Reading and writing with nature: Social claims and the French formal garden

TLDR: Sombart's approach takes the development of capitalism out of the hands of ordinary entrepreneurs, and puts it squarely into the laps of aristocrats who did little business yet reaped rewards from the economic efforts of others as discussed by the authors.

Abstract: In The Structures of Everyday Life' Fernand Braudel dismisses out of hand Werner Sombart's suggestion2 that there is a close connection between the ravenous patterns of consumption in early moder court life and the growth of capitalist production The idea that businesses and trade might have been spawned to fill this demand is not, to Braudel's mind, worthy of serious consideration Court sumptuousness is a cultural aberration to Braudel, not an essential part of an emerging capitalist economy There is a tone of deep contempt in this dismissal, presumably because Sombart's approach would lead researchers to sanctify outrageous spending and to study the well-known stock players of elite history, not the equally fascinating but more obscure characters now the major focus of historical research Sombart violates current norms by thinking and writing about kings and queens Worse than that, Sombart's approach takes the development of capitalism out of the hands of ordinary entrepreneurs, and puts it squarely into the laps of aristocrats who did little business yet reaped rewards from the economic efforts of others It seems an insult to those living more modest lives who helped to transform European life through the development of new business practices and a new economic mentality