The Enlightenment Context of Population Studies

In 1798, two seminal works on European population dynamics emerged from opposite ends of the continent, embodying the intellectual ferment of the late Enlightenment. The Austrian political economist Joseph von Sonnenfels (1732-1817), a towering figure of Habsburg reformism, published his Manual of the Domestic Administration of States, crystallizing the prevailing mercantilist view that population growth constituted the “first principle of political science.” Meanwhile, 32-year-old English cleric Thomas Malthus anonymously released his incendiary Essay on the Principle of Population, challenging Enlightenment optimism with mathematical projections of demographic catastrophe.

This intellectual clash occurred against the backdrop of Europe’s first sustained population increase since the Black Death. Between 1650-1800, the continent’s inhabitants grew from approximately 100 to 187 million, with particularly rapid expansion after 1750. The divergent theories of Sonnenfels and Malthus reflected both regional experiences and deeper philosophical divides about humanity’s relationship with nature and progress.

Sonnenfels: Population as National Power

As advisor to four Habsburg emperors including Joseph II, Sonnenfels articulated the cameralist doctrine dominating Central European governance:

“The principal object of my policy… is population. That is to say, the maintenance and increase in the number of subjects. All the advantages of the state derive from as numerous a population as possible.”

His arguments rested on three pillars:
1) Economic Strength – More workers meant greater agricultural and industrial output
2) Military Security – Larger populations provided more soldiers for defense
3) Fiscal Stability – Tax burdens decreased when shared among more citizens

Sonnenfels echoed classical thinkers from Aristotle to Montesquieu in believing Europe’s population had declined since antiquity. Voltaire famously lamented that without reversal, “in a thousand years the world will be a desert.” This demographic pessimism made population growth a moral and political imperative.

Malthus: The Dismal Science of Limits

The younger Malthus inverted this calculus with two stark biological premises:
1) Food is necessary for human existence
2) The passion between sexes is constant

His famous progression demonstrated the fatal mismatch:
– Population grows geometrically (1, 2, 4, 8, 16…)
– Food production grows arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5…)

The inevitable result was what later economists would call the “Malthusian trap” – population checks through:
– Positive Checks: Famine, disease, war
– Preventive Checks: “Vice” (contraception), delayed marriage

Malthus aimed his critique at Enlightenment optimists like William Godwin who believed in infinite human perfectibility. His timing proved uncanny – within decades, Ireland’s 1845-49 potato famine would showcase his theories with brutal clarity, as the population plummeted from 8.4 to 6.6 million.

Demographic Realities of Early Modern Europe

Contemporary statistics (however imperfect) reveal why both theories contained partial truths:

Table: European Population Growth 1650-1800 (millions)
| Region | 1650 | 1700 | 1750 | 1800 |
|————–|——|——|——|——|
| Mediterranean | 23 | 25 | 28 | 32 |
| France/Swiss | 20 | 21 | 24 | 29 |
| British Isles| 7 | 9 | 10 | 16 |

Key patterns emerge:
– Recovery Phase (1650-1700): Rebound from Thirty Years’ War devastation
– Acceleration (1750-1800): Breakout growth defying Malthusian limits
– Northwest Shift: Demographic gravity moving from Mediterranean

Marriage patterns proved crucial. In northwestern Europe, women married late (mid-20s) with 10-15% remaining single, while eastern/southern regions saw earlier marriages. Illegitimacy rates rose sharply in cities – reaching 20% in Paris by 1789 versus <5% in rural areas.

The Retreat of Mortality’s Horsemen

Three traditional demographic checks saw remarkable retreat:

1. Famine
The horrific 1690s crises (France lost 15% of population) gave way to fewer subsistence crises after 1709, thanks to:
– Agricultural improvements
– Better transportation networks
– Government grain policies

2. War
The depopulation horrors of Thirty Years’ War (1618-48) moderated as:
– Armies became more disciplined
– Campaigns grew shorter and localized
– Civilians were somewhat protected

3. Disease
Plague disappeared after 1720 (Marseille) through:
– Quarantine systems (Habsburg Militärgrenze)
– Urban sanitation improvements
– Replacement of black rats by brown rats

Smallpox remained the great killer until vaccination breakthroughs:
– Variolation: Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s 1721 introduction from Turkey
– Vaccination: Edward Jenner’s 1796 cowpox discovery

The Legacy of 1798’s Demographic Duel

Neither theorist proved entirely correct:
– Sonnenfels underestimated productivity gains from industrialization
– Malthus couldn’t foresee demographic transition’s falling birth rates

Yet their debate framed modern population science by asking fundamental questions about:
– The carrying capacity of environments
– The relationship between population and power
– The role of government in demographic management

Today, as we face 21st-century challenges from aging populations to climate migration, the 1798 dialogue between Austrian optimism and English caution remains strikingly relevant. The tension between human ingenuity and planetary limits first articulated in that revolutionary year continues to shape our demographic destiny.