Dissertation_A Bick_May 25 - DataSpace at Princeton University

colony, overestimated the number of ingenhos (sugar mills) and the value of the sugar that could
be exported each year. They believed, erroneously, that the colony was now in good shape and
ready to yield profits. Artichewski wrote instead that Brazil “had never been poorer.” 102 Those
who understood this, including Van Arnhem, De Laet, and Coenraeds Burgh, excused
themselves from the discussions rather than be subjected to the vitriol—bordering on
blasphemy—of the two sides. 103 The real issue, as everyone knew, was to attract settlers to
establish new ingenhos and defend the colony, and on this Artichewski agreed squarely with the
arguments of the free traders. The only people who would come to Brazil under the company's
monopoly were those who had nothing to lose in the first place. 104 It was also crucially important
to honor the company's promises to the Portuguese: some had proven to be untrustworthy, but
this only increased the company's responsibility to be fair to those who were not. Artichewski
looked to recent history to prove his point: with free trade Recife had grown dramatically, but
there was no better example than the United Provinces themselves:
What power, what means would the Netherlanders have derived from the land and public capital
alone […] without the multitude of private traders? What above all else made the city of
Amsterdam so great? That not only Netherlanders, but all nations of the world walk freely in the
city and trade as they wish. 105
Private trade makes wealth and attracts people, Artichewski concluded. “There is more to find,
more to buy, and more to sell where more people live, work, and spend, than where there are
102 Ibid., 226. “maer ick can het niet sien. Den staet van Brasil is noyt soo arm geweest als hij tegenwoordich is.”
103 Ibid., 225. “Noch is hier dese pest mede ingecropen, dat de Camaren dese questie alhier tegen malcander met soo
groote hevicheyt ende bitterheyt drijven, dates malcander daerover blasfemeren.”
104 Ibid., 233.
105 Ibid., 237. “Maer hoe can men noch een beter exempel voorstellen als dese Nederlanden selffs? Wat cracht, wat
middelen souden de Nederlanden hebben uyt het lant alleen ende uytte publijcque capitalen alleen, tot soo
merckelijcke en miraculeuse grote oncosten die se doen, wanneer niet was de meenichte van particulieren? Wat heft
onder veele andere de stadt Amsterdam soo splendissant gemaeckt? Is het niet de meenichte van particulieren, ended
at niet alleen Nederlanders, maer oock alle natien van der wereldt vrij in der stadt wandelen ende handelen connen
nae haer believen?”
202