histofthought1

Bibliographical essay 519English mercantilists: sixteenth and early seventeenth centuriesThe indispensable starting-point on the English mercantilists is the classicwork of Jacob Viner, Studies In The Theory of International Trade (NewYork: Harper & Bros, 1937), pp. 1-118. Unfortunately, Viner is only thestarting-point because of the extreme compression of his study, and becausehe does not deal with separate individuals or groups or engage in narrativeanalysis of different time-periods or interactions among the various individualsand groups.On absolutists in the Tudor and Stuart eras, see W.H. Greenleaf, Order,Empiricism, and Politics: Two Traditions ofEnglish Political Thought (London:Oxford University Press, 1964). On Sir Robert Filmer, see Peter Laslett(ed.), Patriarcha and Other Political Works of Sir Robert Filmer (Oxford:Basil Blackwell, 1949); and Carl Watner, '''Oh, Ye are for Anarchy!": ConsentTheory in the Radical Libertarian Tradition', Journal of LibertarianStudies, 8 (Winter 1986), pp. 111-37.For the definitive demonstration that Sir Thomas Smith, not John Hales,was the author of the Discourse of the Commonweal of this Realm of England,see Mary Dewar, 'The Authorship of the "Discourse of theCommonweal",' Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 19 (August 1966),pp. 388-400. The biography of Smith is Mary Dewar, Sir Thomas Smith: ATudor Intellectual in Office (London: Athlone Press, 1964). The revisionistview that Smith, not Gresham, wrote the famous Memorandum for the Understandingofthe Exchange is in Mary Dewar, 'The Memorandum "For theUnderstanding of the Exchange": Its Authorship and Dating', Economic HistoryReview, 2nd ser., 17 (April 1965), pp.476-87. Raymond de Roover,while formally maintaining his original view that Gresham was the author,implicitly throws in the towel in Raymond de Roover, 'On the Authorshipand Dating of "For the Understanding of the Exchange"', Economic HistoryReview, 2nd ser., 20 (April 1967), pp. 150-52. Daniel R. Fusfeld offers theflimsy thesis that Sir Richard Martin was the author in his, 'On the Authorshipand Dating for "For the Understanding of the Exchange"', EconomicHistory Review, 2nd ser., 20 (April 1967), pp. 145-52.For a comprehensive portrayal of Sir Edward Coke as mercantilist andparliamentary statist, see Barbara Malament, 'The "Economic Liberalism" ofSir Edward Coke', Yale Law Journal 76 (June 1967), pp. 1321-58. On theearly common law not being opposed to monopoly, see William L. Letwin,'The English Common Law Concerning Monopolies', University ofChicagoLaw Review, 21 (Spring 1954), pp. 355-85.On MilIes, Malynes, Misselden, Mun, and the East India controversy inthe first half of the seventeenth century, see Barry E. Supple, CommercialCrisis and Change In England, 1600-1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1964), pp. 197-224. Also see the insights in Joyce Oldham Appleby,