25).
Nor did the contacts that Isaac de Pinto had with Diderot contribute
to the rehabilitation of the Jews among the leading figures of the French
Enlightenment. In the posthumously published account of his travels
through Holland, Diderot ([1782] 1982) relates his meetings with Pinto
and his visit to the Portuguese synagogue in Amsterdam. But what Diderot wrote about Pinto is not flattering. Having learned of some love affairs in which Pinto had been involved, both in Holland and Paris, Diderot depicted Pinto as a man of dissolute habits who sometimes had to
pay the price of his debauchery both to the courts and to the police:
“This Jew Pinto, whom we met in Paris and the Hague, has passed two
or three times through the clutches of the magistrates; and despite his
old age I do not yet believe him to be safe from this accident. . . . The
debauchery of married men is severely punished. It cost Pinto two hundred ducats” (Diderot [1782] 1982, 77, 92).8 What motivated Diderot
to give this testimony at a time when the frequenters of salons seemed
relatively unconcerned about the infamy or immorality of liaisons dangereuses? Perhaps Diderot bore a certain grudge against Isaac de Pinto
for the tone of the open letter written to him by the latter and published
in 1767 (Pinto [1767] 1960)—six years before Diderot began his travels
around Holland.
Games People Play
A letter that Isaac de Pinto wrote to Diderot about a game of cards is one
of his most intriguing and curious texts.
The choice of Diderot as his addressee was perhaps a way of criticizing some traits of the Puritan mentality about games of chance. Quoting
Diderot himself, Pinto attacks the idea that passions might destroy the
human spirit and that gambling might be included in an ignoble category of human activity.
His thesis was a defense of the virtues of the card game as a universal
form of entertainment, contributing to a change in European customs.
8. See Nijenhuis 1992, 20–21.
272
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
Some exaggeration and irony are to be noted in Pinto’s writing, so it is
therefore not surprising that the letter to Diderot ends with a postscript in
which other causes for these changes are explained: namely, the abolition
of the feudal regime, the discovery of America, the renewal of commercial life, the invention of the printing press, and advances in science and
knowledge, as well as the declining influence of the Machiavellian spirit
in political life.
Yet the importance of the game of cards was not just in the opportunity it afforded to turn the weapons of irony and parody on Diderot.
Indeed, the metaphor of gambling is used by Pinto to show the existence
of strategies employed by players who are aware of situations of rivalry,
dispute, and competition, but who are nonetheless willing to establish
amusing and civilized forms of social interaction:
The magic of the game of cards forms a common seat for almost all
the passions in miniature . . . : the game seems to establish an illusory
equality between the players; it is the vehicle that brings together the
most discordant individuals in society; greed and ambition are its motives; the universal taste of pleasure flatters itself into being satisfied
by this amusement. (Pinto [1767] 1960, 234)
This vision of gambling as an activity that generates different forms of
social participation is, after all, the explanation for the insistence with
which the word game is used by Isaac de Pinto to describe economic
and financial situations. Special attention should be given to the way in
which he presents and analyzes the games played by shareholders and
speculators, in the light of his own experience and knowledge of the
way in which the Amsterdam stock market operated, considering that
“the universal taste for gambling, which shareholders have introduced,
greatly favors the facility with which loans are made” (Pinto [1771]
1960, 71–72). In other words, Pinto was in no doubt about the instrumental importance of the games played on the stock market as part of
the creation of the public debt, which was a central feature of his Traité.
Following in the pioneering footsteps of another Jew of Iberian origin,
Joseph de la Vega,9 Pinto undertakes in his 1771 Traité de la circulation
et du crédit an analysis of the “main elements of a game that seems
to me to influence the political system of Europe” (Pinto [1771] 1960,
210). He concentrates his attention upon transactions in the options and
9. Joseph de la Vega’s Confusion de confusiones ([1688] 1939) is a lively description of
financial operations at the Amsterdam stock market in the late seventeenth century. See Cardoso
2002.
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
273
futures markets, through which players and investors in the stock market agree among themselves on processes for delaying the realization of
promises and contracts for the buying and selling of shares. The use and
management of time, the prolonging of promissory agreements, the calculation in advance of the interest to be charged, the expectations that
shares might rise or fall in value—in other words, the mysteries and
magic of the stock market—are the themes that Pinto discusses in a separate section of his Traité, which he titled Tableau ou exposé de ce qu’on
appelle le commerce, ou plutôt le jeu d’actions en Hollande [Tableau or
Exposition of What in Holland One Calls the Trade or Game of Shares].
It was certainly these reflections that lay at the origin of the epithet
that Marx applied to Isaac de Pinto when he called him the “Pindar of the
Amsterdam stock market” (Marx [1867] 1970, 165). Just as the ancient
lyrical poet of Thebes had celebrated in choral lyrics and odes the feats
and glories of the Olympian games, Pinto is seen, in Marx’s bitter irony,
singing and celebrating the less noble vicissitudes of the games played
on the stock market.
Taxes People Pay
Among the themes discussed by Isaac de Pinto in the Traité, it is important to stress the attention that he paid to matters of a fiscal nature.
The starting point for his incursions into this area was the critique that
he made of the taxation system proposed by Mirabeau and, although no
express mention is made of them, by other epigones of the physiocratic
school. Writing in a period when the physiocrats were intensely active
and influential in French circles, Pinto never showed himself to be either
influenced or impressed by the economic doctrine and analysis put forward by François Quesnay and his disciples. However, Pinto’s disagreement with the members of that school was only on fiscal matters, and
there is no further sign of any opposition to the theoretical basis offered
by the physiocrats as regards the notion of the exclusive productivity of
agriculture and the need to implement policy measures that would preserve the source of wealth.
Despite the fact that he enjoyed fond memories of his brief encounter
with Mirabeau (Pinto [1771] 1960, 33), Pinto considered Mirabeau’s
reflections and proposals on fiscal policy and his system of rural philosophy to be inadequate. Pinto’s criticism was directed above all at the
Theorie de l’impôt (Mirabeau [1760] 1972), in which a defense had been
274
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
made of the well-known and controversial view of the physiocrats about
the advantages of a single tax on landed property.
Pinto’s condition as a former representative and defender of the Jewish community in Amsterdam—to whom direct access to landed property was denied—may explain his lack of interest in learning more about
the means to increase agricultural production. He could not derive his
proposals for tax reform from an economic system based on the primacy
of land and agriculture, because he did not believe in such a primacy.
His keen concern with matters of a fiscal nature naturally arose from his
ideas about the importance of the system of public debt. Fulfillment of
the state’s obligations to its creditors and the establishment of a climate
of trust among most economic agents required tax revenue to be collected on an ongoing basis. Mirabeau’s ideas earned Pinto’s agreement
when Mirabeau spoke of impeding the immunity and privilege extended
to some landowners. But Pinto did not accept the principle of a single
and exclusive tax on this sector:
Based on reasoning that is confirmed by experience, I boldly venture
to suggest that the project that has seduced so many people, namely
that of reducing all taxes to one single tax by way of capitation, abolishing all other taxes and excise duties, is a fanciful dream in countries such as France, England, and Holland; one finds that it was completely impossible to levy on the public sums that the state needed, by
any means other than through a taxation on objects of consumption,
which is confused with the price of things. This is the least harmful
and the only possible means. (Pinto [1771] 1960, 115)10
Pinto draws a distinction between essential consumer goods and luxury
consumer goods, considering this distinction to be fundamental for establishing a scale and hierarchy of priorities for the application of fair
principles in taxation: “The source of productions, land, the first harvests, must bear the least burden, and the progress of taxes must follow
the detail of consumption, being increased on luxury goods” (127).
10. It should, in fact, be noted that this critical distancing of himself from Mirabeau also
represented an opportunity to make a more general criticism of the ideas of the physiocrats,
whom he accuses of engaging in “agriculture mania” (Pinto [1771] 1960, 131): “This principle
of regarding the product of the land as the only source of wealth, has seduced quite a number
of people, and it is absolutely false, as is the second principle arising therefrom, that taxes must
be established at the source of production: a maxim that is destructive to cultivation of the land
and opposed to the aims of its author” (125).
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
275
But Pinto’s most original and controversial idea in matters of fiscal
policy is his proposal for the elimination of the capital tax known as
belasting, which was levied on the shares of the East India Company.
This was a fixed tax per share which, due to the fluctuation in the value of
shares, could be highly punitive for those holding capital in the company
at times when there was a fall in the stock market. In order to present this
proposal of a fiscal shock, Pinto resorted to a justification supported by
analogies from nature:
All taxation, which destroys and annihilates a mass of these values, or
which diminishes the specie money, is contrary to finance: it is akin to
attacking the roots of the plants that one is interested in preserving: it
is to clip the wings of birds that are meant to fly: in a word, it is to cut
down the tree by its trunk in order to pick the fruit therefrom. (239)
Pinto’s economic arguments in defense of the abolition of this tax, and
its respective replacement by a tax on the consumption of spices originating from the West Indies, clearly show his view of the importance of
the financial market of Amsterdam and the agents operating therein. The
losses arising from the existence of the belasting tax did not only affect
the shareholders of the company. Also involved here was the decrease in
the state’s tax revenue due either to the expatriation of capital or the fall
in expenditure on luxury goods that were subject to high levels of taxation. From Pinto’s own words, we can understand how he judged that
the losses of shareholders represented a loss for the nation as a whole:
Now, this active force having been weakened, all the resources of this
class diminish in proportion. The misfortunes and losses that the company suffered were more considerable and more catastrophic to the
fortune of the shareholders, as a consequence of this oppressive
charge, than one had ever felt in more prosperous times. Capital and
interest having also been reduced most prodigiously, this led to the
ruin of a large number of private individuals, several of whom experienced the sad need to settle abroad, which had a notable influence on
the lower classes. It is therefore as clear as day that the state’s revenue
must have felt the effects of so many reductions in consumption, or
even the total suppression thereof, since this is the source of finance.
(239)
Exemption of shareholders’ capital from taxation and a tax on luxury
consumer goods were therefore the fiscal policy measures most favored
276
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
by Pinto. The former is a clear consequence of the vested interests of a
member of the financial community who wanted to avoid such a tax and
was trying to pass it on to the merchant community. The latter shows
Pinto’s willingness to criticize the physiocrats on the basis that indirect
taxes would be easier and would bring more justice than a system based
on a direct impôt unique [single tax]. The problem of the taxation of
luxury goods deserves further explanation, in view of the importance that
Pinto gave it in his work.
The Luxury Question
Isaac de Pinto’s preference for a tax on luxury consumption necessarily
involved weighing up the inherent advantages and disadvantages, as well
as considering luxury as a problem that aroused the interest of moral and
political philosophers. The eighteenth-century debates on the question of
luxury were a response to the large increase in both the production and
circulation of new commodities. The products of new industries and the
rise in the consumption of luxuries are signs of the development of a
new material culture and a new pattern of consumer behavior and desire in enlightened Europe (see Berg and Clifford 1999). Pinto was naturally touched by this matter, to which he dedicated an essay in French
(Pinto [1762] 1960) that was later translated into English and published
in 1766.
Admitting the existence of controversy among different authors about
the significance of the phenomenon of luxury—among whom Pinto
quoted Melon, Montesquieu, Mirabeau, and Hume—Pinto developed a
concept based on the historical relativity of luxury. In his view, the willingness to accept luxury would depend on the level of development, the
degree of wealth, enjoyed by the inhabitants of a country and also on
the existing patterns and habits of consumption. Thus, the same goods
in different countries might or might not be liable to classification under
the category of luxury goods. In Pinto’s own words:
What is a ruinous luxury in one country might perhaps be useful or
indifferent in another. A destructive and indecent luxury in one order of society is honorable, indispensable, and useful in another: and,
finally, in the same country, where a certain luxury is necessary, there
may be times when sumptuary laws are necessary. (Pinto [1762] 1960,
222)
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
277
Despite this relativism, Pinto leaves us in no doubt about his condemnation of excessive luxury and the processes of imitation that occur in
developed societies, in which an attempt is made to pass off as necessary
and indispensable that which is, after all, superfluous, accessory, or useless. He condemns luxury as pernicious and harmful, and seems to share
the negative judgment of luxury that at the time persisted in France as
well as in other European countries. Excessive luxury is therefore prejudicial to society, a factor leading to decadence in states, an element that
encourages the corruption of national habits and the eclipse of virtues, a
habit that “softens one’s body and weakens one’s courage” (223).
The moral tone of these considerations sets them apart from defenses
of luxury as the representation and legitimate exercise of private vices,
or at least from Mandeville’s claim about the benefits of luxury and his
refutation of the usual objections to it. Yet this emphasis does not take
precedence over the economic nature of Pinto’s approach to the question
(see Popkin 1976), which undoubtedly represented an important step toward subverting the conventional wisdom on the moral dangers of luxury.
In fact, Pinto’s concern with condemning excessive luxury basically
sought to call for a reorientation of the expenditure made on consumption by classes with higher levels of income, whose demand thus enhanced the value of the sectors of activity producing goods for universal
consumption. In this respect, he seems to follow the arguments of the
physiocrats as to the need to reduce the expenditure on goods belonging
to the category of luxe de décoration [opulent luxury].11
For Pinto, the problem of excess consumption of luxury goods would
not be resolved in a lasting manner through prohibitive sumptuary laws,
as Adam Smith would also put it fourteen years later. Pinto wanted to
demonstrate the advantage of giving greater incentives to an increased
production of essential consumer goods, since such increased production
would sustain and accelerate the circulation of wealth. The important
thing was not that a few people should consume high-priced products
that were used for ostentatious purposes, but rather that many people
should consume commonly needed goods at a moderate price. Pinto was
therefore to state in his Traité:
11. Pinto’s distinction between luxe de décoration and useful luxury is welcomed by Vandermonde ([1795] 1994, 396), thus revealing the widespread and positive appraisal of Pinto’s
reflections on the theme.
278
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
It is continual, permanent, sustained, stable, and daily expenditure that
maintains this circulation: whereas excessive luxury, by provoking a
disturbance in the manifold resources of private individuals, causes
their source to dry up; circulation and industry suffer from this. The
specie money held by a great number of private individuals is annihilated by enforced luxury; this specie money is not to be found spread
among the public, as was erroneously imagined. This is the nub of the
question. I do not condemn expenditure, or the relative luxury that is
made available to the resources of individuals; but that which confuses
states, which makes so many citizens the victims of misunderstood
opinion. (Pinto [1771] 1960, 106)
This assessment and critique of luxury on economic rather than moral
grounds is worth emphasizing. By focusing the analysis on the working
of the commercial society, Pinto added original arguments in favor of
the “de-moralization” of luxury, without which a modern conception of
luxury could never be obtained (see Berry 1994, 101–76).
Laissez Circuler
Consumption involves the circulation of created wealth. The importance
that Pinto attaches to circulation—which in this case refers not only
to the stimulus given to mass consumption, but also to the acceleration given to monetary circuits and the easy access afforded to means
of payment—is one of his most significant contributions in the field of
economic analysis.
Fairly important in this regard was the influence that Pinto admits to
from his reading of Boisguilbert’s works. His reference to the Détail de
la France (Boisguilbert [1695] 1966) leaves no room for doubt: “Of all
those works that have come to my attention, this is the one text whose
ideas came closest to mine on the subject of circulation. I even find myself forced to say that it is the only work where I have found clear notions
expressed about this matter” (Pinto [1771] 1960, 152).
What Pinto found most attractive in the writings of Boisguilbert was
his analysis of the processes of circulation in the real and monetary
spheres of the economy, whose development would depend on the improvement in the processes for the allocation of available resources. For
a late-seventeeth- to early-eighteenth-century author such as Boisguilbert, making the monetary circuits and the flows of goods function more
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
279
efficiently meant ridding the nation of the whole set of obstacles and
barriers, not only administrative and fiscal, but also social and political, that had been raised against the full development of the internal
and external market (see Faccarello 1986). In the mid-eighteenth century, the protests that had accumulated in the economic literature (which
obviously included the invaluable contribution made in such matters by
François Quesnay and his followers) of the Enlightenment about the deficient functioning of the economic and social structures of the ancien
régime found an obvious and natural response in Isaac de Pinto’s work.
The problem of the external market and the commercial relationships
between nations was a natural theme for discussion. Pinto dedicated a
remarkable text to it in the Traité, in which, paraphrasing expressions
that were current in the literature of that time, he demonstrated that the
international order could not resign itself to the spirit of the jalousie du
commerce.
This section of the Traité was written in the form of a letter, addressed
to an unidentified recipient. Its basic idea was that the fundamental interests of trading nations may converge for the conservation and enhancement of mutual benefits. “A chain in the interests of trade” (Pinto [1771]
1960, 170) and “a connectedness of inseparable interests” (172) are, for
example, expressions that clearly convey this idea.
Contradicting the logic of mercantilist literature—which was highly
favorable to the demonstration of the possibility and need for the hegemony and predominance of one nation over others—Pinto considered
that international trade is a game in which those taking part share advantages in a proportionate and balanced manner. Admitting that there
may momentarily be some inequality between nations, he did, however,
strive to argue that it would be absurd and unfair for each nation to seek
to gain exclusive advantages or excessive privileges.
When Pinto wrote this text, Hume had already demonstrated, through
recourse to the famous price-specie flow mechanism, the impossibility
of a nation’s maintaining a permanent trade deficit or surplus, due to the
elementary causal relationship occurring between the level of the money
supply, the internal level of prices, and the competitiveness of national
products in relation to the outside world. He therefore concludes, in his
essay Of Money ([1754] 1985, 283), that “there seems to be a happy concurrence of causes in human affairs, which checks the growth of trade
and riches, and hinders them from being confined entirely to one people;
as might naturally at first be dreaded from the advantages of an established commerce.”
280
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
The conclusion Hume reached through the use of economic reasoning had also been presented in terms that were perhaps more political
and philosophical by authors such as the Abbé de Saint-Pierre and JeanJacques Rousseau—whose works are referred to and used by Isaac de
Pinto—in order to guarantee the integrity of the European borders.12 The
vision of doux commerce and perpetual peace does not, after all, seek to
achieve anything more than the creation of a favorable environment for
the “harmony of the political picture of a commercial Europe” (Pinto
[1771] 1960, 185).
In fact, Pinto shows himself to be particularly receptive to this optimistic view of the possibility of building peace between European nations, a peace that would be a fundamental condition for increasing
wealth and prosperity. If this were the case, what sense would there be
in each nation seeking to gain advantages for itself in its commercial
relationship with other parties? Pinto replied to this question by demonstrating a remarkable Europeanist spirit, saying, “As Europe is a family
or a body composed of several members, none can be destroyed without
the others suffering” (Pinto [1771] 1960, 169).
At the economic level, Isaac de Pinto showed himself to be in favor
of reducing import duties and encouraging greater openness and freedom in international trade.13 The greater the freedom of internal and external circulation, the greater the order, harmony, and equilibrium that
would prevail among the different domains, aims, and protagonists of
economic activity. Thus, “in a great kingdom, agriculture, trade, manufactures, circulation, public credit, interior police, finance, the state of
war, the colonies, shipping, the navy, moderate luxury, everything must
proceed in a reciprocal proportion, in order to preserve the harmony of
the state, as well as the good order and prosperity of a nation” (Pinto
[1771] 1960, 163).
This is one of the concluding passages of the Traité and clearly expresses its author’s concerns about a series of themes relating to order
and social equilibrium that had aroused his interest in his opening text
in 1748.
12. On the role played by the writings of the Abbé de Saint-Pierre in the formation of the
economic culture of the Enlightenment, see Perrot 1992, 38–58.
13. This was certainly one of the subjects that led him to declare his admiration for the
work of Galiani (who was equally critical of the unconditional opening up of an economy to
the outside), in whose work he admitted to having read “excellent, useful, luminous, profound
and instructive” things (Pinto [1771] 1960, 164).
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
281
National Debt and Public Credit
Among all the commentaries about and specific approaches to Isaac de
Pinto’s work, attention is inevitably focused on his analysis and strong
support of the system of national debt that prevailed in England in the
mid-eighteenth century. Thanks to the modernity of its financial institutions and instruments after the creation of the Bank of England in
1694, Isaac de Pinto’s model country had managed to achieve a level
of prosperity and development that brooked no comparison with those
of more populous countries enjoying greater resources. Now, according
to Pinto, such success was due to the system of indebtedness adopted
by the British Crown toward private individuals and the additional financing that it guaranteed. Although Pinto could not express it in these
terms, it should be noted in his arguments that the small and large investors who lent money to the state in return for securities, which could
be bought and sold and which earned interest, entered into a kind of implicit contract in which economic and financial dividends were added to
the advantages of political stability that was of benefit to both parties.
Pinto’s concerns with national debt were therefore motivated by his personal interest in pushing the kind of financial instrument he traded in.
In the light of his past business in the trade of government securities, it
is only natural that he highly praised national debt and its positive role
in economic activity. The analytical perspicacity, but also the fragility,
of the theoretical justifications put forward by Pinto have already been
carefully analyzed in the text with which Antoin Murphy introduced the
most recent edition of Pinto’s Traité (Murphy 2000).14 One need recall
only three key ideas that, regardless of their conceptual appropriateness,
seem to represent the essence of Pinto’s message.
First, the idea that the national debt enriches the nation: “With each
loan, the English government, by ceding a part of the charges that are
14. One of the most attractive features of Murphy’s text is the approach that he makes in
the light of later developments in economic theory as applied to questions of credit, monetary
circulation, and public finances. Although this is not the methodological approach attempted
here, we cannot avoid stressing the relevance of Pinto’s text for exercises in retrospective analysis that, for example, involve the concepts of crowding out or Ricardian equivalence. In keeping with the same line of interpretation (albeit moving in a divergent direction), it should be
remembered that in the period after the Second World War, Pinto’s work enjoyed a certain
revival through the writings of authors with a Keynesian background, who saw in the Traité
published in 1771 a powerful exemplification of the success of a deliberate policy of public
deficit pursued with the aims of short-term expansion and growth. In regard to this last point,
see Harris 1947, 52–59; and Oliveira 1957.
282
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
mortgaged in order to pay the interest thereon, creates a new and artificial
capital that did not exist beforehand and becomes permanent, circulating
to the advantage of the public, as if it were an effective cash treasure with
which the kingdom has enriched itself” (Pinto [1771] 1960, 61).
Second, the elementary precaution of not exceeding a maximum limit
in the volume of public debt, so the debt is compatible with the economic
and financial situation of a nation: “Public funds are an already realized
alchemy, but the crucible must not be allowed to overflow” (74).
Finally, the promise that the public debt can be alleviated when political conditions so permit, such alleviation being accompanied by a reduction in the tax burden necessary for servicing the debt: “It is absolutely
indispensable, in peacetime, to settle as much as one can of the state’s
debts; although too great a service would be useless and even dangerous, especially when the credit is supported on solid foundations” (78).
While wishing to claim and defend the pioneering nature of his thesis
about the importance of the public debt for the formation of the nation’s
wealth, Pinto subsequently acknowledged other contributions made by
authors whom he read only later and in whose works he found ideas
that were similar to his own. He expressly states his debt to the writings
of Bishop George Berkeley (1735–37) in the following terms: “I was
pleased to see that Dr. Berkeley had already surmised the new truths
that I develop here about the subject of the national debt” (Pinto [1771]
1960, 41).
In an atmosphere of debate clearly engendered by the belief that public debt did not create wealth, expressed by authors such as David Hume
(later seconded by Adam Smith), Pinto’s position had little hope of winning over public opinion. It is interesting to note the testimony made on
this subject by the English translator of the Traité, Sir Philip Francis,
who, for political reasons apparently related to a governmental appointment, found himself obliged to erase all traces of his personal involvement with Isaac de Pinto and renounce the authorship of the translation,
preface, and notes to the English edition, substituting at the last minute
the name of his cousin, the Reverend S. Baggs, for his own name.15
Although the English edition was profusely punctuated with explanatory notes in which the translator distanced himself from what he considered the author’s more outrageous theories about the virtues of the public debt, the introduction is sufficiently laudatory to justify Sir Philip’s
15. The details of this curious story are revealed by Popkin 1976, 1712, based on Philip
Francis’s own memories and revelations.
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
283
prudence about being associated with the Traité. The translator’s preface
asserts that the subject of national debt had been treated with excessive
lightness by those who upheld its disadvantages, including David Hume
himself, who, if he should “be distinguished from the rest, it is not by any
marks of that deep intuitive perception, with which he possesses himself
of almost every other subject” (Pinto [1774] 1969, iv). It was therefore
impossible to ignore opinions that contradicted the predominant way of
thinking, as represented by Hume. On the contrary, it was essential to
find out more about these contradictory opinions in order to better refute
them or use them in a critical and reasonable manner:
The doctrine maintained in the following essay on credit and circulation may, in its turn, be liable to the objection of being pushed too far;
but it is a doctrine that carries consolation and encouragement along
with it. Truth is usually found to mediate between the extremes. The
object of the translator is to contribute something to a collection of
materials, out of which a wiser and a more methodical head may hereafter form some rational system of finance. (iv)
Pinto’s translator clearly shows his opposition to the violent and radical
solutions put forward for the reduction of the national debt, in an unmistakable reference to the attitude of Hume with regard to this matter, for
whom “either the nation must destroy public credit or the public credit
will destroy the nation” (Hume [1754] 1965, 360–61). And the translator
feels obliged to recognize that the national debt had brought with it a reduction in the interest rate, an increase in the value of land, an increase in
capital and wealth, and an improved access of private citizens to credit.
In other words, it was not possible to deny completely that there were undoubted advantages in the system that was in force, which demonstrated
England’s superiority in relation to the other European nations.
There was a clear awareness at the time of the importance of this debate. Smith devoted careful attention to it in the last chapter of the Wealth
of Nations, seeking to demonstrate in great detail the theoretical and political error of those who defended the advantages of the national debt
(Smith [1776] 1976, bk. 5, chap. 3, 47). Although he did not mention
Pinto by name, Smith was surely thinking of statements made by him.16
Smith argued that the capital obtained through public borrowing was
16. And not just the example of Melon 1734, as is suggested by the editors of the Glasgow
edition. It is worth noting that Smith himself seems to have possessed a copy of Pinto’s book,
listed as item 1313 in the catalog of his library (see Mizuta 2000).
284
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
removed from and not added to the sum of the national capital stock, and
that an increase in the circulation of money did not represent an increase
in wealth.17
Notwithstanding the symbolic and authoritative weight associated
both with Hume’s position and Smith’s careful justification, Pinto’s work
continued to be given attentive reading and earned the moderate support
of authors such as Thomas Mortimer (1772), A. Nicolas Isnard (1781),
Dugald Stewart ([1809–10] 1968), and Frederic Gentz ([1800] 1803).18
Among the various commentators on and opponents of his theories,
the author that presented most problems for Pinto was David Hume,
given the personal relationship that the two enjoyed. Pinto expressly admitted such when he said that “Mr. Hume, whom I also refute on occasions, has provided me with more than one token of affection and friendship, for which I shall always be proud to show my gratitude” (Pinto
[1771] 1960, 33), or that “I had the honor to meet him in Paris, and it
gave me infinite pleasure to recognize that his character was even greater
than his mind; it is to the truth that he owes such a eulogy. Some essential services that he later rendered to me in London have earned him the
most legitimate rights to my gratitude” (104).
Pinto also implied that such admiration was reciprocal, when he referred to the way Hume addressed him on the subject of a preliminary
handwritten version of the Traité: “He was very pleased with my essay
and modesty does not permit me to repeat what he said to me about it,
as well as about the letter that is to be found at the end of this work to
prove that the jealousy of trade is misunderstood” (104).
He therefore admitted to some discomfort in contradicting an author
for whom he felt the most sincere admiration. Further, and above all,
Pinto recognized the enormous debt of gratitude that he owed for the
role that Hume had played in guaranteeing Pinto the award of a lifelong
pension for the services he rendered on the occasion of the signing of
the Treaty of Paris.
Such discomfort was exacerbated by the fact that Pinto learned of
Hume’s essays, Of the Jealousy of Trade and Of Public Credit, only after
having written the first part of his Traité. Afterward he sought to clear
17. For a more detailed analysis of those taking part in the discussion about the question
of the public debt in England, of the arguments they put forward, and of how those arguments
compared with those in other European countries, see Albertone 1992a, 1992b; Pesante 1992;
and Winch 1998.
18. On the use of Pinto’s ideas by Mortimer and Stewart, see Popkin 1970. As for Gentz,
see Perrot 1992, 455.
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
285
up any doubts as to the motivations for his own writing. Pinto’s initial
concern had not been to contest Hume’s negative view of the effects of
the public debt. Yet, since Pinto’s thesis clearly contradicted an author
whom in many other ways he admired and whose arguments he sought
to develop further (in the case of the letter about the jealousy of trade),
Pinto could not miss the opportunity to press on with the debate:
I am persuaded that, when he wrote that essay [Of Public Credit],
Mr. Hume had not yet undertaken a precise, commercial analysis of
circulation, the nature of funds, and rents; he had seen some disadvantageous truths in paper money, which caused him to think of other
means that were liable to correct the inconvenience thereof.19 (105)
This was a subject that clearly divided the economists writing during this
period, and it was the weighty opinion shared by David Hume and Adam
Smith that was to triumph. Berkeley, Melon, and Pinto did not see their
theories recognized by others.
The time of these debates about the questions of the public debt, about
the efficiency of the credit and public finance system, and about the constitutional framework of economic and financial activity would later be
considered a formative moment in the modern political discourse about
civic virtues and the formation of wealth, especially because of the recognition of the importance of changes in the economic and financial foundations of political life (Pocock 1975, chap. 13). By driving a wedge
right into the middle of this debate, Pinto’s work ended up revealing itself as an instrument for the learning of subjects that were to challenge
the established order of the prevailing economic and political discourse.
Colonial Paths
In one of the autonomous texts that introduce the reader to the central
themes of the Traité, particularly the factors of British prosperity, Isaac
de Pinto defends the idea that the colonies should play a subordinate role
19. From this, it can be seen that it was not just the question of the public debt that gave
rise to his disagreement with Hume. For Pinto, it was also impossible to understand that, after
recognizing the causal relationship between the increase in the representative signs of wealth
(or, in other words, the increase in monetary circulation), the reduction in the interest of money,
and the growth in the prosperity of industry, Hume had not deduced the unequivocal advantages
of such an increase in monetary circulation (Pinto [1771] 1960, 46). As for the evolution and
change in Hume’s thought due to his contact with Pinto and other enlightened French writers,
see Ross 2003.
286
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
in a mother country’s economic system, although he recognizes their decisive importance in the supply of raw materials for the manufacturing
sector. In his own words: “I have always suspected that an internal trade
originating from a population commensurate with the extension of the
land, resulting from the industry and ease of its inhabitants, is more natural, more advantageous than that of the distant colonies that take away
many people” (Pinto [1771] 1960, 35–36).
Some years later, however, as an act of political compromise that has
sometimes been interpreted as a repayment to the English government
for his lifetime pension, Pinto took a stand against American independence. In a series of published letters, he somewhat belatedly questioned
the legitimacy of the rebellion (Pinto 1776b, 1776c, 1776d). Between the
first and last letters, some nuances can be noted in the way in which the
irreversibility of the independence of the United States is understood.
However, in all the letters, there is no doubt about Pinto’s concern with
demonstrating the negative consequences of the rebellion, especially at
the economic level, caused by the significant loss in tax revenue.
The political delicacy of the colonial question almost forced Pinto to
renounce his earlier position in favor of doux commerce and perpetual
peace, leading to the emergence of an attitude that was much closer to the
old mercantilist arguments, whereby the colonies represented a fundamental instrument for building the economic self-sufficiency of the European nations and, consequently, strengthening and consolidating their
political supremacy over potential rivals.
The excessive zeal with which he defended English interests20 led
Pinto to distance himself from the positions of authors who had most
clearly demonstrated the inevitability of the independence of the colonies
of the European powers, namely Josiah Tucker and the Abbé de Raynal.
In England, Josiah Tucker was the one who best advocated the idea
of a complete break between colony and colonizer, in writings dating
from 1760.21 He openly championed American emancipation, because
of the heavy costs of administering and maintaining that most important English colony. He believed that the superiority of English capital could make its presence felt in any part of the globe that Englishmanufactured products were able to reach, so that their hegemony would
20. The relevance of the arguments defended by Isaac de Pinto justified the prompt translation into English of his letters about the American troubles (Pinto 1776a).
21. Josiah Tucker’s most important texts about these matters were gathered together and
published in Tucker [1774] 1974.
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
287
lead the Americans to reestablish links with the old mother country in a
way that Tucker prematurely conceived of as a privileged trading partnership. He also considered that the restrictive processes inherent in the
colonial system were prejudicial to the development of trade as a whole,
since they impeded the free business of a whole host of agents and interests.
The Abbé de Raynal, in the work of which he was the principal mentor and author (Raynal 1770) and which enjoyed an enormous impact
and widespread dissemination throughout Europe during the Age of Enlightenment, boldly denounced the inhuman humiliation of slave work
and colonial exploitation.
By identifying and distancing himself from the arguments of Tucker
and Raynal, Isaac de Pinto finally showed himself as a conformist in one
of the most decisive matters for the design of economic relations on a
world scale. He resigned himself to the American rebellion, although he
did not accept it readily. In this regard, his position did not differ much
from the one expressed that same year by Adam Smith ([1776] 1976, bk.
4, chap. 7).
Concluding Remarks
Isaac de Pinto’s work was rich and varied. On matters ranging from the
problems faced by the Jewish community of Amsterdam to the American
colonial troubles, Pinto’s attention covered a diversified range of themes
and sometimes aroused the opposition of the leading figures of the Age
of Enlightenment in Europe.
Pinto’s work allows us to better understand the essence of the discussion about the problems of luxury, freedom of trade, monetary circulation, and the systems of taxation and national debt. He debated these
subjects with authors who merited his greatest respect and who ended
up seeing their values recognized in the pantheon of the historiography
of the philosophical, political, and economic thought of the Enlightenment. The naive or erroneous points of view that he put forward can
only be gauged in the light of the knowledge of those debates that he
engaged in with his mentors and opponents. We have tried to show that
some of Pinto’s ideas on economic policy issues should be credited as
pioneering—namely the critique of the physiocrats’ tax system and the
vindication of the advantages of public debt creation—though he was
unable to reach a reputation as an economic analyst.
288
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
A first conclusion to be drawn is that Pinto’s ideas emerged sometimes
as original, other times as mere reproductions of what had already been
said, and most of the time as controversial. His ideas cannot, however, be
classified in a simplistic way as right or wrong, nor even as good or bad.
It has been our basic concern in this article to present and discuss his
ideas in context—that is, in their historical perspective, taking into account the problems and events that motivated and provoked Pinto. These
were the problems and events that we have also looked to in our search
for both a meaning and a coherent framework within which to place the
scattered materials that were the product of Pinto’s intellectual career.
Another conclusion to be drawn from the approach adopted in this article is that Pinto’s career helps us to understand the importance of life
experience and practical knowledge in the formation of intellectual positions, as well as the rather tenuous frontier between political agreements,
civic commitments, and doctrinal guidelines in questions of economic
theory and policy.
Rather than railing against the injustice of the general neglect of
Pinto’s work, it is imperative to underline the importance of studying authors who are supposedly minor and secondary, which would seem to be
the status that has been reserved for Pinto. This is a path that will lead to
a more profound understanding of the intellectual history of economics,
and, in the case of Isaac de Pinto, it will help us to better understand the
context of the actions of other better-known economists, financiers, and
philosophers in the Age of Enlightenment in Europe. Throughout the article we have implicitly admitted that it also is useful to have knowledge
of these minor figures because they show more clearly the brilliance of
their great contemporaries. In conclusion, the study of the work of Isaac
de Pinto is not only a relevant undertaking to be judged on its own merits, but also a means for learning more about Hume, Voltaire, Mirabeau,
or any of the other Enlightenment figures whom he met and conversed
with throughout his life.
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
289
References
Albertone, Manuela. 1992a. Il modello della Gran Bretagna nelle discussioni
francesi sul credito. In Passioni, interezzi, convenzioni: Discussioni settecentesche su virtù e civiltà, edited by M. Gena and M. L. Pesante, 469–92. Milan:
FrancoAngeli.
. 1992b. Moneta e politica in Francia: Dalla cassa di sconto agli assegnati
(1776–1792). Bologna: Il Mulino.
Amzalak, Moses B. 1960. O economista Isaac de Pinto, o seu “Tratado da circulação
e do crédito” e outros escritos económicos. Lisbon: Editorial Império.
Berg, Maxine, and Helen Clifford, eds. 1999. Consumers and Luxury: Consumer
Culture in Europe, 1650–1850. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Berkeley, George. 1735–37. The Querist. Dublin: G. Faulkner.
Berry, Christopher. 1994. The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical Investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, Herbert I. [1937] 1969. The Economic Activities of the Jews of Amsterdam
in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat
Press.
Bodian, Miriam. 1997. Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation: Conversos and Community in Early Modern Amsterdam. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Boisguilbert, Pierre de. [1695] 1966. Le détail de la France. Paris: Institut National
d’Études Démographiques.
Cardoso, José Luís. 2002. Confusion de Confusiones: Ethics and Options on
Seventeenth-Century Stock Exchange Markets. Financial History Review
9.2:109–23.
Coquelin, Ch., and Ch. Guillaumin. 1854. Dictionnaire de l’économie politique:
Contenant l’éxposition des principes de la science. Brussels: Meline, Cans et
Compagnie.
Diderot, Denis. [1782] 1982. Voyage en Hollande et dans les Pays-Bas Autrichiens.
Edited by Yves Benot. Paris: F. Maspero.
Eatwell, John, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman. 1987. The New Palgrave: A
Dictionary of Economics. London: Macmillan.
Faccarello, Gilbert. 1986. Aux origines de l’économie politique libérale: Pierre de
Boisguilbert. Paris: Éditions Anthropos.
Gentz, Frederic. [1800] 1803. Essai sur l’état actuel de l’administration des finances
et de la richesse de la Grande-Bretagne. Lisbon: Impressão Régia.
Guénnée, Abbé, ed. [1769] 1817. Lettres de quelques Juifs Portugais, Allemands, et
Polonais à M. de Voltaire. 8th ed. Versailles: Imprimerie de J. A. Lebel.
Gusdorf, Georges. 1972. Dieu, la nature, et l’homme au siècle des lumières. Paris:
Payot.
Harris, Seymour E. 1947. National Debt and the New Economics. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hertzberg, Arthur. 1968. The French Enlightenment and the Jews: The Origins of
Modern Anti-Semitism. New York: Columbia University Press.
290
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
Hume, David. [1754] 1985. Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary. Edited by Eugene
F. Miller. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics.
. [1764] 1932. Letter to Richard Aldword Neville. In The Letters of David
Hume, edited by J. T. Y. Grieg, 1: letter 229. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Isnard, A. Nicolas. 1781. Traité des richesses contenant l’analyse de l’usage
des richesses en général et de leurs valeurs. . . . Lausanne, Switzerland: Chez
François Grasset et Comp.
Marx, Karl. [1867] 1970. Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie. Berlin:
Dietz Verlag.
Melon, Jean François. 1734. Essai politique sur le commerce. Paris.
Mirabeau, Victor Riquetti, Marquis de. [1760] 1972. Theorie de l’impôt. The Hague:
Scientia Verlag.
Mizuta, Hiroshi. 2000. Adam Smith’s Library: A Catalogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mortimer, Thomas. 1772. The Elements of Commerce, Politics, and Finances, in
Three Treaties on Those Important Subjects. London.
Murphy, Antoin E. 2000. Introduction to Pinto [1771] 2000.
Nijenhuis, Ida J. A. 1992. Een Joodse philosophe: Isaac de Pinto (1717–1787) en de
ontwikkeling van de politieke economie in de Europese verlichting. NEHA ser.
3. Groningen: Reijksuniversiteit Groningen.
. 1993. The Passions of an Enlightened Jew: Isaac de Pinto (1717–1787) as a
“Solliciteur du bien public.” In The Low Countries and Beyond, edited by Robert
S. Kirsner, 47–54. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
. 2003. Pinto, Isaac de (1717–1787). The Dictionary of Seventeenth and
Eighteenth-Century Dutch Philosophers, 2:791–94. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.
Oliveira, Águedo de. 1957. As avançadas concepções de Isaac de Pinto sobre dívida
pública. Boletim da Direcção Geral do Tribunal de Contas 4.12:1–58.
Perrot, Jean-Claude. 1992. Une histoire intellectuelle de l’économie politique (17th–
18th siècle). Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS.
Pesante, Maria Luisa. 1992. Il debito pubblico e le sue antinomie da Davenant a
Smith. In Passioni, interezzi, convenzioni: Discussioni settecentesche su virtù e
civiltà, edited by M. Gena and M. L. Pesante, 371–417. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
Pinto, Isaac de. 1748. Reflexões políticas tocantes à constituição da Nação Judaica.
Amsterdam.
. 1776a. Letters on the American Troubles. London: John Boosey & John
Forbes.
. 1776b. Lettre de Mr. XXX à Mr. S. B., docteur en médicine à Kingston, dans
la Jamaïque, au sujet des troubles qui agitent actuellement toute l’Amérique
Septentrionale. The Hague: Pierre-Frédéric Gosse.
. 1776c. Réponse de Mr. I. de Pinto aux observations d’un homme impartial
sur sa lettre à Mr. S. B., docteur en médicine à Kingston, dans la Jamaïque, au
sujet des troubles qui agitent actuellement toute l’Amérique Septentrionale. The
Hague: Pierre-Frédéric Gosse.
Cardoso and Nogueira / Isaac de Pinto
291
. 1776d. Seconde lettre de Mr. de Pinto, à l’occasion des troubles des
colonies, contenant des réfléxions politiques sur les suites de ces troubles, et
sur l’état actuel de l’Angleterre. The Hague: Pierre-Frédéric Gosse.
. [1762] 1817. Apologie pour la nation Juive, ou réflexions critiques sur le
premier chapitre du tome VII des oeuvres de M. de Voltaire au sujet des Juifs. In
Guénnée [1769] 1817, 4–16.
. [1762] 1960. Essai sur le luxe. In Amzalak 1960, 217–30.
. [1767] 1960. Lettre de l’auteur à Mr. D. sur le jeu des cartes. In Amzalak
1960, 231–37.
. [1771] 1960. Traité de la circulation et du crédit, contenant une analyse
raisonnée des fonds de l’Angleterre et de ce qu’on appelle commerce ou jeu
d’actions, un examen critique de plusieurs traités sur les impôts, les finances,
l’agriculture, la population, le commerce etc. Amsterdam: Marc Michel Rey. In
Amzalak 1960, 27–247.
. [1774] 1969. An Essay on Circulation and Credit in Four Parts; and a
Letter on the Jealousy of Commerce. Translated, with annotations, by the Rev. S.
Baggs. Westmead, Farnborough, U.K.: Gregg International Publishers Limited.
. [1771] 2000. Traité de la circulation et du crédit. Düsseldorf: Verlag
Wirtschaft und Finanzen.
Pinto, Ishack de. [1681] 1975. Assendentia de my, Ishack de Pinto, athe onde temos
notisia, e genologia de meus antepassados, desde o avoo do señor meu avoo Manoel Aluares de Pinto. Studia Rosenthaliana 9.1:45–62.
Pocock, J. G. A. 1975. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and
the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Popkin, Richard H. 1970. Hume and Isaac de Pinto. Texas Studies in Literature and
Language: A Journal of the Humanities 12.3:417–30.
. 1974. Hume and Isaac de Pinto, 2: Five New Letters. In Hume and the
Enlightenment: Essays Presented to Ernest Campbell Mossner, edited by William
B. Todd, 99–127. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
. 1976. Isaac de Pinto’s Criticism of Mandeville and Hume on Luxury. Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 154:1705–14.
Raynal, Guillaume-Thomas, Abbé de. 1770. Histoire philosophique et politique des
établissements et du commerce des Européens dans les deux Indes. The Hague.
Révah, Israel Salvator. 1966. Généalogie de l’économiste Isaac de Pinto (1717–
1787). In Extrait des mélanges à la mémoire de Jean Sarrailh, 265–80. Paris:
Centre de Recherches de l’Institut d’Études Hispaniques.
Ross, Ian. 2003. Hume’s Correspondence and the Biographical Record as a Quarry
for His Economic Thought. Unpublished manuscript.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1954. A History of Economic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Adam. [1776] 1976. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations. Edited by R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
292
History of Political Economy 37:2 (2005)
Stewart, Dugald. [1809–10] 1968. Lectures on Political Economy. Clifton, N.J.: Augustus M. Kelley.
Sutcliffe, Adam. 2000. Can a Jew Be a Philosopher? Isaac de Pinto, Voltaire,
and Jewish Participation in the European Enlightenment. Jewish Social Studies
6.3:31–51.
Tucker, Josiah. [1774] 1974. Four Tracts on Political and Commercial Subjects.
Clifton, N.J.: Augustus M. Kelley.
Vandermonde, Alexandre. [1795] 1994. Leçons d’économie politique dans l’école
normale de l’an III. In Leçons d’histoire, de géographie, d’économie politique,
361–427. Paris: Dunod.
Vega, Joseph de la. [1688] 1939. Confusion de confusiones: Dialogos curiosos entre
um filósofo agudo, um mercader discreto e un accionista erudito, descriviendo
el negocio de las acciones, su origen, su etimologia, su realidade, su juego y su
enredo. Edited by M. F. J. Smith. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Voltaire. [1764] 1964. Dictionnaire philosophique. Paris: Flammarion.
Wijler, Jacob S. 1923. Isaac de Pinto: Sa vie et ses oeuvres. Apeldoorn, Netherlands:
Dixon & Co.
Winch, Donald. 1998. The Political Economy of Public Finance in the “Long” Eighteenth Century. In Debt and Deficits: An Historical Perspective, edited by John
Maloney, 9–26. Aldershot, U.K.: Edward Elgar.