An essay on mediaeval economic teaching

^pr^d

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY

DATE DUE

HB 79.013°™" ""'™™">"-"'"^

*" mSmmmm«i^''^' *"«'"°'"'«: teaching.

3 1924 016 917 134

Cornell University
Library

The original of tliis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924016917134

MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

AN ESSAY ON

MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC

TEACHING

BY

GEORGE O'BRIEN

LITT.D., M.R.I.A.

AUTHOB or 'THX XCOirOHIO HISTOBY OT IBSLAHD IS THE

SSyKIII]IEI7TH OEHTUBT,' AHD 'iHB EOOITOMIC HISTOBY

OT nCELAHD IN THK EIGHTEENTH OENTnBY '

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON

FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK
BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS

1920

LIBRARY

OF

EDWARD SCHUSTER

hb 1

/// ■

TO THE

REV. MICHAEL ORONIN

M.A., D.D.
UNIVBBSIir OOIXEGE, DUBLIN

AUTHOR'S NOTE

I WISH to express my gratitude to the Rev. Dr. Cronin
for his kindness in reading the manuscript, and for many
valuable suggestions which he made ; also to Father T. A.
Knlay, S.J., and Mr. Arthur Cox for having given me
much assistance in the reading and revision of the
proofs.

CONTENTS

CHAPTEK I

INTRODUCTORY

Section 1. Aim and Scope of the Essay
Section 2. Explanation ov the Title

§ 1. Mediseval

§ 2. Eoonomio

§ 3. Teaching
Section 3. Valite of the Study of the StJbject
Section 4. Division of the Subject

PAOX
1
1

3

3

6

19

28

33

CHAPTER II

PROPERTY 41

-Section 1. The Right to Procure and Dispense Property 41
Section 2. Duties beoaeding the Acquisition and Use

OF Peopeety 67

Section 3. Peopeety in Human Beings .... 88

CHAPTEB III

DUTIES REGARDING THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 102

Section 1. The Sale of Goods 102

§ 1. The JviBt Price 102

§ 2. The Just Price when Price fixed by Law . 106

§ 3. The Just Price when Price not fixed by Law 109
§4. The Just Price of Labour . . .120

§ 5. Value of the Conception of the Just Price 123

§ 6. Was the Just Price Subjective or Objective ? 127

§ 7. The Mediseval Attitude towards Commerce 136

§ 8. CamUum 165

viii MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

SaonoN 2. The Salb of thb Use oe Monet
§ 1. Usury in Greece and Rome
§ 2. Usury in the Old Testament
§ 3. Usury in the First Twelve Centuries of

Christianity ....

§ 4. The Medieeval Prohibition of Usury .
§ 6. Extrinsic Titles ....
§ 6. Other Cases in which more than the Loan

could be repaid ....
§ 7. The Justice of Unearned Income
§ 8. Bent Charges .....

§ 9. Partnership

§ 10. Concluding Remarks on Usury
Section 3. The Machineby of Exchange

PAOB

159
159
163

166
173

184

193
198
203
205
212
214

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION 222

INDEX 232

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY

Section 1. — Aim and Scope of the Essay

It is the aim of this essay to examine and present
in as concise a form as possible the principles and
rules which guided and regulated men in their
economic and social relations during the period
known as the Middle Ages. The faUure of the
teaching of the so-called orthodox or classical
pohtical economists to bring peace and security to
society has caused those interested in social and
economic problems to inquire with ever-increasing
anxiety into the economic teaching which the
orthodox economy replaced ; and this inquiry
has revealed that each system of economic thought
that has from time to time been accepted can be
properly understood only by a knowledge of the
earher system out of which it grew. A process
of historical inquiry of this kind leads one ulti-
mately to the Middle Ages, and it is certainly
not too much to say that no study of modern
European economic thought can be complete or
satisfactory unless it is based upon a knowledge
of the economic teaching which was accepted in
mediaeval Europe. Therefore, while many wiU
deny that the economic teaching of that period
is deserving of approval, or that it is capable of

2 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

being applied to the conditions of the present
day, none will deny that it is worthy of careful and
impartial investigation.

There is thus a demand for information upon
the subject dealt with in this essay. On the
other hand, the supply of such information in the
Enghsh language is extremely limited. The books,
such as Ingram's History of Political Economy
and Haney's History of Economic TJumght, which
deal with the whole of economic history, necessarily
devote but a few pages to the Middle Ages.
Ashley's Economic History contains two excellent
chapters deahng with the Canonist teaching ; but,
whUe these chaptra's contain a mass of most
valuable information on particular branches of
the mediaeval doctrines, they do not perhaps
sufficiently indicate the relation between them,
nor do they lay sufficient emphasis upon
the fundamental philosophical principles out
of which the whole system sprang. One can-
not sufficiently acknowledge the debt which
Enghsh students are under to Sir WiUiam Ashley
for his examination of mediaeval opinion on
economic matters ; his book is frequently and
gratefully cited as an authority in the following
pages ; but it is undeniable that his treatment
of the subject suffers somewhat on accoimt of
its being introduced but incidentally into a
work dealing mainly with Enghsh economic
practice. Dr. Cunningham has also made many
valuable contributions to particular aspects of
the subject ; and there have also been published,
principally in CathoUc periodicals, many im-

INTRODUCTORY 3

portant monographs on special points ; but so
far there has not appeared in Enghsh any treatise,
which is devoted exclusively to mediaeval eco-
nomic opinion and attempts to treat the whole
subject completely. It is this want in our eco-
nomic literature that has tempted the author to
pubUsh the present essay, although he is fuUy
aware of its many defects.

It is necessary, in the first place, to indicate
precisely the extent of the subject with which we
propose to deal ; and with this end in view to
give a definition of the three words, ' mediceval,
economic, teaching J

Section 2. — Explanation of the Title

§ 1. Mediceval

Ingram, in his well-known book on economic
history, following the opinion of Comte, refuses
to consider the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
as part of the Middle Ages.^ We intend, however,
to treat of economic teaching up to the end of
the fifteenth century. The best modem judges
are agreed that the term Middle Ages must not
be given a hard-and-fast meaning, but that it is
capable of bearing a very elastic interpretation.
The definition given in the Catholic Encyclo-
pcedia is : 'a term commonly used to designate
that period of European history between the
FaU of the Roman Empire and about the middle
of the fifteenth century. The precise dates of

1 History of Political Economy, p. 35,

4 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

the beginning, culmination, and end of the Middle
Ages are more or less arbitrarily assumed accord-
ing to the point of view adopted.' The eleventh
edition of the Encyclopcedia Britannica contains
a similar opinion : ' This name is com monly given
to that period__ol_European Tiisto^T which—lies
be^eerTwHat are known as ancient aiidjnadem
times, and^^TGaBTTias generally" been considered
as^'extending from about the middle of the fifth
to about the middle of the fifteenth centuries.
The two dates adopted in old text-books were
476 and 1453, from the setting aside of the last
empierbr of the west until the fall of Constanti-
nople. In reahty it is impossible to fix any exact
dates for the opening and close of such a period.'
We are therefore justified in considering the
fifteenth century as comprised in the Middle
Ages. This is especially so in the domain of
economic theory. In actual practice the four-
teenth and fifteenth centuries may have presented
the appearance rather of the first stage of a new
than of the last stage of an old era. This is
Ingram's view. However true this may be of
practice, it is not at all true of theory, which,
as we shaU see, continued to be entirely based on
the writings of an author of the thirteenth century.
Ingram admits this incidentally : ' During the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Catholic-
feudal system was breaking down by the mutual
conflicts of its own official members, while the
constituent elements of a new order were rising
beneath it. The movements of this phase can
scarcely be said to find an echo in any contem-

INTRODUCTORY 5

porary economic literattixe.' ^ We need not
therefore apologise further for including a con-
sideration of the fourteenth and fifteenth cen-
turies in our investigations as to the economic
teaching of the Middle Ages. We are supported
in doing so by such excellent authorities as
Jotirdain,^ Roscher,^ and Cossa.* Haney, in his
History of Economic Thought,^ says : ' It seems
more nearly true to regard the years about 1500
as marking the end of mediaeval times. ... On
large lines, and from the viewpoint of systems of
thought rather than systems of industry, the
Middle Ages may with profit be divided into two
periods. From 400 down to 1200, or shortly
thereafter, constitutes the first. During these
years Christian theology opposed Roman institu-
tions, and Germanic customs were superposed,
until through action and reaction all were blended.
This was the reconstruction ; it was the " stormy
struggle " to found a new ecclesiastical and civil
system. From 1200 on to 1500 the world of
thought settled to its \e^ — Eexidaliara__and
scholasticism, the corner-stones of medisevalism,

emCTge 3"ah d weie domlixant.' —

We shall not continue the study further than
the beginning of the sixteenth century. It is true
that, if we were to refer to several sixteenth-

1 Op. cit., p. 35.

2 Memoires sur les commencements de I'ieonomie politique dans les
icoles du moyen Age, Aoad6mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,
Tol. 28.

^ Oeschichte zur National-Okonomik in DeuiscMand.
* Introduction to the Study of Political Economy.
» P. 70.

6 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

century authors, we should be in possession
of a very highly developed and detailed mass of
teaching on many points which earUer authors
left to some extent obscure. We deliberately
refrain nevertheless from doing so, because the
whole nature of the sixteenth-century literature
was different from that of the fourteenth and
fifteenth ; the early years of the sixteenth cen-
tury witnessed the abrogation of the central
authority which was a basic condition of the
success of the mediaeval system ; and the same
period also witnessed ' radical economic changes,
reacting more and more on the scholastic doc-
trines, which found fewer and fewer defenders in
their original form.' ^

§ 2. Economic

It must be clearly understood that the political
economy of the medisevals was not a science, like
modern political economy, but an art. ' It is a
branch of the virtue of prudence ; it is half-way
between morality, which regulates the conduct of
the individual, and pohtics, which regulates the
conduct of the sovereign. It is the morality of
the family or of the head of the family, from the
point of view of the good administration of the
patrimony, just as politics is the moraUty of the
sovereign, from the point of view of the good

''■ Cossa, op. cit, p. 161. Ashley warns us that ' we must be careful
not to interpret the writers of the fifteenth century by the writers
of the seventeenth ' {Economic History, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 387). These
later writers sometimes contain historicsil accounts of controversies
in previous centiiries, and are relevant on this account.

INTEODUCTORY 7

government of the State. There is as yet ncr~
question of economic laws in the sense of his-
torical and descriptive laws ; and pohtical eco-
nomy, not yet existing in the form of a science,
is not more than a branch of that great tree which
is called ethics, or the art of living well.' ^ ' The
doctrine of the canon law,' says Sir WiUiknT"
Ashley, ' differed from modern economics in
being an art rather than a science. It was a
body of rules and prescriptions as to conduct,
rather than of conclusions as to fact. All art
indeed in this sense rests on science ; ^ut the
science on which the canonist doctrine rested #ai^
theology. Theology, or rather that branch of it
which we may call Christian ethics, laid down
certain principlos of right and wrong in the
economic sphere j| and it was the work of the
canonists to apply them to specific transactions

^ Rambaud, Histoire des Doctrines Eamondgues, p. 39. ' It is evideny
that a household is a mean between the individual and the city olr
Kingdom, since just as the individual is part of the household, so is
the household part of the city or Kingdom, and therefore, just as
prudence commonly so called which governs the individual is dis-
tinct from political prudence, so must domestic prudence (oeoonomica)
be distinct from both. Riches are related to domestic prudence,
not as its last end, but as its instrument. On the other hand, the
end of pohtical prudence is a good lite in general as regards the conduct
of the household. In Ethics i. the philosopher speaks of riches as the
end of political prudence, by way of example, and in accordance
with the opinion of many.' Aquinas, Summa II. ii. 50. 3, and see
Sent. III. xxxiii. 3 and 4. ' Practioa quidem scientia est, quae recte
Vivendi modum ac disciplinae formam secundum virtutum institu-
tionem disponit. Et haec dividitur in tres, soilioet : primo ethicam,
id est moralem ; et secumdo oeconomicam, id est dispensativam ; et
tertio politicam, id est civUem' (Vincent de Beauvais, Speculum,
vn. i. 2).

8 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

and to pronounce judgment as to their permissi-
Ibility.' ^ The conception of economic laws, in
the modern sense, was quite foreign to the mediae-
val treatment of the subject. ) It was only in the
middle of the fourteenth ceniEury that anything
approaching a scientific examination of the phe-
nomena of economic life appeared, and that was
only in relation to a particular subject, namely,
the doctrine of money. ^ ~)

'' To say that the mediaeval method of approach-
ing economic problems was fundamentally differ-
ent from the modern, is not in any sense to be
taken as indicating disapproval of the former.
On the contrary, it is the general opinion to-day
that the so-called classical treatment of economics
has proved disastrous in its application to real
Ufe, and that future generations jyiU. witness
a retreat to the earlier position. JChe classical
economists committed the cardinal error of
subordinating man to wealth, and consumption
to production. J In their attempt to preserve
symmetry andorder in their generahsations they
constructed a weird creature, the economic man,
who never existed, and never could exist. ; The
mediaevals made no such mistake. They in^
sisted that aU production and gain which did not /
lead to the good of man was not alone wasteful,/
but positively evil ; and that man was infinitelyV

'^ Op. oil., vol. i. part. ii. p. 379. — ''"'"^

^ Rambaud, op. dt., p. 83; Ingram, op. cit., p. 36. So marked
was the contrast between the mediseval and modem conceptions of
economics that the appearance of this one treatise has been said by-
one high authority to have been the signal of the dawn of the Benais-
sance (Espinas, Histoire des Doctrines Economques, p. 110).

INTEODUCTORY 9

more important than wealth. When he exclaims
that ' Production is on account of man, not man
of production,' Antoninus of Florence sums up
in a few words the whole view-point of his age.^
' Consumption,' according to Dr. Cunninghain,.
' was the aspect of human nature which attracted
most attention. . . . -Bregii lating consumpt ion-
wisely was the chief practical problem in mediae-
val economics.' ^ The great practical benefits
of such a treatment of the problems relating ter
the acquisition and enjoyment of material wealth
must be obvious to every one who is familiar with
the condition of the world after a century of
classical pohtical economy. ' To subordinate the
economic order to the social order, to submit the
industrial activity of man to the consideration
of the final and general end of his whole being,
is a principle which must exert on every depart-
ment of the science of wealth, an influence easy
to understand. \ Economic laws are the codifica-
tion of the material activity of a sort of homo
economicus ; of a being, who, having no end in
view but wealth, produces all he can, distributes
his produce in the way that suits him best, and
consumes as much as he can. Self interest aloijer
dictates his conduct.' ^ ■ Economics, far from
being a science whose highest aim was to evolve
a series of abstractions, was a practical guide to
the conduct of everyday afEairs.*' ; The pre-

' Irish Theologipal Quarterly, vol. vii. p. 151.

" Christianity and Economic Science, p. 10.

' Brants, Les Theories iconomiques awo xiii" et xiv^ siieles, p. 34.

* Gide and Rist, History of Economic Doctrines, Eng. trans., p. 110.

10 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

jeminence of morality in the domain of econo-
mics constitutes at the same time the distinctive
feature, the particular merit, and the great teach-
ing of the economic lessons of this period.' ^
Lj)r. Cunningham draws attention to the fact
that the existence of such a universally received
code of economic moraHty was largely due to the
comparative simplicity of the mediaeval social
structure, where the relations of persons were aU
important, in comparison with the modem order,
where the exchange of things is the dominant
factor. He further draws attention to the
changes which affected the whole constitution
of society in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, and proceeds : ' These changes had a
very important bearing on aU questions of com-
mercial morahty ; so long as economic dealings
were based on a system of personal relationships
they all bore an impMed moral charact^ To
supply a bad article was morally wrong, to de-
mand excessive payment for goods or for labour
was extortion, and the right or wrong of every
transaction was easily understood.' ^ {The appli-
cation of ethics to economic transactions was
rendered possible by the existence of one univer-
sally recognised code of morahty, and the presence
of one universally accepted moral teacher. ' In
the thirteenth century, the ecclesiastical organisa-
tion gave a unity to the social structure through-
out the whole of Western Europe ; j over the area
in which the Pope was recognise'S^as the spiritual

^ Brants, op. dt, p. 9.

' Qrcneth of English Industry and Commerce, vol. i. p. 465.

INTRODUCTORY 11

and the Emperor as the temporal vicar of God,
political and racial differences were relatively
unimportant. For economic purposes it is scarcely
necessary to distinguish different countries from
one another in the thirteenth century, for there
were fewer barriers to social intercourse within the
Umits of Christendom than there are to-day. . . .
Similar ecclesiastical canons, and similar laws
prevailed over large areas, where very different
admixtures of civil and barbaric laws were in
vogue. /Christendom, though broken into so
many fragments politically, was one organised
society for all the purposes of economic life,
because there was such free intercommunication
between its par^H.' ^ ' There were three great
threads,' we reai.. later in the same book, ' which
ran through the whole social system of Christeny
dom. First of all there was a common religious
li fe^j with the powerful weapons of spiritual cen-
sure and excommunication which it placed in the
hands of the clergy, so that they were able to
errforce the line of policy which Rome approved.
Mien there was the great judicial system of canon
law, a common code with similar tribunals for the
whole of Western Christendom, dealing not merely
with strictly ecclesiastical affairs, but with many
matters that we should regard as economic, such
as questions of commercial morality, and also with
social welfare as affected by the law of marriage
and the disposition of property by will. . . .'-Iv
' To the influence of Christianity as a moral

1 Cunningham, Western Givilisation, vol. ii. pp. 2-3.
« Ibid., p. 67.

12 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

doctrine,' says Dr. Ingram, ' was added that of
the Church as an organisation, charged with the
appKcation of the doctrine to men's daily trans-
actions. Besides the teaching of the sacred books
there was a mass of ecclesiastical legislation pro-
viding specific prescriptions for the conduct of
the faithful. And this legislation dealt with the
economic as weU as with other provinces of social
activity.' ^

{ The teaching of the mediaeval Church, therefore,
on economic affair's was but the appHcation to
particular facts and cases of its general moral
teaching. The suggestion, so often put forward
by so-caUed Christian socialists, that Christianity
was the exponent of a special social theory of its
own, is imfoundedTJ The direct opposite would
be nearer the truth. Far from concerning itseH
with the outward forms of the pohtical or economic
structure, Christianity concentrated its attention
on the conduct of the individual. If Christianity
can be said to have possessed any distinctive
social theory, it was intense individualism.
'Christianity brought, from the point of view of
morals, an altogether new force by the distinctly
individual and personal character of its precepts.
Duty, vice or virtue, eternal ptmishment — all
are marked with the most individuahst imprint
that can be imagined. No social or pohtical
theory appeared, because it was through the
individual that society was to be regenerated.
. . IWe can say with truth that there is not any
Christian pohtical economy — in the sense in

1 Op. cit., p. 27.

INTRODUCTORY 13

which there is a Christian morahty or a Christian
dogma — any more than ther,^_^is_a Christian
physic or a Christian medicine.2Jt;sin seeking to
learn Christian teaching of the Middle Ages on
economic matters, we must therefore not look for
special economic treatises in the modern sense, but
seek our principles in the works dealing with
general morality, in the Canon Law, and in the ;
commentaries on the Civil Law^' ' We find the
first worked out economic theory for the whole
Catholic world in the Corpus Juris Ganonici, that
product of mediaeval science in which for so many
centuries theology, jurisprudence, philosophy, and'
pohtics were treated. . . .' ^

There is not to be found in the writers of the
early Middle Ages, that is to say from the eighth
to the thirteenth centuries, a trace of any atten-
tion given to what we at the present day would
designate economic questions. Usury was con-
denmed by the decrees of several councils, but the
reasons of this prohibition were not given, nor
was the question made the subject of any dia-
lectical controversy ; commerce was so unde-
veloped as to escape the attention of those who
sought to guide the people in their daily life ; and

^ Bambaud, op. cit, pp. 34-5 ; Cunningham, Western, Civilisation,
vol. ii. p. 8.

2 Roscher, op. cit., p. 6. It must not be concluded that aU the
opinions expressed by the theologians and lawyers were necessarily
the official teaching of the Church. Brants says : ' It is not our
intention to attribute to the Church all the opinions of this period ;
certainly the spirit of the Church dominated the great majority of the
writers, but one must not conclude from this that all their writings are
entitled to rank as doctrinal teaching ' (op. cit., p. 6).

14 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

money was accepted as the inevitable instru-
ment of exchange, without any discussion of its
origin or the laws which regulated it.

The writings of this period therefore betray no
sign of any interest in economic affairs. Jourdain
says that he carefully examined the works of
Alcuin, Rabanas Mauras, Scotus Erigenus, Hiiic-
mar, Gerbert, St. Anselm, and Abelard — the
greatest lights of theology and philosophy in the
early Middle Ages — ^without finding a single
passage to suggest that any of these authors
suspected that the pursuit of riches, which they
despised, occupied a sufl&ciently large place in
national as weU as in individual life, to ofEer to
the philosopher a subject fruitful in reflections
and results. The only work which might be
adduced as a partial exception to this rule is the
Polycraticus of John of SaMsbury ; but even this
treatise contained only some scattered moral
reflections on luxury and on zeal for the interest
of the pubUc treasury.^

\^o causes contributed to produce this almost
total lack of interest in economic subjects. One
was the miserable condition of society,' stiU only
partially rescued from the ravages of the bar-
barians, and half organised, almost without
industry and commerce ; the other was the absence
of all economic tradition. The existence of the
Categories and Hermenia of Aristotle ensured that
the chain of logical study was not broken ; the
works of Donatus and Priscian sustained some
gUmmer of interest in grammatical theory ; certain

1 Jourdain, op. cit., p. 4,

INTRODUCTORY 15

rude notions of physics and astronomy were kept
alive by the preservation of such ancient ele-
mentary treatises as those of Marcian Capella ;
but economics had no share in the heritage of the ■
past. Not only had the writings of the ancients,
who dealt to some extent with the theory of wealth,;
been destroyed, but the very traces of theirj
teaching had been long forgotten. A good
example of the state of thought in economic
matters is furnished by the treatment which
money receives in the Etymologies of Isidore of
Seville, which was regarded in the early Middle
Ages as a reliable encyclopaedia. ' Money,' accord-
ing to Isidore, ' is so called because it warns,
monet, lest any fraud should enter into its com-
position or its weight. The piece of money is
the coin of gold, silver, or bronze, which is called
nomisma, because it bears the imprint of the
name and likeness of the prince. . , . The pieces
of money nummi have been so called from the
King of Rome, Numa, who was the first among
the Latins to mark them with the imprint of his
^ image and name.' ^ Is it any wonder that the
early Middle Ages were barren of economic
doctrines, when this was the best instruction to
which they had access ?

In the course of the thirteenth century a great
change occurred. The advance of civihsation,
the increased organisation of feudalism, the
development of industry, and the extension of
commerce, largely under the influence of the
Crusades, all created a condition of affairs in which

1 Etyrnol.i xvi. 17.

^6 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

economic questions could no longer be over-
looked or neglected. At the same time the
renewed study of the writings of Aristotle served
'to throw a flood of new light on the nature of
wealth.

The Mhics and Politics oi Aristotle, although
they are not principally devoted to a treatment of
the theory of wealth, do in fact deal with that
subject incidentally, jiwo points in particular
are touched on, the utihty of money and the
injustice of usury. The passages of the philo-
sopher dealing with these subjectis are of par-
ticular interest, as they may be said, with a good
deal of truth, to be the true starting point of
mediaeval economics.^ The writings of Aristotle
arrested the attention, and aroused the admira-
tion of the theologians of the thirteenth century ;
and it would be quite impossible to exaggerate
the influence which they exercised on the later
development of mediaeval thought. Albertus
Magnus digested, interpreted, and systematised
the whole of the works of the Stagyrite ; and was
so steeped in the lessons of his philosophic master
as to be dubbed by some ' the ape of Aristotle.'
Aquinas, who was a pupil of Albertus, also studied
and commented on Aristotle, whose aid he was
always ready to invoke in the solution of all his
difficulties. With the single and strange excep-
tion of Vincent de Beauvais, Aristotle's teaching
on money was accepted by all the writers of the
thirteenth century, and was followed by later
generations. 2 The influence of Aristotle is appar-

^ Jourdain, op. cit., p. 7. 2 Ihid., p. 12.

INTRODUCTORY 17

ent in every article of the Sumrrm, which was
itself the starting point from which all discussion
sprang for the following two centuries ; and it is
not too much to say that the Stagyrite had a de-
cisive influence on the introduction of economic
notions into the controversies pf the Schools. /' We
find in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas,' says
Ingram, ' the economic doctrines of Aristotle repro-
duced with a partial infusion of Christian elements/}.
In support of the account we have given of the
development of economic thought in thp thir-
teenth century, we may quote Cossa : '■ ' The
revival of economic studies in the Middle Ages
only dates from the thirteenth century. It was
due in a great measure ,to a study of the Ethics
and Politics of Aristotl^ whose theories on wealth
were paraphrased by a considerable number of
commentators. Before that period we can only
find moral and rehgious dissertations on such
topics as the proper use of material goods, the
dangers of luxury, and undue desire for wealth.
This is easily explained when we take into con-
sideration (1) the prevalent influence of religious
ideas at the time, (2) the strong reaction against
the materialism of pagan antiquity, (3) the pre-
dominance of natural economy, (4) the small
importance of international trade, and (5) the
decay of the profane sciences, and the meta-
physical tendencies of the more solid thinkers of
the Middle Ages.' ^

^ Op. oit, p. 27. Espinas thinks that the influence of Aristotle
in this respect has been exaggerated. (Histoire des Doctrines Ewno-
mques, p. 80.)

^ Op. cit, p. 14 ; Espinas, op. eit, p. 80.

B

18 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

The teaching of Aquinas upon economic affairs
remained the groundwork of all the later writers
until the end of the fifteenth century. His
opinions on various points were amplified and
explained by later authors in more detail than
he himself employed ; monographs of considerable
length were devoted to the treatment of questions
which he dismissed in a single article ; but the
development which took place was essentially one
of amplification rather than opposition. The
monographists of the later fifteenth century treat
usury and sale in considerable detail ; many
refinements are indicated which are not to be
found in the Summa ; but it is quite safe to say
that none of these later writers ever pretended to
supersede the teaching of Aquinas, who was
always admitted to be the ultimate authority.
' During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,
the general pohtical doctrine of Aquinas was main-
tained with merely subordinate modifications.' ^
' The canonist doctrine of the fifteenth century,'
according to Sir William Ashley, ' was but a de-
velopment of the principles to which the Church
had already given its sanction in earlier centuries.
It was the outcome of these same principles work-
ing in a modified environment. But it may
more fairly be said to present a system of economic
thought, because it was no longer a collection of
unrelated opinions, but a connected whole. The
tendency towards a separate department of study
is shown by the ever-increasing space devoted to
the discussion of general economic topics in

^ Ingram, op. cii., p. 35.

INTRODUCTORY 19

general theological treatises, and more notably
stiU in the manuals of casuistry for the use of the
confessional, and handbooks of canon law for
the use of ecclesiastical lawyers. It was shown
even more distinctly by the appearance of a shoal
of special treatises on such subjects as contracts,
exchange, and money, not to mention those on
usury.' ^ In aU this development, however, the
principles enunciated by Aquinas, and through
him, by Aristotle, though they may have been
illustrated and apphed to new instances, were
never rejected. The study of the writers of this
period is therefore the study of an organic whole,
the germ of which is to be found in the writings of
Aquinas.^

§ 3. Teaching

We shall confine our attention in this essay to
the economic teaching of the Middle Ages, and
shall not deal with the actual practice of the
period. It may be objected that a study of the
former without a study of the latter is futile and

1 Op. cit., vol. i. pt. ii. p. 382.

* The volume of literature which bears more or less on economic
matters dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is colossal.
By far the best account of it is to be found in Endemann's Studien in
der Bomanisch-canonistischen Wirthschafts- und Eechtslehre, vol. i.
pp. 25 et seq. Many of the more important works written during the
period are reprinted in the TrcMtatus Universi Juris, vols. vi. and vii.
The appendix to the first chapter of Rosoher's Oeschichte also contains
a valuable account of certain tjrpical writers, especially of Langenstein
and Henricus de Hoyta. Brants gives a useful bibUographical list of
both mediaeval and modem authorities in the second chapter of his
Theories iconomiqties aiiac xim' et xiif sihdes. Those who desire further
information about any particular writer of the period will find it in

20 MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

useless ; that the economic teaching of a period
can only be satirfactorily learnt from a study
of its actual economic institutions and customs;
and that the scholastic teaching was nothing
but a casuistical attempt to reconcile the early
Christian dogmas with the ever- widening exigencies
of real Mfe. Endemann, for instance, devotes a
great part of his invaluable books on the subject
to demonstrating how impracticable the canonist
teaching was when it was appHed to real life,
and recounting the casuistical devices that were
resorted to in order to reconcile the teachiQg of
the Church with the accepted mercantile customs
of the time. Endemann, however, in spite of his
colossal research and tmrivaUed acquaintance
with original authorities, was essentially hostile
to the system which he undertook to explain, and
thus lacked the most essential quahty of a satis-
factory expositor, namely, sympathy with his
subject. He does not appear to have reaMsed
' that development and adaptabUity to new situa-
tions, far from being marks of impracticabihty,
are rather the signs of vitaHty and of elasticity.
This is not the place to discuss how far the
doctrine of the late fifteenth differed from that of
the early thirteenth century ; that is a matter
which will appear below when each of the leading

Stintzing, LdteraturgescMchte des r'6m. Bechts, or in ChevaJIier's Biper-
toire historique des Sources du moyen dge; Bio-hihliogra/phie. The
authorship of the treatise De Begimine Principum, from which we shall
frequently quote, often attributed to Aquinas, is very doubtful. The
most probable opinion is that the first book and the first three
chapters of the second are by Aquinas, and the remainder by another
writer. (See Franok, Biformatewa et Pvblicistes, vol. i. p. 83.)

INTRODUCTORY 21

principles of scholastic economic teaching is
separately considered ; it is sufficient to say here
that we agree entirely with Brants, in opposition
to Endemann, that the change which took place
in the interval was one of development, and not
of opposition. ' The law,' says Brants, ' re-
mained identical and unchanged ; justice and
charity — ^nobody can justly enrich himseH at the
expense of his neighbour or of the State, but the
reasons justifying gain are multipUed according
as riches are developed.' ^ ' The canonist doc-
trine of the fifteenth century was but a develop-
ment of the principles to which the Church had
already given its sanction in earlier centuries. It
was the outcome of these same principles working
in a modified environment,' ^ With these con-
clusions of Brants and Ashley we are in entire
agreement.

Let us say in passing that the assumption that
the mediaeval teaching grew out of contemporary
practice, rather than that the latter grew out of
the former, is one which does not find acceptance
among the majority of the students of the subject.
The problem whether a correct understanding of
mediaeval economic life can be best attained by
first studying the teaching or the practice is
possibly no more soluble than the old riddle of
the hen and the egg ; but it may at least be
argued that there is a good deal to be said on both
sides. The supporters of the view that practice
moulded theory are by no means unopposed.
There is no doubt that in many respects the

* Brants, op. cit, p. 9. ^ Ashley, op. ciu, p. 381.

22 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

exigencies of everyday commercial concerns came
into conflict with the tenets of canon law and
scholastic opinion ; but the admission of this
fact does not at all prove that the former was the
element which modified the latter, rather than
the latter the former. In so far as the expansion
of commerce and the increasing complexity of
intercourse raised questions which seemed to
indicate that mercantile convenience conflicted
with received teaching, it is probable that the
difficulty was not so much caused by a contra-
diction between the former and the latter, as by
the fact that an interpretation of the doctrine
as applied to the facts of the new situation was
not available before the new situation had actually
arisen. This is a phenomenon frequently met with
at the present day in legal practice ; but no
lawyer would dream of asserting that, because
there had arisen an unprecedented state of facts,
to which the application of the law was a matter
of doubt or difficulty, therefore the law itself was
obsolete or incomplete. Examples of such a
conflict are familiar to any one who has ever
studied the case law on any particular subject,
either in a country such as England, where the
law is unwritten, or in continental countries,
where the most exhaustive and complete codes
have been framed. Nevertheless, in spite of the
occiu-rence of such difficulties, it would be foohsh
to contend that the laws in force for the time being
have not a greater influence on the practice of
mercantile transactions than the convenience of
merchants has upon the law. How much more

INTEODUCTORY 23

potent must this influence have been when the
law did not apply simply to outward observances,
but to the inmost recesses of the consciences of
believing Christians !

The opinion that mediaeval teaching exercised
a profound effect on mediaeval practice is supported
by authorities of the weight of Ashley, Ingram,
and Cunningham,^ the last of whom was in some
respects unsympathetic to the teaching the influ-
ence of which he rates so highly. ' It has indeed,'
writes Sir William Ashley, ' not infrequently been
hinted that ah the elaborate argumentation of
canonists and theologians was " a cobweb of the
brain," with no vital relation to real life. Certain
German writers have, for instance, maintained
that, alongside of the canonist doctrine with
regard to trade, there existed in mediaeval Europe
a commercial law, recognised in the secular courts,
and altogether opposed to the pecuhar doctrines
of the canonists. It is true that parts of mer-
cantile jurisprudence, such as the law of partner-
ship, had to a large extent originated in the social
conditions of the time, and would have probably
made their appearance even if there had been no
canon law or theology. But though there were
branches of commercial law which were, in the
main, independent of the canonist doctrine, there
were none that were opposed to it. On the
fundamental points of usury and just price, com-
mercial law in the later Middle Ages adopted com-

^ Even Endemann warns his readers against assuming that the
canonist teaching had no influence on everyday life. (Studien, vol. ii.
p. 404.)

24 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

pletely the principles of the canonists. How
entirely these principles were recognised in the
practice of the courts which had most to do
with commercial suits, viz. those of the towns, is
sufficiently shown by the frequent enactments as
to usury and as to reasonable price which are
found in the town ordinances of the Middle Ages ;
in England as well as in the rest of Western Europe.
. . . Whatever may have been the effect, direct
or indirect, of the canonist doctrine on legislation,
it is certain that on its other side, as entering into
the moral teaching of the Church through the
pulpit and the confessional, its influence was
general and persistent, even if it were not always
completely successful.' ^ ' Every great change
of opinion on the destinies of man,' says Ingram,
' and the guiding principles of conduct must react
in the sphere of material interests ; and the
Catholic religion had a profound influence on the
economic hfe of the Middle Ages. . . . The con-
stant presentations to the general mind and
conscience of Christian ideas, the dogmatic bases
of which were as yet scarcely assailed by scepti-
cism, must have had a powerful effect in morahs-
ing life.' ^ According to Dr. Cunningham : ' The
mediaeval doctrine of price was not a theory in-
tended to explain the phenomena of society, but
it was laid down as the basis of rules which should
control the conduct of society and of individuals.
At the same time current opinion seems to have

1 Ashley, op. cit., vol. i. pt. ii. pp. 383-85. Again : ' The later
canonist dialectic was the midwife of modem economics ' {ibid., p. 397).

2 History of Political Economy, p. 26.

INTRODUCTORY 25

been so fully formed, in accordance with it that a
brief enumeration of the doctrine of a just price
will serve to set the practice of the day in clearer
light. In regard to other matters, it is difficult
to determine how far public opinion was swayed
by practical experience, and how far it was really
moulded by Christian teaching — ^this is the case
in regard to usury. But there can be little doubt
about the doctrine of price — which really under-
lies a great deal of commercial and gild regulations,
and is constantly implied in the early legislation
on mercantile affairs.' ^ The same author ex-
presses the same opinion in another work : ' The
Christian doctrine of price, and Christian con-
demnation of gain at the expense of another man,
affected all the mediaeval organisation of municipal
life and regulation of inter-municipal commerce,
and introduced marked contrasts to the conditions
of business in ancient cities. The Christian ap-
preciation of the duty of work rendered the lot
of the mediaeval villain a very different thing
from that of the slave of the ancient empire. The
responsibihty of proprietors, like the responsibility
of prices, was so far insisted on as to place sub-
stantial checks on tyranny of every kind. For
these principles were not mere pious opinions, but
effective maxims in practical life. Owing to the
circumstances in which the vestiges of Koman
civUisation were locally maintained, and the
foundations of the new society were laid, there
was ample opportunity for Christian teaching and

^ Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, vol. i.
p. 252.

26 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

example to have a marked influence on its develop-
ment.' 1 In Dr. Cunningham's book entitled
Politics and Economics the same opinion is ex-
pressed : 2 ' Eeligious and industrial life were
closely interconnected, and there were countless
points at which the principles of divine law must
have been brought to bear on the transaction of
business, altogether apart from any formal
tribunal. Nor must we forget the opportTjnities
which directors had for influencing the conduct
of penitents. . . . Partly through the operation
of the royal power, partly through the decisions
of ecclesiastical authorities, but more generally
through the influence of a Christian public opinion
which had been gradually created, the whole
industrial organism took its shape, and the
acknowledged economic principles were framed.'
We have quoted these passages from Dr.
Cunningham's works at length because they are
of great value in helping us to estimate the rival
parts played by theory and practice in mediaeval
economic teaching ; in the first place, because the
author was by no means prepossessed in favour
of the teaching of the canonists, but rather un-
sympathetic to it ; in the second place, because,
although his work was concerned primarily with
practice, he foTmd himseK obUged to make a study
of theory before he could properly understand the
practice ; and lastly, because they point par-
ticularly to the effect of the teaching on just price.
When we come to speak of this part of the subject

1 Cunningham, Western Civilisation, vol. ii. pp. 9-10.

2 P. 25.

INTRODUCTOEY 27

we shall find that Dr. Cunningham failed to
appreciate the true significance of the canonist
doctrine. If an eminent author, who does not
quite appreciate the full import of this doctrine,
and who is to some extent contemptuous of its
practical value, nevertheless asserts that it exer-
cised an all-powerful influence on the practice of
the age in which it was preached, we are surely
justified in asserting that the study of theory may
be profitably pursued without a preliminary his-
tory of the contemporary practice.

But we must not be taken to suggest that there
were no conflicts between the teaching and the
practice of the Middle Ages. As we have seen,
the economic teaching of that period was ethical,
and it would be absiird to assert that every man
who lived in the Middle Ages lived up to the high
standard of ethical conduct which was propbsed
by the Church.^ One might as well say that
stealing was an unknown crime in England since
the passing of the Larceny Act. All we do sug-
gest is that the theory had such an important and
incalculable influence upon practice that the study
of it is not rendered futile or useless because of
occasional or even frequent departures from it
in real life. Even Endemaim says : ' The teach-

1 The many devices which were resorted to in order to evade the
prohibition of usury are explained in Dr. Cunningham's Qrowih of
English Industry and Commerce, vol. i. p. 255. See also Delisle,
Ij Ad/ministratimh financiire des TempUers, Aoad6mie des Inscriptions
et Belles-Lettres, 1889, vol. xxxiii. pt. ii., and Ashley, Econondc
History, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 426. The Summa Paatoralis of Raymond de
Pennafort analyses and demolishes many of the commoner devices
which were employed to evade ^ihe usury laws. On the part played
by the Jews, see Brants, op. cit.. Appendix I.

28 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

ing of the canon law presents a noble edifice not
less splendid in its methods than in its results.
It embraces the whole material and spiritual
natures of human society with such power and
completeness that verily no room is left for any
other life than that decreed by its dogmas.' ^
' The aim of the Church,' says Janssen, ' in view
of the tremendous agencies through which it
worked, in view of the dominion which it really
exercised, cannot have the impression of its great-
ness effaced by the unfortunate fact that aU was
not accompUshed that had been planned.' ^ The
fact that tjnrarmy may have been exercised by
some provincial governor in an outlying island of
the Roman Empire cannot close our eyes to the
benefits to be derived from a study of the code
of Justinian ; nor can a remembrance of the
manner in which EngUsh law is administered in
Ireland in times of excitement, blind us to the
political lessons to be learned from an examina-
tion of the British constitution.

Section 3. — Value of the Study of
THE Subject

The question may be asked whether the study
of a system of economic teaching, which, even if
it ever did receive anything approaching universal
assent, has long since ceased to do so, is not a
waste of labour. We can answer that question
in the negative, for two reasons. In the first
place, as we said above, a proper understanding

' Die NatiorudSJconomischen Orundsatze der eanonistischkn Lehre,
p. 192. 2 History of the German Peoph (Eng. trans.), vol. ii. p. 99.

INTRODUCTORY 29

of the earlier periods, j)f thff develnprnPTiti of a
body "ot kaowlecige— is—faidispensable for a full
appreciation o f the lat er, v Even if the canonist
system were not worth stxidying for its own sake,
it would be deserving of attention on account of
the light -jt throws on the development of later
economic doctrine. ' However The crarnomst theory
may contrast with or resemble modern economics,
it is too important a part of the history of human
thought to be disregarded,' says Sir William
Ashley. ' As we cannot f uUy understand the work
of Adam Smith without giving some attention to
the physiocrats, nor the physiocrats without
looking at the mercantilists: -so the beginnings
of mercantile theory are hardly inteUigible without,
a knowledge of the canonist doctrine towards
which that theory stands in the relation partly
of a continuation, partly of a protest.' ^

But we venture to assert that the study^ol
canonist economics, far from being useful simply
as an introduction to later theories, is of great
value in furnishing us with assistance in the
solu tion of the economic and social problems of th e
prese nt day . l^The last fifty years have witnesse.(3r
a reaction against the scientific abstractions of the
classical economists, and modern thinkers are
growing more and more dissatisfied with an
economic science which leaves ethics out of
account.^ Professor Sidgwiek, in his Principles.

^ Op. cit., vol. i. pt. ii. p. 381.

2 We must guard against the error, which is frequently made, that,
because the classical economists assumed self-interest as the sole motive
of economic action, they therefore approved of and inculcated it.

30 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

of Political Economy, published in 1883, devotes
a separate section to 'The Art of Political Eco-
nomy,' in which he remarks that ' The principles
of Pohtical Economy are still most commonly
understood even in England, and in spite of many
protests to the contrary, to be practical principles
— ^rules of conduct, public or private.' ^ The many
indications in recent literature and practice that
the regulation of prices should be controlled by
principles of ' fairness ' would take too long to
recite. It is sufficient tojrefer to the conclusion
of Devas on this point : '/The notion of just price,
worked out in detail by the theologians, and in
later days rejected as absurd by the classical
economists, has been rightly revived by modern
economists. '^^ Not alone in the sphere of price,
but in that of every other department of economics,
the impossibility of treating the subject as an
abstract science without regard to ethics is being
rapidly abandoned. ' The best usage of the
present time,' according to the Catholic Encyclo-
paedia, ' is to make political economy an ethical
science — ^that is, to make it include a discussion of
what ought to be in the economic world as well
as what is.' ^ We read in the 1917 edition of
Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy, that
' The growing importance of distribution as a
practical problem has led to an increasing mutual
interpenetration of economic and ethical ideas,
which in the development of economic doctrine

1 p. 401, and see Marshall's Preface to Price's Industrial Peace, ■
and Ashley, op. cit, vol. i. pt. i. p. 137.
" PoUticai Economy, p. 268. » Tit., ' Political Economy.'

INTRODUCTORY 31

during the last century and a half has taken
various forms.' ^ The need for some principle by
which just distribution can be attained has been
rendered pressing by the terrible^ffects of a period
of unrestricted competition. /' It has been widely
maintained that a strictly competitive exchange
does not tend to be really fair — some say cannot
be really fair — ^when one of the parties is under
pressure of urgent need ; and further, that the
inequality of opportunity which private property
involves cannot be fully justified on the principle
of maintaining equal freedom, and leads, in fact,
to grave social injusticK^ In other words, the
present condition of affairs is admitted to be
intolerable, and the task before the world is to
discover some alternative^ JCThu duy when— eco-
nomics can be divorced EFom ethics has passed
away T"therB is a* world-Wide endeay ojjTta.estab-
lish in th" p^ar»o ^f i.Vi e old, a new so cietv founds
on an-.ethinail hasis,,^ jJ^There are "two, ' SfTdT" orOy"
two, possible ways to the attainment of this ideal —
the way of socialism and the way of Christiani;^
v/rhere can be no doubt the sociahst movement'
derives a great part of its popularity from its
promise of a new order, based, not on the unregu-
lated pursuit of selfish desires, but on justice.
' To this view of justice or equity,' writes Dr.
Sidgwick, ' the sociaMstic contention that labour
can only receive its due reward if land and other
instruments of production are taken into pubHc

1 Vol. iii. p. 138. 2 Ibid.

' See Laveleye, Elements of Political Economy (Eng. trana.), pp. 7-8.
On the general conflict between the ethical and the non-ethical schools
of economists see Keynes, Scope and Method, pp. 20 et seq.

32 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

ownersMp, and education of all kinds gratui-
tously provided by Government — ^has powerfully
appealed ; and many who are not socialists, nor
ignorant of economic science, have been led by
it to give welcome to the notion that the ideally
" fair " price of a productive service is a price at
least rendering possible the maintenance of the
producers and their families in a condition of
health and industrial efficiency.' 'This is not the
place to enter iuto a discussion as to the merits ,
or practicability of any of the numerous schemes
put forward by socialists ; ^it is sufficient to say
that sociaHsm is essentially unhistorical, and that
in our opinion any practical benefits which it
might bestow on society would be more than
counterbalanced by the innumerable evils which
would be certain to emetge in a system based on
imgaMsfactory foundations.

' ^The other road to the estabhshment of a society
based on justice is the way of Christianity, and,
if we wish to attempt this path, it becomes
vitally important to understand what was the
economic teaching of the Church in the period
when the Christian ethic was universally recog-
nised. During the whole Middle Ages, as we have
said above, the Canon Law was the test of right
and wrong in the domain of economic activity ;
production, consumption, distribution, and ex-
change were all regulated by the universal system
of law ; once before economic hfe was considered
within the scope of moral regulation. It cannot
be denied that a study of the principles which were
accepted during that period may be of great

INTRODUCTORY 33

value to a generation which is striving to place
its economic life once more upon an ethical
foundation.

One error in particular we must be on our guard
to avoid. We said above that both the socialists
and the Christian economists are agreed in their
desire to reintroduce justice into economic life.
We must not conclude, however, that the aims
of these tw& schools are identical. One very
frequently meets with the statement that the
teachings of sociahsm are nothing more or less
than the teachings of Christianity. This con-
tention is discussed in the following pages, where
the conclusion wlU be reached that, far from being
in agreement, socialism and Christian economics
contradict each other on many fundamental points.
It is, however, not the aim of the discussion to
appraise the relative merits of either system, or
to applaud one and disparage the other. All
that it is sought to do is to distinguish between
them ; and to demonstrate that, whatever be
the merits or demerits of the two philosophies,
they are two, and not one.

Section 4. — ^Division of the Subject

The opinion is general that the distinctive
doctrine of the mediaeval Church which per-
meated the whole of its economic thought was the
doctrine of usury. The holders of this view may
lay claim to very influential supporters among
the students of the subject. Ashley says that
'/Sie prohibition of usury was clearly the centre

34 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

of the canonist doctrine/^ Roscher expresses
the same opinion in practically the same words ; ^
and Endemann sees the whole economic develop-
ment of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance as
the victorious destructionof the usury law by the
exigencies of real life.^ fHowever impressed we
may be by the opinions of such eminent authori-
ties, we, nevertheless, cannot help feeling that on
this point they are under a misconception. There
is no doTlbt that the doctrine of the canonists
which impresses the modern mind most deeply
is the usury prohibition, partly because it is not
generally reahsed that the usury doctrine would
not have forbidden the receipt of any of the
commonest kinds of unearned revenue of the
present day, and partly because the discussion of
usury occupies such a very large part of the
writings of the canonists.,^ It may be quite true
to say that the doctrine of usury was that which
gave the greatest trouble to the mediaeval writers,
on account of the nicety of the distinctions with
which it abounded, and on account of the ingenuity
of avaricious merchants, who continually sought
to evade the usury laws by disguising illegal under
the guise of legal transactions. In practice, there-
fore, the usury doctrine was undoubtedly the
most prominent part of the canonist teaching,

1 Op. cit., vol. i. pt. ii. p. 399.

2 ' Bekanntlioh war das Wucherverbot der praktisohe Mittelpunkt der
ganzen kanonischen Wirthsohaftspolitik,' op. cit., p. 8.

» StvMen, vol. i. p. 2 and ■passim. At vol. ii. p. 31 it is stated that
the teaching on just price is a oorollaiy of the usury teaching. But
Aquinas treats of usury in the article following his treatment of just
price.

INTRODUCTORY 35

because it was the part which most tempted
evasion ; but to admit that is not to agree with
the proposition that it was the centre of the
canonist doctrine.

XjOwc view is ..that thfi_ teaching on usury was
^oiply one of the appHcations of the doctrine that
all voluntary exchanges of property must be
regulated. by. the. precepts of commutative justice.
^In one sense it might be said to be a corollary of
the doctrine of just priceTJ This is apparently the
suggestion of Dr. Cleary in his excellent book on
usury : ' It seems to me that the so-called loan
of money is really a sale, and that a loan of meal,
wine, oil, gunpowder, and similar commodities —
that is to say, commodities which are consumed
in use — ^is also a sale. If this is so, as I believe it
is, then loans of all these consumptible goods
should be regulated by the principles which re-
gulate sale contracts. A just price only may
be taken, and the return must be truly equiva-
lent.' ^ This statement of Dr. Cleary' s seems well
warranted, and finds support in the analogy
which was drawn between the legitimacy of in-
terest — ^in the technical sense — and the legitimacy
of a vendor's increasing the price of an article
by reason of some special inconvenience which
he would su£Eer by parting with it. Both these
titles were justified on the same ground, namely,
that they were in the nature of compensations,
and arose independently of the main contract of
loan or sale as the case might be. ' Le vendeur
est en presence de I'acheteur. L'objet a pour

1 TJte Clmrek and Usury, p. 186.

36 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

lui une valeur particuliere : c'est iin souvenir,
par exemple. A-t-il le droit de majorer le prix
de vente ? de depasser le juste prix convenu ?
. . . Avec Tunanimite des docteurs on peut
trouver legitime la ma j oration du prix. L' evalu-
ation commune distingue un double element dans
I'objet : sa valeur ordinaire a laqueUe repond le
juste prix, et cette valeur extraordinaire qui
appartient au vendeur, dont il se prive et qui
merite une compensation : il le fait pour ainsi
dire I'objet d'un second contrat qui se superpose
au premier. Cela est si vrai que le Supplement de
prix n'est pas du au meme titre que le juste prix.' ^
The importance of this analogy will appear when
we come to treat just price and usury in detail ;
it is simply referred to here in support of the
proposition thatXfar from being a special doctrine
sui generis^the usury doctrine of the ChTorch was
simply an application to the sale of consumptible
things of the universal rules which applied to all
sales. In other words, the doctrines of the just
price and of usury were founded on the same
fundamental precept of justice in exchange. If
we indicate what this precept was, we can claim
to have indicated what was the true centre of
the canonist doctrine. ;

;. The scholastic teaching on the subject of the
rules of justice in exchange was founded on the
famous fifth book of Aristotle's Ethics, and is
very clearly set forth by Aquinas. In the article
of the Summxi, where the question is discussed,

^ Desbuquois, ' La Justice dans I'Eohange,' Smmne. Sooide de Frame,
1911, p. 174.

INTRODUCTORY 37

' Whether the mean is to be observed in the same
way in distributive as ia commutative justice ? '
we find a clear exposition : ' In commutations
something is dehvered to an individual on account
of something of his that has been received, as may
be seen chiefly in selling and buying, where the
notion of commutation is found primarily. Hence
it is necessary to equalise thing with thing, so that
the one person should pay back to the other just
so much as he has become richer out of that which
belonged to the other. The result of this will be
equality according to the arithmetical mean, which
is gauged according to equal excess in quantity.
Thus 5 is the mean between 6 and 4, since it
exceeds the latter, and is exceeded by the former
by 1. Accordingly, if at the start both persons
have 5, and one of them receives 1 out of the
other's belongings, the one that is the receiver
will have 6, and the other will be left with 4 : and
so there wiU be justice if both are brought back
to the mean, 1 being taken from him that has 6
and given to him that has 4, for then both will
have 5, which is the mean.' ^ In the following
article the matter of each kind of justice is dis-
cussed. We are told that : ' Justice is about
certain external operations, namely, distribution
and commutation. These consist in the use of
certain externals, whether things, persons, or
even works : of things as when one man takes
from or restores to another that which is his : of
persons as when a man does an injury to the very
person of another . . . : and of works as when

1 n. ii. 61, 2.

38 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

a man justly enacts a work of another or does a
work for him. . . . Commutative justice directs
commutations that can take place between two
persons. Of these some are involtmtary, some
voluntary. . . . Voluntary commutations are
when a man voluntarily transfers his chattel to
another person. And if he transfer it simply so
that the recipient incurs no debt, as in the case
of gifts, it is an act not of justice, but of Uberahty.
A voluntary transfer belongs to justice in so far
as it includes the notion of debt.' Aquinas then
goes on to distinguish between the difEerent kinds
of contract, sale, usufruct, loan, letting and hiring,
and deposit, and concludes, ' In aU these actions
the mean is taken in the same way according
to the equahty of repayment. Hence all these
actions belong to the one species of justice, namely,
commutative justice.' ^

This is not the place to discuss the precise
meaning of the equahty upon which Aquinas
insists, which will be more properly considered
when we come to deal with the just price. What
is to be noticed at present is that all the transac-
tions which are properly comprised in a discussion
of economic theory — sales, loans, etc. — are grouped
together as being subject to the same regulative
principle. It therefore appears more correct to ap-
proach the subject which we are attempting to treat
by following that principle into its various apphca-
tions, than by making one particular appUcation of
the principle the starting-point of the discussion.

1 n. ii. 61, 3. The reasoning of Aristotle is oharaoteriBtioally rein-
forced by the quotation of Matt. vii. 12 ; n. ii. 77, 1.

INTRODUCTORY 39

It will be noticed, however, that the principles of
commutative justice aU treat of the commutations
of external goods — ^in other words, they assume the
existence of property of external goods in individ-
uals. Commutations are but a result of private
property ; in a state of communism there could be
no commutation. This is well pointed out by Grer-
son ^ and by Nider.^ It consequently is important,
before discussing exchange of ownership, to discuss
the principle of ownership itself ; or, ia other words.

to study the static before the dynamic state.'

7

We shall therefore deal in the first place with
the right of private property, which we shall show
to have been fuUy recognised by the mediaeval
writers. We shall then point out the duties
which this right entailed, and shall estabhsh the
position that the scholastic teaching was directed
equally against modem sociahstic principles and
modem unregulated individuaUsm. The next
ppint with which we shall deal is the exchange of
property between individuals, which is a neces-
sary corollary of the right of property. We shall
show that such exchanges were regulated by well-
defined principles of commutative justice, which
apphed equally in the case of the sale of goods
and in the case of the sale of the use of money.
The last matter with which we shall deal is the

^ Be ContraetHms, i. 4 : ' Inventa est autem commutatio civilis post
peocatum qaoniam status innocentise habuit omnia communia.'

2 De OontrcMtihus, v. 1 : ' Nunc videndum est breviter unde originaliter
proveniat quod rerum dominia sunt distincta, sic quod hoc dicatur
meum et illud tuum ; quia illud est fundamentum omnis injustitiae
in contractando rem alienam, et post omnis injustitia reddendo earn.'

* See rAbb6 Desbuquois, op. dt., p. 168.

40 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

machmery by which exchanges are conducted,
namely, money. Many other subjects, such as
slavery and the legitimacy of commerce, wiU be
treated as they arise in the course of our treatment
of these principal divisions.

In its ultimate analysis, the whole subject may
be reduced to a classification of the various duties
which attached to the right of private property.
The owner of property, as we shaU see, was bound
to observe certain duties in respect of its acquisi-
tion and its consumption, and certain other
duties in respect of its exchange, whether it con-
sisted of goods or of money. The whole fabric of
mediaeval economics was based on the fotmdation
of private property; and the elaborate and logical
system of regulations to ensure justice in economic
life would have had no purpose or no use if the
subject matter of that justice were aboMshed.

It must not be understood that the mediaeval
writers treated economic subjects in this order,
or in any order at all. As we have already said,
economic matters are simply referred to in con-
nection with ethics, and were not detached and
treated as making up a distinct body of teaching.
Ashley says : ' The reader wiU guard himself
against supposing that any mediaeval writer ever
detached these ideas from the body of his teaching,
and put them together as a modern text-book
writer might do ; or that they were ever presented
in this particular order, and with the coimecting
argument definitely stated.' ^

1 Op. dt., vol. i. pt. ii. p. 387.

CHAPTER II

PROPERTY

Section 1. — The Eight to Procure and
Dispense Property

The teaching of the mediaeval Chtirch on the sub-
ject of property was perfectly simple and clear.
Aqiiinas devoted a section of the Summa to it,
and his opinion was accepted as final by aU the
later writers of the period, who usually repeat his
very words. However, before coming to quote
and explain Aquinas, it is necessary to deal with
a difficulty that has occurred to several students
of Christian economics, namely, that the teaching
of the scholastics on the subject of property was
in some way opposed to the teaching of the early
Church and of Christ Himself. Thus Haney
says : ' It is necessary to keep the ideas of Chris-
tianity and the Church separate, for few will
deny that Christianity as a religion is quite dis-
tinct from the various institutions or Churches
which profess it. . . .' And he goes on to point
out that, whereas Christianity recommended com-
mimity of property, the Chiirch permitted private
property and inequahty.^ Strictly speaking, the
reconciliation of the mediaeval teaching with that

'■ Op. dU, p. 73.

41

42 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

of the primitive Church might be said to be out-
side the scope of the present essay. In our
opinion, however, it is important to insist upon
the fundamental harmony of the teaching of
the Church in the two periods, in the first
place, because it is impossible to understand the
later without an understanding of the earher
doctrine from which it developed, and secondly,
because of the widespread prevalence, even among
CathoMcs, of the erroneous idea that the scholastic
teaching was opposed to the ethical principle laid
down by the Founder of Christianity.

Amongst the arguments which are advanced
by sociahsts none is more often met than the
alleged socialist teaching and practice (if the early
Christians. For instance, Cabet's Voyage en
Icarie contains the following passage : ' Mais
quand on s'enfonce serieusement et ardemment
dans la question de savoir comment la societe
pourrait etre organisee en Democratic, c'est-a-
dire sur les bases de I'Egalite et de la Fratemite,
on arrive k reconnaitre que cette organisation
exige et entraine necessairement la communaute
de biens. Et nous batons d'aj outer que cette
communaute etait egalement proclamee par Jesus-
Christ, par tous ses apQtres et ses disciples, par
tous les peres de I'Eglise et tous les Chretiens des
premiers siecles.' The fact that St. Thomas
Aquinas, the great exponent of Cathohc teaching
in the Middle Ages, defends in unambiguous
language the institution of private property offers
no difficulties to the socialist historian of Chris-
tianity. He replies simply that St. Thomas wrote

PEOPERTY 43

in an age when the Church was the Church of the
rich as well as of the poor ; that it had to modify
its doctrines to ease the consciences of its rich
members ; and that, ever since the conversion of
Constantine, the primitive Christian teaching on
property had been progressively corrupted by
motives of expediency, until the time of the
Summa, when it had ceased to resemble in any way
the teaching of the Apostles.^ We must therefore
first of all demonstrate that there is no such con-
tradiction between the teaching of the Apostles
and that of the mediaeval Church on the subject
of private property, but that,--on the contrary,
the necessity of private property was at^aU times
recogniaedjand insisted on by the Cathohc Church. .
As it is put in an anonymous article in the Dublin
Review : ' Among Christian nations we discover
at a very early period a strong tendency towards
a general and equitable distribution of wealth
and property among the whole body politic.
Grounded on an ever-increasing historical evi-
dence, we might possibly affirm that the mediaeval
Church brought her whole weight to bear inces-
santly upon this one singular and single point.' ^
The alleged communism of the first Christians

''■ See, e.g., Nitti, Catholic Socialism, p. 71. ' Thus, then, according
to Nitti, the Christian Church has been guilty of the meanest, most
selfish, and most corrupt utilitarianism in her attitude towards the
question of wealth and property. She was communistic when she
had nothing. She blessed poverty in order to fill her own coffers.
And when the cofEers were fuU she took rank among the owners of land
and houses, she became zealous in the interests of property, and pro-
claimed that its origin was divine ' ('The Fathers of the Church and
Socialism,' by Dr. Hogan, Irish Ecclesiastical Record, vol. xxv. p. 226).

2 ' Christian Political Economy,' Dvblin Review, N.S., vol. vi. p. 356.

44 MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

is based on a few verses of the Acts of the Apostles
describing the condition of the Church of Jerusa-
lem. ' And they that believed were together and
had all things common ; And sold their posses-
sions and goods, and parted them to all men, as
every man had need.' ^ ' And the multitude of
them that believed were of one heart and of one
soul : neither said any of them that aught of the
things which he possessed was his own ; but they
had all things common. Neither was there any
amongst them that lacked : for as many as were
possessors of land or houses sold them, and
brought the price of the things that were sold,
And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and
distribution was made unto every man according
as he had need.' ^

It is by no means clear whether the state of
things here depicted really amounted to com-
munism in the strict sense. Several of the most
enhghtened students of the Bible have come to
the conclusion that the verses quoted simply
express in a striking way the great liberality and
benevolence which prevailed among the Christian
fraternity at Jerusalem. This view was strongly
asserted by Mosheim,^ and is held by Dr. Carlyle.
' A more careful examination of the passages in
the Acts,' says the latter,* ' show clearly enough
that this was no systematic division of property,
but that the charitable instinct of the infant

1 ii. 44-45. 2 iv. 32, 34, 35.

' Dissert, ad Hist. Eccles., vol. ii. p. 1.

* 'The Political Theory of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,' Economio
Review, vol. ix.

PROPERTY 45

Church was so great that those who were in want
were completely supported by those who were
more prosperous. . . . Still there was no syste-
matic communism, no theory of the necessity of
it.' Colour is lent to this interpretation by the
fact that similar words and phrases were used to
emphasise the prevalence of charity and benevo-
lence in later communities of Christians, amongst
whom, as we know from other sources, the right
of private property was fully admitted. Thus
TertuUian wrote : ^ ' One in mind and soul, we
do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with
one another. All things are common among us
but our wives.' This passage, if it were taken
alone, would be quite as strong and unambiguous
as those from the Acts ; but fortunately, a few
lines higher up, Tertulhan had described how the
Church was supported, wherein he showed most
clearly that private property was stiU recognised
and practised: 'Though we have our treasure-
chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of
a rehgion that has its price. On the monthly
collection day, if he Ukes, each puts in a small
donation ; but only if he has pleasure, and only
if he be able ; all is voluntary.' This point is
well put by Bergier : ^ ' Towards the end of the
first century St. Barnabas ; in the second, St.
Justin and St. Lucian ; in the third, St. Clement
of Alexandria, TertuUian, Origen, St. Cyprian ;
in the fourth, Arnobius and Lactantius, say that
among the Christians all goods are common;

1 Apol. 39.

2 DicHonnawe de Thkilogie, Paris, 1829, tit, ' Communaut6.'

46 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

there was then certainly no question of a com-
munism of goods taken in the strict sense.'

It is therefore doubtful if the Church at Jeru-
salem, as described in the Acts, practised com-
munism at aU, as apart from great liberality and
benevolence. Assuming, however, that the Acts
should be interpreted in their strict Uteral sense, let
us see to what the so-caUed communism amounted.

In the first place, it is plain from Acts iv. 32
that the communism was one of use, not of owner-
ship. It was not until the individual owner had
sold his goods and placed the proceeds in the
common fund that any question of communism
arose. ' Whiles it remained was it not thine own,'
said St. Peter, rebuking Ananias, ' and after it
was sold was it not in thine owji power ? ' ^ This
distinction is particularly important in view of
the fact that it is precisely that insisted on by
St. Thomas Aquinas. There is no reason to
suppose that the community of use practised at
Jerusalem was in any way different from that
advocated by Aquinas — ^namely, ' the possession
by a man of external things, not as his own, but
in common, so that, to wit, he is ready to com-
municate them to others in their need.'

In the next place, we must observe that the
communism described in the Acts was purely
voluntary. This is quite obvious from the rela-
tion in the fifth chapter of the incident of Ananias
and Sapphira. There is no indication that the
abandonment of one's possessory rights was

1 Eosoher, Poliiicdl Economy (Eng. trans.), vol. i. p. 246 ; Catholic
EncyclopcBdia, tit. ' Communism.'

PROPERTY 47

preached by the Apostles. Indeed, it would be
difficult to miderstand why they should have
done so, when Christ Himself had remained silent
on the subject. Far from advocating communism,
the Founder of Christianity had urged the practice
of many virtues for which the possession of private
property was essential. ' What Christ recom-
mended,' says Sudre,^ ' was voluntary abnegation
or alms-giving. But the giving of goods without
any hope of compensation, the spontaneous de-
privation of oneself, could not exist except under
a system of private property . . . they were one
of the ways of exercising such rights.' Moreover,
as the same author points out, private property
was fuUy recognised under the Jewish dispensa-
tion, and Christ would therefore have made use of
explicit language if he had intended to alter the
old law in this fundamental respect. ' Think not
that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets :
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.' ^ At the
time of Christ's preaching, a Jewish sect, the
Essenes, were endeavouring to put into practice
the ideals of communism, but there is not a word in
the Gospels to suggest that He ever held them up as
an example to His followers. ' Commxmism was
never preached by Christ, although it Was practised
under His very eyes by the Essenes. This absolute
silence is equivalent to an impUcit condemnation.'*

^ Histoire du Cormmmisme, p. 39. * Matt. v. 17.

' Sudre, op. dt., p. 44. On the Essenes see ' Historic Phases of
Socialism,' by Dr. Hogan, Irish Ecclesiastical Record, vol. xxv. p. 334.
Even Huet discounts the importance of this instance of coiaiuunism,
Le Eigne social du Christianisme, p. 38.

48 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Nor was communism preached as part of
Christ's doctrine as taught by the Apostles. In
Paul's epistles there is no direction to the congre-
gations addressed that they should abandon their
private property ; on the contrary, the continued
existence of such rights is esqpressly recognised
and approved in his appeals for funds for the Church
at Jerusalem.^ Can it be that, as Rosclier says,^
the experiment in communism had produced a
chronic state of poverty in the Church at Jeru-
salem ? Certain it is the experiment was never
repeated in any of the other apostolic congrega-
tions. The communism at Jerusalem, if it ever
existed at all, not only f aUed to spread to other
Churches, but failed to continue at Jerusalem
itself. It is universally admitted by competent
students of the question that the phenomenon was
but temporary and transitory,^

The utterances of the Fathers of the Church
on property are scattered and disconnected.
Nevertheless, there is sufficient cohesion in them
to enable us to form an opinion of their teaching
on the subject. It has, as we have said, frequently
been asserted that they favoured a system of
communism, and disapproved of private ownership.
The supporters of this view base their arguments
on a number of isolated texts, taken out of their
context, and not interpreted with any regard to
the circumstances in which they were written.

^ e.g. Rom. xy. 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 1.

* Political Economy, vol. i. p. 246.

* Sudre, op. cit. ; Salvador, Jiaus-Cfmst et aa Doctrinfi, vol. ii. p. 221,
See More's Utopia.

PROPERTY 49

' The mistake,' as Devas says,^ ' of representing
the early Christian Fathers of the Church as rank
socialists is frequently made by those who are
friendly to modern socialism; the reason for it
is that either they have taken passages of ortho-
dox writers apart from their context, and without
due regard to the circumstances ia which they
were written, arid the meaning they would have
conveyed to their hearers ; or else, by a grosser
blunder, the perversions of heretics are set forth
as the doctrine of the Church, and a sad case
arises of mistaken identity.' A careful study of
the patristic texts bearing on the subject leads one
to the conclusion that Mr. Devas' s view is without
doubt the correct one.^

The passages from the writings of the Fathers
which are cited by socialists who are anxious to
support the proposition that sociaHsm formed
part of the early Christian teaching may be
roughly divided into four groups : first, passages
where the abandonment of earthly possessions is

1 Dvhlin Review, Jan. 1898.

2 Dr. Hogan, in an article entitled ' The Fathers of the Church and
Socialism,' in the Irish Ecclesiastical Secord, vol. xxv. p. 226, has
examined all the texts relative to property in the writings of TertuUian,
St. Justin Mart3Ti, St. Clement of Rome, St. dement of Alexandria,
St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and St.
Gregory the Great ; and the utterances of St. BasU, St. Ambrose, and St.
Jerome are similarly examined in ' The Alleged Socialism of the Church
Fathers,' by Dr. John A. Byan. The patristic texts are also fully
examined by Abb6 Calippe in ' Le Caract^re sociale de la Propri6t6 '
in La Semaine Sociale de France, 1909, p. 111. The conclusion come
to after thorough examinations such as these is always the same. For
a good analysis of the patristic texts from the communistic standpoint,
see Conrad Noel, Socialism in Church History.

D

50 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

held up as a work of more than ordinary devotion
— in other words, a counsel of perfection ; second,
those where the practice of almsgiving is recom-
mended in the rhetorical and persuasive language
of the missioner — ^where the faithful are exhorted
to exercise their charity to such a degree that it
may be said that the rich and the poor have
aU things in common ; third, passages directed
against avarice and the wrongful acquisition or
abuse of riches ; and fourth, passages where the
distinction between the natural and positive law
on the matter is explained.

The following passage from G3rprian is a good
example of an utterance which was clearly meant
as a counsel of perfection. Isolated sentences
from this passage have frequently been quoted to
prove that Cyprian was an advocate of com-
munism ; but there can be no doubt from the
passage as a whole, that all that he was aiming at
was to cultivate in his followers a high detach-
ment from earthly wealth, and that, in so far as
complete abandonment of one's property is re-
commended, it is simply indicated as a work of
quite unusual devotion. It is noteworthy that
this passage occurs in a treatise on almsgiving, a
practice which presupposes a system of individual
ownership : ^ ' Let us consider wha,t the congre-
gation of believers did in the time of the Apostles,
when at the first beginnings the mind flourished
with greater virtues, when the faith of beUevers
burned with a warmth of faith yet new. Thus
they sold houses and farms, and gladly and liber-

^ De Opere et EUemoaynia, 2&.

PROPERTY 51

ally presented to the Apostles the proceeds to be
dispersed to the poor ; selling and aUenating their
earthly estate, they transferred their lands thither
where they might receive the fruits of an eternal
possession, and there prepared houses where they
might begin an eternal habitation. Such, then, was
the abundance in labours as was the agreement in
love, as we read in the Acts — " Neither said any of
them that aught of the things which he possessed
was his own ; but they had all things common."
This is truly to become son of God by spiritual
birth ; this is to imitate by the heavenly law the
equity of God the Father. For whatever is of
God is common in our use ; nor is any one excluded
from His benefits and His gifts so as to prevent the
whole human race from enjoying equally the
divine goodness and liberality. Thus the day
equally enlightens, the sun gives radiance, the rain
moisterts, the wind blows, and the sleep is one to
those who sleep, and the splendour of Stars and
of the Moon is common. In which examples of
equahty he who as a possessor in the earth shares
his returns and his fruits with the fraternity, while
he is common and just in his gratuitous bounties,
is an imitator of God the Father.'

There is a much-quoted passage of St. John
Chrysostom which is capable of the same inter-
pretation. In his commentary on the alleged
communistic existence of the Apostles at Jerusalem
the Saint emphasises the fact that their com-
munism was voluntary : ' That this was in con-
sequence not merely of the miraculous signs, but
of their own. purpose, is manifest from the case of

52 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Ananias and Sapphira.' He further insists on
the fact that the members of this community were
animated by unusual fervour : ' iVom the exceed-
ing ardour of the givers none was in want.'
Further down, in the same homily, St. John
Chrysostdm urges the adoption of a communistic
system of housekeeping, but purely on the
grounds of domestic economy and saving of
labour. There is not a word to suggest that a
communistic system was morally preferable to a
proprietary one.^

The second class of patristic texts which are
rehed on by sociaUsts are, as we have said, those
' where the practice of almsgiving is recom-
mended in the rhetorical and persuasive language
of the missioner — ^where the faithful are exhorted
to exercise their charity to such a degree that it
may be said that the rich and poor have aU things
in common.' Such passages are very frequent
throughout the writings of the Fathers, but we
may give as examples two, which are most fre-
quently relied on by sociahsts. One of these is
from St. Ambrose : ^ ' Mercy is a part of justice ;
and if you wish to give to the poor, this mercy
is justice. " He hath dispersed, he hath given to
the poor ; his righteousness endureth for ever." ^
It is therefore unjust that one should not be
helped by his neighbour ; when God hath wished

1 Horn, on Acts xi. That voluntary poverty was regarded as a
counsel of perfection by Aquinas is abundantly clear from many
passages in his works, e.g. Svmma, i. ii. 108, 4 ; n. ii. 185, 6; n. ii. 186, 3;
8timma cont. Gent., iii. 133. On this, as on every other point, the
teaching of Aquinas is in line with that of the Fathers.

' Comm. on Ps, exviii., viiii 22. s Ps. oxii. 9.

PROPERTY 53

the possession of the earth to be common to all
men, and its fruits to minister to all ; but avarice
estabUshed possessory rights. It is therefore
just that if you lay claim to anything as your
private property, which is really conferred in
common to the whole human race, that you should
dispense something to the poor, so that you may
not deny nourishment to those who have the right
to share with you.' The following passage from
Gregory the Great ^ is another example of this
kind of passage : ' Those who rather desire what
is another's, nor bestow that is their own, are to
be admonished to consider carefuUy that the
earth out of which they are taken is common to
aU men, and therefore brings forth nourishment
for all in common. Vainly, then, do they suppose
themselves innocent who claim to their own
private use the common gift of God ; those who
in not imparting what they have received walk in
the midst of the slaughter of their neighbours ;
since they almost daily slay so many persons as
there are dying poor whose subsidies they keep
close in their own possession.'

The third class of passages to which reference
must be made is composed of the numerous
attacks which the Fathers levelled against the
abuse or wrongful acquisition of riches. These
passages do not indicate that the Fathers favoured
a system of communism, but point in precisely
the contrary direction. If property were an evil
thing in itself, they would not have wasted so
much time in emphasising the evil uses to which

* Lib. Beg. Past., iii. 21.

54 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

it was sometimes put. The insistence on the
abuses of an institution is an implicit admission
that it has its uses. Thus Clement of Alexandria
devotes a whole treatise to answering the question
' Who is the rich man who can be saved ? ' in
which it appears quite plainly that it is the
possible abuse of wealth, and the possible too
great attachment to worldly goods, that are the
principal dangers in the way of a rich man's
salvation. The suggestion that in order to be
saved a man must abandon all his property is
strongly controverted. The following passage
from St. Gregory Nazianzen ^ breathes the same
spirit : ' One of us has oppressed the poor, and
wrested from him his portion of land, and wrongly
encroached upon his landmarks by fraud or
violence, and joined house to house, and field to
field, to rob his neighbour of something, and has
been eager to have no neighbour, so as to dwell
alone on the earth. Another has defiled the land
with usury and interest, both gathering where he
has not sowed and reaping where he has not
strewn, farming not the land but the necessity
of the needy. . . . Another has had no pity on
the widow and orphans, and not imparted his
bread and meagre nourishment to the needy ; . . .
a man perhaps of much property unexpectedly
gained, for this is the most unjust of all, who finds
his very bams too narrow for him, filling some
and emptying others to buUd greater ones for
future crops.' Similarly Clement of Rome advo-
cates frugality in the enjoyment of wealth ; ^ and
1 Orai., xvi. 18. « The Instructor, iii. 7.

PROPERTY 65

Salvian has a long passage on the dangers of the
abuse of riches.^

The fourth group of passages is that in which
the distinction between the natural and positive
law on the matter is explained. It is here that
the greatest confusion has been created by sociaHst
writers, who conclude, because they read in the
works of some of the Fathers that private property
did not exist by natural law, that it was therefore
condemned by them as an illegitimate institution.
Nothing could be more erroneous. All that the
Fathers meant in these passages was that in the
state of nature — ^the ideahsed Golden Age of the
pagans, or the Garden of Eden of the Christians
— there was no individual ownership of goods.
The very moment, however, that man fell from
that ideal state, communism became impossible,
simply on account of the change that had taken
place in man's own nature. To this extent it is
true to say that the Fathers regarded property
with disapproval ; it was one of the institutions
rendered necessary by the fall of man. Of course
it would have been preferable that man should not
have fallen from his natural innocence, in which
case he could have hved a Ufe of communism ;
but, as he had fallen, and communism had from
that moment become impossible, property must
be respected as the one institution which could
put a curb on his avarice, and preserve a society
of fallen men from chaos and general rapine.

That this is the correct interpretation of the
patristic utterances regarding property and natural

1 Ad Eccles., i. 7.

56 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

law appears from the following passage of The
Divine Institution of Lactantius — ' the most ex'^
plicit statement bearing on the Christian idea of
property in the first f oiir centuries ' : ^ ' " They pre-
ferred to live content with a simple mode of life,"
as Cicero relates in his poems ; and this is peculiar
to our religion. " It was not even allowed to mark
out or to divide the plain with a boundary : men
sought aU things in common," ^ since God had
given the earth in common to aU, that they
might pass their Hfe in common, not that mad and
raging avarice might claim aU things for itself,
and that riches produced for aU might not be
wanting to any. And this saying of the poet
ought so to be taken, not as suggesting the idea
that individuals at that time had no private
property, but it must be regarded as a poetical
figure, that we may understand that men were
so hberal, that they did not shut up the fruits of
the earth produced for them, nor did they in
sohtude brood over the things stored up, but ad-
mitted the poor to share the fruits of their labour :

" Now streams of milk, now streams of nectar flowed." ^
And no wonder, since the storehouses of the good
hteraUy lay open to all. Nor did avarice intercept
the divine bounty, and thus cause hunger and
thirst in common ; but all aUke had abundance,
since they who had possessions gave HberaUy and
bountifully to those who had not. But after
Satumus had been banished from heaven, and

1 'The Biblical and Early Christian Idea of Property,' by Dr. V.
Bartlett, in Property, its Duties and Rights (London, 1913).
" Georg., i. 126. a Ovid, Met., i. iii.

PROPERTY 57

had arrived in Latium . . . not only did the
people who had a superfluity fail to bestow a
share upon others, but they even seized the
property of others, drawing everything to their
private gain ; and the things which formerly
even individuals laboured to obtain for the com-
mon use of all were now conveyed to the powers
of a few. For that they might subdue others by
slavery, they began to withdraw and coUect
together the necessaries of life, and to keep them
firmly shut up, that they might make the boimties
of heaven their own ; not on account of kindness
{humanitas), a feeling which had no existence for
them, but that they might sweep together all the
instruments of lust and avarice.' ^

It appears from the above passage that Lac-
tantius regarded the era in which a system of
communism existed as long since vanished, if
indeed it ever had existed. The same idea emerges
from the writings of St. Augustine, who drew a
distinction between divine and human right. ' By
what right does every man possess what he
possesses ? ' he asks.^ ' Is it not by human right ?
For by divine right " the earth is the Lord's, and
the. fuUness thereof." The poor and the rich God
made of one clay ; the same earth supports alike
the poor and the rich. By human right, however,
one says. This estate is mine, this servant is mine,
this house is mine. By human right, therefore, is
by right of the Emperor. Why so ? Because
God has distributed to mankind these very human

^ Lactantius, Div. Inst., v. 5-6.
2 Tract in Joh. Ev., vi. 25.

58 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

rights through the emperors and kings of the
world.'

The socialist commentatoi's of St. Augustine
have strained this, and similar passages, to mean
that because property rests on human, and not
on divine, right, therefore it should not exist
at aU. It is, of course true that what human
right has created human right can repeal ; and
it is therefore quite fair to argue that all the
citizens of a community might agree to live a life
of communism. That is simply an argument to
prove that there is nothing immoral in communism,
and does not prove in the very slightest degree
that there is anything immoral in property. On
the contrary, so long as ' the emperors and kings
of the world ' ordain that private property shall
continue, it would be, according to St. Augtistine,
immoral for any individual to maintain that such
ordinances were wrongful.

The correct meaning of the patristic distinction
between natural and positive law with regard to
property is excellently summarised in Dr. Carlyle's
essay on Property in Mediceval Theology : ^ " What
do the expressions of the Fathers mean ? At
first sight they might seem to be an assertion of
communism, or denunciation of private property
as a thing which is sinful or unlawful. But this
is not what the Fathers mean. There can be
little doubt that we find the sources of these words
in such a phrase as that of Cicero — " Sunt autem
privata nulla natura " ^ — and in the Stoic tradition

I Property, Its Duties and Bights (London, 1913).
^ De Off., i. 7.

PROPERTY 59

which is represented in one of Seneca's letters,
when he describes the primitive Ufe in which men
lived together in peace and happiness, when there
was no system of coercive government and no
private property, and says that man passed out
of this primitive condition as their first innocence
disappeared, as they became avaricious and dis-
satisfied with the common enjoyment of the good
things of the world, and desired to hold them
as their private possession.^ Here we have
the quasi-philosophical theory, from which the
patristic conception is derived. When men were
innocent there was no need for private property,
or the other great conventional institutions of
society, but as this innocence passed away, they
found themsplves compelled to organise society
and to devise institutions which should regulate
the ownership and use of the good things which
men had once held in common. The institution of
property thus represents the fall of man from his
primitive ianocence, through greed and avarice,
which refused to recognise the common owner-
ship of things, and also the method by which the
blind greed of human nature might be controlled and
regulated. It is this ambiguous origin of the in-
stitution which explains how the Fathers could hold
that private property was not natural, that it grew
out of men's vicious and sinful desires, and at the
same time that it was a legitimate institution.'

Janet takes the same view of the patristic
utterances on this subject : ^ ' What do the Fathers

^ Seneca, Ep., xiv. 2.

' Histoire de la Science politique, vol. i. p. 330.

60 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

say ? It is that in Jesus Christ there is no mine
and thine. Nothing is more true, without doubt ;
in the divine order, in the order of absolute
charity, where men are wholly wrapt up in God,
distinction and inequahty of goods would be im-
possible. But the Fathers saw clearly that such
a state of things was not reaUsable here below.
What did they do ? They established property on
human law, positive law, imperial law. Commun-
ism is either a Utopia or a barbarism ; a Utopia
if one imagine it founded on universal devotion ;
a barbarism if one imposes it by force.' ^

It must not be concluded that the evidence of
the approbation by the Fathers of private property
is purely negative or solely derived from the
interpretation of possibly ambiguous texts. On
the contrary, the lawfulness of property is em-
phatically asserted on more than one occasion.
' To possess riches,' says Hilary of Poictiers,^ ' is
not wrongful, but rather the manner in which
possession is used. ... It is a crime to possess
wrongfully rather than simply to possess.' ' Who
does not understand,' asks St. Augustine,^ 'that
it is not sinful to possess riches, but to love
and place hope in them, and to prefer them to
truth or justice ? ' Again, ' Why do you reproach
us by saying that men renewed in baptism ought
no longer to beget children or to possess fields and
houses and money ? Paul allows it.' * According
to Ambrose,^ ' Riches themselves are not wrong-

>- See also Jarrett, Medicevdl iSocioMsm.

* Coram, on Matt. xix. 9. * Gonfra Ad., xx. 2.

* De Mor. Ecd. Cath., i. 36. ' Epist., Ixiii. 92.

PROPERTY 61

ful. Indeed, " redemptio animse viri divitise
ejus," because he who gives to the poor saves his
soul. There is therefore a place for goodness in
these material riches. You are as steersmen in
a great sea. He who steers his ship well, quickly
crosses the waves, and comes to port ; but he who
does not know how to control his ship is sunk by
his own weight. Wherefore it is written, " Pos-
sessio divitum ci vitas firmissima." ' A Council
in A.D. 415 condemned the proposition held by
Pelagius that ' the rich cannot be saved unless
they renounced their goods.' ^

The more one studies the Fathers the more one
becomes convinced that property was regarded
by^them asone of the normal and- legitimgite
institutions of .human -soeiety. Benigni's con-
clusion, as the result of his exceptionally thorough
researches, is that according to the early Fathers,
' property is lawful and ought scrupulously to be
respected. But property is subject to the high
duties of human fellowship which sprang from the
equahty and brotherhood of man. Collectivism
is absurd and immoral.' ^ Janet arrived at the
same conclusion : ' In spite of the words of the
Fathers, in spite of the advice given by Christ
to the rich man to sell aU his goods and give to the
poor, in spite of the communism of the Apostles,
can one say that Christianity condemned property ?
Certainly not. Christianity considered it a coun-
sel of perfection for a man to deprive himself of
his goods ; it did not abrogate the right of any-

^ BeviK Arehiologique, 1880, p. 321.

* L'Eamomia Sociale Christiana avanti Costantino (Grenoa, 1897).

62 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

body.' ^ The same conclusion is reached by the
Abbe Cahppe in an excellent article published in
La Semaine Sociale de France, 1909. ' The right of
property and of the property owner are assumed.' ^
' It is only prejudiced or superficial minds which
could make the writers of the fotlrth century the
precursors of modem communists or coUectivists.' ^
When we turn to St. Thomas Aquinas, we find
that his teaching on the subject of property is not at
all out of harmony with that of the earlier Fathers
of the Church, but, on the contrary, summarises
and consohdates it. 'It remained to elaborate,
to constitute a definite theory of the right of pro-
perty. It sufficed to harmonise, to collaborate,
and to relate one to the other these elements
furnished by the Christian doctors of the first four
or five centuries ; and ^his was precisely the work
of the great theologians of the Middle Ages,
especially of St. Thomas Aquinas. ... In estab-
lishing his thesis St, Thomas did not borrow
from the Roman jurisconsults through the medium
of St. Isidore more than their vocabulary, their
formulas, their juridical distinctions ; he also
borrowed from Aristotle the arguments upon
which the philosopher based his right of property.
But the ground of his doctrine is undoubtedly of
Christian origin. There is, between the Fathers
and him, a perfect continuity.' * ' Community
of goods,' he writes, ' is ascribed to the natural
law, not that the natural law dictates that all

1 Ifistoire de la Science poUtigliie, vol. i. p. 319.
^ P. 114. s P. 121.

* Abb6 Calippe, op. cit., 1909, p. 124.

PROPERTY 63

things should be possessed in common, and that
nothing should be possessed as one's own ; but
because the division of possession is not according
to the natural law, but rather arose from human
agreement, which belongs to positive law. Hence
the ownership of possessions is not contrary to
the natural law, but an addition thereto devised
by human reason.' This is simply another way
of stating St. Augustine's distinction between
natural and positive law. If it speaks with more
respect of positive law than St. Augustine had done,
it is because Aquinas was influenced by the Aristo-
telian conception of the State being itself a natural
institution, owing to man being a social animal.^
The explanation which St. Thomas gives of the
necessity for property also shows how clearly he
agreed with the Fathers' teaching on natural
communism : ' Two things are competent to man
in respect of external things. One is the power
to procure and dispense them, and in this regard
it is lawful for a man to possess property. More-
over, this is necessary to human life for three
reasons. First, because every man is more care-
ful to procure what is for himself alone than that
which is common to many or to all : since each
one would shirk the labour, and would leave to
another that which concerns the community, as
happens when there is a great number of servants.

1- See Carlyle, Properti/ in Mediceval Theology, Community of goods
is said to be according to natural law in the canon law, but certain
titles of acquiring private property are also said to be natural, so that
the passage does not help the discussion very much (Corp, Jur, Can.,
Dec. I. Dist. i. c. 7.

64 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Secondly, because human aflEairs are conducted
in more orderly fashion if each man is charged
with taking care of some particular thing himself,
whereas there would be confusion if everybody
had to look kfter any one thing indeterminately.
Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured
to man if each one is contented with his own.
Hence it is to be observed that quarrels more
frequently occur when there is no division of the
things possessed.' ^ It is quite clear from this
passage that Aquinas regarded property as some-
thing essential to the existence of society in the
natural condition of human nattire — ^that is to
say, the condition that it had acquired at the fall.
It is precisely the greed and avarice of fallen man
that renders property an indispensable institution.
There was another sense in which property was
said to be according to human law, in distinction
to the natural law, namely, in the sense that,
whereas the general principle that men should
own things might be said to be natural, the
particular proprietary rights of each individual
were determined by positive law. In other words,
the fundamentum of property rights was natural,
whereas the titulus of particular property rights
was according to positive law. This distinction
is stated clearly by Aquinas : ^ ' The natural
right or just is that which by its very nature is
adjusted to or commensurate with another person.
Now this may happen in two ways ; first, accord-
ing as it is considered absolutely ; thus the male
by its very nature is commensurate with the

1 n. ii. 66, 2. 2 n. ii. 57, 3.

PROPERTY 65

female to beget offspring by her, and a parent is
commensurate with the offspring to novirish it.
Secondly, a thing is naturally commensurate with
another person, not according as it is considered
absolutely, but according to something resultant
from it — for instance, the possession of property.
For if a particular piece of land be considered
absolutely, it contains no reason why it should
belong to one man more than to another, but if
it be considered in respect of its adaptability to
cultivation,"^ and the unmolested use of the land,
it has a certain commensuration to be the pro-
perty of one and not of another man, as the
Philosopher shows.' Cajetan's commentary on
this article clearly emphasises the distinction
between fundamentum and titulus : ' In the
ownership of goods two things are to be discussed.
The first is why one thing should belong to one
man and another thing to another. The second
is why this particular field should belong to this
man, that field to that man. With regard to the
former inquiry, it may be said that the ownership
of things is according to the law of nations, but
with regard to the second, it may be said to result
from the positive law, because in former times
one thing was appropriated by one man and
another thing by another.' It must not be
supposed, however, from what we have just said,
that there are no natural titles to property.
Labour, for instance, is a title flowing from the
natural law, as also is occupancy, and in certain
circumstances, prescription. AU that is meant
by the distinction between fundamentum and

66 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

titulus is that, whereas it can be clearly demon-
strated by natural law that the goods of the
earth, which are given by God for the benefit of
the whole of mankind, cannot be made use of to
their full advantage unless they are niade the
subject of private ownership, particular goods
cannot be demonstrated to be the lawful property
of this or that person unless some human act has
intervened. This human act need not necessarily
be an act of agreement ; it may equally be an act
of some other kind — ^for instance, a dectee of the
law-giver, or the exercise of labour upon one's
own goods. In the latter case, the additional
value of the goods becomes the lawful property
of the person who has exerted the labour.
Aquinas therefore pronounced unmistakably in
favour nf f\u£\^ji imf i xiy ^^^ and

in doing so was in Jii11. a.gi:ftemTm4r^wu f,Ti ilnp, "F'a.iliP'. rs
of the Church. He_jKas-.iollowed without hesi-
tation by allltKeTater theologians, and it is abund-
antly evident from their writings that the right
of private property was the keystone of their
whole economic system.^

Communism therefore was no part of the schol-
astic teaching, but it must not be concluded from
this that the medisevals approved of the unregu-
lated individualism which modem opinion allows
to the owners of property. The very strength of

>■ A oommunity of goods, more or less complete, and a denial of the
rights of private property was part of the teaching of many sects
which were condemned as heretical — ^for instance, the Albigenses, the
Vaudois, the B6gards, the Apostoli, and the Fratricelli. (See Brants,
op. dt.. Appendix II.

PROPERTY 67

the right to own property entailed as a consequence
the duty of making good use of it; and a clear
distinction was drawn between the power ' of
procuring and dispensing ' property and the power
of using it. We have dealt with the former power
in the present section, and we shaU pass to the
consideration of the latter in the next. In a
later chapter we shall proceed to discuss the
duties which attached to the owners of property
in regard to its exchange.

Section 2. — Duties RBGABDma the Acquisi-
tion AND Use of Pkopbrty

We referred at the end of the last section to the
very important distinction which Aquinas draws
between the power of procuring and dispensing ^
exterior things and the power of using them.
' The second thing that is competent to man with
regard to external things is their use. In this
respect man ought to possess external things, not t^
as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is
ready to communicate them to others in their
need.' ^ These words wherein St. Thomas lays
down the doctrine of community of user of pro-

^ Goyau insists on the importance of the words ' procure ' and ' dis-
pense.' ' Dont le premier 6veille I'idde d'une oonstante sollicitude, et
dont le second ^voque I'image d'une g6n6rosit6 sympathetique ' (Autour
jdu Catholicisme Sociale, vol. ii. p. 93).

^ n. ii. 66, 2. In another part of the Summa the same distinction
is clearly laid down. ' Bona temporalia quee homini divinitus con-
f eruntur, ejus quidem sunt quantum ad proprietatem ; sed quantum
ad usum non solun^ desent ease ejus, sed aliorum qui en eis sustentari
possunt en eo quod ei superfluit,' n. ii. 32, 5, ad 2.

68 MEDL3EVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

perty were considered as authoritative by all
later writers on the subject, and were univer-
sally quoted with approval by them,^ and may
therefore be taken as expressing the generally
held view of the Middle Ages. They require
careful explanation in order that their meaning
be accurately understood.^ Cajetan's gloss on
this section of the Summa enables us to under-
stand its significance in a broad sense, but fuUer
information must be derived from a study of other
parts of the Summa itself. ' Note,' says Cajetan,
' that the words that community of goods in
respect of use arises from the law of nature may
be understood in two ways, one positively, the
other negatively. And if they are understood in
their positive sense they mean that the law of
nature dictates that aU things are common to aU
men ; if in their negative sense, that the law of
nature did not estabhsh private ownership of
possessions. And in either sense the proposition
is true if correctly imderstood. In the first place,
if they are taken in their positive sense, a man
who is in a position of extreme necessity may take
whatever he can find to succour himself or another
in the same condition, nor is he bound in such a
case to restitution, because by natural law he has

^ Janssen, op. cit., vol. ii. p. 91.

^ The Abb6 Calippe sunmiarises St. Thomas's doctrine as foUows ;
' Le droit de propri6t6 est un droit r6el ; mais ce n'est pas un droit
illimit^, les propri6taires ont des devoirs ; ils ont des devoirs parce que
Dieu qui a cr66 la terre ne I'a pas cr66e pour eux seuls, mais pour
tous ' {Semaine Sociale de France, 1909, p. 123). According to
Antoninus of Morence, goods could be evilly acquired, evilly distributed,
or evilly consumed {Irish Theological Qvarterly, vol. vii. p. 146),

PROPERTY 69

but made use of his own. And in the negative
sense they are equally true, because the law of
nature did not institute one thing the property
of one person, and another thing of another
person.' The principle of community of user
flows logically from the very nature of property
itself as defined by Aquinas, who taught that
the supreme justification of private property
was that it was the most advantageous method
of securing for the community the benefits of
material riches. While the owner of property
has therefore an ahsnlutp, f ijjrht to thfi goods he
possesses, he must at the same time remember
that this right is estabMshed primarily on his power
to benefit his neighbour by his proper use of it,
The best evidence of the correctness of this state-
ment is the fact that the scholastics admitted
that, if the owner of property was withholding it
from the community, or from any member of the
community who had a real need of it, he could be
forced to apply it to its proper end. If the com-
munity could pay for it, it was bound to do so ;
but if the necessitous person could not pay for
it, he was none the less entitled to take it. The
former of these cases was illustrated by the
principle of the dominium eminens of the State ;
and the latter by the principle that the giving of
alms to a person in real need was a duty not of
charity, but of justice.^ We shall see in a moment

^ On the application of this principle by the popes in the thirteenth
and fifteenth centuries in the case of their own estates, see Ardant,
Popes et Paysana, a work which must be read with a certain degree of
caution (Nitti, OathoUc Socialism, p. 290).

70 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

that the most usual apphcation of the principle
enunciated by Aquinas was in the case of one
person's extreme necessity which required alms-
giving from another's superfluity, but, even short of
such cases, there were rules of conduct in respect of
the user of property on all occasions which were
of extreme importance in the economic life of the
time.

These principles for the guidance of the owner of
property are not collected under any single head-
ing in the Summa, but must be gathered from the
various sections dealing with man's duty to his
feUow-men and to himself. One leading virtile
which was inculcated with great emphasis by
sf Aquinas was that of temperance. ' AU pleasur-
able things which come within the use of man,'
we read in the section dealing with this subject,
' are ordered to some necessity of this hfe as an
end. And therefore temperance accepts the
necessity of this hfe as a rule or measure of the
things one uses, so that, to wit, they should be
used according as the necessity of this life re-
quires.' 1 St. Thomas explains, moreover, that
* necessary ' must be taken in the broad sense of
suitable to one's condition of life, and not merely
necessary to maintain existence.^ The principles
of temperance did not apply in any special way to
the user of property more than to the enjoyment

1 n. ii. 141, 5.

* Ibid., ad. 2. As Buridan puts it (Eth., iv. 4), ' If any man has more
than is necessary for his own requirements, and does not give away
anjrthing to the poor, and to his relations and neighbours, he is acting
against right reason.'

PROPERTY 71

of any other good ; ^ but they are relevant as
laying down the broad test of right and wrong in
the user of one's goods.

More particularly relevant to the subject before
us is the teaching of Aquinas on Uberality, which ^
is a virtue directly connected with the user of
property. Aquinas defines liberality as ' a virtue
by which men use well aU those exterior things
which are given to us for sustenance.' ^ The
limitations within which liberality should be
practised are stated in the same article : ' As St.
Basil and St. Ambrose say, God has given to many
a superabundance of riches, in order that they
might gain merit by their dispensing them well.
Few things, however, sufl&ce for one man ; and
therefore the liberal man will advantageously
expend more on others than on himself. In the
spiritual sphere a man must always care for him-
self before his neighbours ; and also in temporal
things liberality does not demand that a man
should think of others to the exclusion of himself
and those dependent on him.' ^

' It is not necessary for liberality that one should
give away so much of one's riches that not enough
remains to sustain himself and to enable him to
perform works of virtue. This complete giving
away without reserve belongs to the state of the
perfection of spiritual hfe, of which we shall treat
lower down ; but it must be known that to give

^ ' Rationalis oreaturse vera perfeotio est unamqnamque rem tanti
habere quanti habenda est, eicut pluris est anima quam esca ; fides
et sequitas quam peounia ' (Gerson, De. Cont.).

2 n. u. 117, 1. » Ibid., ad. 1.

72 MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

one's goods liberally is an act of virtue which
itself produces happiness.' ^ The author pro-
ceeds to discuss whether making use of money-
might be an act of hberahty, and replies that
'as money is by its very nature to be classed
among useful goods, because all exterior thiags
are destined for the use of man, therefore the
proper act of Uberality is the good use of money
and other riches.' ^ Moreover, ' it belongs to a
virtuous man not simply to use well the goods
which form the matter of his actions, but also to
prepare the means and the occasions to use them
well ; thus the brave soldier sharpens his blade
and keeps it in the scabbard, as well as exercisiag
it on the enemy ; in Hke manner, the Hberal man
should prepare and reserve his riches for a suitable
use.' ^ It appears from this that to save part of
one's annual income to provide against emer-
gencies in the futiire, either by means of insur-
ance or by investing in productive enterprises, is
an act of hberahty.
The question is then discussed whether hber-

1 n. ii. 117, ad. 2. " lUd., ad. 3.

' Ibid., ad. 2. ' Potest concludi quod aooipere et custodire modi-
ficata sunt acta liberalitatis. . . . Major per hoo probatur quod
dantem multotiena et consumentem, nihil autem accipientem et custo-
dientem cito derelinqueret substantia temporalis ; et ita perirent
omnis ejus actus quia non habent amplius quid dare et consumere. . . .
Hie autem acoeptio et custodia sic modifioari debet. Primo quidem
oportet ut non sit injusta ; seoundo quod non sit de cupiditate vel
avaritia suspeota propter exoessum ; tertio quod non permittat
labi substantiam propter defectum . . . Dare quando oportet et
custodire quando oportet dare contrariantur ; sed dare quando
oportet et custodire quando oportet non contrariantur ' (Buridan,
Eth., iv. 2).

PROPEETY 73

ality is a part of justice. Aquinas concludes ' that
liberality is not a species of justice, because
justice renders to another what is his, but hber-
ality gives him what is the giver's own. StiU, it
has a Certain agreement with justice in two
points ; first that it is to another, as justice also
is ; secondly, that it is about exterior things like
justice, though in another way. And therefore
liberaHty is laid down by some to be a part of
justice as a victue^ ajipjeKgd" 1^'i;T*sti'ee- as an acces-
sory to a principal. 'J;__AgaiQT-' althougE liber-
aUty supposes not any legal debt as justice does,
still it supposes a certain moral debt considering
what is becoming in the person himself who
practises the virtue, not as though he had any
obligation to the other party ; and therefore
there is about it very little of the character of a
debt.' 2

It is important to draw attention to the fact
that Uberalitas consists in making a good usei^
of property, and not merely in distributing it to
others, as a confusion with the Enghsh word
' Hberahty ' might lead us to beheve. It is, as we
said above, therefore certain that a wise and
prudent saving of money for investment would
be considered a course of conduct within the
meaning of the word Uberalitas, especially if the
enterprise in which the money were invested were
one which would benefit the commimity as a
whole. ' Modem industrial conditions demand
that a man of wealth should distribute a part
of his goods indirectly -;- that is, by investing

1 n. ii. 117, art. 5. ^ Ibid., ad. 1.

74 MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

them in productive and labour-employing enter-
prises.' ^
^ The nature of the virtue of Uberalitas may be
more clearly understood by an explanation of the
vices which stand opposed to it. The first of
these treated by Aquinas is avarice, which he
defines as ' superfluus amor habendi divitias.'
Avarice might be committed in two ways — ^by
harbouring an undue desire of acquiring wealth,
or by an imdue reluctance to part with it — 'primo
autem superabundant in retinendo . . . secundo
ad avaritiam pertinet superabundare in accipi-
endo.' 2 These definitions are amplified in another
part of the same section. Tor in every action
that is directed to the attainment of some end
goodness consists in the observance of a certain
measure. The means to the end must be com-
mensurate with the end, as medicine with health.
But exterior goods have the character of things
needful to an end. Hence human goodness in
the matter of these goods must consist in the
observance of a certain measure, as is done by a
man seeking to have exterior riches in so far as
they are necessary to his life according to his
rank and condition. And therefore sin consists
in exceeding this measure and trying to acquire
or retain riches beyond the due hmit ; and this is
the proper nature of avarice, which is defined to
be an immoderate love of having.' ^ ' Avarice
may involve immoderation regarding exterior

^ Ryan, The Alleged SociaMsm of the Chwrch Faihers, p. 20, and see
Goyau, Le Pa/pe e( la Question Sociale, p. 79.
" n. ii. 118, 4. s /jj^j.^ ad. 1.

PROPERTY 75

things in two ways ; in one way immediately
as to the receiving or keeping of them when one
acquires or keeps beyond the due amoimt ; and
in this respect it is directly a sin against one's
neighbour, because in exterior things one man
cannot have superabxmdance without another
being in want, since temporal goods cannot be
simultaneously possessed by many. The other
way in which avarice may involve immoderation
is in interior afEection. . . .' These words must
not be taken to condemn the acquisition of large
fortunes by capitaUsts, which is very often neces-
sary in order that the natural resources of a
country may be properly exploited. One man's
possession of great wealth is at the present day
frequently the means of opening up new sources
of wealth and revenue to the entire community.
In other words, superabiindance is a relative term.
This, like many other passages of St. Thomas,
must be given a contemporanea expositio. ' There
were no capitalists in the thirteenth century, but
only hoarders.' ^

It must also be remembered that what would
be considered avarice in a man in one station of
Mfe would not be considered such in a man in
another. So long as one did not attempt to*'
acquire an amomit of wealth disproportionate to
the needs of one's station of life, one could not
be considered avaricious. Thus a common soldier
would be avaricious if he strove to obtain a
uniform of the quaUty worn by an officer, and a

1 Rickaby, Aguinaa Ethievs, vol. ji. p. 234.

76 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

simple cleric if he attempted to clothe himself in
a style only befitting a bishop.^
xf The avaricious man ofEended against liberahty
by caring too much about riches; the prodigal,
on the other hand, cared too httle about them, and
did not attach to them their proper value. ' In
affection while the prodigal faUs short, not taking
due care of them, in exterior behaviour it belongs
to the prodigal to exceed in giving, but to fail
in keeping or acquiring, while it belongs to the
miser to come short in giving, but to superabound
in getting and in keeping. Therefore it is clear
that prodigaUty is the opposite of covetousness.' ^
A man, however, might commit both sins at the
same time, by being unduly anxious to acquire
wealth which he distributed prodigally. ^ Prodi-
gality could always be distinguished from extreme
hberaUty by a consideration of the circumstances
of the particular case ; a truly Mberal man might
give away more than a prodigal in case of neces-
sity.* Prodigahty, though a sin, was a sin of a
less grievous kind than avarice.^

^ Aquinas, In Oral. Dom. Expos., iv. Ashley gives many quotations
fiom early English literature to show how fully the idea of status was
accepted {Economdo History, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 389). On the warfare
waged by the Church on luxury in the Middle Ages, see Baudrillard,
Histoire du Luxe privi et publique, vol. iii. pp. 630 et seq.

2 n. ii. 119, 1.

» Ibid., ad. 1. * Ibid., ad. 3.

' Ibid., art. 3. ' Per prodigalltatem intelligimus habitum quo quis
prseter vel contra dictamen rectae rationis circa peounias excedit in
datione vel consumptione vel oustodia ; et per iUiberaJitatem intelli-
gimus habitum quo quis contra dictamen rectae rationis deficit circa
pecunias in datione vel consumptione, vel superabundat in acceptione
vel custodia ipsarum ' (Buridan, Eth., iv. 3).

PROPERTY 77

In addition to the duties which were imposed
on the owners of property in all circumstances
there was a further duty which only arose on
special occasions, namely, magnificentia, or munifi- ^
cence. This virtue is discussed by Aquinas, ^
but we shall quote the passages of Buridan which
explain it, not because they depart in any way
from the teaching of Aquinas, but because they '
are clearer and more scientific. ' By mtmificence,-^
we understand a habit inchning one to the per-
formance of great works, or to the incurring of
great expenses, when, where, and in the manner
in which they are called for {fuerit opportunum),
for example, building a church, assembling great
armies for a threatened war, and giviag splendid
marriage feasts.' He explains that ' munificence
stands in the same relation to hberality as bravery
acquired by its exercise in danger of death in
battle does to bravery simply and commonly
understood.' Two vices stand opposed to muni-SK
ficentia: (1) parvificentia, 'a habit inclining one
not to undertake great works, when circum-
stances call for them, or to undertaking less, or
at less expense, than the needs of the situation
demand,' and (2) ^avova-Ca, ' a habit inclining one
to undertaking great works, which are not called
for by circumstances, or undertaking them on a
greater scale or at a greater expense than is
necessary.' ^

Both in the case of avarice and prodigahty the^
offending state of mind consisted in attaching
a wrong value to wealth, and the inculcation of
1 n. ii. 134. ^ Eth., iv, 7,

78 MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

the virtue of liberality must have been attended
with good results not alone to the souls of indi-
viduals, but to the economic condition of the
community. The avaricious man not only im-
perilled his own soul by attaching too much
iftiportanoe to temporal gain, but he also injured
the community by monopolising too large a share
of its wealth ; the prodigal man, in addition to
incurring the occasion of various sins of intemper-
ance, also impoverished the community by wast-
ing in reckless consumption wealth which might
have been devoted to productive or charitable
purposes. He who neglected the duty of munifi-
cence, either by refusing to make a great expendi-
ture when it was called for (parvificentia) or by
making one when it was unnecessary {^avovtria)
was also deemed to have done wrong, because in
the one case he valued his money too highly, and
in the other not highly enough. In other words,
he attached a wrong value to wealth. Nothing
could be further from the truth than the sug-
gestion that the schoolmen despised or behttled
temporal riches. Quite on the contrary, they
esteemed it a sin to conduct oneself in a manner
which showed a defective appreciation of their
value. ^ Riches may have been the occasion of
sin ; but so was poverty. ' The occasions of sin
are to be avoided,' says Aquinas, ' but poverty
is an occasion of evil, because theft, perjury, and
flattery are frequently brought about by it.

* ' Non videtur secundum humanam rationem esse boni et perfeoti
divitias abjicere totaliter, sed eis uti bene et refioiendo superfluaa
pauperibua subvenire et amicis ' (Buridan, Eth., iv. 3).

PROPERTY 79

Therefore poverty should not be voluntarily
undertaken, but rather avoided.' * Buridan says :
' There is no doubt that it is much more difficult
to be virtuous in a state of poverty than in one
of moderate affluence ; ' ^ and Antoninus of
Florence expresses the opinion that poverty is in
itself an evil thing, although out of it good may
come.^ Even the ambition to rise in the world
was laudable, because every one may rightfully
desire to place himself and his dependants in a
participation of the fiiUest human fehcity of which
man is capable, and to rid himself of the necessity
of corporal labour.* Avarice and prodigality
alike offended against Uberality, because they
tended to deprive the commimity of the maximum
benefit which it should derive from the wealth
with which it was endowed. Dr. Cunninghajn
may be quoted in support of this view. ' One of
the gravest defects of the Roman Empire lay in
the fact that its system left little scope for indi-
vidual aims, and tended to check the- energy of
capitalists and labourers alike. JBut Christian
teaching opened up an unending prospect before
the individual personally, and encouraged him to
activity and diligence by an eternal hope. Nor
did such concentration of thought on a hfe be-
yond the grave necessarily divert attention from
secular duties ; Christianity did not disparage
them, but set them in a new light, and brought
out new motives for taking them seriously. . . .
The acceptance of this higher view of the dignity

^ Sitmma amt. Oemt., ili. 131. * Eth., iv. 3.

* Swmma, iv. 12, 3. * Cajetan, Comm, on n. ii. 118, 1.

80 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

of human life as immortal was followed by a fuller
recognition of personal responsibility. Ancient
philosophy had seen that man is the master of
material things ; but Christianity introduced a
new sense of duty in regard to the manner of
using them. . . . Christian teachers were forced
to protest against any employment of wealth that
disregarded the glory of God and the good of
man.' ^ It was the opinion of Knies that the
peculiarly Christian virtues were of profound
ecoiiomic value. ' Temperance, thrift, and in-
dustry — ^that is to say, the s\m and rain of economic
activity — ^were recommended by the Church and
inculcated as Christian virtues ; idleness as the
mother of theft, gambling as the occasion of fraud,
were forbidden ; and gain for its own sake was
classed as a kind of robbery.' ^
If The great rule, then, with regard to the user of
property was liberahty. Closely aUied with the
duty of hberahty was the duty of almsgiving — ' an
act of charity through the medium of money.' ^
Almsgiving is not itself a part of liberality except
in so far as liberality removes an obstacle to
such acts, which may arise from excessive love
of riches, the result of which is that one clings
to them more than one ought. ^ Aquinas divides

^ Western Civilisation, vol. ii. pp. 8-9.

2 Politische Oehonomie vom Standpuncte der geschicMichen Mefhode,
p. 116, and see Bambaud, Histoire, p. 769; Champagny, La Bible
et TEccmomie poKHque ; Thomas Aquinas, Simima, n. ii. 50, 3 ; Sertil-
langes, Sociaiisme et Ohristianisme, p. 53. It was nevertheless recog-
nised and insisted on that wealth was not an end in itself, but merely
a means to an end (Aquinas, Summa, i. ii. 2^ 1).

' n. ii. 32, 1. « Ibid., ad. 4.

PROPERTY 81

alms-deeds into two kinds, spiritual and corporal,
the latter alone of which concern us here.
' Corporal need arises either during this hfe or
afterwards. If it occurs during this life, it is
either a common need in respect of things needed
by all, or is a special need occurring through some
accident supervening. In the first case the need
is either internal or external. Internal need is
twofold : one which is relieved by sohd food, viz.
hunger, in respect of which we have to feed the
hungry ; while the other is relieved by liquid
food, viz. thirst, in respect of which we have to
give drinJc to the thirsty. The common need with
regard to external help is twofold : one in respect
of clothing, and as to this we have to clothe the
naked ; while the other is in respect of a dweUing-
place, and as to this we have to harbour the harbour-
less. Again, if the need be special, it is either the
result of an internal cause like sickness, and then
we have to visit the sick, or it results from an
external cause, and then we have to ransom the
captive. After this life we give burial to the dead.'' '^
Aquinas then proceeds to explain in what cir-
cumstances the duty of almsgiving arises. ' Alms-
giving is a matter of precept. Since, however,
precepts are about acts of virtue, it follows that
aU almsgiving «iust be a matter of precept in so
far as it is necessary to virtue, namely, in so far
as it is demanded by right reason. Now right
reason demands that we should take into considera-
tion something on the part of the giver, and some-
thing on the part of the recipient. On the part

* n. ii. 32, art. 2.
F

82 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

of the giver it must be noted that he must give
of his surplus according to Luke xi. 4, " That
which remaineth give alms." This surplus is to be
taken in reference not only to the giver, but also
in reference to those of whom he has charge (in
which case we have the expression necessary to the
'person, taking the word person as expressive of
dignity). . . . On the part of the recipient it is
necessary that he should be in need, else there
would be no reason for giving him alms ; yet
since it is not possible for one individual to reheve
the needs of aU, we are not bound to reUeve aU
who are in need, but only those who could not be
succoured if we did not succour them. For in
such cases the words of Ambrose apply, " Feed him
that is dying of hunger ; if thou hast not fed him
thou hast slain him." Accordingly we are bound
to give alms of our surplus, as also to give alms to
one whose need is extreme ; otherwise almsgiving,
like any other greater good, is a matter of counsel.' ^
In replying to the objection that it is lawful for
every one to keep what is his own, St. Thomas
restates with enj^phasis the principle of community
of user : ' The temporal goods which are given
us by God are ours as to the ownership, but as
to the use of them they belong not to us alone, but
also to such others as we are able to succour out
of what we have over and above our needs.' ^
Albertus Magnus states this in very strong
words : ' For a man to give . out of his superflu-
ities is a mere act of justice, because he is rather
then steward of them for the poor than the

1 n. ii. 32, art. 6. « lUi., ad. 2.

PROPERTY 83

owner ; ' ^ and at an earlier date St. Peter Damian
had afl&rmed that ' he who gives to the poor re-
turns what he does not himself own, and does not
dispose of his owii goods.' He insists in the same
passage that almsgiving is not an act of mercy, but
of strict justice.^ In the reply to another objec-
tion the duty of almsgiving is stated by Aquinas
with additional vigour. ' There is a time when we
sin mortally if we omit to give alms — on the part
of the recipient when we see that his need is evi-
dent and urgent, and that he is not hkely to be
succoured otherwise — on the part of the giver
when he has superfluous goods, which he does not
need for the time being, so far as he can judge with
probabiMty.' ^

The next question which St. Thomas discusses
is whether one ought to give alms out of what one
needs. He distinguishes between two kinds of
' necessaries.' The first is that without which
existence is impossible^ out of which kind of
necessary things one is not boimd to give alms
save in exceptional cases, when, by doing so, one
would be helping a great personage or supporting
the Church or the State, since ' the common good
is to be preferred to one's own.' The second Idnd
of necessaries are those things without which a
man cannot live in keeping with his social station.
St. Thomas recommends the giving of alms out
of this part of one's estate, but points out that it
is only a matter of counsel, and not of precept,
and one must not give alms to such an extent as

* Jarrett, Medieval Socialism, p. 87.

2 Be Eleemosynis, cap. 1. " n. ii. 32, 5, ad. 3.

84 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

to impoverish oneself permanently. To this last
provision, however, there are three exceptions :
one, when a man is entering religion and giving
away aU his goods ; two, when he can easily
replace what he gives away ; and, three, when he
is in presence of great indigence on the part of an
individual, or great need on the part of the com-
mon weal. In these three cases it is praiseworthy
for a man to forgo the requisites of his station
in order to provide for a greater need.^

:- The mediaeval teaching on almsgiving is very
weU summarised by Fr, Jarrett,^ as foUows :
' (1) A man is obhged to help another in his extreme
need even at the risk of grave inconvenience to
himseH ; (2) a man is obliged to help another who,
though not in extreme need, is yet in considerable
distress, but not at the risk of grave inconvenience
to himself ; (3) a man is not obhged to help an-
other when necessity is sUght, even though the
risk to himself should be quite trifling.'

The importance of the duty of almsgiving
further appears from the section where Aquinas
lays down that the person to whom alms should
have been given may, if the owner of the goods
neglects his duty, repair the omission himself.

jfAll things. are common property in a case of
extreme necessity. Hence one who is in dire
straits may take another's goods in order to
succour himself if he can find no one who is willing
to give him something.' ^ The duty of using
one's goods for the benefit of one's neighbours

^ n. ii. 32, 6. ' Medieeval Socialism, p. 90.

» Ibid., art. 7 ad. 3.

PROPERTY 85

was a fit matter for enforcement by the State,
provided that the burdens imposed by legislation
were equitable. ' Laws are said to be just, both
from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to
the common good — and from their author, that
is to say, when the law that is made does not
exceed the power of the law-giver — and from their
form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the sub-
jects according to an equality of proportion and
with a view to the common good. For, since every
man is part of the community, each man in all
that he is and has belongs to the community :
just as a part in aU that it is belongs to the whole ;
wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part in order
to save the whole ; so that on this account such
laws, which impose proportionate burdens, are
just and binding in conscience.' ^

There can be no doubt that the practice of
the scholastic teaching of community of user, in
its proper sense, made for social stability. The
following passage from Trithemius, written at the
end of the fifteenth century, is interesting as
showing how consistently the doctrine of St.
Thomas was adhered to two hundred years after
his death, and also that the failure of the rich
to put into practice the moderate communism
of St. Thomas was the cause of the rise of the
heretical communists, who attacked the very
foundations of property itself : ' Let the rich
remember that their possessions have not been
entrusted to them in order that they may have
the sole enjoyment of them, but that they may

1 I. ii. 96, 4,

86 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

use and manage them as property belonging to
mankind at large. Let them remember that
when they give to the needy they only give them
what belongs to them. If the duty of right use
and management of property, whether worldly
or spiritual, is neglected, if the rich think that
they are the sole lords and masters of that which
they possess, and do not treat the needy as their
brethren, there must of necessity arise an inner
shattering of the commonwealth. False teachers
and deceivers of the people wiU then gain influ-
ence, as has happened in Bohemia, by preaching
to the people that earthly property should be
equally distributed among all, and that the rich
must be forcibly condemned to the division of
their wealth. Then follow lamentable conditions
and civil wars ; no property is spared ; no right
of ownership is any longer recognised ; and the
wealthy may then with justice complain of the
loss of possessions which have been unrighteously
taken from them ; but they should also seriously
ask themselves the question whether in the days
of peace and order they recognised in the adminis-
tration of these goods the right of their superior
lord and owner, namely, the God of aU the earth.' ^
It must not, however, be imagined for a moment
that the community of user advocated by the
scholastics had anything in common with the
communism recommended by modern Socialists.
As we have seen above, the scholastic communism
did not at aU apply to the procuring and dispens-
ing of material things, but only to the mode of

^ Quoted in Jaussen, op. eit, vol. ii. p. 91.

PROPERTY 87

using them. It is not even correct to say that
the property of an individual was limited by the
duty of using it for the common good. As
Kambaud puts it : ' Les devoirs de charite, d'6quite
naturelle, et de simple convenance sociale peuvent
affecter, ou mieux encore, commander un certain
usage de la richesse, mais ce n'est pas le meme
chose que limiter la propriete.' ^ The community
of user of the scholastics was distinguished from
that of modern SociaHsts not less strongly by the
motives which inspired it than by the effect it
produced. The former was dictated by high
spiritual aims, and the contempt of material goods ;
the latter is the fruit of over-attachment to mate-
rial goods, and the envy of their possessors.^

The large estates which the Church itseK owned
have frequently been pointed to as evidence of
hypocrisy in its attitude towards the common
user of property. This is not the place to inquire
into the condition of ecclesiastical estates in the
Middle Ages, but it is sufficient to say that they
were usually the centres of charity, and that in
the opinion of so impartial a writer as Roscher,
they rather tended to make the rules of using

^ Op. eit., p. 43. The same -writer shows that there is no authority
in Christian teaching for the proposition, advanced by many Christian
Socialists, that property is a * social function ' {Odd., p. 774). The
right of property even carried with it the jus abutendi, which, however,
did not mean the right to atmse, but the right to destroy by consump-
tion (see Antoine, Cours d'Economie sociale, p. 526).

^ Roscher, op. cit., p. 5 : ' Vom neuern Sooialismus freilich unter-
scheidet sich diese Auffassung nicht blosz durch ihre religiose Grundlage,
sondem auch durch ihre, jedem Mammonsdienst entgegengesetze,
Verachtung der materieEen Giiter,'

88 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

goods for the common use practicable than the
contrary.^

Section 3. — Pboperty rsr Humak Beings

Before we pass from the subject of property,
we must deal with a particular kind of property
right, namely, that of one human being over
another. At the present day the idea of one man
being owned by another is repugnant to aU en-
Hghtened pubhc opinion, but this general repug-
nance is of very recent growth, and did not exist
in mediseval Europe. In deahng with the schol-
astic attitude towards slavery, we shall indicate,
as we did with regard to its attitude towards
property in general, the fundamental harmony
between the teaching of the primitive and the
mediaeval Church on the subject. No apology is
needed for this apparent digression, as a com-
parison of the teaching of the Chxirch at the two
periods of its development helps us to understand
precisely what the later doctruie was ; and, more-
over, the close analogy which, as we shall see,
existed between the Church's view of property
and slavery, throws much hght on the true nature
of both institutions.

Although in practice Christianity had done a
very great deal to mitigate the hardships of the
slavery of ancient times, and had in a large degree
abohshed slavery by its encouragement of emanci-
pation,^ it did not, in theory, object to the institu-

^ Rosoher, op. cit., p. 6.

^ See Roscher, Political Economy, s. 73.

PROPEETY 89

tion itself. There is no necessity to labour a
point so universally admitted by all students of
the Gospels as that Christ and His Apostles did
not set out to abolish the slavery which they
found ever3rwhere around them, but rather aimed,
by preaching charity to the master and patience
to the slave, at the same time to lighten the
burden of servitude, and to render its acceptance
a merit rather than a disgrace. ' What, in fact,'
says Janet, ' is the teaching of St. Peter, St. Paul,
and the Apostles in general ? It is, in the first
place, that in Christ there are no slaves, and that
all men are free and equal ; and, in the second
place, that the slave must obey his master, and
the master must be gentle to his slave. ^ Thus,
although there are no slaves in Christ, St. Paul
and the Apostles do not deny that there may be
on earth. I am far from reproaching the Apostles
for not having proclaimed the immediate neces-
sity of the emancipation of slaves. But I say
that the question was discussed in precisely the
same terms by the ancient philosophers of the
same period. Seneca, it is true, proclaimed not
the civil, but the moral equality of men ; but
St. Paul does not speak of anything more than
their equality in Christ. Seneca instructs the
master to treat the slave as he would like to be
treated himself.^ Is not this what St. Peter and
St. Paul say when they recommended the master
to be gentle and good ? The superiority of
Christianity over Stoicisnj in this question arises
altogether from the very superiority of the

1 Eph., vi. 5, 6, 9. 2 Bp. ad Lac., 73.

90 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Christian spirit. . . .' ^ The article on ' Slavery '
in the Catholic Encyclopcedia expresses the same
opinion : ' Christian teachers, following the ex-
ample of St. Paul, impUcitly accept slavery as
not in itself incompatible with the Christian law.
The Apostle counsels slaves to obey their masters,
and to bear with their condition patiently. This
estimate of slavery continued to prevail until it
became fixed in the systematised ethical teach-
ing of the schools ; and so it remained without
any conspicuous modification until the end of
the eighteenth century.' The same interpretation
of early Christian teaching is accepted by the
Protestant scholar, Dr. Bartlett : ' The practical
attitude of Seneca and the early Christians to
slavery was much the same. They bade the indi-
vidual rise to a sense of spiritual freedom in spite
of outward bondage, rather than denounce the
institution as an altogether illegitimate form of
property.' ^

Several texts might be collected from the
writings of the Fathers which would seem to show
that according to patristic teaching the institu-
tion of slavery was unjustifiable. We do not
propose to cite or to explain these texts one by
one, in view of the quite clear and unambiguous
exposition of the subject given by St. Thomas

1 Janet, op. cit., p. 317.

" 'Biblical and Early Christian Idea of Property,' Property, Its
Duties and Rights (London, 1915), p. 110; JVanok, Bifmrmteurs et
Piiblicistes de V Europe : Moyen iJg'e— Renaissance, p. 87. On the whole
question by far the best authority is volume iii. of Wallon's Histoire
de VEsolavage dans VAntiguiti,

PROPERTY 91

Aquinas, whose teaching is the more immediate
subject of this essay ; we shall content ourselves
by reminding the reader of the precisely similar
texts relating to the institution of property which
we have examined above, and by stating that the
corresponding texts on the subject of slavery are
capable of an exactly similar interpretation. ' The
teaching of the Apostle,' says Janet, ' and of the
Fathers on slavery is the same as their teaching
on property.' ^ The author from whom we are
quoting, and on whose judgment too much
reUance cannot be placed, then proceeds to cite
many of the patristic texts on property, which we
quoted in the section dealing with that subject,
and asks : ' What conclusion should one draw
from these different passages ? It is that in
Christ there are no rich and no poor, no mine and
no thine ; that in Christian perfection all things
are common to all men, but that nevertheless
property is legitimate and derived from human
law. Is it not in the same sense that the Fathers
condemned slavery as contrary to divine law,
while respecting it as comformable to human law ?
The Fathers abound in texts contrary to slavery,
but have we not seen a great number of texts
contrary to property ? ' ^ The closeness of the
analogy between the patristic treatment of slavery
and of property appears forcibly in the following
passage of Lactantius : ' God who created man
wiUed that all should be equal. He has imposed
on aU the same condition of living ; He has pro-
duced aU in wisdom ; He has promised immortality

1 Op. cit., p. 318. '^ Ibid., p. 321.

92 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

to all ; no one is cut off from His heavenly benefits.
In His sight no one is a slave, no one a master ; for
if we have aU the same Father, by an equal right
we are all His children; no one is poor in the
sight of God but he who is without justice, no
one rich but he who is full of virtue. . . . Some
one wiU say. Are there not among you some
poor and others rich ; some servants and others
masters ? Is there not some difference between
individuals ? There is none, nor is there any other
cause why we mutually bestow on each other the
name of brethren except that we beUeve ourselves
to be equal. For since we measure all human
things not by the body but by the spirit, although
the condition of bodies is different, yet we have
no servants, but we both regard them, and speak
of them as brothers in spirit, in religion as fellow-
servants.' ^ Slavery was declared to be a blessing,
because, like poverty, it afforded the opportunity
of practising the virtues of humiUty and patience. ^
The treatment of the institution of slavery
underwent a striking and important development
in the hands of St. Augustine, who justified it as
one of the penalties incurred by man as a result
of the sin of Adam and Eve. ' The first holy
men,' writes the Saint, ' were rather shepherds
than kings, God showing herein what both the
order of the creation desired, and what the deserts
of sin exacted. For justly was the burden of
servitude laid upon the back of transgression.
And therefore in all the Scriptures we never read

1 Div. Inst., V. 15-16.

a Chiyet., Qenes., serm. V. i. ; Ep. ad Cor., horn. xis. 4.

PROPERTY 93

the word servus until Noah laid it as a curse upon
his offending son. So that it was guilt, and not
nature, that gave origin to that name. . . . Sin is
the mother of servitude and the first cause of
man's subjection to man.' ^ St. Augustine also
justifies the enslavement of those conquered in
war — ' It is God's decree to humble the conquered,
either reforming their sins herein or punishing
them.' ^

Janet ably analyses and expounds the advance
which St. Augustine made in the treatment of
slavery : ' In this theory we must note the
following points: (1) Slavery is unjust according
to the law of nature. This is what is contrary
to the teaching of Aristotle, but conformable to
that of the Stoics. (2) Slavery is just as a conse-
quence of sin. This is the new principle pecuUar
to St. Augustine. He has found a principle of
slavery, which is neither natural inequality, nor
war, nor agreement, but sin. Slavery is no more
a transitory fact which we accept provisionally,
so as not to precipitate a social revolution : it is
an institution which has become natural as a result
of the corruption of our nature. (3) It must not
be said that slavery, resulting from sin, is de-
stroyed by Christ who destroyed sin. . . . Slavery,
according to St. Augustine, must last as long as
society.' ^

Nowhere does St. Thomas Aquinas appear as
clearly as the medium of contact and reconciUation
between the Fathers of the Church and the ancient

1 De Giv. Dei, xix. 14-15. ^ lUd.

* Janet, op, ciU, p. 302.

94 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

philosophers as in his treatment of the question
of slavery. His utterances upon this subject are
scattered through many portions of his work, but,
taken together, they show that he was quite pre-
pared to admit the legitimacy of the institution,
not alone on the grounds put forward by St.
Augustine, but also on those suggested by Aristotle
and the Roman jurists.

•He fully adopts the Augustinian argument in
the Summa, where, in answer to the query,
whether in the state of innocence aU men were
equal, he states that even in that state there
would still have been inequalities of sex, know-
ledge, justice, etc. The only inequahties which
woiild not have been present were those arising
from sin ; but the only inequality arising from sin
was slavery.^ ' By the words " So long as we are
without sin we are equal," Gregory means to
exclude such inequahty as exists between virtue
and vice ; the result of which is that some are
placed in subjection to others as a penalty.' ^
In the following article St. Thomas distinguishes
between political and despotic subordination, and
shows that the former might have existed in a
state of innocence. ' Mastership has a twofold
meaning ; first as opposed to servitude, in which
case a master means one to whom another is
subject as a slave. In another sense mastership
is commonly referred to any kind of subject ; and
in that sense even he who has the office of govern-
ing and directing free men can be called a master.
In the first meaning of mastership man would not

1 i. 96, 3. ^ Ibid., ad. 1.

PROPERTY 95

have been ruled by man in the state of innocence ;
but in the latter sense man would be ruled over by-
man in that state.' ^ In De Regimine Princijmm
Aquinas also accepts what we may call the Augus-
tinian view of slavery. * But whether the dominion
of man over man is according to the law of nature,
or is permitted or provided by God may be
certainly resolved. If we speak of dominion by
means of servile subjection, this was introduced
because of sin. But if we speak of dominion in
so far as it relates to the function of advising and
directing, it may in this sense be said to be
natural.' ^

St. Thomas was therefore willing to endorse
the argument of St. Augustine that slavery was
a result of sin; but he also admits the justice
of Aristotle's reasoning on the subject. In the
section of the Summa where the question is dis-
cussed, whether the law of nations is the same as
the natural law, one of the objections to be met
is that ' Slavery among men is natural, for some
are naturally slaves according to the philosopher.
Now " slavery belongs to the law of nations," as
Isidore states. Therefore the right of nations is
a natural right,' ^ In answer to this objection St.
Thomas draws the distinction between what ' is
natural absolutely, and what is natural secundum
quid, the passage which we have quoted in
treating of property rights.* He then goes on to

1 i. 96, 4.

* De Beg. Prin., iii. 9. This is one of the chapters the authorship
of which is disputed,

» n. ii. 57, 3. * Supra, p. 64.

96 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

apply this distinction to the case of slavery. ' Con-
sidered absolutely, the fact that this particular
man should be a slave rather than another man, is
based, not on natural reason, but on some result-
ant utility, in that it is useful to this man to be
ruled by a wise man, and to the latter to be helped
by the former, as the philosopher states. Where-
fore slavery which belongs to the law of nations
is natural in the second way, but not in the first.' ^
It wiU be noted from this passage that St. Thomas
partly admits, though not entirely, the opinion
of Aristotle. In the De Begimine Principum he
goes much further in the direction of adopting
the fuU Aristotelian theory : ' Nature decrees
that there should be grades in men as in other
things. We see this in the elements, a superior
and an inferior ; we see in every mixture that
some one element predominates. . . . For we
see this also in the relation of the body and the
mind, and in the powers of the mind compared
with one another ; because some are ordained
towards ordering and moving, such as the under-
standing and the will ; others to serving. So
should it be among men ; and thus it is proved
that some are slaves according to nature. Some
lack reason through some defect of nature ; and
such ought to be subjected to servile works
because they cannot use their reason, and this
is called the natural law.' ^ In the same chapter
the right of conquerors to enslave their conquered
is referred to without comment, and therefore
impMcitly approved by the author.

» n. ii. 67, ad, 2. « De Reg. Prin., ii. 10.

PROPERTY 97

' Thus,' according to Janet, ' St. Thomas admits
slavery as far as one can admit it, and for all the
reasons for which one can admit it. He admits
with Aristotle that there is a natural slavery ;
with St. Augustine that slavery is the result of
sin ; with the jurisconsult that slavery is the
result of war and convention.' ^ ' The author
justifies slavery,' says Franck, 'in the name of
St. Augustine, and in that of Aristotle ; in the name
of the latter by showing that there are two races
of men, one bom to command, and the other to
obey ; in the name of the former in affirming that
slavery had its origin in original sin ; that by sin
man has forfeited his right to Uberty. Further,
we must admit slavery as an institution not only
of nature and one of the consequences of the
fall, we must admit a third principle of slavery
which appears to St. Thomas as legitimate as the
other two. War is necessary ; therefore it is
just ; and if it is just we must accept its conse-
quences. One of these consequences is the abso-
lute right of the conqueror over the life, person,
and goods of the conquered.' ^

Aquinas returns to the question of slavery in
another passage, ts^hich is interesting as showing
that he continued to make use of the analogy
between slavery and property which we have
seen in the Fathers. ' A thing is said to belong
to the natural law in two ways. First, because
nature incHnes thereto, e.g. that one should not do
harm to another. Secondly, because nature did
not bring in the contrary ; thus we might say that

1 Op. cit., vol. i. p. 431. * Franck, <yp cit., p. 69.

G

98 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

for man to be naked is of the natural law because
nature did not give him clothes, but art invented
them. In this sense the possession of aU things
in common and universal freedom is said to be of
the natural law, because, to wit, the distinction of
possession and slavery were not brought in by
nature, but devised by human reason for the
benefit of human life. Accordingly, the law of
nature was not changed in this respect, but by
addition.' ^

iEgidius Romanus closely foUows the teaching
of his master on the subject of slavery. ' What
does ^gidius do ? He unites Aristotle and St.
Augustine against human liberty. He declares
with the latter that man has lost the right of
belonging to himself, since he has fallen from the
primitive order estabhshed by God Himself in
nature. He admits with Aristotle the existence
of two races of men, the one designed for liberty,
the other for servitude. . . . This is not all — ^to
this servitude which he calls natural, the author
joins another, purely legal, but which does not
seem to him less just, namely, that which is
foimded on the right of war, and which obliges
the conquered to become the slaves of the con-
querors — to give up their hberty in exchange for
their Uves. Our author admits it is just in itself,
because in his opinion it is useful to the defence
of one's country ; it excites warriors to courage
by plgicing before their eyes the terrible conse-
quences of cowardice.' ^ The teachings of St.
Thomas and iEgidius were accepted by all the

1 I. ii. 94, 6, ad. 3. " Pranok, op cit., p. 90.

PROPEETY 99

later scholastics.^ Biel, whose opinion is always
very valuable as being that of the last of a long
line, says that there are three kinds of slaves —
slaves of God, of sin, and of man. The first kind
of slavery is wholly good, the second wholly bad,
while the third, though not instituted by, is
approved by the jus gentium. He proceeds to
state the four ways in which a man may become
enslaved : namely, ex necessitate, or by being bom
of a slave mother ; ex hello, by being captured in
war ; ex delicto, or by sentence of the law in the
case of certain crimes committed by freedmen; and
ex pro'pria voluntate, or by the sale of a man of
himself into slavery.^

It must not be forgotten that we are dealing
purely with theory. In fact the Church did an
inestimable amount of good to the servile classes,
and, at the time that Aquinas wrote, thanks to
the operation of Christianity in this respect, the
old Roman slavery had completely disappeared.
The nearest approach to ancient slavery in the
Middle Ages was serfdom, which was simply a
step in the transition from slavery to free labour.^
Moreover, the rights of the master over the slave
were strictly confined to the disposal of his ser-
vices ; the ancient absolute right over his body
had completely disappeared. ' In those things,'
says St. Thomas, 'which appertain to the dis-
position of human acts and things, the subject is

1 Franck, op. eif., p. 91.

2 Biel, Invenfarium seu Bepertorivm g&mrale simper quabuor Ubroa
SmUntiwum, TV. xv. 1 ; and see Carletus, Summa AngeUca, q. ooxii.

8 WaUon, op. cit., vol. iii. p. 93 ; Brants, op. cit, p. 87.

100 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

bound to obey his superior according to the reason
of the superiority ; thus a soldier must obey his
officer in those things which appertain to war ;
a slave his master in those things which apper-
tain to the carrying out of his servile works.' ^

v„' Slavery does not abohsh the natural equaUty of
man,' says a writer who is quoted by the Catholic
Encydopcedia as correctly stating the Cathohc
doctrine on the subject prior to the eighteenth
centiiry, ' hence by slavery one man is understood
to become subject to the dominion of another to
the extent that the master has a perfect right to
the services which one man may justly perform
for another.' ^ Biel, who lays down the justice of
slavery so unambiguously, is no less clear in his
statement of the hmitations of the right. ' The
body of the slave is not simply in the power of the
master as the body of an ox is ; nor can the
master kill or mutilate the slave, nor abuse him

' contrary to the law of God. The temporal gains
derived from the labour of the slave belong to
the master ; but the master is bound to provide
the slave with the necessaries of hfe.' ^ Rambaud
very properly points out that the reason that the
scholastic writers did not fulminate in as strong
and as frequent language against the tyranny of
masters, was not that they felt less strongly on
the subject, but that the abuses of the ancient
slave system had almost entirely disappeared
under the influence of Christian teaching.*

On the other hand, it must not be imagined, as

1 n. ii. 104, 6. 2 Gerdil., Comp. Inst. Civ. I., vii.

' Biel, 023. cit., iv. xv. 5. * Op. cit., p. 83.

PROPERTY 101

has sometimes been suggested, that the slavery
defended by Aquinas was not real slavery, but
rather the ordinary modern relation between
employer and employed. Such an interpreta-
tion is definitely disproved by a passage of the
article on justice where Aquinas says that ' induc-
ing a slave to leave his master is properly an
injury against the person . . . and, since the
slave is his master's chattel, it is referred to
theft.' 1

^ n. ii. 61, 3. Brants, op. cit, pp. 87 et siq., is inclined to take a more
liberal view of the scholastic doctrine on slavery, but we cannot agree
with him in view of the contemporary texts.

CHAPTER III

DUTIES REGARDING THE EXCHANGE OF
PROPERTY

Section 1. — ^The Sale of Goods

§ 1. The Just Price

We dealt in the last chapter with the duties
which attached to property in respect of its
acquisition and use, and we now pass to the
duties which attached to it in respect of its ex-
change. As we indicated above, the right to
jBXchange one's goods for the goods or the money
of another person was, according to the scholastics,
one of the necessary corollaries of the right of
private property. In order that such exchange
might be justifiable, it must be conducted on a
basis of commutative justice, which, as we have
seen, consisted in the observance of equality
according to the arithmetical mean. We further
'drew attention to the fact that exchanges might be
divided into sales of goods and sales of the use of
money. In the former case the regulating principle
of the equahty of justice was given effect to by the
observance of the just price ; in the latter by that
of the 'prohibition of usury. We shall deal with

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 103

the former in the present and with the latter in
the following section.

The mediaeval teaching on the just price,
about which there has been so much discussion
and disagreement among modern writers, was
simply the application to the particular contract
of sale of the principles which regulated contracts
in general. Exchange originally took the form
of barter ; but, as it was found impossible ac-
curately to measure the values of the objects
exchanged without the intervention of some
common measure of value, money was invented
to serve as such a measure. We need not further
refer to barter in this section, as the principles
which apphed to it were those that applied to
sale. Indeed all sales when analysed are reaUy
barter through the medium of money. That
Aquinas simply regarded his article on just price ^
as an explanation of the appHcation of his general
teaching on justice to the particular case of the
contract of sale is quite clear from the article
itself. 'Apart from fraud, we may speak of
buying and selling in two ways. First, as con-
sidered in themselves ; and from this point of view
buying and selling seem to be estabhshed for the
common advantage of both parties, one of whom
requires that which belongs to the other, and
vice versa. Now whatever is established for the
common advantage should not be more of a
burden to one part than to the other, and conse-
quently aU contracts between them should observe
equahty of thing and thing. Again, the quality

1 n. ii. 77, 1.

1

104 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

of a tiling that comes into human use is measured
by the price given for it, for which purpose money-
was invented. Therefore, if either the price exceed
the quantity of the thing's worth, or conversely
the worth of the thing exceed the price, there is
no longer the equahty of justice ; and conse-
^ quently to sell a thiag for more than its worth, or
to buy it for less than its worth, is in itself unjust
and imlawful.' ^ When two contracting parties
make an exchange through the medium of money,
the price is the expression of the exchange value in
money. ' The just price expresses the equiva-
lence, which is the foundation of contractual
justice.' 2

The conception of the just price, though based
on Aristotelian conceptions of justice, is essentially
CSu-istian. The Roman law had allowed the
utmost freedom of contract in sales ; apart from
fraud, the two contracting parties were at com-
plete hberty to fix a price at their own risk ; and
selfishness was assumed and allowed to be the
animating motive of every contracting party.
The one Hmitation to this sweeping rule was in
favour of the seller. By a rescript of Diocletian

^ This opinion was accepted by all the later writers, e.g. Gerson,
De ConU, ii. 6 ; Biel, op. cit., rv. xv. 10 : 'Si pretium exoedit quanti-
tatem valoris rei, vel e converso tolleretur equalitas, erit contractus
iniquus.'

^ Desbuqudis, ' La Justice dans I'Echange,' Semaine Sociaie de
France, 1911, p. 167. Gerson says : ' Contractus species est justitiae
oommutativae quae respioit aequalitatem rei quae venditur ad rem
quae emitur, ut servetur aequalitas justi pretii ; propter quam aequali-
tatem faciUus observandum iuventa est moneta, yel numisma, vel
peounia,' De Cont, H. 6.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 105

and Maximian it was enacted that, if a thing were
sold for less than half its value, the seller could
recover the property, unless the buyer chose to
make up the price to the fuU amount. Although
this rescript was perfectly general in its terms,
some authors contended that it applied only to
sales of land, because the example given was
the sale of a farm.^ However, the rescript was
quoted by the Fathers as showing that even the
Roman law considered that contracts might be
questioned on equitable grounds in certain cases. ^
The distinctively Christian notion of just price
seems to have its origin in a passage of St. Augus-
tine ; ^ but the notion was not placed on a philo-
sophical foundation until the thirteenth century.
Even Aquinas, however, although he treats of the
just price at some length, and expresses clear
and categorical opinions upon many points con-
nected with it, does not state the principles on
which the just price itself should be arrived at.
This omission is due, not to the fact that Aquinas
was unfamiliar with these principles, but to the
fact that he took them for granted as they were
not disputed or doubted.^ We have conse-
quently to look for enlightenment upon this point
in writings other than those of Aquinas. The
subject can be most satisfactorily understood if

^ Hunter, Soman Law, p. 492.

2 Ashley, op. eit, p. 133.

' ' Soio ipse hominem quum venalis codex ei fuisset oblatus, pretiique
-ejus ignarum ideo quiddam exiguum poscentem cemeret venditorem,
justum pretium, quod multo ampUus erat nee opinanti dedisse ' (De
Trin., xiii. 3).

* Palgrave, Diotionary of Political Economy, tit. ' Justum Pretium.'

106 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

we divide its treatment into two parts: first, a
consideration of what constituted the just price
in the sale of an article, the price of which was
fixed by law ; and second, a consideration of what
constituted the just price of an article, the price of
which was not so fixed.

§ 2. The Just Price when Price fixed by Law

Regarding the power of the State to fix prices,
the theologians and jurists were in complete
_jt- agreement. According to Gterson : ' The law may
justly fix the price of things which are sold, both
movable and immovable, in the nature of rents
and not in the nature of rents, and feudal and
non-feudal, below which price the seller must
not give, or above which the Ijuyer must not
demand, however they may desire to do so. As
therefore the price is a kind of measure of the
equality to be observed in contracts, and as it is
sometimes difficult to find that measure with
exactitude, on account of the varied and corrupt
desires of man, it becomes expedient that the
medium should be fixed according to the judg-
ment of some wise man. ... In the civil state,
however, nobody is to be decreed wiser than the
lawgiving authority. Therefore it behoves the
latter, whenever it is possible to do so, to fix the
just price, which may not be exceeded by private
consent, and which must be enforced.' . . . ^
Biel practically paraphrases this passage of Ger-
son, and contends that it is the duty of the prince

1 De Gont., i. 19.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 107

to fix prices, mainly on account of the difficulty
which private contractors find in doing so.^

The rules which we find laid down for the
guidance of the prince in fixing prices are very
interesting, as they show that the mediaeval
writers had a clear idea of the constituent elements
of value. Langenstein, whose famous work on
contracts was considered of high authority by
later writers, says that the prince should take
account of the condition of the place for which
the price was to be fixed, the circumstances of
the time, the condition of the mass of the people.
The different kinds of need which may be felt for
goods must also be considered, indigentice naturce,
sixitus, voluptatis, and cwpiditatis ; and a dis-
tinction drawn between extensive and intensive
need — ^the former is greater ' quanto plures re
ahqua indigent,' the latter 'quanto minus de
iUa re habetur.' The general rule is that the-
prince must seek to find a medium between
a price so low as to render labourers, artisans,
and merchants unable to maintain themselves
suitably, and one so high as to disable the poor
from obtaining the necessaries of life. When
in doubt, Langenstein concludes, the price should
err on the low rather than the high side.^ Biel
gives similar rules : The legislator must regard the
needs of man, the abundance or scarcity of things,
the difficulty, labour, and risks of production.
When all these things are carefully considered
the legislator is in a position to fix a just price.^

^ Op. dt., IV. XV. 11. 2 Boscher, GeachichU, p. 19.

= Op. dt,, IV. XV. 10.

108 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

4^ccording to Endemaim, the labour of production,
the cost and risk of transport, and the condition
of the markets had all to be kept in mind when a
fair price was being fixed. ^ We may mention in
passing that the power of fixing the just price
might be delegated ; prices were frequently fixed
by the town authorities, the guilds, and the
Church. 2

The passage from Gerson which we quoted above
shows that, when a just price had been fixed by
the competent authority, the parties to a contract
were bound to keep to it. In other words, the
pretium legitimum was ipso facto the justum
pretium. On this point there is complete agree-
ment among the writers of the period. CaepoUa

( says, ' When the price is fixed by law or statute,
that is the just price, and nobody can receive
anything, however small, in excess of it, because
the law must be observed ' ; ^ and Biel, ' When a
price has been fixed, the contracting parties have
sufficient certainty about the equality of value
and the justice of the price.' * Cossa draws
attention to the necessity of the fixed price corre-
sponding with the real price in order that it should
maintain its validity. ' The schoolmen talk of
the legitimate and irreducible price of a thing
which was fixed by authority, and was for obvious
reasons of special importance in the case of the

1 necessaries of life. . . . The legitimate price of a

1 Studien, vol. ii. p. 43.

^ Endemann, Studien, vol. i. p. 40 ; Koscher, Political Economy,
s. 114.
' Be Contractibua Sirmdatia, 69. * Op. cit, iv. xv. 10.

THE EXCHANGE OP PEOPERTY 109

thing as fixed by authority had to be based upon
the natural price, and therefore lost its validity
and became a dead letter the moment any change
of circumstances made it unfair.' ^

§ 3. The Just Price when Price not fixed by Law

When the just price was not fixed by any out-
side authority, the buyer and seller had to arrive
at it themselves. The problem before them was
to equalise their respective burdens, so that there
would be equality of burden between them, or,
in other words, to reduce the value of the article
sold to terms of money. In order that we may
understand how this equaUty was arrived at, it is
important to kaow the factors which were held
to enter into the determination of value.

The first thing upon which the mediaeval
teachers insist is that value is not determined by
the intrinsic excellence of the thing itseK, because,
if it were, a fly would be more valuable than a
pearl, as beiag intrinsically more excellent.^ Nor
is the value to be measured by the mere utility
of the object for satisfying the material needs of
man, for in that case, corn should be worth more
than precious stones.^ The value of an object
is to be measured by its capacity for satisfying
men's wants. ' Valor rerum aestimatur secundum

1 Of. eit., p. 143.

" ' In justitia commutativa non estimatur pretium commutabilium
Becundum naturalem valorem ipsorum, sic enim musoa plus valeret
quam totus aurum mundi ' (Buridan, op. cit, x. 14).

* Slater, ' Value in Theology and Political Economy,' Irish Ecclesi-
astical Record, Sept. 1901,

no MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

humanam indigentiam. . . . Dicendum est quod
indigentia humana est mensura naturalis com-
mutabilium ; quod probatur sic : bonitas sive
valor rei attenditur ex fine propter quern exhi-
betur : unde commentator secundo Metapby-
sicae nihil est honum nisi 'propter causas finales ;
sed finis naturalis ad quern justitia commutativa
ordinet exteriora commutabiMa est supplementum
indigentiae humanae . . . ; igitur supplementum
indigentiae humanae est vera mensura com-
mutabiUum. Sed supplementum videtuj- men-
surari per indigentiam ; majoris enim valoris est
supplementum quod majorem supplet indigentiam.
, . . Item hoc probatur signo, quia videmus quod
illo tempore quo viaa deficiunt quia magis indi-
geremus eis ipsa fiunt cariora. . . .^
V The capacity of an object for satisfying man's
needs could not be measured by its capacity for
satisfying the needs of this or that individual,
but by its capacity for satisfying the needs of the
average member of the community.^ The Abbe
Desbuquois, in the article from which we have
already quoted, finds in this elevation of the
common estimation an illustration of the general
principle of the medisfevals, which we have seen
at work in their teaching on the use of property,

1 Biiridan, op. cit, v. 14 and 16. Antoninus of Morence says that
value is determined by three factors, virtuositas, rwritas, and placi-
bilitas {Svmma, ii. 1, 16.)

> ' Indigentia istius horuinis vel iUius non mensurat valorem com-
mutabiUum ; sed indigentia communis eorum qui inter se commutare
possunt,' Buiidan, op. cit., v. 16. ' Prout commxmiter venditur
in foro,' Henri de Gand, Quod Lib., xiv. 14; Nider, De CotU.
Merc.fii. 1.

THE EXCHAl^GE OF PROPERTY HI

that the individual benefit must always be sub-
ordinated to the general welfare. According to
him, it is but one appUcation of the duty of using
one's goods for the common good. ' In the same
way, in allowing the right of exchange — a, right,
let us remark in passing, which is but an apphca-
tion of the right of property — and in allowing it
as a means of life necessary to everybody, nature
does not lose sight of the universal destination
of economic goods. One conceives then that the
variations of exchange are not permitted to be
left to the arbitrary judgment of a single man, nor
to be afEected by the whims and abuses of indi-
viduals ; that value is defined in view of the
general good. The exchange value, as it is in the
general or social order, proceeds from the judg-
ment of thB social environment {milieu social).' ^
The writers of the Middle Ages show a very
keen perception of the elements which invest an
object with the value which is accorded to it by
the general estimation. In Aquinas we find
certain elements recognised — 'diversitas loci vel
temporis, labor, raritas' — ^but it is not until the
authors of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
that we find a systematic treatment of value. ^
First and foremost there is the cost of productionr
of the article, especially the wages of all those
who helped to produce it. Langenstein lays down
that every one can determine for himself the just
price of the wares he has to sell by reckoning what
he needs to support himself in the status which

1 'La Justice dans I'Eohange,' Semaine Sociah de France, 1911,
p. 168. ' Brants, op. dt., p. 69.

112 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

he occupies.^ According to the Catholic Encych-
pcedia,^ the just price of an article included enough
to pay fair wages to the worker — that is, enough to
enable him to maintain the standard of living of
his class. This, though not stated in so many
words by Aquinas, was probably assumed by him
as too obvious to need repetition.^ 'The cost
of production of manufactured products,' says
Brants, ' is a legitimate constituent element of
value ; it is according to the cost that the pro-
ducer can properly fix the value of his product
and of his work.' *

The cost of the labour of production was,
however, by no means the only factor which was
admitted to enter into the determination of value.
The passage from Gerson dealing with the cir-
cumstances to which the prince must have regard
in fixing a price, which we quoted above, shows
quite clearly that many other factors were
recognised as no less important. This appears
with special clearness in the treatise of Langeil-
stein, whose authority on this subject was always
ranked very high. Bernardine of Siena is careful
to point out that the expense of production is only
one of the factors which influence the value of an
object.^ Biel explains that, when no price has
been fixed by law, the just price may be arrived

1 De Comt., quoted by Boscher, QescMchte, p. 20.

^ Tit. ' Political Economy.'

' Palgrave, Dietionary, tit. ' Justum Pretium.'

* Brants, op. ctfc, p. 202.

• ' Res potest plus vel minus valere taribus modis ; primo secundum
suam virtutem ; secondo modo secundum suam caritatem ; tertio modo
secundum suam placibilitatem et affeotionem. . . . Primo observat

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 113

at by a reference to the cost of the labour of pro- .^
duction, and to the state of the market, and the
other circumstances which we have seen above
the prince was bound to have regard to in fixing
a price. He also allows the price to be raised on
accoimt of any anxiety which the production of
the goods occasioned him, or any danger he
incurred.^

It wiU be apparent from the whole trend of
the above that, whereas the remuneration of the
labour of all those who were engaged in the pro-
duction of an article, was one of the elements to
be taken into account in reckoning its value, and
consequently its just price, it was by no means the
only element. Certain. so-caUed Christian socialists
have endeavoured to find in the writings of the
scholastics support for the Marxian position that
all value arises from labour.^ This endeavour is,
however, destined to failure ; we shall see in a
later chapter that many forms of unearned
income were tolerated and approved by the
scholastics ; but all that is necessary here is to
draw the attention of the reader to the passages
on value to which we have referred. One of the
most prominent exponents of the untenable view
that the medisevals traced aU value to labour is

quemdam naturalem ordineiii utilium rerum, secundo observat quem-
dam oommunem cursum copiae et inopiae, tertio observat perioulum
et industriam rerum sen obaeqiiiomm ' (Funk, Zins und Wudier, p. 153).

''■ ' Sollicitudo et periculum,' op. cit., iv. xv. 10.

^ Even Ashley states that ' the doctrine had thus a close resemblance
to that of modern Socialists ; labour it regarded both as the sole
(human) cause of wealth, and also as the only just claim to the posses-
sion of wealth ' (oy. cit., vol. i. part ii. p. 393).

H

114 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

the Abbe Hohoff, whose argument that there was
a divorce between value and just price in the
scholastic writings, is ably controverted by Ram-
baud, who remarks that nobody would have been
more surprised than Aquinas himself at the stig-
gestion that he was the forerunner of Karl Marjc.^
The idea that the scholastics traced aU value to
the labour expended on production is rejected by
many of the most prominent writers on medi-
aeval economic theory. Roscher draws particular
attention to the fact that the canonist teaching
assigned the correct proportions in production to
land, capital, and labour, in contrast to aU the
later schools of economists, who have exaggerated
the importance of one or the other of these factors.^
Even Knies, who was the first modern writer to
insist on the importance of the cost of production
as an element of value, states that the Church
sought to fix the price of goods in accordance
with the cost of production (Herstellungskosten)
and the consumption value {Gebraiwhswerte).^
Brants takes the same view. ' The expenses of
production are iq practice the norm of the fixing
of the sale price in the great majority of cases,
above all in a very narrow market, where com-
petition is hmited ; moreover, they can, for reasons
of pubhc order, form the basis of a fixing that wOl
protect the producer and the consumer against the
disastrous consequences of constant oscHlations.
The vendor can in principle be remunerated for his

^ Op. cit., p. 50. * Political Economy, s. 48.

' Politische Oekonomie vom Siandfuncte der geschidiUichen Methode,
p. 116.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 115

trouble. It is well that he should be so remuner-
ated ; it is socially useM, and is used as a basis
for fixing price ; but it cannot in. any way be said
that this forms the objective measure of value, but
that the work and expense are a sufficient title
of remuneration for the fixing of the just price of
the sale of a thing. Some writers have tried to
conclude from this that the authors of the Middle
Ages saw in labour the measure of value. This
conclusion is exaggerated. We may fxiUy admit
that this element enters into the sale price ; but
it is in no way the general measure of value. . . .
The expenses of production constitute, then, one
of the legitimate elements of just price ; they are
not the measure of value, but a factor often taflu-
encing its determination.' ^ ' Labour,' according
to Dr. Cronia, ' is one of the most important of
aU the determinants of value, for labour is the
chief element in cost of production, and cost of
production is one of the chief elements ia deter-
miaing the level at which it is useful to buy or sell.
But labour is not the only determinant of value ;
there is, e.g., the price of the raw materials, a price
that is not wholly determined by the labour of
producing those materials.' ^

The just price, then, in the absence of a legal
fixing, was held to be the price that was in accord-
ance with the communis estimatio. Of course,
this did not mean that a plebiscite had to be taken
before every sale, but that any price that was in
accordance with the general course of deahng at
the time and place of the sale was considered

1 Op. cit, p. 112. ' Ethics, vol. ii. p. 181.

116 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

substantially fair. ' A thing is worth what it
can generally be sold for — at the time of the
contract ; this means what it can be sold for
generally either on that day or the preceding or
following day. One must look to the price at
which similar things are generally sold in the open
market.' ^ ' We must state precisely,' says the
Abbe Desbuquois, ' the character of this common
estimation ; it did not mean the universal
suffrage ; although it expresses the universal
interest, it proceeds in practice from the evalua-
tion of competent men, taken in the social en-
vironment where the exchange value operates.
If one supposes a sovereign tribunal of arbitration
where all the rights of aU the weak and all the
strong economic factors are taken mto accoimt,
the just price appears as the sentence or decision
of this court.' ^ ' For the scholastics, the com-
mon estimation meant an ethical judgment of at
least the most influential members of the com-
munity, anticipating the markets and fixing the
rate of exchange.' ^

It is quite incorrect to say, as has been some-
times said, that the mediaeval just price was in
no way different from the competition price of
to-day which is arrived at by the higgling of the
market. Dr. Cunningham is very exphcit and
clear on this point. ' Common estimation is thus
the exponent of the natural or normal or just
price according to either the mediaeval or modern
view ; but, whereas we rely on the higgling of the

1 Caepolla, De, Cont. Sim., 72. * Op. eit, pp. 169-7(X

' Fr. Kelleber in the Irish Theological Quarterly, vol. xi. p. 133.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 117

market as the means of bringing out what is the
common estimate of any object, mediseval eco-
nomists beheved that it was possible to bring
common estimation into operation beforehand,
and by the consultation of experts to calctilate
out what was the just price. If common esti-
mation was thus organised, either by the town
authorities or guilds or parliament, it was possible
to determine beforehand what the price should be
and to lay down a rule to this effect ; in modem
times we can only look back on the competition
prices and say by reflection what the common
estimation has been.' ^ ' The common estima-
tion of which the Canonists spoke,' says Dr.
Ryan, ' was conscious social judgment that fixed
price beforehand, and was expressed chiefly in
custom, while the social estimate of to-day is in
reahty an unconscious resultant of the higghng
of the market, and finds its expression only in
market price.' ^ The phrase ' res tanti valet
quanti vendi potest,' which is so often used to
prove that the mediseval doctors permitted full
competitive prices in the modem sense, must be
understood to mean that a thing could be sold at
any figure which was within the Umits of the mini-
mum and maximum just price. ^

The last sentence suggests that the just price
was not a fixed and unalterable standard, but was
somewhat wide and elastic. On this all writers
are agreed. ' The just price of things,' says
Aquinas, ' is not fixed with mathematical pre-

^ Growth of English Industry and Commerce, vol. i. p. 353.

2 Living Wage, p. 28. ^ Lessius, De Justitia et Jure, xxi. 19.

118 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

cision, but depends on a kind of estimate, so that
a slight addition or subtraction would not seem
to destroy the equality of justice,' ^ Caepolla
repeats this dictum, with the reservation that,
when the just price is fixed by law, it must be
rigorously observed.^ ' Note,' says Gerson, ' that
the equaUty of commutative justice is not exact
or unchangeable, but has a good deal of latitude,
within the bounds of which a greater or less price
may be given without justice being infringed ; ' '
and Biel insists on the same latitude, from which
he draws the conclusion that the just price is
constantly varying from day to day and from
place to place.* Grenerally it was said that there
was a maximum, medium, and minimum just
price ; and that any price between the maximum
and minimum was valid, although the medium
was to be aimed at as far as possible.

The price fixed by common estimation was
therefore the one to be observed in most cases,
and it was at aU times a safe guide to foUow.
If, however, the parties either knew or had good
reason to believe that the common estimation
had fixed the price wrongly, they were not bound
to foUow it, but should arrive at a just price them-
selves, having regard to the various considerations
given above. ^

It did not make any difference whether the

1 n. u. 77, 1, ad. 1. a De. Cont. Sim., 58.

* De Cont., ii. 11, * Op. eit., iv. xv. 10.

° Nider, De Cont. Merc. ii. : 'Si vero soit vel credit comxauiiitatem
erraie in estimatione pretii rei ; tunc nullo modo debet earn sequi ;
qtiia etiam.si reciperet verum et justum pretiam, tamen faoeret contra
ccmscientiam.'

THE EXCHANGE OF PKOPERTY 119

price was paid immediately or at some future
date. To increase the price in return for the
giving of credit was not allowed, as it was deemed
usurious — as indeed it was. |t was held that the
seller, in not taking his money immediately, was
simply making a loan of that amoxmt to the
huyer, and that to receive anything more than
the sum lent would be usury. Aquinas is quite
clear on this point. ' If a man wish to sell his
goods at a higher price than that which is just, so
that he may wait for the bjiy erjo pay^ it is mani-
festly a case' oifusm-y; because this waiting for
the' payment of the price has the cha.racter of a
"loan, so that whatever he demands beyond the
just price in consideration of this delay, is like a
price for a loan, which pertains to usury. In
hke manner, if a buyer wishes to buy goods at a
lower price than what is just, for the reason that
he pays for the goods before they can be delivered,
it is likewise a sin of usury ; because again this
anticipated payment of money has the character
of a loan, the price of which is the rebate on the
just price of the goods sold. On the other hand,
if a man wishes to allow a rebate on the just price
in order that he may have his money sooner, he is
not guilty of the sin Of usury.' ^ If, however, the
seller, by giving credit, suffered any damage, he
was entitled to be recompensed ; this, as we shall
see, was an ordinary feature of usury law. It
could not be said that the price was raised. The
price remained the same ; but the seller was
entitled to something further than the price by

^ n, ii. 78, 2, ad. 7. See Decret. Oreg., v. 19, de usuris, oc. 6 and 10.

120 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

way of damages. 1 It was by the application of
this principle that a seller was justified in demand-
ing more than the current price for an article
which possessed some individual or sentimental
value for him. ' In such a case the just price will
depend not only on the thing sold, but on the loss
which the sale brings on the seller. . . . No man
shotdd seU what is not his, though he may charge
for the loss he suffers.' ^ On the other hand, it
was strictly forbidden to raise the price on account
of the individual need of the buyer. ^

§ 4. The Just Price of Labour

Particular rules were laid down for determining
the just price of certain classes of goods. These
need not be treated in detail, as they were merely
applications of the general principle to particular
cases, and whatever interest they possess is in the
domain of practice rather than of theory. In
the sale of immovable property the rule was
that the value should be arrived at by a consider-
ation of the annual fruits of the property.* The
only one of the particular contracts which need
detain us here is that of a contract of service for
wages {hcatio o'perarum). Wages were considered
as ruled by the laws relating to just price. ' That
is called a wage {merces) which is paid to any one
as a recompense for his work and labour. There-
fore, as it is an act of justice to give a just price

1 Endemann, iS««dieTO, vol. ii. pp. 49 ; Desbuquois, op. cit., p. 174.

" n. ii. 77, 1. s lUd.

* Caepolla, de Cont. Sim., 78 ; Carletus, Summa Angelica, Ixv.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 121

for a thing taken from another person, so also to
pay the wages of work and labour is an act of
justice.' 1 Again, ' Remuneration of service or
work . . . can be priced at a money value, as
may be seen in the case of those who offer for hire
the labour which they exercise by work or by
tongue.' 2 Biel insists that the value of labourer
is subject to the same influences as the value of
any other commodity which is offered for sale,
and that therefore a just price must be observed
in buying it.^

This, according to Brants,* is essentially a matter
upon which more enlightenment wiU be found in
histories of the working classes ^ than in books
deahng with the enunciation of abstract theories ;
nevertheless, it is possible to state generally that
it was regarded as the duty of employers to give-r^
such a wage as would support the worker in accord-
ance with the requirements of his class. In the
great majority of cases the rate of wages was
fixed by some pubUc — ^municipal or corporativefc'
— authority, but Langenstein enunciates a rule
which seems to approach the statement of a general
theory. According to him, when a man has

' Aquinas, Swmma, n. ii. 114, 1. ^ n. ii. 78, 2, ad. 3.

' Op. dt., IV. XV. 10. Modern Socialists caricature the correct
principle ' that labour is a commodity ' into ' the labourer is a com-
modity ' — a great difference, which is not sufficiently understood by
many present-day writers. (See Roscher, Political Economy, s. 160.)

* Op. oit., p. 103.

° An excellent bibliography of books dealing with the history of the
working classes in the Middle Ages is to be found in Brants, op. dt.,
p. 105. The need for examining concrete economic phenomena is
insisted on in Eyan's Livirig Wage, p. 28.

122 MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

something to sell, and has no indication of the
just price from its being fixed by any outside
authority, he must endeavour to get such a price
as will reasonably recompense him for any outlay
he may have incurred, and wiU enable him to
provide for his needs, spiritual and temporal.^
It was not until the sixteenth century that the
fixing of the just price of wages was submitted to
scientific discussion ; ^ , in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries there is httle to be found
bearing on this subject except the passage of
Langenstein which we have quoted, and some
strong exhortations by Antoninus of Florence to
masters to pay good wages. ^ The reason for this
paucity of authority upon a subject of so much
importance is that in practice the machinery
provided by the guilds had the effect of preserving
a substantially just remuneration to the artisan.
When a man is in perfect health he does not
bother to read medical books. In the same way,
the proper remuneration of labour was so uni-
versally recognised as a duty, and so satisfac-
torily enforced, that it seems to have been taken
for granted, and therefore passed over, by the

^ De Cont. We have here a recognition of the principle that the
value of labour is not to be measured by anything extrinsic to itself,
e.g. by the value of the product, but by its own natural function and
end, and this function and end is the supplying of the requirements
of human life. The wage must, therefore, be capable of supplying
the same needs that the expenditure of a labourer's energy is meant
to supply. (See Cronin, Ethics, vol. ii. p. 390.)

^ Brants, &p. dt., p. 118.

' The passages from the Summa of Antoninus bearing on the subject
are reprinted in Brants, op. cit., p. 120.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 123

writers of the period. One may agree with Brants
in concluding that, ' the principle of just price in
sales was applied to wages ; fluctuations in wages
were not allowed ; the just price, as in sales,
rested on the approximate equality of the ser-
vices rendered; and that this equality was esti-
mated by common opinion.' ^ Of course, in the
case of slave labour it could not be said that any
wage was paid. The master was entitled to the
services of the slave, and in return was boimd to
furnish him with the necessaries of life.^

§ 5. Value of the Conception of the Just Price

It is probably correct to say that the canonical
teaching on just price was negative rather than
positive ; in other words, that it did not so much 4-
aim at positively fixing the price at which goods
should be sold, as negatively at indicating the
practices in bujong and selling which were unjust.
' The doctrine of just price,' according to Dr.
Ryan, ' may sometimes have been associated with
incorrect views of industrial hfe, but aU com-
petent authorities agree that it was a fairly sound
attempt to define the equities of mediaeval ex-
changes, and that it was tolerably successful in
practice.' ^ The condition of mediaeval markets^
was frequently such that the competition was
not really fair competition, and consequently the
price arrived at by competition would be unfair

1 Op. cit., p. 125.

" Branta, op. cit, p, 116, quoting Le lAwe cbi Trkaor of Brunette
Latini. ' Thx, Living Wage, p. 27.

124 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

either to buyer or seller. ' This,' according to
Dr. Cuimingham, ' was the very thing which
mediaeval regulation had been intended to pre-
vent, as any attempt to make gain out of the
necessities of others, or to reap profit from un-
looked-for occurrences would have been con-
demned as extortion. It is by taking advantage
of such fluctuations that money is most frequently
made in modem times ; but the whole scheme of
commercial life in the Middle Ages was supposed
to allow of a regular profit on each transaction.' ^
There might be some doubt as to the positive
justice of this or that price ; but there coidd be no
doubt as to the injustice of a price which was
enhanced by the necessities of the poor, or the
engrossing of a vital commodity.^ Merely to buy
up the whole supply of a certain commodity,
even if it were bought up by a ' ring ' of merchants,
provided that the commodity was resold within
the hmits of the just price, was not a sin against
justice, though it might be a sin against charity.^
If the authorities granted a monopoly, they must
at the same time fix a just price.* A monopoly
which was not privileged by the State, and which
had for its aim the rising of the price of goods
above the just price was regarded with imiversal
reprobation.^ ' Whoever buys up com, meat,
and wine,' says Trithemius, 'in order to drive
up their price and to amass money at the cost of

^ Orowth of English Industry and Commerce, vol. i. p. 460.
^ Endemann, Studien, vol. il. p. 60.

' Lessius, De JustMa et Jure, n. xx. 1, 21. * Ihid.

" Langenstein, De Oont. ; Biel, op. cit., iv. xv. 11.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 125

others is, according to the laws of the Church,
no better than a common criminal. In a weU-
governed community all arbitrary raising of prices
in the case of articles of food and clothing is per-
emptorily stopped ; in times of scarcity merchants
who have suppUes of such commodities can be
compelled to seU them at fair prices ; for in every
community care should be taken that aU the
members should be provided for, and not only a
small number be allowed to grow rich, and revel
in luxury to the hurt and prejudice of the many.^
Thus the doctrine of the just price was a deadly *ir'
weapon with which to fight the 'profiteer.' The
engrosser was looked upon as the natural enemy
of the poor ; and the power of the trading class
was justly reckoned so great, that in cases of doubt
prices were always fixed low rather than high.
In other words, the buyer — ^that is to say, the
community — ^was the subject of protection rather
than the seller.^

It must at the same time be clearly kept in
mind that the seller was also protected. All the
authorities are unanimous that it was as sinful
for the buyer to give too little as for the seller to
demand too much, and it is this aspect of the just
price which appears most favourable in comparison
with the theory of price of the classical economists.
In the former case prices were fixed having regard
to the wages necessary for the producer ; in the
latter the wages of the producer are determined
by the price at which he can sell his goods, exposed

* Quoted in Janssen, Of. cit, vol. ii. p. 102.
^ Roaoher, Geschichte, p. 12.

126 MEDMIVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

to the competition of machinery or foreign — ^pos-
sibly slave — ^labour. ^ According to the Catholic
Encydopcedia : ' To the mediseval theologian the
just price of an article included enough to pay fair
wages to the worker — ^that is, enough to enable him
to maintain the standard of living of his class.' ^
'The difference,' says Dr. Cunningham, 'which
emerges according as we start from one principle
or the other comes out most distinctly with
reference to wages. In the Middle Ages wages
were taken as a first charge ; in modern times the
reward of the labourer cannot but fluctuate in
connection with fluctuations in the utility and
market price of the things. There must always
be a connection between wages and prices, but in
the olden times wages were the first charge, and
prices on the whole depended on them, while in
modem times wages are, on the other hand,
directly affected by prices.' ^ Dr. Cunningham
draws attention to the fact that the labouring
classes rejected the idea of the fiLxing of a just
price for their services when, from a variety of
causes, a situation arose when they were able to
earn by open competition a reward higher than
what was necessary to support them according to
their state in life.* Nowadays the reverse has
taken place ; unrestricted competition has in
many cases resulted in the reduction of wages to
a level below the margin of subsistence ; and the

1 Ashley, op. dt,, vol. i. pt. i. p. 129.

' Art. ' PoUtioal Economy.'

8 Growth of English Industry and Commerce, vol. i. p. 461.

* Christianity and Economic Science, p. 29.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 127

general cry of the working classes is for the com-
pulsory fixing of minimum rates of wages which
will ensure that their subsistence will not be
liable to be impaired by the fluctuations of the
markets. What the workers of the present day
look to as a desirable, but almost unattainable,
ideal, was the universal practice in the ages when
economic relations were controlled by Christian
principles.

§ 6. Wa& the Just Price Subjective or Objective ?

The question whether the just price was essenti-
ally subjective or objective has recently formed
the subject matter of an interesting and ably
conducted discussion, provoked by certain re-
marks in Dr. Cunningham's Western Civilisation.^
Dr. Cunningham, although admiring the ethical
spirit which animated the conception of the just
price, thought at the same time that the economic
ideas underlying the conception were so unde-
veloped and unsoTind that the theory could not
be applied in practice at the present day. ' Their
economic analysis was very defective, and the
theory of price which they put forward was un-
tenable ; but the ethical standpoint which they
took is weU worth examination, and the practical
measures which they recommended appear to
have been highly beneficial in the circumstances
in which they had to deal. Their actions were not
unwise ; their common-sense morahty was sound ;
but the economic theories by which they tried to

1 Pp. 77-9,

128 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

give an intellectual justification for their rules
and their practice were quite erroneous. . . .
LThe attempt to determine an ideal price implies
that there can and ought to be stability in relative
lvalues and stability in the measure of values —
which is absurd. The mediaeval doctrine and its
application rested upon another assumption which
we have outlived. Value is not a quahty which
inheres in an object so that it can have the same
worth for everybody ; it arises from the personal
preference and needs of difierent people, some of
whom desire a thing more and some less, some
of whom want to use it in one way and some in
another. Value is not objective — ^intrinsic in the
object — ^but subjective, varying with the desire
and intentions of the possessors or would-be
possessors ; and, because it is thus subjective,
there cannot be a definite ideal value which every
article ought to possess, and stiU more a just price
as the measure of that ideal value.' In these
and similar observations to be found in the Growth
of English History and Commerce, Dr. Cunningham
showed that he profoundly misunderstood the
doctrine of the just price; the objectivity which
he attributed to it was not the objectivity ascribed
to it by the scholastics. It was to correct this
misunderstanding that Father Slater contributed
an article to the Irish Theological Quarterly^
pointing out that the just price was subjective
rather than objective. This article, which was
afterwards reprinted in Some Aspects of Moral
Theology, and the conclusions of which were

» Vol. iv. p. 146.

THE EXCHANGE OF PKOPERTY 129

embodied in the same writer's work on Moral
Theology, was controverted in a series of articles
by Father Kelleher in the Irish Theological
Qwirterly.^

Father Slater draws attention to the fact that
Dr. Cunningham overlooked to some extent the
importance of common estimation in arriving at
the just price. He points out that, far from^
objects being invested with some immutable ob-
jective value, their value was in fact determined
by the price which the community as a whole was
willing to pay ;for them: 'As the value in ex-
change will be determined by what the members
of the community at the time are prepared to
give, ... it will be determined by the social
estimation of its utility for the support of life and
its scarcity. It wiU depend upon its capacity to
satisfy the wants and desires of the people with
whom commercial transactions are possible and
practicable. Father Slater then goes on cate-
gorically to refute Dr. Cunningham's presentation
of the objectivity of price : ' All that that doc-4
trine asserts is that there should be, and that
there is, an equivalent in social value between
the commodity and its price at a certain time
and in a certain place ; it says nothing whatever
about the stabiHty or permanence of prices at
different times and at different places. By main-
taining that the just price did not depend upon
the valuation of the individual buyer or seller
the mediaeval doctors did not dream of making

^ ' Market Prices,' vol. ix. p. 398 and vol. x. p. 163 ; and ' Father
Slater on Just Price and Value,' vol. xi. p. 159.

I

130 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

it ia'trinsic to the object.' In the work on Moral
Theology, to which we have referred, expi^essions
occur which lead one to beUeve that Father Slater
did not see any great difEerence between the
mediaeval just price arrived at by common esti-
mation and the modem normal or market price
arrived at by open competition. Thus, ia en-
deavouring to correct Dr. Cunningham's mis-
imderstanding. Father Slater seems to have gone
too far in the other direction, and his position has
been ably and, in our judgment, successfully,
controverted by Father Kelleher.

The point at issue between the upholders of the
two opposing views on just price is well stated by
Father KeUeher in the first of his articles on the
subject : ' We must try to find out whether the
just and fair price determined the rate of exchange,
or whether the rate of exchange, being determined
without an objective standard and merely accord-
ing to the play of human motives, determines
what we call the just and fair price.' ^ We have
already demonstrated that the common estima-
tion referred to by the mediaeval doctors was some-
thing quite apart from the modem higgling in
the market ; and that, far from being merely the
restdt of unbridled competition on both sides, it
was rather the considered judgment of the best-
, informed members of the community. As we
have seen, even Dr. Cunningham admits that
there was a fundamental difference between the
common estimation of the scholastics and the
modem competitive price. This is clearly demon-

'^ Irish Theologieal Qwnrterly, vol. ix. p. 41,

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 131

strated by Father Kelleher, who further estab-
Hshes the proposition that the modem price is
purely subjective, and that no subjective price can
rest on an ethical basis. The question at issue
therefore between what we may call the subjective
and objective schools is not whether the sale price
was determined by competition in the modem
sense, but whether the common estimation of
those best quahfied to form an opinion on the
subject in itself determined the just price, or
whether it was merely the most reMable evidence
of what the just price in fact was at a particular
moment.

Father KeUeher draws attention to the fact
that Aquinas in his article on price did not specifi- '
caUy affirm that the just price was objective, but
he explains this omission by saying that the
objectivity of the price was so well and universally
understood that it was unnecessary expressly to
restate it. Indeed, as we saw above, the teaching
of Aquinas on price left a great deal to be supphed
by later writers, not because he was in any doubt
about the subject, but because the theory was so
well understood. 'Not even in St. Thomas can
we find a formal discussion of the moral obligation
of observing an objective equivalence in contracts
of buying and selling. He simply took it for
granted, as, indeed, was inevitable, seeing that, up
to his time and for long after, aU CathoHc thought
and legislation proceeded on that h3rpothesis.
But that he actually did take it for granted, he
has given many clear indications in his article on
Justice which leave us no room for reasonable

132 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

doubt.' 1 As Father Kelleher very cogently
points out, the discussion in Aquinas' s article on
commerce, whether it was lawful to buy cheap and
sell dear, very clearly indicates that the author
maintained the objective theory, because if the
just price were simply determined by what people
were willing to give, this question could not have
arisen.

Nor is the fact that the just price admitted of a
certain elasticity an argument in favour of its
being subjective. Father Kelleher fuUy admits
that the common estimation was the general
criterion of just price, and, of course, the common
estimation could not, of its very nature, be rigid
and immutable. ' Commodities should, indeed,
exchange according to their objective value, but,
even so, commodities could not carry their value
stamped on their faces. Even if we assume that
the standard of exchange was the cost of produc-
tion, there would still remain room for a certain
amount of difference of opinion as to what exactly
their value would be in particular instances.
Suppose that the commodity offered for sale was
a suit of clothes, in estimating its value on the basis
of the cost of production, opinions might differ as
to the precise amount of time required for making
it, or as to the cost of the cloth out of which it was
made. Unless recourse was to be had to an almost
interminable process of calculations, nobody could
say authoritatively what precisely the value was,
and in practice the determination of value had
perforce to be left to the ordinary human estimate

^ Irish Theological Quarterly, voL x. p. 165.

THE EXCHAITGE OF PROPERTY 133

of what it was, which of its very nature was bound
to admit a certain margin of fluctuation. Thus
we can easily understand how, even with an
objective standard of value, the just price might
be admitted to vary within the limits of the
maximum as it might be expected to be esti-
mated by sellers and the minimum as it would
appear just to buyers. The sort of estimation
of which St. Thomas speaks is therefore nothing
else than a judgment, which, being human, is
liable to be slightly in excess or defect of the
objective value about which it is formed,' ^ As
Father Kelleher puts it on a later page, ' There is
a sense certainly in which, with a solitary excep-
tion in the case of wages, it may be said with
perfect truth that the common estimation deter-
mines the just price. That is, the common esti-
mation is the proximate practical criterion.' ^

Father KeUeher uses in support of his conten-
tion a very ingenious argument drawn from the
doctrine of usury. As we said in the first chapter,
and as we shaU prove in detail in the next section,
the prohibition of usury was simply one of the
apphcations of the theory of equivalence in con-
tracts — ^in other words, it was the determination of
the just price to be paid in an exchange of money
for money. If, asks Father Kelleher, the common
estimation was the final te^t of just price, why was
not moderate usury allowed ? That the general !
opinion of the community in the Middle Ages was
tmdoubtedly in favour of allowing a reasonable
percentage on loans is shown by the constant

^ Irish Theological QvmterJy, vol. x. p. 166. ^ P. 173.

134 MEDMIVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

striving of the Church to prevent such a practice.
Nevertheless the Church did not for a moment
relax its teaching on usury in spite of the almost
universal judgment of the people. Here, tiiere-
fore, is a clear example of one contract in which
the standard of value is clearly objective, and it
is only reasonable to draw the conclusion that the
same standard which appUed in contracts of the
exchange of money should apply in contracts of
the sale of other articles.

Father KeUeher's contention seems to be com-
pletely supported by the passage from Nider
which we have cited above, to the effect that the
common estimation ceases to be the final test of
the just price when the contracting paa-ties know
or beheve that the common estimation has erred. ^
This seems to us clearly to show that the common
estimatibn was but the most generally received
test of what the just price in fact was, but that
it was in no sense a final or irrefutable criterion.^

The theory that the just price was objective

seems to be accepted by the majority of the best

modern students of the subject. Sir WitUam

' Ashley says : ' The fundamental difference between

the mediaeval and modem point of view is . . . that

^ X>e Cont. Merc, n. xv. Nider was regarded as a very weighty
authority on the subject of contracts (Endemann, StvMen, voL ii. p. 8).

' The argument in favour of what we have called the ' objective '
theory of the just price is strengthened by the consideration that
goods do not satisfy mere subjective whims, but supply real wants.
For example, food supplies a real need of the human being, as also
does clothing ; in the one case hunger is appeased, and in the other
cold is warded o£E, just as drags used in medical practice produce real
objective e£Eects on the person taking them.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 135

with us value is something entirely subjective ;
it is what each individual cares to give for a thing.
With Aquinas it was entirely objective ; some-
thing outside the will of the individual purchaser
or seller ; something attached to the thing itseK,
existing whether he liked it or not, and that he
ought to recognise.' ^ Palgrave's Dictionary of
Political Economy, following the authority of ELnies,
expresses the same opinion : ' Perhaps the con-
trast between mediaeval and modem ideas of value
is best expressed by saying that with us value is
usually something subjective, consisting of the
mental determination of buyer and seller, while
to the schoolmen it was in a sense objective,
something intrinsically bound up with the com-
modity itself. ' 2 Dr. Ryan agrees with this view :
' The theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries assumed that the objective price would
be fair, since it was determined by the social
estimate. In their opinion the social estimate
would embody the requirements of objective
justice as ftdly as any device or institution that
was practically available. For the condition of
the Middle Ages and the centuries immediately,
following, this reasoning was undoubtedly correct.
The agencies which created the social estimate j
and determined prices — ^namely the civil law, the
guilds, and custom — succeeded fairly in estabUsh- '
ing a price that was equitable to aU concerned.' ^
Dr. Cleary says : ' True, the pretium legale is

1 Op. cit, vol. i. pt. i. p. 140. ^ Art. ' Jiistum Pretium.'

* ' The Moral Aspect of Monopoly,' by J. A. Ryan, D.D., Irish
Theological Qwi/rterly, iii. p. 275 ; and see DislribvMve Justice, pp. 332-4.

136 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

regarded as being a just price, but in order that
it may be just, it supposes some objective basis —
in other words, it rather declares than constitutes
the just price.' ^ Haney is also strongly of opinion
that the just price was objective. ' Briefly stated,
the doctrine was that every commodity had some
one true value which was objective and abso-
lute.' 2 The greater number of modern students
therefore who have given most care and attention
to the question are inclined to the opinion that the
just price was not subjective, but objective, and
we see no vaMd reason for disagreeing with this
view, which seems to be fully warranted by the
original authorities.

§ 7. The Mediceval Attitude towards Commerce

Before passing from the question of price, we
must discuss the legitimacy of the various occupa-
tions which were concerned with buying and
selling. The principal matter which arises for
consideration in this regard is the attitude of the
mediaeval theologians towards commerce. Aquinas
discusses the legitimacy of commerce in the same
question in which he discusses just price, and in-
deed the two subjects are closely allied, because
the importance of the observance of justice in
buying and selling grew urgent as commerce ex-
tended and advanced.

In order to understand the disapprobation with
which commerce was on the whole regarded in

1 Op. cit., p. 193.

2 History of Economic Thought, p. 75.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 137

the Middle Ages, it is necessary to appreciate the
importance of the Christian teaching on the dignity
bf labour. The principle that, far from being a
degrading or humiliating occupation, as it had
been regarded in Greece and Rome, manual labour
was, on the contrary, one of the most noble ways
of serving God, efiEected a revolution in the eco-
nomic sphere analogous to that which the Christian
sanctification of marriage effected in the domestic
sphere. The Christian teaching on labour was
grounded on the Divine precepts contained in
both the Old and New Testaments,^ and upon
the example of Christ, who was Himself a work-
ing man. The Gospel was preached amongst
the poor, and St, Paul continued his humble
labours during his apostolate.^ A life of idleness^
was considered something to be avoided, instead
of something to be desired, as it had been in the
ancient civilisations. G«rson says it is against
the nature of man to wish to Uve without labour
as usurers do,^ and Langenstein inveighs against
usurers and aU who hve without work.* ' We
read in Sebastian Brant that the idlers are the
most foohsh amongst fools, they are to every
people Uke smoke to the eyes or vinegar to the
teeth. Only by labour is God truly praised and
honoured ; and Trithemius says " Man is born to
labour as the bird to fly, and hence it is contrary

1 Gen. Hi. 19 ; Ps. cxxvii. 2 ; 2 Thess. iii. 10. The last- mentioned
text is explained, in opposition to certain Socialist interpretations
which have been put on it, by Dr. Hogan in the Irish Ecclesiastical
Record, vol. xxv. p. 45. * WaUon, oy. dt., vol. iii. p. 401.

» De Cmt., i. 13. * De Cont.

138 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

to the nature of man when he thinks to hve -with-
out work." ' 1 The example of the monasteries,
where the performance of all sorts of manual
labour was not thought inconsistent with the
administration of the sacred offices and the pur-
suit of the highest intellectual exercises, acted as
a powerful assertion to the laity of the dignity
of labour in the scheme of things.^ The value of
the monastic example in this respect cannot be
too highly estimated. ' When we consider the
results of the founding of monasteries,' says Dr.
Cunningham, ' we find influences at work that
were plainly economic. These communities can
be best understood when we think of them as
Christian industrial colonies, and remember that
they moulded society rather by example than by
precept. We are so f amiUar with the attacks and
satires on monastic life that were current at the
Reformation period, that it may seem almost a
paradox to say that the chief claim of the monks
to our gratitude lies in this, that they helped to
diffuse a better appreciation of the duty and dig-
nity of labour.' ^

The result of this teaching and example was
that, in the Middle Ages, labour had been raised
to a position of unquestioned dignity. The
economic benefit of this attitude towards labour
must be obvious. It made the working classes
take a direct pride and interest in their work,
which was represented to be a means of sanctifi-

'- Janssen, op. cit., vol. ii. pp. 93-4.

" Levasseur, Histoire des Classes ouwUres en France, vol. i.. pp. 182
et eeq. ' Western OiviHsation, vol. ii. p. 35.

THE EXCHANCE OP PROPERTY 139

cation. ' Laboiir,' according to Dr. Cunningham,
' was said to be pregnant with a double advantage
— ^the privilege of sharing with God in His work of
carrying out His purpose, and the opportunity of
self-disciphne and the helping of one'sfeUow-men.' ^
' Industrial work,' says Levassetir, ' in the times
of antiquity had always had, in spite of the insti-
tutions of certain Emperors, a degrading character,
because it had its roots in slavery ; after the in-
vasion, the grossness of the barbarians and the
levelling of towns did not help to rehabilitate it.
It was the Church which, in proclaiming that
Christ was the son of a carpenter, and the Apostles
were simple workmen, made known to the world
that work is honourable as well as necessary.
The monks proved this by their example, and thus
helped to give to the working classes a certain
consideration which ancient society had denied
them. Manual labour became a source of sancti-
fication.' ^ The high esteem in which labour was
held appears from the whole artistic output of the
Middle Ages. ' Many of the simple artists of the
time represented the saints holding some instru-
ment of work or engaged in some industrial
pursuit ; as, for instance, the Blessed Virgin
spinning as she sat by the cradle of the divine
Infant, and St. Joseph using a saw or carpenter's
tools. " Since the Saints," says the Christian
Monitor, " have laboured, so shall the Christian
learn that by honourable labour he can glorify
God, do good, and save his own soul." ' ^ Work

1 Christianity and Economic Science, pp. 26-7.

^ Op. cit., vol. L p. 187. ' Janssen, op. eit., voL ii. p. 9.

140 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

was, alongside of prayer and inseparable from it,
the perfection of Christian life.^
^- It must not be supposed, however, that manual
labour alone was thought worthy of praise. On
the contrary, the necessity for mental and spiritual
workers was fuUy appreciated, and aU kinds of
labour were thought equally worthy of honour.
' Heavy labourer's work is the inevitable yoke of
punishment, which, according to God's righteous
verdict, has been laid upon all the sons of Adam.
But many of Adam's descehdants seek in aU sorts
of cunning ways to escape from the yoke and to
live in idleness without labour, and at the same
time to have a superfluity of useful and necessary
things ; some by robbery and plunder, some by
usurious dealings, others by lying, deceit, and aU
the countless forms of dishonest and fraudulent
gain, by which men are for ever seeking to get
riches and abundance without toil. But while
such men are striving to throw off the yoke
righteously imposed on them by God, they are
heaping on their shoulders a heavy burden of sin.
Not so, however, do the reasonable sons of Adam
proceed ; but, recognising in sorrow that for the
sins of their first father God has righteously
ordained that only through the toil of labour shall
they obtatu what is necessary to life, they take
the yoke patiently on them. . . . Some of them,
like the peasants, the handicraftsmen, and the
tradespeople, procure for themselves and others,
in the sweat of their brows and by physical work,
the necessary sustenance of life. Others, who

^ Wallon, op. ctt., voL i. p. 410.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 141

labour in more honourable ways, earn the right
to be maintained by the sweat of others' brows —
for instance, those who stand at the head of the
commonwealth ; for by their laborious exertion
the former are enabled to enjoy the peace, the
security, without which they could not exist.
The same holds good of those who have the charge
of spiritual matters. . . .' ^ ' Because,' says
Aquinas, ' many things are necessary to human
life, with which one man caimot provide himself,
it is necessary that different things should be done
by different people ; therefore some are tillers of
the soil, some are raisers of cattle, some are
builders, and so on ; and, because human life does
not simply mean corporal things, but still more
spiritual things, therefore it is necessary that sonae
people should be released from the care of attend-
ing to temporal matters. This distribution of
different offices amongst different people is in
accordance with Divine providence.' ^

All forms of labour being therefore admitted to
be honourable and necessary, there was no diffi-
culty felt about justifying their reward. It was
always common ground that services of all kinds
were entitled to be properly remimerated, and
questions of difficulty only arose when a claim was
made for payment in a transaction where the
element of service was not apparent.^ The differ-
ent occupations in which men were engaged were
therefore ranked in a well-recognised hierarchy

^ Langenstein, quoted in Janssen, op. cit, p. 95.

* Swmma 'Cont. Qent, iii. 134.

' Aquinas, Sutama, n. ii. 77, 4 ; Nider, op. cit., n. x.

142 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

of dignity according to the estimate to wliicli they
were held to be entitled. The Aristotelean divi-
sion of industry iato artes possessivae and artes
pecuniativae was generally followed, the former
being ranked higher than the latter. ' The in-
dustries called possessivae, which are immediately
useful to the individual, to the family, and to
society, producing natural wealth, are also the
most natural as well as the most estimable. But
all the others should not be despised. The natural
arts are the true economic arts, but the arts which
produce artificial riches are also estimable in so
far as they serve the true national economy ; the
commutation of the exchanges and the cambium
being necessary to the general good, are good in so
far as they are subordinate to the end of true
economy. One may say the same thing about
commerce. In order, then, to estimate the value
of an industrial art, one must examine its rela-
JftioQ to the general good.' ^ Even the artes posses-
sivae were not aU considered equally worthy of
praise, but were ranked in a curious order of pro-
fessional hierarchy. Agriculture was considered
the highest, next manufacture, and lastly com-
merce. Roscher says that, whereas all the
scholastics were agreed on the excellence of agri-
culture as an occupation, the best they could say
of manufacture was Deo non dispUcet, whereas of
commerce they said Deo placere non potest ; and
draws attention to the interesting consequence of
this, namely, that the various classes of goods that
took part in the difEerent occupations were also

^ Brants, op, cit., p. 82.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 143

ranked in a certain order of sacredness. Im-
movables were thought more worthy of pro-
tection against execution and distress than mov-
ables, and movables than money. ^ Aquinas
advises the rulers of States to encourage the artes
possessivae, especially agriculture. ^ The fullest
analysis of the order in which the different
artes possessivae should be ranked is to be
found in Buridan's Commentaries on Aristotle^ s
Politics. He places first agriculture, which
comprises cattle-breeding, tillage, and hunting ;
secondly, manufacture, which helps to supply
man's corporal needs, such as building and archi-
tecture ; thirdly, administrative occupations ; and
lastly, commerce. The Christian Exhortation,
quoted by Janssen,^ says, ' The farmer must in all
things be protected and encouraged, for all de-
pend on his labour, from the monarch to the
humblest of mankind, and his handiwork is in
particular honourable and well pleasing to God.'

The division of occupations according to their
dignity adopted by Nicholas Oresme is some-
what unusual. He divides professions into (1)
honourable, or those which increase the actual
quantity of goods in the community or help its
development, such as ecclesiastical offices, the law,
the soldiery, the peasantry, artisans, and merchants,
and (2) degrading — such as campsores, mercatores
monetae seu billonatores.^

^ Geschichte, p. 7.

* De BegimiTie Prindpum, vol. ii. chaps, v. and vi.
' Op. eit, Tol. i. p. 297.

* Traetatus de Origine, etc., Monetarwm.

144 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

No occupation, therefore, which involved labour,
whether manual or mental, gave any ground for
difl&culty with regard to its remuneration. The
business of the trader or merchant, on the other
hand, was one which called for some explanation.
It is important to understand what commerce
was taken to mean. The definition which Aquinas
gives was accepted by aU later writers : ' A trades-
man is one whose business consists in the exchange
of things. According to the philosopher, exchange
of things is twofold ; one natural, as it were, and
necessary, whereby one commodity is exchanged
for another, or money taken in exchange for a
commodity in order to satisfy the needs of life.
Such trading, properly speaking, does not be-
long to traders, but rather to housekeepers or
civil servants, who have to provide the house-
hold or the State with the necessaries of life. The
other kind of exchange is either that of money for
money, or of any commodity for money, not on
account of the necessities of hfe, but for profit ;
and this kind of trade, properly speaking, regards
traders.' It is to be remarked in this defini-
tion, that it is essential, to constitute trade, that
the exchange or sale should be for the sake of
profit, and this point is further emphasised in a
■ later passage of the same article : ' Not every one
that sells at a higher price than he bought is a
trader, but only he who buys that he may sell
at a profit. If, on the contrary, he buys, not for
sale, but for possession, and afterwards for some
reason wishes to sell, it is not a trade transaction,
even if he sell- at a profit. For he may lawfully

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 145

do this, either because he has bettered the thing,
or because the value of the thing has changed
with the change of place or time, or on account of
the danger he incurs in transferring the thing from
one place to another, or again in having it carried
by hand. In this sense neither buying nor selling
is imjust.' ^ The importance of this definition
is that it rules out of the discussion aU cases where
the goods have been in any way improved or
rendered more valuable by the services of the
seller. Such improvement was always reckoned
as the result of labour of one kind or another, and
therefore entitled to remuneration. The essence
of trade in the scholastic sense was selling the
thing unchanged at a higher price than that at
which it had been bought, for the sake of gain. ^

The legitimacy of trade in this sense was only
gradually admitted. The Fathers of the Church
had with one voice condemned trade as being
an occupation fraught with danger to the soul.
TertuUian argued that there would be no need of
trade if there were no desire for gain, and that
there would be no desire for gain if man were not
avaricious. Therefore avarice was the necessary
basis of aU trade. ^ St. Jerome thought that one
man's gain in trading must always be another's
loss ; and that, in any event, trade was a danger-
ous occupation since it offered so many tempta-

1 Tractatus de Origme, etc., Monetarum, ad. 2.

^ ' Fit autem meroatio cniin non ut emptor ea utatur sed ut earn
carius vendat etiam non mutatam suo aitiflcio ; ilia mercatio dlcitur
proprie negotiatio ' (Biel, op. cit., iv. xv. 10.)

3 De Idol, xi.

K

146 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

tions to fraud to the merchant.^ St. Augustine
proclaimed all trade evil because it turns men's
minds away from seeking true rest, which is only
to be found in God, and this opinion was embodied
in the Corpus Juris CanoniciJ ' This early view
that aU trade was to be indiscriminately con-
demned could not in the nature of things survive
experience, and a great step forward was taken
when Leo the Great pronounced that trade was
neither good nor bad in itself, but was rendered
good or bad according as it was honestly or dis-
honestly carried on.'

The scholastics, in addition to condemning
commerce on the authority of the patristic texts,
condemned it also on the Aristotelean ground that
it was a chrematistic art, and this consideration,
as we have seen above, enters into Aquinas's
article on the subject.*

The extension of commercial life which took
place about the beginning of the thirteenth cen-
tury, raised acute controversies about the legi-
timacy of commerce. Probably nothing did more
to broaden the teaching on this subject than the
necessity of justifying trade which became more
and more insistent after the Crusades.^

^ Ashley, op. cit, vol. i. pt. i. p. 129.

' See Corpus Juris Oanonid, Deor. I. D. 88 o. 12,

' Epist. ad Busticwn, c. ix. * Rambaud, op. cit., p. 52.

" On the economic influence of the Crusades the following works
may be consulted : Blanqui, Histoire de I'Eeonomie politique ; Heeren,
Essai sur V Influence politique et sociaie des Croisades ; Soheier, Histoire
du Commeroe ; Prutz, Culiurgeschiehle der Kreuzzilge ; Pigonneau,
Histoire du Commerce de la France ; List, Die Lehrem der Handda-
poUtischen Oeschichte.

THE EXCHAIIGE OF PROPERTY 147

By the time of Aquinas the necessity of com- >
merce had come to be fully realised, as appears
from the passage in. the De Begimine Principum :
' There are two ways in which it is possible to
increase the affluence of any State. One, which is
the more worthy way, is on account of the fertility
of the country producing an abundance of all
things which are necessary for human Mfe, the
other is through the employment of commerce,
through which the necessaries of life are brought
from different places. The former method can
be clearly shown to be the more desirable. . . .
It is more admirable that a State should possess
an abundance of riches from its own soil than
through commerce. For the State which needs a
number of merchants to maintain its subsistence
is liable to be injured in war through a shortage
of food if communications are in any way impeded.
Moreover, the influx of strangers corrupts the
morals of many of the citizens . . . whereas, if
the citizens themselves devote themselves to
commerce, a door is opened to many vices. For
when the desire of merchants is inclined greatly to
gain, cupidity is aroused in the hearts of many
citizens. . . . For the pursuit of a merchant is as
contrary as possible to military exertion. For
merchants abstain from labours, and while they
enjoy the good things of life, they become soft in
mind and their bodies are rendered weak and
tmsuitable for mihtary exercises. ... It there-
fore behoves the perfect State to make a moderate
use of commerce.' ^

1 U.3.

148 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Aquinas, who, as we have seen, recognised the
necessity of commerce, did not condemn all trade
indiscriminately, as the Fathers had done, but
made the motive with which commerce was
carried on the test of its legitimacy : ' Trade is
justly deserving of blame, because, considered in
itself, it satisfies the greed for gain, which knows
no Umit, and tends to infinity. Hence trading,
considered in itself, has a certain debasement
attaching thereto, in so far as, by its very nature,
it does not imply a virtuous or necessary end.
Nevertheless gain, which is the end of trading,
though not implying, by its nature, anything
virtuous or necessary, does not, in itself, connote
anything sinful or contrary to virtue ; wherefore
nothing prevents gain from being directed to some
necessary or even virtuous end, and thus trading
becomes lawful. Thus, for instance, a man may
intend the moderate gain which he seeks to
acquire by trading for the upkeep of his household,
or for the assistance of the needy ; or again, a man
may take to trade for some pubMc advantage — ^for
instance, lest his country lack the necessaries of
life — and seek gain, not as an end, but as payment
for his labour.' ^ This is important in connection
with what we have said above as to property, as
it shows that the trader was quite justified in
seeking to obtain more profits, provided that they
accrued for the benefit of the community. This
justification of trade according to the end for
which it was carried on, was not laid down for the
first time by Aquinas, but may be found stated
1 n. ii. 77, 4.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 149

in an English treatise of the tenth century en-
titled The Colloquy of Archbishop Alfric, where,
when a doctor asks a merchant if he wishes to
sell his goods for the same price for which he has
bought them, the merchant replies : ' I do not
wish to do so, because if I do so, how would I be
recompensed for my trouble ? but I wish to sell
them for more than I paid for them so that I
might secure some gain wherewith to support
myself, my wife, and family.' ^

In spite of the fact that the earlier theory that
no commercial gain which did not represent pay-
ment for labour could be justified was stiU main-
tained by some writers — ^for instance, Raymond de
Pennaf ort ^ — ^the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas
wa,s generally accepted throughout the later
Middle Ages. Canonists and theologians accepted
without hesitation the justification of trade for-
mulated by Aquinas.^ Henri de Gand,* Duns
Scotus,^ and Frangois de Mayronis ^ unhesitatingly
accepted the view of Aquiaas, and incorporated it
in their works.' ' An honourable merchant,' says
Trithemius, ' who does not only think of large
profits, and who is guided in all his dealings by the
laws of God and man, and who gladly gives to the
needy of his wealth and earnings, deserves the
same esteem as any other worker. But it is no
easy matter to be always honourable in all mer-

1 Loria, Anah/si de la 'pfcyprieHb eapitaUsta, ii. 168.

* Svmma Theologica, n. vii. 5.

^ Ashley, op. cit., p. 55. * Quodlih., i. 40.

s Lib. Quat. Sent, xv. 2. • iv. 16, 4.

' gee Jourdain, oj>. dt., p. 20 et aeq.

150 medij:val economic teaching

cantile dealings and not to become usurious.
Without commerce no community can of course
exist, but immoderate commerce is rather hurtful
than beneficial, because it fosters greed of gain
and gold, and enervates and emasculates the
nation through love of pleasure and luxury.' ^
Nider says that to buy not for use but for sale at
a higher price is called trade. Two special rules
apply to this : first, that it should be useful to
the State, and second, that the price should corre-
spond to the dihgence, prudence, and risk under-
taken in the transaction.^

-/-' The later writers in the fifteenth century seem
to have regarded trade more liberally even than
Aquinas, although they quote his dictum on the
subject as the basis of their teaching. Instead of

! condemning aU commerce as wrong unless it was

! justified by good motives, they were rather in-
clined to treat commerce as being in itself colour-

i less, but capable of becoming evil by bad motives.

i Carletus says : ' Commerce in itself is neither bad
nor illegal, but it may become bad on account of
ithe circumstances and the motive with which it
is undertaken, the persons who undertake it, or
the manner in which it is conducted. For instance,
commerce undertaken through avarice or a desire
for sloth is bad ; so also is commerce which is
injurious to the repubhc, such as engrossing.' ^

' Quoted in Janssen, <yp. eit., vol. ii. p. 97.

« Of. cit., iv. 10.

* Summa Angelica, 169: 'Mercatio non est mala ex genere, sed
bona, humane conyictui neoesaaria dum fuerit justa. Mercatio sim-
plioiter non est peccatum sed ejus abusus.' Biel, op, cit., iv. zv. 10.

THE EXCHANGE OP PROPERTY 151

Endemami, having thoroughly studied all the
fifteenth-century writers on the subject, says that
commerce might be rendered unjustifiable either
by subjective or objective reasons. Subjective
illegality would arise from the person trading — ^f or
instance, the clergy — or the motive with which
trade was undertaken; objective iUegahty on
account of the object traded in, such as weapons
in war-time, or the bodies of free men.^ Specu-
lative trading, and what we to-day call profiteer-
ing, were forbidden in all circumstances. ^

We need not dwell upon the prohibition of
trading by the clergy, because it was simply a rule
of discipline which has not any bearing upon
general economic teaching, except in so far as it
shows that commerce was considered an occupa-
tion dangerous to virtue. Aquinas puts it as
follows : ' Clerics shotdd abstain not only from
things that are evil in themselves, but even from
those that have an appearance of evil. This
happens in trading, both because it is directed to
worldly gain, which clerics should despise, and
because trading is open to so many vices, since " a
merchant is hardly free from sins of the hps." ^
There is also another reason, because trading
engages the mind too much with worldly cares,
and consequently withdraws it from spiritual
cares ; wherefore the Apostle says : * "No man

>■ Siudien, vol. ii. p. 18.

2 The Ayenbite of Inwit, a thirteenth-century confessor's manual,
lays it down that speculation is a kind of usury. (Rambaud, Histoire,
p. 56.)

3 Eooles. xxvi. 28. * 2 Tim. ii. 4.

152 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

being a soldier to God entangleth himself with
secular business." Nevertheless it is lawful for
clerics to engage in the first-mentioned kind of
exchange, which is directed to supply the neces-
saries of hfe, either by buying or by selling.' ^
The rule of St. Benedict contains a strong ad-
monition to those who may be entrusted with the
sale of any of the products of the monastery, to
ayoid aU fraud and avarice. ^

On the whole, the attitude towards commerce
seems to have grown more liberal in the course of
the Middle Ages. At first aU commerce was con-
demned as sinful ; at a later period it was said to
be justifiable provided it was influenced by good
motives ; while at a stiU later date the method of
treatment was rather to regard it as a colourless
act in itself which might be rendered harmful
by the presence of bad motives. This gradual
broadening of the justification of commerce is
probably a reflection of the necessities of the age,
which witnessed a very great expansion of com-
merce, especially of foreign trade. In the earher
> centuries remuneration for undertaking risk was
prohibited on the authority of a passage in the
Gregorian Decretals, but the later writers refused
to disallow it.^ The following passage from Dr.
Cunningham's Growth of English Industry and
Commerce correctly represents the attitude of the
Chxirch towards commerce at the end of the
Middle Ages : ' The ecclesiastic who regarded the

^ Svmim, n. ii. 77, 4, ad. 3. " lUg. St. Ben., 57.

' Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Cormmrtx, vol. i.
p. 266.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPEHTY 153

merchant as exposed to temptations in all his
dealings would not condemn him as sinful unless
it were clear that a transaction were entered on
solely for greed, and hence it was the tendency for
moralists to draw additional distinctions, and
refuse to pronounce against business practices
where common sense did not give the benefit of
the doubt.' ^ We have seen that one motive
which would justify the carrying on of trade was
the desire to support one's self and one's famUy.
Of course this motive was capable of bearing
a very extended and elastic interpretation, and
would justify increased commercial profits accord-
ing as the standard of fife improved. The other
motive given by the theologians, namely, the bene-
fit of the State, was also one which was capable
of a very wide construction. One must remember
that even the manual labourer was bound not to
labour solely for avaricious gain, but also for the
benefit of his fellow-men. ' It is not only to
chastise our bodies,' says Basil, ' it is also by the
love of our neighbour that the labourer's life is
useful so that God may furnish through us our
weaker brethren ' ; ^ and a fifteenth-century book
on morality says : ' Man should labour for the
honour of Grod. He should labour in order to
gain for himself and his family the necessaries of
life and what will contribute to Christian joy,
and moreover to assist the poor and the sick by
his labours. He who acting otherwise seeks only
the pecuniary recompense of his work does Ul,
and his labours are but usury. In the words of

1 p. 255. 2 ^gg_ j^_ Tract., xxxvn. i.

154 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

St. Augustine, " thou shalt not commit usury
with the work of thy hands, for thus wilt thou
lose thy soul." ' i The necessity for altruism
and regard for the needs of one's neighbour as well
as of one's self were therefore motives necessary
to justify labour as well as commerce ; and it
would be wrong to conclude that the teaching of
the scholastics on the necessity for a good motive
to justify trade operated to damp individual
enterprise, or to discourage those who were in-
clined to launch commercial undertakings, any
more than the insistence on the need for a similar
motive in labourers was productive of idleness.
What the mediaeval teaching on commerce really
amounted to was that, while commerce was as
legitimate as any other occupation, owing to the
numerous temptations to avarice and dishonesty
which it involved, it must be carefully scrutinised
and kept within due bounds. It was more diffi-
cult to insure the observance of the just price in
the case of a sale by a merchant than in one by
an artificer; and the power which the merchant
possessed of raising the price of the necessaries of
life on ihe poor by engrossing and speculation
rendered him a person whose operations should be
carefully controlled.

Finally, it must be clearly understood that the
attempt of some modern writers to base the medi-
aeval justification of commerce on an analysis of
all commercial gains as the payment for labour
rests on a profound misunderstanding. As we
have already pointed out, Aquinas distinctly

^ Quoted in Janssen, op. cit., vol. ii. p. 9.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 155

rules out of consideration in his treatment of
commerce the case where the goods have been
improved in value by the exertions of the mer-
chant. When the element of labour entered into
the transaction the matter was clearly beyond
doubt, and the lengthy discussion devoted to the
question of commerce by Aquinas and his followers
shows that in justifying commercial gains they
were justifying a gain resting not on the remunera-
tion for the labour, but on an independent title.

§ 8. Cambium

There was one department of commerce, namely,
cambium, or money-changing, which, while it did
not give any difficulty in theory, involved certain
difficulties in practice, owing to the fact that
it was liable to be used to disguise usurious
transactions. Although cambium was, strictly
speaking, a special branch of commerce, it was
nevertheless usually treated in the works on usury,
the reason being that many apparent contracts of
cambium were in fact veiled loans, and that it was
therefore a matter of importance in discussing usury
to explain the tests by which genuine and usurious
exchanges could be distinguished. Endemann
treats this subject very fuUy and ably ; ^ but for
the purpose of the present essay it is not necessary
to do more than to state the main conclusions at
which he arrives.

Although the practice of exchange grew up
slowly and gradually during the later Middle

n, vol. i. p. 75.

156 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Ages, and, consequently, the amount of space
devoted to the discussion of the theory of ex-
change became larger as time went on, never-
theless there is no serious difference of opinion
between the writers of the thirteenth century, who
treat the subject in a fragmentary way, and those
of the fifteenth, who deal with it exhaustively
and systematically. Aquinas does not mention
cambium in the Summa, but he recognises the
necessity for some system of exchange in the De
Begimine Principum.^ AQ the later writers who
mention cambium are agreed in regarding it as a
species of commerce to which the ordinary rules
regulating aU commerce apply. Francis de May-
ronis says that the art of cambium is as natural
as any other kind of commerce, because of the
diversity of the currencies in different kingdoms,
and approves of the campsor receiving some
remuneration for his labour and trouble. ^ Nicholas
de Ausmo, in his commentary on the Summa
Pisana, written in the beginning of the fifteenth
bentury, says that the campsor may receive a gain
from his transactions, provided that they are not
conducted with the sole object of making a profit,
and that the gain he may receive must be hmited
by the common estimation of the place and time.
This is practically saying that cambium may be
carried on under the same conditions as any other
species of commerce. Biel says that cambium

1 ' Cum enim extraneae monetae communicantuT in permutationibus
opoitet recunere ad artem campsoriam, cum talia numismata non
tautum valeant in regionibus extraneis quantum in propriis (De ^e^,
Prin., u. 13). " In Qwt. Lib.. Sent., iv. 16, 4.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 157

is only legitimate if the campsor has the motive
of keeping up a family or benefiting the State,
and that the contract may become usurious if the
gain is not fair and moderate.^ The right of the
campsor to some remuneration for risk was only
gradually admitted, and forms the subject of much
discussion amongst the jurists. ^ This hesitation
in allowing remimeration for risk was not pecuhar
to cambium, but, as we have seen above, was
common to aU commerce. Endemann points out
how the theologians and jurists unanimously in-
sisted that cambium could not be justified except
when the just price was observed, and that, when
the doctrine attained its f\xll development, the
element of labour was but one of the constituents
in the estimation of that price. ^

All the writers who treated of exchange divided
it into three kinds ; ordinary exchange of the
moneys of different currencies {cambium minutum),
exchange of moneys of different currencies between
different places, the justification for which rested
on remuneration for an imaginary transport
(cambium 'per Utteras), and usurious exchange of
moneys of the same currency {cambium siccum).
The former two species of cambium were justifi-
able, whereas the last was condemned.*

The most complete treatise on the subject of
money exchange is that of Thomas da Vio, written
in 1499. The author of this treatise divides money-

1 Op. cit, IV. XV. 11.

" Endemann, Studien, vol. i. pp. 123-36.

s Ibid., p. 213.

* LaurentiuB de Bodulfis, Be Vsuris, pt, iii. Nos. 1 to 5.

158 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

changing into three kinds, just, unjust, and doubt-
ful. There were three kinds of just change ; cam-
bium minutum, in which the campsor was entitled
to a reasonable remuneration for his labour;
cambium per litteras, in which the campsor was
held entitled to a wage {m£.rces) for an imaginary-
transportation ; and thirdly, when the campsor
carried money from one place to another, where it
was of higher value. The unjust change was
when the contract was a usurious transaction veiled
in the guise of a genuine exchange. Under the
doubtful changes, the author discusses various
special points which need not detain us here.

Thomas da Vio then goes on to discuss whether
the justifiable exchange can be said to be a species
of loan, and concludes that it can not, because aU
that the campsor receives is an indemnity against
loss aiid a remuneration for his labour, trouble,
outlay, and risk, which is always justifiable. He
then goes on to state the very important principle,
that in cambium money is not to be considered
a measure of value, but a vendible commodity, '^
a distinction which Endemann thinks was pro-
ductive of very important results in the later
teaching on the subject.^ The last question
treated in the treatise is the measure of the
campsor' s profit, and here the contract of exchange
is shown to be on aU fours with every other con-
tract, because the essential principle laid down

1 ' Numisma quamvis sit mensura et instrumentom in permuta-
tionibus ; tamen per se aliquid esse potest.' It is this principle that
justifies the treatment of canMimii in this section rather than the next.

^ StvMm, vol. ii. p. 212.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 159

for determining its justice is the observance of the
equivalence between both parties.^

Section 2. — The Sale of the Use of
Money

§ 1. Usury in Oreece and Rome

The prohibition of usury has always occupied
such a large place in histories of the Middle Ages,
and particularly in discussions relating to the
attitude of the Church towards economic ques-
tions, that it is important that its precise founda-
tion and extent should be carefuUy studied. The
usury prohibition has been the centre of so many
bitter controversies, that it has almost become
part of the stock-in-trade of the theological mob
orators. The attitude of the Church towards
usury only takes a sUghtly less prominent place
than its attitude towards Gahleo in the utterances
of those who are anxious to convict it of error.
We have referred to this current controversy, not
in order that we might take a part in it, but
that, on the contrary, we might avoid it. It is
no part of our purpose in our treatment of this
subject to discuss whether the usury prohibition
was or was not suitable to the conditions of the
Middle Ages ; whether it did or did not impede
industrial enterprise and commercial expansion ;
or whether it was or was not universally disre-
garded and evaded in real Ufe. These are in-
quiries which, though full of interest, would not

1 Brants has a very luminous and interesting section on Camitiwm,
oip. cit., p. 214 et seq.

160 MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

be in place in a discussion of theory. All we are
concerned to do in the following pages is to indi-
cate the grounds on which the prohibition of usury
rested, the precise extent of its appMcation, and
the conceptions of economic theory which it indi-
cated and involved.

We must remark in the first place that the pro-
hibition of usury was in no sense pecuHar to the
Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, but, on the
contrary, was to be found in many other rehgious
and legal systems— for instance, in the writings of
the Greek and Roman philosophers, amongst the
Jews, and the followers of Mohammed. We shall
give a very brief account of the other prohibitions
of usury before coming to deal with the scholastic
teaching on the subject.

We can find no trace of any legal prohibition
of usury in ancient Greece. Although Solon's
laws contained many provisions for the rehef of
poor debtors, they did not forbid the taking of
interest, nor did they limit the rate of interest that
might be taken.^ In Rome the Twelve Tables fixed
a maximum rate of interest, which was probably
ten or twelve per cent, per annum, but which
cannot be determined with certainty owing to the
doubtful signification of the expression ' unciarum
foenus.' The legal rate of interest was gradually
reduced until the year 347 B.C., when five per cent,
was fixed as a maximum. In 342 B.C. interest
was forbidden altogether by the Grenucian Law ;
but this law, though never repealed, was in prac-
tice quite inoperative owing to the facility with

^ Geaiy, The Church and Usury, p. 21.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 161

which it could be evaded ; and consequently the
oppression of borrowers was prevented by the
enactment, or perhaps it would be more correct to
say the general recognition, of a maximum rate
of interest of twelve per cent, per annum. This
maximum rate — ^the Centesima — ^remained in oper-
ation until the time of Justinian. ^ Justinian,
who was under the influence of Christian teaching,
and who might therefore be expected to have
regarded usury with unfavourable eyes, fixed the
following maximum rates of interest — maritime
loans twelve per cent. ; loans to ordinary persons,
not in business, six per cent. ; loans to high per-
sonages (illustres) and agriculturists, four per cent.^
While the taking of interest was thus approved
or tolerated by Greek and Roman law, it was at
the same time reprobated by the philosophers of
both countries. Plato objects to usury because
it tends to set one class, the poor or the borrowers,
against another, the rich or the lenders ; and goes
so far as to make it wrong for the borrower to
repay either the principal or interest of his debt.
He further considers that the profession of the
usurer is to be despised, as it is an illiberal and
debasing way of making money. ^ While Plato
therefore disapproves in no ambiguous words of
usury, he does not develop the philosophical bases
of his objection, but is content to condemn it
rather for its probable ill effects than on account
of its inherent injustice.

^ Hunter, Bcyman Law, pp. 652-53 ; deary, op. cit, pp. 22-6 ;
Roscher, Political Economy, a. 90.
2 Code 4, 32, 26, 1. » Laws, v. oh. 11-13.

L

162 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Aristotle condemns usury because it is the most
extreme and dangerous form of ohrematistic ac-
quisition, or the art of making money for its own
sake. As we have seen above, in discussing the
legitimacy of commerce, buying cheap and sell-
ing dear was one form of chrematistic acquisition,
which could only be justified by the presence
of certain motives ; and usury, according to the
philosopher, was a stUl more striking example of
the same kind of acquisition, because it consisted
IQ making money from money, which was thus
employed for a function different from that for
which it had been originally invented. ' Usury
is most reasonably detested, as the increase of our
forttme arises from the money itself, and not by
employing it for the purpose for which it was
/ intended. For it was devised for the sake of
exchange, but usury multiphes it. And hence
usury has received the name of tokos, or
produce ; for whatever is produced is itself like
its parents ; and usury is merely money bom of
money ; so that of all means of money-making it
is the most contrary to nature.' ^ We need not
pause here to discuss the precise significance of
Aristotle's conceptions on this subject, as they are
to us not so much of importance in themselves,
as because they suggested a basis for the treat-
ment of usury to Aquinas and his followers.^

In Rome, as in Greece, the philosophers and
moralists were unanimous in their condemnation
of the practice of usury. Cicero condemns usury
as being hateful to mankind, and makes Cato say

* Aristotle, PoUUca, i. 10, 2 Clesuy, op. cit, p. 29.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTYx 163

that it is on the same level of moral obliquity as
murder ; and Seneca makes a point that became
of some importance in the Middle Ages, namely,
that usury is wrongful because it involves the
selling of time.^ Plutarch develops the argument
that money is sterile, and condemns the prac-
tices of contemporary money-lenders as unjust.^
The teaching of the philosophers as to the unlaw-
fulness of usury was reflected in the popular feel-
ing of the time.^

§ 2. Usury in the Old Testament

The question of usury therefore attracted con-
siderable attention in the teaching and practice
of pagan antiquity. It occupied an equally im-
portant place in the Old Testament. In Exodus
we find the first prohibition of usury : ' If thou
lend money to any of my people being poor, thou
shalt not be to him as a creditor, neither shall ye
lay upon him usury.' * In Leviticus we read :
' And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his hand
f aQ with thee ; then thou must uphold him ; as
a stranger and a sojourner shall he Mve with thee.
Take thou no money of him or increase, but fear
thy God that thy brother may Uve with thee.
Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury,
nor give him victuals for increase.' ^ Deuteronomy
lays down a wider prohibition : ' Thou shalt not
lend upon usury to thy brother ; usury of money,
usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent

'^ Cleary, <yp. dt,, p. 29. * De Viiando Aere AUeno.

' Espinas, op. cit., pp. 81-2 ; Boscher, PoUtical Economy, a. 90.
* Exod. ?xii. 25. " Lev. xxv. 35.

164 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

upon usmy ; unto a foreigner thou mayest lend
upon usury, but unto thy brother thou mayest not
lend upon usury.' ^ It will be noticed that the
first and second of these texts do not forbid usury
except in the case of loans to the poor, and, if we
had them alone to consider, we could conclude
that loans to the rich or to business men were
allowed. The last text, however, extends the
prohibition to all loans to one's brother — an
expression which was of importance in Christian
times, as Christian writers maintained the uni-
versal brotherhood of man.

It is unnecessary for us to discuss the im-
derlying considerations which prompted these
ordinances. Dr. Cleary, who has studied the
matter with great care, concludes that: 'The
legislator was urged mostly by economic con-
siderations. . . . The permission to extract usury
from strangers — a permission which later writers,
such as Maimonides, regarded as a command —
clearly favours the view that the legislator was
guided by economic principles. It is more diffi-
cult to say whether he based his legislation on the
principle that usury is intrinsically imjust — ^that
is to say, imjust even when taken in moderation.
There is really nothing in the texts quoted to
enable us to decide. The universahty of the
prohibition when there is question solely of Jews
goes t6 show that usury as such was regarded as
ttnjust ; whilst its permission as between Jew
and Grentile favours the contradictory hjrpo-
thesis.' ^ Modem Jewish thought is inclined to

1 Deut. xxiii. 19. 2 Op. cit, pp. 5-6.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 165

hold the view that these prohibitions were based
upon the assumption that usury was intrinsically
unjust, but that the taking of usury from the
Grentiles was justified on the principle of com-
pensation ; in other words, that Jews might exact
usury from those who might exact it from them.^
It is at least certain that ustiry was regarded by
the writers of the Old Testament as amongst the
most terrible of sins.^

The general attitude of the Jews towards usury
cannot be better explained than by quoting Dr.
Cleary's final conclusion on the subject : ' It
appears therefore that in the Old Testament
usury was universally prohibited between Israel-
ite and Israehte, whilst it was permitted between
Israehte and GentUe. Furthermore, it seems im-
possible to decide what was the nature of the
obligations imposed — ^whether the prohibition sup-
posed and ratified an already existing universal
obhgation, in charity or justice, or merely im-
posed a new obhgation in obedience, binding the
consciences of men for economic or pohtical
reasons. So, too, it seems impossible to decide
absolutely whether the decrees were intended to
possess eternal vaUdity ; the probabilities, how-
ever, seem to f avoxu" very strongly the view that
they were intended as mere economic regulations
suited to the circumstances of the time. This
does not, of course, decide the other question,
whether, apart from such positive regulations,

>• Jewish EncyclopoBdia, art. ' Usury.'

^ Ezek. xviii. 13 ; Jer. xv. 10 ; Ps. xiv. 5, oix. 11, cxii. 5 ; Prov.
xxviii. 8 ; Hes. xviii. 8 ; 2 Esd. v. 1 et aeq.

166 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

there already existed an obligation arising from
the natural law ; nor would the passing of the
positive law into desuetude affect the existence
of the other obligation.' ^

Before we pass from the consideration of the
Old Testament to that of the New, we may men-
tion that the taking of interest by Mohammedans
is forbidden in the Koran. ^

§ 3. Usury in the First Twelve Centuries of
Christianity.

The only passage in the Gospels which bears
directly on the question of usury is a verse of St.
Luke, the correct reading of which is a matter of
considerable difference of opinion.^ The Revised
Version reads : ' But love your enemies, and do
them good, and lend, never despairing {nihil
desperantes) ; and your reward shall be great.'
If this be the true reading of the verse, it does
not touch the question of usury at all, as it is
simply an exhortation to lend without worrying
whether the debtor fail or not.* The more gen-
erally received reading of this verse, however,
is that adopted by the Vulgate, ' mutuum date,
nihil inde sperantes ' — ' lend hoping for nothing
thereby.' If this be the correct reading, the
verse raises considerable difficulties of interpre-
tation. It may simply mean, as Mastrofini in-

1 Op. cit., pp. 17-18.

' ii. 30. This prohibition is universally evaded. (Bosoher, PoUUcal
Economy, a. 90.) » Luke vi. 35.

* deary, op. cit., p. 33, following Knabenbaur.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 167

terprets it, that all human actions should be
performed, not in the hope of obtaining any
material reward, but for the love of God and our
neighbour ; or it may contain an actual precept
or counsel relating to the particular subject of
loans. If the latter be the correct interpretation,
the further question arises whether the recom-
mendation is to renounce merely the interest of
a loan or the principal as well. We need not here
engage on the details of the controversy thus
aroused ; it is sufficient to say that it is the
almost unanimous opinion of modern authorities
that the verse recommends the renunciation of
the principal as well as the interest ; and that, if
this interpretation is correct, the recommendation
is not a precept, but a cotmsel.^ Aquinas thought
that the verse was a counsel as to the repayment
of the principal, but a precept as to the payment
of interest, and this opinion is probably correct.^
With the exception of this verse, there is not a
single passage ia the Gospels which prohibits the
taking of usury.

We must now give some account of the teaching
on usury which was laid down by the Fathers and
early councils of the Church ; but at the same
time we shall not attempt to treat this in an
exhaustive way, because, although the early
Christian teaching is of interest in itself, it exer-
cised little or no influence upon the great philo-
sophical treatment of the same subject by Aquinas
and his followers, which is the principal subject
to be discussed in these pages. The first thing we

1 aeary, op. cit., p. 34, " Ibid., p. 35.

168 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

must remark is that the prohibition of usury was
not' included by the Council of Jerusalem amongst
the ' necessary things ' imposed upon converts
from the Gentiles.^ This would seem to show
that the taking of usury was not regarded as un-
lawful by the Apostles, who were at pains ex-
pressly to forbid the commission of offences, the
evil of which must have appeared plainly from
the natural law — ^for instance, fornication. The
Didache, which was used as a book of catechetical
instruction for catechumens, does not specifically
mention usury ; the forcing of the repayment
of loans from the poor who are unable to pay is
strongly reprobated ; but this is not so in the case
of the rich.^ Clement of Alexandria expressly
hmits his disapprobation of usury to the case of
loans between brothers, whom he defines as
'participators in the same word,' i.e. feUow-
Christians ; and in any event it is clear that he
regards it as sin against charity, but not against
justice.^

TertuUian is one of the first of the Fathers to
lay down positively that the taking of usury is
sinful. He regards it as obviously wrong for
Christians to exact usury on their loans, and
interprets the passage of St. Luke, to which we
have referred, as a precept against looking for
even the repayment of the principal.* On the
other hand, Cjrprian, writing in the same century,
although he declaims eloquently and vigorously
against the usurious practices of the clergy, does

"■ Acts XV. 29. ^ Didache, oh. i. ; Cleary, op. cit, p. 39.

' Stromata, ii. 18. * Ad Mardon, iv. 17.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 169

not specifically express the opinion that the taking
of usury is wrong in itseK.^

Thus, during the first three centuries of Christi-
anity, there does not seem to have been, as far as
we can now ascertain, any definite and general
doctrine laid down on the subject of usury. In
the year 305 or 306 a very important step forward
was taken, when the Council of Elvira passed a
decree against usury. This decree, as given by
Ivo and Gratian, seems only to have appHed to
usury on the part of the clergy, but as given by
Mansi it afiEected the clergy and laity alike.
' Should any cleric be found to have taken usury,'
the latter version runs, ' let him be degraded and
excommunicated. Moreover, if any layman shall
be proved a usurer, and shall have promised, when
corrected, to abstain from the practice, let him be
pardoned. If, on the contrary, he perseveres in
his evil-doing, he is to be excommunicated.' ^
Although the Council of Elvira was but a pro-
vincial Council, its decrees are important, as
they provided a model for later legislation. Dr.
Cleary thinks that Mansi' s version of this decree
is probably incorrect, and that, therefore, the
Council only forbade usury on the part of the
clergy. In any event, with this one possible and
extremely doubtful exception, there was no con-
cUiar legislation affecting the practice of usury
on the part of the laity until the eighth century.
Certain individual popes censured the taking of
usury by laymen, and the Council of Nice expressed

* he, Lapaia, oh. 5-6 ; Cleary, op. cit., pp. 42-3. >

^ Gleary, op. dt., p. 43.

170 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

the opinion that such a practice was contrary to
Christ's teaching, but there is nowhere to be foiind
an imperative and definite prohibition of the
taking of usury except by the clergy.^

The inconclusive result of the Christian teaching
up to the middle of the fourth century is well
summarised by Dr. Cleary : ' Hitherto we have
encountered mere prohibitions of usury with little
or no attempt to assign a reason for them other
than that of positive legislation. Most of the
statements of these early patristic writers, as
weU as possibly aU of the early Christian legis-
lative enactments, deal solely with the practice
of usury by the clergy ; stiU, there is sufficient
evidence to show that in those days it was repro-
bated even for the Christian laity, for the Didache
and TertuUian clearly teach or presuppose its
prohibition, while the oecumenical Council of
Nice certainly presupposed its illegality for the
laity, though it faUed to sustain its doctrinal
presuppositions with corresponding ecclesiastical
penalties. With the exception of some very vague
statements by Cjrprian and Clement of Alexandria,
we find no attempt to state the nature of the
resulting obligation — ^that is to say, we are not
told whether there is an obligation of obedience,
of justice, or of charity. The prohibition indeed
seems to be regarded as universal ; and it may
very well be contended that for the cases the
Fathers consider it was in fact universal — ^for the
loans with which they are concerned, being neces-
sitous, should be, in accordance with Christian

1 Cleary, op. eit., pp. 44-8.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 171

charity, gratuitous — even if speculatively usurious
loans in general were not unjust.' ^

The middle of the fourth century marked the
opening of a new period — ' a period when ora-
torical denunciations are profuse, and when con-
sequently philosophical speculation, though fairly
active, is of too imaginative a character to be
sufficiently definite.' ^ St. Basil's Homilies on the
Fourteenth Psalm contain a violent denunciation
of usury, the reasoning of which was repeated by
St. Gregory of Nyssa ^ and St. Ambrose.* These
three Fathers draw a terrible picture of the state
of the poor debtor, who, harassed by his creditors,
falls deeper and deeper into despair, xaitil he
finally commits suicide, or has to seU his children
into slavery. Usury was therefore condemned
by these Fathers as a sin against charity ; the
passage from St. Luke was looked on merely as
a counsel in so far as it related to the repayment
of the principal, but as a precept so far as it
related to usury ; but the notion that usury was
in its very essence a sin against justice does
not appear to have arisen. The natural sterihty
of money is referred to, but not developed ; and
it is suggested, though not categorically stated,
that usury may be taken from wealthy debtors.^

The other Fathers of the later period do not
throw very much light on the question of how
usury was regarded by the early Church. St.
Hilary ^ and Jerome ' still base their objection

* Op. dt, pp. 48-9. * deary, op. (At., p. 49.

' Contra Usurarios. * De Tobia. * CSIeary, op. eit., p. 62.

• In Ps. xiv. ' Ad Ezeoh.

172 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

on tlie ground of its being an ofEence against
charity ; and St. Augustine, though he would hke
to make restitution of usury a duty, treats the
matter from the same poiat of view.^ On the
other hand, there are to be found patristic utter-
ances in favour of the legaUty of usury, and
episcopal approbations of civil codes which per-
mitted it. 2 The civil law did not attempt to
suppress usury, but simply to keep it within due
bounds.^ The restdt of the patristic teaching
therefore was on the whole unsatisfactory and
inconclusive. ' Whilst patristic opinion,' says Dr.
Cleary, ' is very pronounced in condemning usury,
the condemnation is launched against it more
because of its oppressiveness than for its intrinsic
injustice. As Dr. Funk has pointed out, one
can scarcely cite a single patristic opinion which
can be said clearly to hold that usury is against
justice, whilst there are, on the contrary, certain
undercurrents of thought in many writers, and
certain exphcit statements in others, which tend
to show that the Fathers would not have been pre-
pared to deal. so harshly with usurers, did usurers
not treat their debtors so cruelly. ... Of keen
philosophical analysis there is none. . . . On the
whole, we find the teachings of the Fathers crude
and undeveloped.' *
The practical teaching with regard to the taking

1 deary, op. eit, p. 56. ^ lUd., pp. 56-7.

* Jwtinian Code, iv. 32.

* Op. dt., pp. 57-9. On the patristic teaching on usnry, see Eapinas,
op. cit., pp. 82-4 ; Bosoher, Political Economy, a. 90 ; Antoine, Gmirs
d'Econonde soaiale, pp. 588 et seq.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 173

of usury made an important advance in the eighth
and ninth centuries, although the philosophical
analysis of the subject did not develop any more
fuUy. A capitulary canon made in 789 decreed
' that each and all are forbidden to give anything
on usurjT^ ' ; and a capitulary of 813 states that
' not only should the Christian clergy not demand
usury, laymen should not.' In 825 it was de-
creed that the counts were to assist the bishops in
their suppression of usury ; and in 850 the Synod
of Ticinum bound usurers to restitution.^ The
underlying principles of these enactments is as
obscure as their meaning is plain and definite.
There is not a single trace of the keen analysis
with which Aquinas was later to illuminate and
adorn the subject.

§ 4. The, Mediceval Prohibition of Usury

The tenth and eleventh centuries saw no
advance in the teaching on usury. The twelfth
century, however, ushered in a new era. ' Before
that century controversy had been mostly con-
fined to theologians, and treated theologically,
with reference to God and the Bible, and only
rarely with regard to economic considerations.
After the twelfth century the discussion was
conducted on a gradually broadening economic
basis— appeals to the Fathers, canonists, philo-
sophers, the jus divirlkm, the jus naturale, the

^ These are but a few of the enactments of the period directed
against usury (Cleary, 033. cit,, p. 61 ; Favre, Le prit A intkrU dams
Vanci&me France).

174 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

jus humanum, became the order of the day.' ^
Before we proceed to discuss the new philosophical
or scholastic treatment of usury which was in-
augurated for all practical purposes by Aquinas,
we must briefly refer to the ecclesiastical legis-
lation on the subject.

.In 1139 the second Lateran Council issued a
very strong declaration against usurers. ' We
condemn that disgraceful and detestable rapacity,
condemned aUke by human and divine law, by
the Old and the New Testaments, that insati-
able rapacity of usurers, whom we hereby cut off
from aU ecclesiastical consolation; and we order
that no archbishop, bishop, abbot, or cleric shall
receive back usurers except with the very greatest
caution, but that, on the contrary, usurers are to
be regarded as infamous, and shall, if they do not
repent, be deprived of Christian burial.' ^ It
might be argued that this decree was aimed against
immoderate or habitual usury, and not against
usury in general, but aU doubt as regards the
attitude of the Church was set at rest by a decree
of the Lateran Council of 1179. This decree runs :
' Since almost in every place the crime of usury
has become so prevalent that many people give
up all other business and become usurers, as if it
were lawful, regarding not its prohibition in both
Testaments, we ordain that manifest usurers shall
not be admitted to communion, nor, if they die
in their sins, be admitted to Christian burial, and
that no priest shall accept their alms.' ^ Mean-

1 Bohm-Bawerk, Capital and Imterest, p. 19.

" Qeary, op. cit., p. 64. s ji^

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 175

while, Alexander m., having given much atten-"
tion to the subject of usury, had come to the
conclusion that it was a sin against justice. This
recognition of the essential injustice of usury
marked a turning-point in the history of the
treatment of the subject ; and Alexander m.
seems entitled to be designated the ' pioneer of its
scientific study.' ^ Innocent in. followed Alex-
ander in the opinion that usury was unjust in
itself, and from his time forward there was but
httle further disagreement upon the matter
amongst the theologians.^

In 1274 Gregory x., in the Council of Lyons,
ordained that no community, corporation, or
individual should permit foreign usurers to hire
houses, but that they should expel them from their
territory; and the disobedient, if prelates, were
to have their lands put tmder interdict, and, if
laymen, to be visited by their ordinary with
ecclesiastical censures.^ By a further canon he
ordained that the wiUs of usurers who did not
make restitution should be invalid.* This brought
usury definitely within the jurisdiction of the
ecclesiastical courts.^ In 1311 the Council of
Vieime declared all secular legislation in favour
of usury nuU and void, and branded as heresy
the belief that usury was not sinful.^ The pre-
cise extent and interpretation of this decree have
given rise to a considerable amount of discussion,'

1 aeary, op. cit., p. 65. ^ lUd., p. 68.

3 Liber Sextus, v. 5, 1. * Ibid., o. 2.

* Ashley, op. cit, vol. i. pt. i. p. 150.

' Ckmentinamm, v. 5, 1. ' Cleary, op. cit., pp. 74-8.

176 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

which need not detam ns here, because by that
time the whole question of usury had come under
the treatment of the great scholastic writers,
whose teachbig is more particularly the subject
matter of the present essay.

Even as late as the first half of the thirteenth
century there was no serious discussion of usury
by the theologians. WiUiam of Paris, Alexander
of Hales, and Albertus Magnus simply pronounced
it sinful on account of the texts in the Old and
New Testaments, which we have quoted above. ^
It was Aquinas who really put the teaching on
usury upon the new foundation, which was des-
tined to support it for so many hundred years,
and which even at the present day appeals to
many sympathetic and impartial inquirers. Mr.
Lecky apologises for the obscurity of his accotmt
of the argument of Aquinas, but adds that the
confusion is chiefly the fault of the latter ; ^ but
the fact that Mr. Lecky failed to grasp the meaning
of the argument should not lead one to conclude
that the argument itself was either confused or
illogical. The fact that it for centuries remained
the basis of the Catholic teaching on the subject
is a sufficient proof that its inherent absurdity
did not appear apparent to many students at least
as gifted as Mr. Lecky. We shaU quote the article
of Aquinas at some length, because it was uni-
versally accepted by aU the theologians of the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with whose
opinions we are concerned in this essay. To

'- Jourdain, op. cit., p. 16.

"* Bise and Influeiux of Rationalism in Europe, vol. ii. p. 261.

THE EXCHANGE OP PROPERTY 177

quote later writings is simply to repeat in different
words the conclusions at which Aquinas arrived. ^

In answer to the question ' whether it is a sin'
to take usury for money lent,' Aquinas replies :
' To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself,"
because this is to seU what does not exist, and this
evidently leads to inequaUty, which is contrary
to justice.

' In order to make this evident, we must observe
that there are certain things the use of which con-
sists in their consumption ; thus we consume wine
when we use it for drink, and we consume wheat
when we use it for food. Wherefore in such-like
things the use of the thing must not be reckoned
apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted
the use of the thing is granted the! thing itself;
and for this reason to lend things of this kind is to
transfer the ownership. Accordingly, if a man
wanted to sell wine separately from the use of
the wine, he would be selling the same thing
twice, or he would be selhng what does not exist,
wherefore he would evidently commit ^ sin of
injustice. In like manner he commits an in-
justice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for
double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing
in equal measure, the other, the price of the use,
which is called usury.

' On the other hand, there are other things the
use of which does not consist in their consump-
tion ; thus to use a house is to dweU in it, not to de-
stroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be
granted ; for instance, one man may hand over

* Endemann, Stttdien, vol. i. p. 17.
M

178 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

to another the ownership of his house, while
reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or,
vice versa, he may grant the use of a house while
retaining the ownership. For this reason a man
may la-wfuUy make a charge for the use of his
house, and, besides this, revendicate the house
from the person to whom he has granted its use,
as happens in renting and letting a house.
■^ ' But money, according to the philosopher,^
was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange ;
and consequently the proper and principal use of
money is its consumption or ahenation, whereby
it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very
nature unlawful to take payment for the use of
money lent, which payment is known as usury ;
and, just as a man is boimd to restore other ill-
gotten goods, so he is bound to restore the money
;which he has taken in usury.' ^

The essential thing to notice in this explanation
is that the contract of mutuum is shoAvn to be a
sale. The distinction between things which are
consumed in use {res fungihiles), and which are not
consumed in use (res non fungihiles) was familiar
to the civil lawyers ; but what they had never
perceived was precisely what Aquinas perceived,
namely, that the loan of a fungible thing was in
fact not a loan at aU, but a sale, for the simple
reason that the ownership in the thing passed.
Once the transaction had been shown to be a sale,
the principle of justice to be applied to it became
obvious. As we have seen above, in treating of
sales, the essential basis of justice in exchange was

1 Eth., V. Pol. 1. ' n. ii. 78, 1.

THE EXCHANGE OP PROPERTY 179

the observance of aeqiMlitas between buyer and
seller — ^in other words, the fixing of a just price.
The contract of mutuum, however, was nothing
else than a sale of fungibles, and therefore the
just price in such a contract was the return of
fungibles of the same value as those lent. If the
particular fungible sold happened to be money,
the estimation of the just price was a simple
matter — it was the return of an amount of money
of equal value. As money happened to be the
universal measure of value, this simply meant the
return of the same amount of money. Those who
maintained that something additional might be
claimed for the use of the money lost sight of the
fact that the money was incapable of being used
apart from its being consumed.^ To ask for
payment for the sale of a thing which not only
did not exist, but which was quite incapable of
existence, was clearly to ask for something for
nothing — which obviously offended against the
first principles of commutative justice. ' He that
is not bound to lend,' says Aquinas in another
part of the same article, ' may accept repayment
for what he has done, but he must not exact more.
Now he is repaid according to equality of justice.

^ Aquinas did not lose sight of the fact that money might, in certain
cases, be used apart from being consumed — ^for instance, when it was
not used as a means of exchange, but as an ornament. He gives the
example of money being sewn up and sealed in a bag to prevent its
being spent, and in this condition lent for any purpose. In this case,
of course, the transaction would not be a mutuum, but a locaMo et
cond/ucUo, and therefore a price could be charged for the use of the
money {QiMestkmes Biapviatae de Mah, Q. xiii. art. iv. ad. 15, quoted
in Oronin's Ethics, vol. ii. p. 332).

180 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

if he is repaid as much as he lent, wherefore, if he
exacts more for the usufruct of a thing which has
no other use but the consumption of its substance,
he exacts a price of something non-existent, and
so his exaction is unjust.' ^ And in the next
article the principle that mutuum is a sale appears

^ equally clearly : ' Money cannot be sold for a
greater sum than the amount lent, which has to
be paid back.' ^

)£'" The difficulty which moderns find in under-
standing this teaching, is that it is said to be based
on the sterility of money. A moment's thought,
however, wiU convince us that money is in fact
sterUe until labour has been applied to it. In
this sense money differs in its essence from a cow
or a tree. A cow will produce calves, or a tree
wOl produce fruit without the application of any

' exertion by its owner ; but, whatever profit is
derived from money, is derived from the use to

I which it is put by the person who owns it. This
is aU that the scholastics meant by the sterility

'of money. They never thought of denying that
' money, when properly used, was capable of bring-
'ing its employer a profit ; but they emphatically

1 n. ii. 78, 1, ad. 5.

' n. ii. 78, 2, ad. 4. Biel distinguishes three kinds of exchange : of
goods for goods, or barter ; of goods for money, or sale ; and of money
for money ; and adds, ' In his contractibus . . . generahter justitia
in hoc consistit quod fiant sine fraude, et servetur aequahtas sub-
stantiae, qualitatis, quantitatis in oommutatis (op. cit., iv. xv. 1).
Buridan says that usury is contrary to natural law 'ex conditione
justitiae quae in aequalitate damni et luori consistit ; quoniam injustum
eat pro re semel commutata pluries pretium reoipere' (In Lib. PoL,
iv. 6).

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 181

asserted that the profit was due to the labour, and
not to the money.

Antoninus of Florence clearly realised this :
' Money is not profitable of itself alone, nor can
it multiply itself, but it may become profitable
through its employment by merchants ' ; ^ and
Bernardine of Siennia says : ' Money has not
simply the character of money, but it has beyond
this a productive character, which we commonly
call capital.' ^ ' What is money,' says Brants, ' if
it is not a means of exchange, of which the em-
ployment and preservation will give a profit, if
he who possesses it is prudent, active, and intelli-
gent ? If this money is well employed, it will
become a capital, and one may derive a profit
from it ; but this profit arises from the activity
of him who uses it, and consequently this profit
belongs to him — ^it is the fruit, the remuneration
of his labour. . . . Did they (the scholastics) say
that it was impossible to draw a profit from a sum
of money ? No ; they admitted fully that one
might de pecunia lucrari ; but this lucrum does
not come from the pecunia, but from the appli-
cation of labour to the sum.' ^

Therefore, if the borrower did not derive any
profit from the loan, the sum lent had in fact been
sterile, and obviously the just price of the loan
was the return of the amount lent ; if, on the
contrary, the borrower had made a profit from it,
it was the reward of his labour, and not the fruit
of the loan itself. To repay more than the sum

' Quoted in Brants, op. dt., p. 134. * Ibid.

^ Brants, op. cit., pp. 133-5 ; Nider, De Cont. Merc. iii. 16.

182 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

lent would therefore be to make a payment to
one person for the labour of another.^ The ex-
action of usury was therefore the exploitation of
another man's exertion.^

It is interesting to notice how closely the rules
applying in the case of sales were applied to usury.
The raising of the price of a loan on account of
some special benefit derived from it by the borrower
is precisely analogous to raising the sale price of
an object because it is of some special individual
utility to the buyer. On the other hand, as we
shall see further down, any special damage
suffered by the lender was a sufficient reason for
exacting something over and above the amount
lent ; this was precisely the rule that applied in
the case of sales, when the seller suffered any
special damage from parting with the object sold.
Thus the analogy between sales and loans was
complete at every point. In both, equahty of
sacrifice was the test of justice.
^ " Nor could it be suggested that the delay in the
repayment of the loan was a reason for increas-
ing the amount to be repaid, because this reaUy
amounted to a sale of time, which, of its nature,
^ould not be owned.®

^ Qerson, De Cont., iv. 16.

2 Neumann, when he says that ' it was sinful to recompense the use
of capital belonging to another ' {Ckschichte des Wiuihe,rs in DeutschUmd,
p. 25), seems to miss the whole point of the discussion. The teaching
of the canonists on rents and partnership shows clearly that the
owner of capital might draw a profit from another's labour, and the
central point of the usury teaching was that money which has been
lent, and employed so as to produce a profit by the borrower, belongs
not ' to another,' but to the very man who employed it, namely, the
borrower. * Rambaud, op. cit, p. 63 ; Aquinas (?), De Vsuris, i. 4.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 183

The scholastic teaching, then, on the subject was
quite plain and unambiguous. Usury, or the '
payment of a price for the use of a sum lent in
addition to the repayment of the sum itself, was
in aU cases prohibited. The fact that the payment
demanded was moderate was irrelevant ; there
could be no question of the reasonableness of the
amount of an essentially unjust payment.^ Nor
was the payment of usiiry rendered just because
the loan was for a productive purpose — in other
words, a commercial loan. Certain writers have
maintained that in this case usury was toler-
ated ; ^ but they can easily be refuted. As we
have seen above, mutuum was essentially a sale,
and, therefore, no additional price could be
charged because of some special individual ad-
vantage enjoyed by the buyer (or borrower). It
was quite impossible to distinguish, according
to the scholastic teaching, between taking an
additional payment because the lender made
a profit by using the loan wisely, and taking it
because the borrower was in great distress, and
therefore derived a greater advantage from the_
loan than a person in easier circumstances. The
erroneous notion that loans for productive pur-
poses were entitled to any special treatment
was finally dispelled in 1745 by an encyclical
of Benedict xiv.^

' Jourdain, op. cit., p. 35.

^ E.g. P6rin, Premiere Principes d'Economie 'politique, p. 305 ; daudio
Jannet, Ca/pital Speculation et Finance, p. 83 ; De Metz-Noblat, Lois
iconomiques, p. 293.

" Bambaud, op. cit, p. 69.

184 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

§ 5. Extrinsic Titles

'' Usury, therefore, was prohibited in all cases.

Many people at the present day think that the

prohibition of usury was the same thing as the

prohibition of interest. There could not be a

Weater mistake. While usury \yas in all circum-

, stances condemned, interest was in every case

'{allowed. The justification of interest rested on

precisely the same ground as the prohibition of

usury, namely, the observance of the equahty

of commutative justice. It was unjust that a

greater price should be paid for the loan of a sum

of money than the amount lent ; but it was no

less unjust that the lender should find himself

in a worse position because of his having made the

loan. In other words, the consideration for the

loan could not be increased because of any special

benefit which it conferred on the borrower, but

it could be increased on account of any special

damage suffered by the lender — ^precisely the

same ride as we have seen apphed in the case

!' of sales. The borrower must, in addition to
the repayment of the loan, indemnify the lender
for any damage he had suffered. The measure
of the damage was the difference between the
lender's condition before the loan was made and
after it had been repaid — ^in other words, he was
entitled to compensation for the difference in

.,^his condition occasioned by the transaction — id
quod interest.

Before we discuss interest properly so called,
we must say a word about another analogous

THE EXCHANGE OP PROPERTY 185

but not identical title of compensation, namely,
the 'poena conventionalis. It was a very general '
practice, about the legitimacy of which the scho-
lastics do not seem to have had any doubt, to
attach to the original contract of loan an agree-
ment that a penalty should be paid in case of
default in the repayment of the loan at the stipu-
lated time.^ The justice of the poena conven-
tionalis was recognised by Alexander of Hales,^
and by Duns Scotus, who gives a typical form of
the stipulation as follows : ' I have need of my
money for commerce, but shall lend it to you till
a certain day on the condition that, if you do not
repay it on that day, you shaU pay me afterwards
a certain sum in addition, since I shall suffer much
injury through your delay.' ^ The poena con-
ventionalis must not be confused with either of
the titles damnum emergens or lucrum cessans,
which we are about to discuss ; it was distin-
guished from the former by being based upon a
presumed injury, whereas the injury in damnum
emergens must be proved ; and for the latter
because the damage must be presumed to have
occurred after the expiration of the loan period,
whereas in lucrum cessans the damage was pre-
sumed to have occurred during the currency of
the loan period. The important thing to remem-
ber is that these titles were reaUy distract.* The
essentials of a poena conventionalis were, stipu-
lation from the first day of the loan, presumption

''■ Ashley, op. cit, vol. i. pt. i. p. 399.

* Biel, op. cit., iv. 15, 11. * Cleary, op. dt., p. 93.

* Ibid., p. 95.

186 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

of damage, and attachment to a loan whicli was
itself gratuitous.^ The Summa Astesarm clearly
maintained the distinction between the two titles
of compensation,^ as also did the Summa ATigeUca.^
■■ The first thing to be noted on passing from the
poena conventionalis to interest proper is that the
latter ground of compensation was generally
divided into two kinds, damnum emergens and
lucrum cessans. The former included all cases
where the lender had incurred an actual loss by
reason of his having made the loan ; whereas the
latter included aU cases where the lender, by
\parting with his money, had lost the opportunity
of making a profit. This distinction was made
at least as early as the middle of the thirteenth
century, and was always adopted by later writers.*
The title damnum emergens never presented any
serious difficulty. It was recognised by Albertus
Magnus,'' and laid down so clearly by Aquinas
that it was not afterwards questioned : ' A lender
may without sin enter an agreement with the
borrower for compensation for the loss he incurs
of something he ought to have, for this is not to
sell the use of money, but to avoid a loss. It
may also happen that the borrower avoids a
greater loss than the lender incurs, wherefore
the borrower may repay the lender with what he
lias gained.' ^ The usual example given to Dlus-
trate how damnum emergens might arise, was the

1 deary, op. cit., p. 94.

* Endemann, Studien, vol. i. p. 20. * ooxl.

* Ashley, op. cit, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 399.

" Boscher, Oesdiichte, p. 27. • n. ii. 78, 2, ad. 1.

THE EXCHANGE OP PROPEETY 187

case of the lender being obliged, on account of
the failure of the borrower, to borrow money
himself at usury. ^

Closely allied to the title of damnum emergens
was that of lucrum cessans. According to some
writers, the latter was the only true interest.
Dr. Cleary quotes some thirteenth-century docu-
ments in which a clear distinction is made be-
tween damnum and interesse ; ^ and it seems to
have been the common custom in Germany at a
later date to distinguish between interesse and
schaden.^ Although the division between these
two titles was very indefinite, they did not meet
recognition with equal readiness; the title dam--
num emergens was universally admitted by all
authorities ; while that of lucrum cessans was but
gradually admitted, and hedged round with many
hmitations.* ^■

The first clear recognition of the title lucrum
cessans occurs in a letter from Alexander m.,
written in 1176, and addressed to the Archbishop
of Genoa : ' You teU us that it often happens
in your city that people buy pepper and cumamon
and other wares, at the time worth not more than
five pounds, promising those from whom they

1 Ashley, op. cit., vol. i. pt. i. p. 400. ^ Op. cit., p. 95.

' Ashley, op. cit., vol. i. pt. ii. p. 401.

* Cleary, op. cit., p. 98 ; Endemann, Studien, vol. ii. p. 279 ; Bartolus
and Baldus said that damnum emergena and lucrum cessans were
divided by a very narrow line, and that it was often difficult to dis-
tinguish between them. They suggested that the terms interesse
proximum and interesse remotum would be more satisfactory, but
they were not followed by other writers (Endemann, Studien, vol. ii.
pp. 269-70).

188 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

received them six pounds at an appointed time.
Though contracts of this kind and under such a
form cannot strictly be called usurious, yet,
nevertheless, the vendors incur guilt, unless they
are really doubtful whether the wares might be
worth more or less at the time of payment. Your
citizens will do well for their own salvation to
cease from such contracts.' ^ As Dr. Cleary
points out, the trader is held by this decision to
be entitled to a recompense on account of a prob-
able loss of profit, and the decision consequently
amounts to a recognition of the title lucrum
cessans.^ The title is also recognised by Scotus
and Hostiensis.^

The attitude of Aquinas to the admission of
lucrum cessans is obscure. In the article on
usury he expressly states that ' the lender cannot
enter an agreement for compensation through the
fact that he makes no profit out of his money,
because he must not sell that which he has not
yet, and may be prevented in many ways from
having.' * Two comments must be made on this
passage ; first, that it only refers to making a
stipulation in advance for compensation for profit
lost, and does not condemn the actual payment of
compensation ; ^ second, that the point is made
that the probabiHty of gaining a profit on money
is so problematical as to make it unsaleable. As
Ashley points out, the latter consideration was
peculiarly important at the time when the Summa

1 Deor. Greg. v. 5, 6. " Op. cit., p. 67.

* Ibid., p. 99. « n. ii. 78, 2, ad. 1.

^ Bambaud, op. cit., p. 67.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 189

was composed ; and, when in the course of the
following two centuries the opportunities for
reasonably safe and profitable business invest-
ments increased, the great theologians conceived
that they were following the real thought of
Aquinas by giving to this explanation a pure
contem'poraTiea expositio. The argument in favour
of this construction is strengthened by a reference
to the article of the Summa dealing with restitu-
tion,^ where it is pointed out that a man may
suffer in two ways — first, by being deprived of what
he actually has, and, second, by being prevented
from obtaining what he was on his way to obtain.
In the former case an equivalent must always be
restored, but in the latter it is not necessary to
make good an equivalent, ' because to have a thing
virtually is less than to have it actually, and to
be on the way to obtain a thing is to have it merely
virtually or potentially, and so, were he to be
indemnified by receiving the thing actually, he
would be paid, not the exact value taken from
him, but more, and this is not necessary for salva-
tion. However, he is bound to make some com-
pensation according to the condition of persons
and things.' Later in the same article we are
told that ' he that has money has the profit not
actually, but only virtually ; and it may be
hindered in many ways.' ^ It seems quite clear-
from these passages that Aquinas admitted the
right to compensation for a profit which the lender
was hindered from making on account of the loan ;
but that, in the circumstances of the time, the

» n. ii. 62, 4. * Ihid., ad. 1 and 2.

190 MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

probability of making such a profit was so remote
that it could not be made the basis of pecuniary
compensation. The probability of there being a
lucrum cessans was thought smaU, but the justice
of its reward, if it did in fact exist, was admitted.
This interpretation steadily gained ground
amongst succeeding writers ; so that, in spite of
some lingering opposition, the justice of the title
lucrum cessans was practically universally ad-
mitted by the theologians of the fifteenth century.'-
Of course the burden of proving that an oppor-
tunity for profitable investment had been really
lost was on the lender, but this onus was suffi-
ciently discharged if the probability of such a
loss were established. In the fifteenth century,
with the expansion of commerce, it came to be
generally recognised that such a probability could
be presumed in the case of the merchant or trader.^
The final condition of this development of the
teaching on lucrum cessans is thus stated by
Ashley : ^ ' Any merchant, or indeed any person
! in a trading centre where there were opportunities
I of business investment (outside money-lending
'iitself) could, with a perfectly clear conscience,
and without any fear of molestation, contract to
receive periodical interest from the person to
whom he lent money ; 'provided only that he first
lent it to him gratuitously, for a period that might
be made very short, so that technically the pay-

1 Ashley, op. cit., p. 99. Imorvm cessans was defined by Navarrus
as ' amissio facta a oreditore per pecuniam sibi non redditam ' (Bnde-
mann, Studiem, vol. ii. p. 279).

* Ashley, op. cit., vol. i. pt. ii. p. 402. » Ibid.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 191

ment would not be reward for the use, but com-
pensation for the non-return of the money.' At
a later period than that of which we are treating
in the present essay the short gratuitous period
could be dispensed with, but until the end of the
fifteenth century it seems to have been considered
essential. 1

Of course the amount paid in respect of lucrum
cessans must be reasonable in regard to the loss
of opportunity actually experienced; 'Lenders,'
says Buridan, ' must not take by way of lucrum
cessans more than they would have actually made
by commerce or in exchange ' ; ^ and Ambrosius
de Vignate explains that compensation must only
be made for ' the time and just interesse of the lost
gain, which must be certain and proximate.' ^

There was another title on account of which
more than the amount of the loan could be re-
covered, namely, periculum sortis. In one sense-
it was a contradiction in terms to speak of the
element of risk in connection with usury, because
from its very definition usury was gain without
risk as opposed to profit from a trading partner-
ship, which, as we shall see presently, consisted
of gain coupled with the risk of loss. It could
not be lost sight of, however, that in fact there
might be a risk of the loan^ not being repaid
through the insolvency of the borrower, or some
other cause, and the question arose whether the
lender could justly claim any compensation for

1 Ashley, op. cit, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 402 ; Endemann, Studiem, vol. ii.
pp. 253-4 ; Cleary, op. cit., p. 100.
* Eth., iv. 6. ' De Umris, c. la

192 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

the undertaking of this risk. ' Regarded as an
extrinsic title, risk of losing the principalis con-
nected with the contract of mutuum, and entitles
the lender to some compensation for running ihe
risk of losing his capital in order to oblige a
possibly insolvent debtor. The greater the danger
of insolvency, the greater naturally would be the
charge. The contract was indifferent to the obr
jecfc of the loan ; it mattered not whether it was
intended for commerce or consumption ; it was
no less indifferent to profit on the part of the
borrower ; it took account simply of the latter's
abihty to pay, and made its charge accordingly.
It resembled consequently the contracts made by
insurance companies, wherein there is a readi-
ness to risk the capital sum for a certain rate
of payment ; the only difference was that the
probabilities charged for were not so much the
likelihood of having to pay, as the likelihood
of not receiving back.' ^

We have referred above, when dealing with the
legitimacy of commercial profits, to the difl&culty
which was felt in admitting the justice of com-
pensation for risk, on account of the Gregorian
Decretal on the subject. The same decree gave
rise to the same difficulty in connection with the
justification of a recompense for periculum sortis.
There was a serious dispute about the actual
wording of the decree, and even those who agreed
as to its wording differed as to its interpretation.^
The justice of the title was, however, admitted by
Scotus, who said that it was lawful to stipulate

1 deary, op. ciu, p. 115. 2 Ibid.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 193

for recompense when both the principal and
surplus were in danger of being lost ^ ; by Car-
letus ; 2 and by Nider.^ The question, however,
was stiU hotly disputed at the end of the fifteenth
century, and was finally settled in favour of the
admission of the title as late as 1645.*

§ 6. Other Cases in which more than the Loan
could he repaid

We have now discussed the extrinsic titles —
poena conventionalis, damnum emergens, lucrum
cessans, and periculum sortis. There were other
grounds also, which cannot be reduced to the
classification of extrinsic titles, on which more
than the amount of the loan might be justly
returned to the lender. In the fitrst place, the
lender might justly receive anything that the
borrower chose to pay over and above the loan,
voluntarily as a token of gratitude. ' Repay-
ment for a favour may be done in two ways,' says
Aquinas. ' In one way, as a debt of justice ; and
to such a debt a man may be boun,d by a fixed
contract ; and its amount is measured according
to the favour received. Wherefore the borrower
of money, or any such thing the use of which is its
consumption, is not bound to repay more than he
received in loan ; and consequently it is against
justice if he is obliged to pay back more. In
another way a man's obhgation to repayment for
favour received is based on a debt of friendship,

' Cleary, op. cit., p. 117. ^ Smnma Angelica Usura, i. 38.

8 De C<mt. Merc, m. 15. * Cleary, op. cit., p. 117.

N

194 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

and the nature of this debt depends more on the
feeling with which the favotir was conferred than
on the question of the favour itseM. This debt
does not carry with it a civil obligation, involving
a kind of necessity that would exclude the spon-
taneous nature of such a repayment.' ^
r* It was also clearly understood that it was not
wrongful to borrow at usviry under certain con-
ditions. In such cases the lender might commit
usury in receiving, but the borrower would not
commit usury in paying an amount greater than
the sum lent. It was necessary, however, in
order that borrowing at usury might be justified,
that the borrower should be animated by some
good motive, such as the relief of his own or
another's need. The whole question was settled
once and for all by Aquinas : ' It is by no means
lawftil to induce a man to sin, yet it is lawful to
make use of another's sin for a good end, since even
God uses aU sin for some good, since He draws
some good from every evil. . . . Accordingly it
is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend
under a condition of usury ; yet it is lawful to
borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do
so, and is a usurer by profession, provided that
the borrower have a good end in view, such as the
rehef of his own or another's need. ... He who
borrows for usury does not consent to the usurer's
^ sin, but malces use of it. Nor is it the usui^r's
acceptance of usury that pleases him, but his
lending, which is good.' ^

We should mention here the monies pietatis,

1 n. ii. 78j 2, ad. 2, « n. ii. 78, 4.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 195

which occupied a prominent place among the
credit-giving agencies of the later Middle Ages,
although it is difficult to say whether their methods
were examples of or exceptions to the doctrines
forbidding usury. These institutions were formed
on the model of the monies jirofani, the system of
pubhc debt resorted to by many Italian States.
Starting in the middle of the twelfth century, ^
the Italian States had recourse to forced loans
in order to raise reserves for extraordinary ne-
cessities, and, in order to prevent the growth of
disaffection among the citizens, an annual per-
centage on such loans was paid. A fund raised
by such means was generally called a mons or heap.
The propriety of the payment of this percentage
was warmly contested during the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries — the Dominicans and Francis-
cans defending it, and the Augustinians attacking
it. But its justification was not difficult. In the
first place, the loans were generally, if not uni-
versally, forced, and therefore the payment of
interest on them was purely voluntary. As we
have seen, Aquinas was quite clear as to the
lawfulness of such a voluntary payment. In
the second place, the lenders were almost invari-
ably members of the trading commimity, who were
the very people in whose favour a recompense for
lucrum cessans would be allowed.^ Laurentius de
Rodulphis argued in favour of the justice of these
State loans, and contended that the bondholders
were entitled to sell their rights, but advised good

^ Endemann, Siudien, voL i. p. 433.
2 Ashley, op. cit., vol. i. pt. i. p. 448.

196 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Christians to abstain from the practice of a right
about the justice of which theologians were ia
such disagreement ^ ; and Antoninus of Florence,
who was in general so strict on the subject of usury,
took the same view.^

It was probably the example of these State loans,
or monies profani, that suggested to the Francis-
cans the possibility of creating an organisation
to provide credit facilities for poor borrowers,
which was in many ways analogous to the modem
co-operative credit banks. Prior to the middle
of the fifteenth century, when this experiment
was initiated, there had been various attempts by
the State to provide credit f acUities for the poor,
but these need not detain us here, as they did not
come to anything.^ The first of the monies pie-
tails was founded at Orvieto by the Franciscans in
1462, and after that year they spread rapidly.*
The monies, although their aim was exclusively
philanthropic, found themselves obhged to make
a small charge to defray their working expenses,
and, although one would think that this could be
amply justified by the title of damnum emergens,
it provoked a violent attack by the Dominicans.
The principal antagonist of the monies pietatis
was Thomas da Vio, who wrote a special treatise
on the subject, in which he made the point that

1 De Usuria. ^ Ashley, op. df., p. 449.

* Cleary, op. eit., p. 108 ; Brants, op. eit., p. 159.

* Peragia, 1467 ; Viterbo, 1472 ; Sevona, 1472 ; Assisi, 1485 ;
Mantua, 1486 ; Cesana and Parma, 1488 ; Interamna and Lucca,
1489 ; Verona, 1490 ; Padua, 1491, etc. (Endemann, Studien, vol. i.
p. 463).

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 197

the monies charged interest from the very begin-
ning of the loan, which was a contradiction of all
the previous teaching on interest.^

The general feeMng of the Church, however, was
in favour of the monies. It was felt that, if the
poor must borrow, it was better that they should
borrow at a low rate of interest from philanthropic
institutions than at an extortionate rate from
usurers ; several monies were estabUshed under
the direct protection of the Popes ; ^ and finally,
in 1615, the Lateran Council gave an authori-
tative judgment in favour of the monies. This
decree contains an excellent definition of usury
as it had come to be accepted at that date : ' Usury
is when gain is sought to be acquired from the use
of a thing, not fruitful in itself, without labour,
expense, or risk on the part of the lender.' ^

It was generally admitted by the theologians
that the taking of usury might be permitted by
the civil authorities, although it was insisted that
acting in accordance with this permission did not
absolve the conscience of the usurer. Albertus
Magnus conceded that ' although usury is contrary
to the perfection of Christian laws, it is at least
not contrary to civil interests ' ; * and Aquinas
also justified the toleration of usury by the State :
' Human laws leave certain things unpunished,
on account of the condition of those who are
imperfect, and who would be deprived of many
advantages if all sins were strictly forbidden

I De Monte PieteUis. * Cleary, op. cit., p. 111.

8 Ashley, op. cit, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 461.

* Bambaud, op. cit., p. 65 ; Espinas, op. cit., p. 103.

198 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

and punisliments appointed for them. Wherefore
human law has permitted usury, not that it looks
upon usury as harmonising with justice, but lest
the advantage of many should be hindered.' ^
Although this opinion was controverted by
i^gidius Romanus,^ it was generally accepted
by later writers. Thus Gerson says that ' the
civil law, when it tolerates usury in some cases,
must not be said to be always contrary to the law
of God or the Church. The civil legislator, acting
in the manner of a wise doctor, tolerates lesser
evils that greater ones may be avoided. It is
obviously less of an evU that shght usiiry should
be permitted for the relief of want, than that men
should be driven by their want to rob or steal,
or to seU their goods at an unfairly low price.' ^
Bm-idan explains that the attitude of the State
towards usury must never be more than one of
toleration ; it must not actively approve of usury,
but it may tacitly refuse to punish it.*

§ 7. The Justice of Unearned Income

Many modem socialists — ' Christian ' and other-
wise — ^have asserted that the teaching of the
Church on usury was a pronouncement in favoxir
of the unproductivity of capital.^ Thus RudoK
Meyer, one of the most distinguished of ' Christian
socialists,' has argued that if one recognises the
productivity of land or stock, one must also recog-

1 n. iL 78, 1, ad. 3. « De Beg. Pnn., ii. 3, 11.

» De Coni., u. 17. * Qvae^, swper. Lib. Eth., iv. 6.

' Ashley, op. cit,, voL i. pt. ii. p. 427.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 199

nise the productivity of money, and that there-
fore the Church, in denying the productivity of the
latter, would be logically driven to deny the pro-
ductivity of the former.^ Anton Menger expresses
the same opinion : ' There is not the least reason
for attacking from the moral and religious stand-
points loans at interest and usury more than any
other form of unearned income. If one questions
the legitimacy of loans at interest, one must
equally condemn as inadmissible the other forms
of profit from capital and lands, and particularly
the feudal institutions of the Middle Ages. . . .
It would have been but a logical consequence for
the Church to have condemned aU forms of un-
earned revenue.' ^

No such conclusion, however, can be properly
drawn from the mediaeval teaching. The whole
discussion on usury turned on the distinction
which was drawn between things of which the use
could be transferred without the ownership, and
things of which the use could not be so transferred.
In the former category were placed aU things
which could be used, either by way of enjoyment
or employment for productive purposes, without
being destroyed in the process ; and in the latter
all things of which the use or employment involved
the destruction.

With regard to income derived from the former,
no difficulty was ever felt ; a farm or a house
might be let at a rent without any question, the

^ Der KajntaUsmus fin de sitde, p. 29.

* Das Becht auf den Arbeiteratrag. See the Abb6 HohofE in Dhrno-
oraUe CMtienne, Sept. 1898, p. 284.

200 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

return received being universally regarded as one
of the legitimate fruits of the ownership of the
thing. With regard to the latter, however, a
difficiilty did arise, because it was felt that a so-
called loan of such goods was, when analysed,
in reality a sale, and that therefore any increase
which the goods produced was in reality the
property, not of the lender, but of the borrower.
That money was in all cases sterile was never
suggested ; on the contrary, it was admitted that
it might produce a profit if wisely and prudently
employed in industry or commerce ; but it was
felt that such an increase, when it took place, was
the rightful property of the owner of the money.
But when money was lent, the owner of this
money was the borrower, and therefore, when
money which was lent was employed in such a
way as to produce a profit, that profit belonged to
the borrower, not the lender. In this way the
schoolmen were strictly logical ; they fully ad-
mitted that wealth cotild produce wealth ; but
they insisted that that additional wealth should
accrue to the owner of the wealth that produced it.
The fact is, as Bohm-Bawerk has pointed out,
that the question of the productivity of capital
was never discussed by the mediaeval schoolmen,
for the simple reason that it was so obvious. The
justice of receiving an income from an infungible
thing which was temporarily lent by its owner,
was discussed and supported ; but the justice of
the owner of such a thing receiving an income from
the thing so long as it remained in his own pos-
session was never discussed, because it was uni-

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 201

versally admitted.^ It is perfectly correct to say
that the problems which have perplexed modern
writers as to the justice of receiving an unearned
income from one's property never occurred to
the scholastics ; such problems can only arise
when the institution of private property comes
to be questioned ; and private property was
the keystone of the whole scholastic economic
conception. In other words, the justice of a
reward for capital was admitted because it was
unquestioned.

The question that caused difficulty was whether
money could be considered a form of capital. At
the present day, when the opportunities of in-
dustrial investment are wider than they ever
were before, the principal use to which money is
put is the financing of industrial enterprises ; but
in the Middle Ages this was not the case, precisely
because tiie opportunities of profitable investment
were so few. This is the reason why the medi-
aeval writers did not find it necessary to discuss in
detail the rights of the owner of money who used
it for productive purposes. But of the justice of
a profit being reaped when money was actually
so employed there was no doubt at all. As we
have seen, the borrower of a sum of money might
reap a profit from its wise employment; there
was no question about the justice of taking such
a profit ; and the only matter in dispute was
whether that profit should belong to the borrower
or the lender of the money. This dispute was
decided in favour of the borrower on the ground

"■ Gapital and Interest, p. 39.

202 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

that, according to the true nature of the contract
of mutuum, the money was his property. It was,
therefore, never doubted that even money might
produce a profit for its owner. The only differ-
ence between infungible goods and money was
that, in the case of the former, the use might be
transferred apart from the property, whereas,
in the case of the latter, it could not be so
transferred.

The recognition of the title lucrum cessans as a
grovmd for remuneration clearly implies the recog-
nition of the legitimacy of the owner of money
deriving a profit from its use ; and the slowness
of the scholastics to admit this title was pre-
cisely because of the rarity of opportunities for
so employing money in the earher Middle Ages.
The nature of capital was clearly understood ;
but the possibihty of money constituting capital
arose only with the extension of commerce and
the growth of profitable investments. Those
scholastics who strove to abolish or to limit
the recognition of lucrum cessans as a ground
for remuneration did not deny the productivity
of capital, but simply thought the money had
not at that time acquired the charsicteristics of
capital. '^

If there were any doubt about the fact that the
scholastics recognised the legitimacy of unearned
income, it would be dispelled by an imderstanding
of their teaching on rents and partnership, in
the former of which they distinctly acknowledged
the right to draw an unearned income from one's

^ See Ashley, op. dt., vol. i. pt. ii. pp. 434-9.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 203

land, and in the latter of which they acknowledged
the same right in regard to one's money. ^

§ 8. Rent Charges

There was never any difficulty about admitting
the justice of receiving a rent from a tenant in
occupation of one's lands, because land was under-
stood to be essentially a thing of which the use
could be sold apart from the ownership ; and it
was also recognised that the recipient of such a
rent might seU his right to a third party, who could
then demand the rent from the tenant. When
this was admitted it was but a small step to ad-
mit the right of the owner of land to create a
rent in favour of another person in consideration
for some payment. The distinctions between a
census reservativus, or a rent estabUshed when the
possession of land was actually transferred to a
tenant, and a census constitutivus, or a rent created
upon property remaining in the possession of the
payer, did not become the subject of discussion
or difficulty until the sixteenth century.^ The
legitimacy of rent charges does not seem to have
been questioned by the theologians ; the best
proof of this being the absence of controversy
about them in a period when they were undoubtedly
very common, especially in Germany.^ Langen-

^ On this discussion see Ashley, Economic History, vol, i. pt. ii.
pp. 427 et seq. ; Rambaud, Histoire, pp. 57 et seq. ; Eunk, Zins und
Wucher ; Arnold, Zur OescMchte des Eigenthums, pp. 92 et seq. ; Bohm-
Bawerk, Capitai and Interest (Eng. trans.), pp. 1-39.

2 Ashley, 033. cU., vol. i. pt. ii. p. 409.

' Endemann, Stvdien, vol. ii. p. 104.

204 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

stein, whose opinion on the subject was followed
by many later writers,^ thought that the receipt
of income from rent charges was perfectly justifi-
able, when the object was to secure a provision
for old age, or to provide an income for persons
engaged in the services of Church or State, but
that it was unjustifiable if it was intended to
enable nobles to live in luxurious idleness, or
plebeians to desert honest toil. It is obvious that
Langenstein did not regard rent charges as wrong-
ful in themselves, but simply as being the possible
occasions of wrong. ^

In the fifteenth century definite pronounce-
ments on rent charges were made by the Popes.
A large part of the revenue of ecclesiastical bodies
consisted of rent charges, and in 1425 several
persons in the diocese of Breslau refused to pay
the rents they owed to their clergy on the ground
that they were usurious. The question was
referred to Pope Martin v., whose buU deciding
the matter was generally followed by aU subse-
quent authorities. The buU decides in favour
of the lawfulness of rent charges, provided certain
conditions were observed. They must be charged
on fiixed property ('super bonis suis, dominiis,
oppidis, terris, agris, praediis, domibus et heredi-
tatibus ') and determined beforehand ; they must
be moderate, not exceeding seven or ten per cent. ;
and they must be capable of being repurchased at
any moment in whole or in part, by the repayment
of the same sum for which they were originally

"■ Endemann, Studien, vol. ii. p. 109.
' Bosoher, Oeachichte, p. 20.

THE EXCHANGE OP PROPERTY 205

created. On the other hand, the payer of the
rent must never be forced to repay the purchase
money, even if the goods on which the rent was
charged had perished — in other words, the con-
tract creating the rent charge was one of sale, and
not of loan. The bull recites that such conditions
had been observed in contracts of this nature
from time immemorial.^ A precisely similar
decree was issued by Calixtus ni. in 1455. ^

These decisions were universally followed in the
fifteenth century.^ It was always insisted that
a rent could only be charged upon something of
which the use could be separated from the owner-
ship, as otherwise it would savour of usury.* In
the sixteenth century interesting discussions arose
about the possibility of creating a personal rent
charge, not secured on any specific property, but
such discussions did not trouble the writers of the
period which we are treating. The only instance
of such a contract being considered is found in
a buU of Nicholas v. in 1452, permitting such
personal rent charges in the kingdoms of Aragon
and Sicily, but this permission was ptirely local,
and, as the buU itself shows, was designed to meet
the exigencies of a special situation.^

§ 9. Partnership

The teaching on partnership contains such a
complete disproof of the contention that the

^ Extrav. Cmamun., iii. 5, i. ^ Ibid,., c. 2.

3 Ashley, op. cit., vol. i. pt. ii. p. 410.

* Biel, <yp. cit. Sent. iv. xv. 12. ^ Cleary, op. dt., p. 124.

206 MEDIiSVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

mediaeval teaching on usury was based on the
unproductivity of capital, that certain writers
have endeavoured to prove that the permission
of partnership was but a subterfuge, consciously
designed to justify evasions of the usury law.
Further historical knowledge, however, has dis-
pelled this misconception ; and it is now certain
that the contract of partnership was widely
practised and tolerated long before the Church
attempted to insist on the observance of its usury
laws in everyday commercial life.^ However
interesting an investigation into the commercial
and industrial partnerships of the Middle Ages
might be, we must not attempt to pursue it here,
as we have rigidly limited ourselves to a considera-
tion of teaching. We must refer, however, to the
commenda, which was the contract from which the
later mediaeval partnership {societas) is generally
admitted to have developed, because the commenda
was extensively practised as early as the tenth
century, and, as far as we know, never provoked
any expression of disapproval from the Church.
This silence amounts to a justification ; and we may
therefore say that, even before Aquinas devoted
his attention to the subject, the Church fully
approved of an institution which provided the
owner of money with the means of procuring an
unearned income.

The commenda was originally a contract by
which merchants who wished to engage in foreign
trade, but who did not wish to travel themselves,

^ Ashley, op. oil., voL i. pt. ii. p. 411 ; Weber, Handdagesdlsdiaften,
pp. 111-14,

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 207

entrusted their wares to agents or representatives.
The merchant was known as the commendator
or socius starts, and the agent as the commendor
tarius or tractator. The most usual arrangement
for the division of the profits of the adventure was
that the commendatarius should receive one-fourth
and the commendator three-fourths. At a slightly
later date contracts came to be common in which
the commendatarius contributed a share of capital,
in which case he would receive one-fourth of the
whole profit as commendatarius, and a proportion-
ate share of the remainder as capitalist. This
contract came to be generally known as colle-
gantia or societas. Contracts of this kind, though
originally chiefly employed in overseas enterprise,
afterwards came to be utilised in internal trade
and manufacturing industry.^

The legitimacy of the profits of the commen-
dator never seems to have caused the shghtest
difficulty to the canonists. In 1206 Innocent in.
advised the Archbishop of Genoa that a widow's
dowry should be entrusted to some merchant so
that an income might be obtained by means of
honest gain.^ Aquinas expressly distinguishes be ■
tween profit made from entrusting one's money to a
merchant to be employed by him in trade, and
profit arising from a loan, on the ground that in
the former case the ownership of the money does
not pass, and that therefore the person who de-
rives the profit also risks the loan. ' He who
lends money transfers the ownership of the money

^ Ashley, op. cit, vol. i. pt. ii. pp. 412-14.
2 Qreg. Deer., iv. 19, 7.

208 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

to the borrower. Hence the borrower holds the
money at his own risk, and is bound to pay it all
back : wherefore the lender must not exact more.
On the other hand, he that entrusts his money to
a merchant or craftsman so as to form a kind of
society does not transfer the ownership of the
money to them, for it remains his, so that at his
risk the merchant speculates with it, or the crafts-
man uses it for his craft, and consequently he may
lawfully demand, as something belonging to him,
part of the profits derived from his money.' ^
This dictum of Aquinas was the foimdation of
all the later teaching on partnership, and the
importance of the element of risk was insisted on
in strong terms by the later writers. According
to Baldus, ' when there is no sharing of risk there
is no partnership ' ; ^ and Paul de Castro says,
' A partnership when the gain is shared, but not
the loss, is not to be permitted.' ^ ' The legiti-
macy,' says Brants, ' of the contract of commenda
always rested upon the same principle ; capital
could not be productive except for him who worked
it himself, or who caused it to be worked on his own
responsibility. This latter condition was realised
in commenda.' *

Although the contract of partnership was fully
recognised by the scholastics, it was not very
scientifically treated, nor were the different species
of the contract systematically classified. The only
classification adopted was to divide contracts of

1 n. ii. 78, 2, ad. 5. ' Brants, op. oil., p. 167.

' GonsiKa, ii. 55 ; also Ambrosius de Vignate, De Usuria, i. 62 ; Biel,
op, cU., IV. XV. 11. * Op. cit., p. 172.

THE EXCHANGE OP PROPERTY 209

partnership into two kinds — those where both
parties contributed labour to a joint enterprise,
and those where one party contributed labour
and the other party money. The former gave no
difficulty, because the justice of the remuneration
of labour was admitted ; but, while the latter
was no less fully recognised, cases of it were
subjected to careful scrutiny, because it was
feared that usurious contracts might be concealed
under the appearance of a partnership.^ The
question which occupied the greatest space in the
treatises on the subject was the share in which
the profits should be divided between the parties.
The only rule which could be laid down, in the
absence of an express contract, was that the
parties should be remunerated in proportion to
the services which they contributed — a rule the
application of which must have been attended
with enormous difficulties. Laurentius de Rodul-
phis insists that equality must be observed ; ^
and Angelus de Periglis de Perusio, the first mono-
graphist on the subject, does not throw much more
fight on the question. The rule as stated by this
last writer is that in the first place the person
contributing money miist be repaid a sum equal
to what he put in, and the person contributing
labour must be paid a sum equal to the value of
his labour, and that whatever surplus remains
must be divided between the two parties equally.^
The question of the shares in which the profits
should be distributed was not one, however, that

» Swmma Aetesana, iii. 12. * De Usuris, i. 19.

° De Soeietatibus, i. 130.

O

210 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

frequently arose in practice, because it was the
almost imiversal custom for the partners to make
this a term of their original contract. Within
fairly wide Hmits it was possible to arrange for
the division of the profits in unequal shares — say
two-thirds and one-third. The shares of gain
and loss must, however, be the same ; one party
could not reap two-thirds of the profit and bear
only one-third of the loss ; but it might be con-
tracted that, when the loss was deducted from the
gain, one party might have two-thirds of the
balance, and the other one-third.^ In no case, of
course, could the party contributing the money
stipulate that his principal should in aU cases be
returned, because that was a mutuum. The party
contributing the labour might vaUdly contract
that he should be paid for his labour in any case,
but, if this was so, the contract ceased to be a
societas and became a locatio operamm, or ordi-
nary contract of work for wages. In all cases,
common participation in the gains and losses of
the enterprise was an essential feature of the
contract of partnership. ^

Before concluding the subject of partnership,
we must make reference to the trinus contractiis,
which caused much discussion and great difficulty.
As we have seen, a contract of partnership was
good so long as the person contributing money
did not contract that he should receive his original
money back in aU circumstances. A contract of
insurance w&s equally justifiable. There was no
doubt that A might enter into partnership with

1 De Societatibus, i. 130. ' Und.

THE EXCHANGE OF PEOPERTY 211

B ; he could further insiire himself with C against
the loss of his capital, and with D against damage
caused by fluctuations ia the rate of profits. Why,
then, should he not simultaneously enter into aU
three contracts with B ? If he did so, he was stUl
B's partner, but at the same time he was pro-
tected against the loss of his principal and a fair
return upon it — in other words, he was a partner,
protected against the risks of the enterprise. The
legitimacy of such a contract — ^the trinus con-
tractus, as it was called — ^was maintained by
Carletus in the Summa Angelica, which was pub-
lished about 1476, and by Biel.^ Early in the
sixteenth century Eck, a yoimg professor at
Ingolstadt, brought the question of the legitimacy
of this contract before the University of Bologna,
but no formal decision was pronounced, and, had
it not been for the reaction following the Refor-
mation, the trinus contractus would probably
have gained general acceptance. As it was, it
was condemned by a provincial sjniod at Milan
in 1565, and by Sixtus v. in 1585. ^

We should also refer to the contract of bottomry,
which consisted of a loan made to the owner — or
in some cases the master — of a ship, on the
security of the ship, to be repaid with interest
upon the safe conclusion of a voyage. This con-
tract could not be considered a partnership, in-

^ Op. cit, IV. XV. 11. Leoky attributed the invention of the trimia
cmtractus to the Jesuits— who were only founded in 1634 (History of
BaMcmalism, vol. ii. p. 267).

2 Ashley, op, cit., vol. i. pt. ii. pp. 439 et aeqq, ; deary, op. oit.,
pp. 126 et seqq^.

212 MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

asmuch as the property in the money passed to
the borrower ; but it probably escaped condemna-
tion as usurious on the ground that the lender
shared in the risk of the enterprise. The payment
of some additional sum over and above the money
lent might thus be justified on the grotind of feri-
culum sortis. The contract, moreover, was really
one of insurance for the shipowner, and contracts
of insurance were clearly legitimate. In any
event the legitimacy of loans on bottomry was
not questioned before the sixteenth century.^

§ 10. Conclvding Remarks on Usury

It is to be hoped that the above exposition of
the mediaeval doctrine on usury wiU dispel the idea
that the doctrine was foimded upon the injustice
of unearned income. Far from the receipt of an
unearned income from money or other capital
beiag in all cases condemned, it was unanimously
recognised, provided that the income accrued to
the owner of the capital, and not to somebody else,
and that the rate of remuneration was just. The
teaching on partnership rested on the fundamental
assumption that a man might trade with his money,
either by using it himself, or by allowing other
people to use it on his behalf. In the latter case,
the person making use of the money might be
either assured of being paid a fixed remuneration
for his services, in which case the contract was one

* Ashley, op. cit., vol. i. pt. ii. pp. 421-3 ; Palgrave, Dictionary of,
PoUHcal Economy, ait. ' Bottomry ' ; Gonningham, Orowth of English
Industry and Commerce, vol. i. p. 257.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 213

of locatio operarum, or he might be wilUng to let
his remuneration depend upon the result of the
enterprise, in which case the contract was one of
societas. In either case the right of the owner
of the money to reap a profit from the operation
was unquestioned, provided only that he was
wiUing to share the risks of loss. But if, instead
of making use of his money for trading either by
his own exertions or by those of his partner or
agent, he chose to sell his money, he was not
permitted to receive more for it than its just price
— ^which was, in fact, the repayment of the same
amount. This was what happened in the case
of a mutuum. In that case the ownership of the
money was transferred to the borrower, who was
perfectly at liberty to trade with it, if he so de-
sired, and to reap whatever gain that trade pro-
duced. The prohibition of usury, far from being
proof of the injustice of an tacome from capital,
is proof of quite the contrary, because it was
designed to insure that the iacome from capital
should belong to the owner of that capital and to
no other person. ^ Although, therefore, no price
could be paid for a loan, the lender must be pre-
vented from suffering any damage from making
the loan, and he might make good his loss by
virtue of the implied collateral contract of in-
demnity, which we discussed above when treating
of extrinsic titles. If the lender, through making
the loan, had been prevented from making a profit
in trade, he might be indemnified for that loss.
All through the discussions on usury we find

1 See Bambaud, oj>. cit., p. 59.

214 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

express recognition of the justice of the owner of
money deriving an income from its employment ;
all that the teaching of usury was at pains to
define was who the person was to whom money,
which was the subject matter of a mutuum, be-
longed. It is quite impossible to comprehend how
modem writers can see in the usury teaching of
the scholastics a fatal discotiragement to the
enterprise of traders and capitaUsts ; and it is
equally impossible to understand how sociahsts
can find itl that doctrine any suggestion of support
for the proposition that all unearned income is
immoral and unjust.

Section 3. — The MAcnmEBY oe Exchange

We have already drawn attention to the fact
that there was no branch of economics about
which such profound ignorance ruled in the earher
Middle Ages as that of money. As we stated
above, even as late as the twelfth century, the
theologians were quite content to quote the ill-
founded and erroneous opinions of Isidore of
SeviEe as final on the subject. It will be remem-
bered that we also remarked that the question
of money was the first economic question to receive
systematic scientific treatment from the writers
of the later Middle Ages. This remarkable de-
velopment of opinion on this subject is practi-
cally the work of one man, Nicholas Oresme,
Bishop of Lisieux, whose treatise, De Origine,
Natura, Jure et Mutationihus Monetarum, is the
earliest example of a pure economic monograph

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 215

in the modern sense. ' The scholastics,' says
Roscher, ' extended their inquiries from the
economic point of view further than one is gener-
ally disposed to believe ; although it is true that
they often did so under a singular form. . . . We
can, however, single out Oresme as the greatest
scholastic ecoixomist for two reasons : on account
of the exactitude and clarity of his ideas, and
because he succeeded in freeing himself from the
pseudo-theological systematisation of things in
general, and from the pseudo-philosophical deduc-
tion in details.' ^

Even in the thirteenth century natural economy ?i^
had not been replaced to any large extent by money
economy. The great majority of transactions be-
tween man and man were carried on without the
intervention of money payments ; and the amount
of coin in circulation was consequently small. ^
The question of currency was not therefore one
to engage the serious attention of the writers of
the time. Aquinas does not deal Mirith money in
the Summa, except incidentally, and his references
to the subject in the De Begimine Principum —
which occur in the chapters of that work of which
the authorship is disputed — simply go to the
length of approving Aristotle's opinions on money,
and advising the prince to exercise moderation in
the exercise of his power of coining sive in mutando
sive in diminuendo 'pondus.^

1 Quoted in the Introduction to Wolowski's edition of Oresme's
Tradatus (Paris, 1864).
'- Brants, op. cit., p. 179 ; Rambaud, op. cit., p. 73.
« De Beg. Prin,, ii. 13.

216 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

As is often the case, the discussion of the rights
and duties of the sovereign in connection with the
currency only arose when it became necessary for
the pubhc to protest against abuses. Phihp the
Fair of France made it part of his pohcy to increase
the revenue by tampering with the coinage, a
pohcy which was continued by his successors,
until it became an intolerable grievance to his
subjects. In vain did the Pope thunder against
Philip ; 1 in vain did the greatest poet of the age
denounce

' liim that doth work
With his adulterate money on the Seine.' ^

Matters continued to grow steadily worse until
the middle of the fourteenth century. During
the year 1348 there were no less than eleven
variations in the value of money in France ; in
1349 there were nine, in 1351 eighteen, in 1353
thirteen, and in 1355 eighteen again. In the
course of a single year the value of the silver
mark sprang from four to seventeen hvres, and
fell back again to four.^ The practice of fixing
the price of many necessary commodities must
have aggravated the natural evil consequences of
such fluctuations.*

This grievance had the good result of fixing
the attention of scholars on the money question.
' Under the stress of facts and of necessity,' says
Brants, 'thinkers appUed their minds to the

^ Le Blant, Traiti Mstoriqite des Monnaies de France, p. 184.
' Dante, Paradiso, xiz.

" Wolowski's Introduction to Oresme'a Tmctatus, p. xrvii.
* See Endemann, Studien, vol. ii. p. 34.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 217

details of the theory of money, which was the
department of economics which, thanks to events,
received the earhest illumination. Lawyers,
bankers, money-changers, doctors of theology, and
publicists of every kind, attached a thoroughly
Justifiable importance to the question of money.
We are no doubt far from knowing all the treatises
which saw the hght in the fourteenth century
upon this weighty question ; but we know enough
to affirm' that the monetary doctrine was very
developed and very far-seeing.' ^ Buridan ana-
lysed the different functions and utilities of money,
and explained the different ways in which its
value might be changed.^ He did not, however,
proceed to discuss the much more important
question as to when the sovereign was entitled to
make these alterations. This was reserved for
Nicholas Oresme, who published his famous
treatise about the year 1373. The merits of this
work have excited the imanimous admiration
of aU who have studied it. Roscher says that
it contains ' a theory of money, elaborated in
the fourteenth century, which remains perfectly
correct to-day, under the test of the principles
applied in the nineteenth century, and that with
a brevity, a precision, a clarity, and a simplicity
of language which is a striking proof of the supe-
rior genius of its author.' ^ According to Brants,
' the treatise of Oresme is one of the first to be
devoted ex 'professo to an economic subject, and

1 Op. cit., p. 186.

^ Quaest. swper Lib. Eth., v. 17 ; Quaest. super Lib. Pol., i. 11.

^ Quoted in Woloweki, op. cit,, and see Boscher, Qeschichte, p. 25.

218 MEDIiEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

it expresses many ideas which are very just, more
just than those which held the field for a long
period after him, under the name of mercantiUsm,
and more just than those which allowed of the re-
duction of money as if it were nothing more than
a cotmter of exchange.' ^ ' Oresme's treatise on
money,' says Macleod, ' may be justly said to
stand at the head of modern economic literature.
This treatise laid the foundations of monetary
science, which are now accepted by all sound
economists.' ^ ' Oresme's completely secular and
naturaUstic method of treatiag one of the most
important problems of poUtical economy,' says
Espinas, ' is a signal of the approaching end of the
Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance.' ^
Dr. Cunningham adds his tribute of praise : ' The
conceptions of national wealth and national power
were ruling ideas in. economic matters for several
centuries, and Oresme appears to be the earhest
of the economic writers by whom they were ex-
pHcitly adopted as the very basis of his argument.
. . . A large number of points of economic doctrine
in regard to coinage are discussed with much
judgment and clearness.' * Endemann alone is °
inclined to quarrel with the pre-eminence of
Oresme ; but on this question, he is in a minority
of one.^

The principal question which Oresme sets out

1 Op. cit, p. 190.

' History of Economics, p. 37. * Op. cit., p. 110.

* Orowth of English Ivdusiiy and Commerce, vol. i. p. 359.

* Grundsatge, p. 75.

* See an interesting note in Brants, op. cit, p. 187.

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 219

to answer, according to the first chapter of this
treatise, is whether the sovereign has the rightf^
to alter the value of the money in circulation at
his pleasure, and for his own benefit. He begins
the discussion by going over the same ground as
Aristotle in demonstrating the origin and utility
of money, and then proceeds to discuss the most
suitable materials which can be made to serve as
money. He decides in favour of gold and silver,
and shows himself an unquestioning bimetaUist.
He further admits the necessity of some token
money of small denominations, to be composed
of the baser metals. Having drawn attention to
the transition from the circulation of money, the
value of which is recognised solely by weight, to the
circulation of that which is accepted for its im-
print or superscription, the author insists that the
production of such an imprinted coinage is essen-
tially a matter for the sovereign authority in the
State. Oresme now comes to the central point
of his thesis. Although, he says, the prince hasy
undoubtedly the power to manufacture and control
the coinage, he is by no means the owner of it
after it has passed into circulation, because money
is a thing which in its essence was invented and
introduced in the interests of society as a whole.

Oresme then proceeds to apply this central
principle to the solution of the question which he
sets himself to answer, and concludes that, as
money is essentially a thing which exists for the
public benefit, it must not be tampered with,
nor varied in value, except in cases of ab-
solute necessity, and in the presence of an un-

220 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

controverted general utility. He bases his oppo-
sition to unnecessary monetary variation on the
perfectly sotind ground that such variation is
productive of loss either to those who are bound
to make or bound to receive fixed sums in pay-
ment of obligations. The author then goes on to

;;^ analyse the various kinds of variation, which he
says are five — figurae, frofortionis, appellationis,

-^onderis, and materiae. Changes of form (figurae)
are only justified when it is found that the exist-
ing form is liable to increase the damage which
the coins suffer from the wear and tear of usage,
or when the existing currency has been degraded
by widespread illegal coining ; changes pro-
-portionis are only allowable- when the relative
value of the different metals constituting the
coinage have themselves changed ; simple
"Tshanges of name (appellationis), such as calling a
mark a povind, are never allowed. Changes of

— the weight of the coins (ponderis) are pronounced
by Oresme to be just as gross a fraud as the
arbitrary alteration of the weights or measxires
by which com or wine are sold; and changes of
"Tnatter (Tnateriae) are only to be tolerated when
the supply of the old metal has become insufficient.
The debasement of the coinage by the introduction
of a cheaper alloy is condemned.

In conclusion, Oresme insists that no alteration
of any of the above kinds can be justified at the
mere injunction of the prince ; it must be accom-
plished per ipsam communitatem. The prince
exercises the functions of the community in the
matter of coinage not as principalis actor, but as

THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY 221

ordinationis publicae executor. It is pointed out
that arbitrary changes in the value of money are
really equivalent to a particularly noxious form of
taxation ; that they seriously disorganise com-
merce and impoverish many merchants ; and that
the bad coinage drives the good out of circula-
tion. This last observation is of special interest
in a fourteenth-century writer, as it shows that
Gresham's Law, which is usually credited to a
sixteenth-century English economist, was per-
fectly weU understood in the Middle Ages.^

This brief account of the ground which Oresme
covered, and the conclusions at which he arrived,
wiU enable us to appreciate his importance.
Although his clear elucidation of the principles
which govern the questions of money was not
powerful enough to check the financial abuses of
the sovereigns of the later Middle Ages, they
exercised a profound influence on the thought of
the period, and were accepted by aU the theo-
logians of the fifteenth century.^

^ The best edition of Oresme's Tractatus is that by Wolowski, pub-
lished at Paris in 1864, which includes both the Latin and French
texts.

2 Biel, op. cit, rv. xv. H ; De Monetarum Poteatate et UtiUtate,
referred to in Jourdain, op. cit, p. 34.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

We have now passed in review the principal
economic doctrines of the mediaeval schoolmen.
We do not propose to attempt here any de-
tailed criticism of the merits or demerits of the
aystem which we have but briefly sketched. All
that we have attempted to do is to present the
doctrines in such a way that the reader may be in
a position to pass judgment on them. There is
one aspect of the subject, however, to which we may
be allowed to direct attention before concluding
this essay. It is the fashion of many modem
writers, especially those hostile to tiie CathoUc
Church, to represent the Middle Ages as a period
when all scientific advance and economic progress
were impeded, if not entirely prevented, by the
action of the Chtirch. It would be out of place
to inquire into the advances which civilisation
achieved in the Middle Ages, as this would lead us
into an examination of the whole history of the
period ; but we think it well to inquire briefly how
far the teaching of the Church on economic matters
was calculated to interfere with material pro-
gress. This is the lowest standard by which we
can judge the mediaeval economic teaching, which
was essentially aimed at the moral and spiritual

228

CONCLUSION 223

elevation of mankind ; but it is a standard which
it is worth while to apply, as it is that by which
the doctrines of the scholastics have been most
generally condemned by modern critics. To test
the mediaeval economic doctrine by this, the
lowest standard, it may be said that it made for
the establishment and development of a rich and^
prosperous community. We .may summarise thes^
aim of the mediaeval teaching by saying that,
in the material sphere, it aimed at extended pro-
duction, wise consumption, and just distribu-
tion, which are the chief ends of all economic
activity.

It aimed at extended production throogiffEs
insistence on the importance and dignity of manual
labour.^ As we showed above, one of the prin-
cipal achievements of Christianity in the social
sphere was to elevate labour from a degrading
to an honourable occupation. The example of
Christ HimseK and the Apostles must have made
a "deep impression on the early Christians ; but
no less important was the living example to be
seen in the monasteries. The part played by the
great religious orders in the propagation of this
dignified conception cannot be exaggerated. St.
Anthony had adirised his imitators to busy them-
selves with meditation, prayer, and the labour
of their hands, and had promised that the fear of
God would reside in those who laboured at cor-
poral works ; and similar exhortations were to be
found in the rules of Saints Macarius, Pachomius,

'- See Sabatier, L'Egliae et le Travail taanud, and Antoine, Cours
d'Economie soeiale, p. 159.

224 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

and Basil. ^ St. Augustine and St. Jerome recom-
mended that all religious should work for some
hours each day with their hands, and a regulation
t6 this effect was embodied in the Rule of St.
Benedict.^ The example of educated and holy
men voluntarily taking upon themselves the most
menial and tedious employments must have acted
as an inspiration to the laity. The mere economic
value of the monastic institutions themselves must
have been very great ; agriculture was improved
owing to the assiduity and experiments of the
monks ; ^ the monasteries were the nurseries of
aU industrial and artistic progress ; * and the
example of communities which consumed but a
small proportion of what they produced was a
striking example to the world of the wisdom and
virtue of saving.^ Not the least of the services
which Christian teaching rendered in the domain
of production was its insistence upon the dominical
repose.^

The importance which the scholastics attached
to an extended and widespread production is
evidenced by their attitude towards the growth of
the population. The fear of over-population does
not appear to have occurred to the writers of the

^ Levasseur, Histoire des Glasses ov/mik'es en France, vol. i. pp. 182-S.

^ Beg. St. Ben., c. 48.

" List, National System of Political Economy, oh. 6.

* Janssen, History of the Oerman People, vol. ii. p. 2.

* DubUn Review, N.S., vol. vi. p. 365 ; see Gioyau, Aviour du Calholi-
cisme soeiale, vol. ii. pp. 79-118 ; Gasquet, Henry VIII. and the English
Monasteries, vol> ii. p. 495.

' DvhUn Bedew, vol. xxxiii. p. 305. See Goyau, Aubmr dv, CafhoU-
dstae so(mle, vol. ii, pp. 93 et seq.

CONCLUSION 225

Middle Ages ; ^ on the contrary, a rapidly increas-
ing population was considered a great blessing for
a country. 2 This attitude towards the question
of population did not arise merely from the fact
that Europe was very sparsely populated in the
Middle Ages, as modern research has proved that
the density of population was much greater than
is generally supposed.^

The mediaeval attitude towards population was
founded upon the sanctity of marriage and the
respect for human life. The utterances of Aquinas
on the subject of matrimony show his keen appre-
ciation of the natural social utility of marriage
from the point of view of increasing the population
of the world, and of securing that the new genera-
tion shaU be brought up as good and valuable
citizens,* While voluntary virginity is recom-
mended as a virtue, it is nevertheless distinctly
recognised that the precept of virginity is one
which by its very nature can be practised by only
a small proportion of the human race, and that
it should only be practised by those who seek
by detachment from earthly pleasures to regard

* Brants, op. cit., p. 235, quoting Sinigaglia, La Teoria Economica
deUa Populazione in Italia, Arohivio Giuridico, Bologna, 1881.

^ Caiholic Encyclopaedia, art. ' Population.' Brants draws attention
to the interesting fact that a germ of Malthusianism is to be found in
the mnch-disoussed Songe Alt Vergier, book ii. chaps. 297-98, and
Franciscus Patricius de Senis, writing at the end of the fifteenth
century, recommends emigration as the remedy against over-popula-
tion (Z>e Instifiitione BeipuhUcae, ix.).

* Bureau de la Malle, ' IKmoire sur la Population de la France au
xiv° Siecle,' Mkmmrcs di I'Acadlmie des Inscriptions et BeUes-Letlres,
vol. xiv. p. 36.

« Svmma CmU. Omt., in. 123, 136.

226 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

divine things. ^ Aquinas further says that large
famihes help to increase the power of the State,
and deserve well of the commonwealth,^ and
quotes with approbation the Biblical injunction
to ' increase and multiply.' ^ i:Egidius Romanus
demonstrates at length the advantages of large
famihes in the interests of the family and the
future of the nation.*

The growth of a healthy population was made
possible by the reformation of family hfe, which
was one of the greatest achievements of Chris-
tianity in the social sphere. In the early days of
the Church the institution of the family had been
reconstituted by moderating the harshness of the
Roman domestic rule {patria potestas), by raising
the moral and social position of women, and by
reforming the system of testamentary and in-
testate successions ; and the great importance
which the early Church attached to the family as
the basic unit of social life remained unaltered
throughout the Middle Ages.^

The Middle Ages were therefore a period when
the production of wealth was looked upon as a
salutary and honourable vocation. The wonder-
ful artistic monuments of that era, which have
survived the intervening centuries of decay and
vandalism, are a striking testimony to the per-
fection of production in a civilisation in which

1 Svmma, n. ii. 161 and 152. « De Beg. Prin., iv. 9.

3 Gen. i. 28. * De Beg. Prin., ii. 1, 6.

' ' Troplong, De VInfluenee du Ghriatianisme sur le Droit civil des
Bomains; Cossa, Guide, p. 99; Beyas, , Politicdl Economy, p. 168;
F6rin, La Bichesse dans ks Sociitis ekriUennea, i. 641 et seq. ; Hettinger,
Apologie du Christianisme, v. 230 et seq.

CONCLUSION 227

work was considered to be but a form of prayer,
and the manufacturer was prompted to be, not a
drudge, but an artist.

In the Middle Ages, however, as we have said
before, man did not exist for the sake of production,
but production for the sake of man ; and wise
consumption was regarded as at least as important
as extended production. The high estimation in
which wealth was held resulted in the elaboration
of a highly developed code of regulation as to the
manner in which it should be enjoyed. We do
not wish to weary the reader with a repetition
of that which we have already fuUy discussed ; it
is enough to call attention to the fact that the
golden mean of conduct was the observance of
liberality, as distinguished, on the one hand, from
avarice, or a too high estimation of material
goods, and, on the other hand, from prodigaUty,
or an undue disregard for their value. Social
virtue consisted in attaching to wealth its proper
value.

Far more important than its teaching either on
production or consumption was the teaching of
the mediaeval Church on distribution, which it
insisted must be regulated on a basis of strict
justice. It is in this department of economic
study that the teaching of the medisevals appears
in most marked contrast to the teaching of the
present day, and it is therefore in this department
that the study of its doctrines is most valuable.
As we said above, the modern world has become
convinced by bitter experience of the imprac-
ticability of mere selfishness as the governing

228 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

factor in distribution ; and the economic thought
of the time is concentrated upon devising some
new system of society which shall be ruled by
justice. On the one hand, we see sociaHsts of
various schools attempting to construct a Utopia
in which each man shaU be rewarded, not in accord-
ance with his opportunities of growing rich at the
expense of his fellow-man, but according to the
services he performs ; while, on the other hand,
we find the Christian economists striving to induce
a harassed and bewildered world to revert to an
older and nobler social ethic.

It is no part of our present purpose to estimate
the relative merits of these two solutions for our
admittedly diseased society. Nor is it our pur-
pose to attempt to demonstrate how far the system
of economic teaching which we have sketched in
the foregoing pages is applicable at the present day.
We must, however, in this connection draw atten-
tion to one important consideration, namely, that
the mediaeval economic teaching was expressly
designed to influence the only constant element
in human society at every stage of economic
development. Methods of production may im-
prove, hand may give place to machine industry,
and mechanical inventions may revolutionise all
our conceptions of transport and communication ;
but there is one element in economic activity that
remains a fixed and immutable factor throughout
the ages, and that element is man. The desires
and the conscience of man remain the same, what-
ever the mechanical environment with which he
is encompassed. One reason which suggests the

CONCLUSION 229

view that the mediaeval teaching is still per-
fectly applicable to economic life is that it
was designed to operate upon the only factor of
economic activity that has not changed since the
Middle Ages — ^namely, the desires and conscience
of man.

It is important also to draw attention to the
fact that the acceptance of the economic teaching
of the mediaeval theologians does not necessarily
imply acceptance of their teaching on other matters.
There is at the present day a growing body of
thinking men in every country who are full of
admiration for the ethical teaching of Christianity,
but are unable or unwiUing to beheve in the
Christian rehgion^ The fact of such unbehef or
doubt is no reason for refusing to adopt the
Christian code of social justice, which is founded
upon reason rather than upon revelation, and
which has its roots in Greek philosophy and B>oman
law rather than in the Bible and the writings of
the Fathers. It has been said that Christianity
is the only religion which combines religion and
ethics in one system of teaching ; but although
Christiar. religious and ethical teaching are com-
bined in/ the teaching of the CathoUc Church, they
are not, inseparable. Those who are willing to
discuss the adoption of the Sociahst ethic, which is
not combined with any spiritual dogmas, should
not refuse to consider the Christian ethic, which
might, equally be adopted without subscribing to
the Christian dogma.

As we said above, it is no part of our intention
to estimate the relative merits of the solutions of

230 MEDIAEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

our social evils proposed by socialists and by
Catholic economists. One thing, however, we
feel bound to emphasise, and that is that these
two solutions are not identical. It is a favourite
device of socialists, especially in Catholic countries,
to contend that their programme is nothing more
than a restatement of the economic ideals of the
Cathohc Church as exhibited in the writings of the
mediaeval scholastics. We hope that the fore-
going pages are sufficient to demonstrate the in-
correctness of this assertion. Three main prin-
ciples appear more or less clearly in all modem
sociahstic thought: first, that private ownership
of the means of production is unjustifiable ; second,
that all value comes from labour ; and, third, that
all unearned income is unjust. These three great
principles may or may not be sound ; but it is
quite certain that not one of them was held by the
mediaeval theologians. In the section on property
we have shown that Aquinas, following the
Fathers and the tradition of the early Church, was
an uncompromising advocate of private property,
and that he drew no distinction between fhe means
of production and any other kind of wealth ; in
the section on just price we have sho vn that
labour was regarded by the medisevals as but a
single one of the elements which entered iuto the
determination of value ; and in the section on
usury we have shown that many forms of un-
earned income were not only tolerated^; but
approved by the scholastics.

We do not lose sight of the fact that soc ialism
is not a mere economic system, but a philosophy.

CONCLUSION 231

and that it is founded on a philosophical basis
which conflicts with the very foundations of Chris-
tianity. We are only concerned with it here
in its character of an economic system, and all we
have attempted to show is that, as an economic
system, it finds no support in the teaching of the
scholastic writers. We do not pretend to suggest
which of these two systems is more likely to bring
salvation to the modem world ; we simply wish
to emphasise that they are two systems, and not
one. One's inability to distinguish between Christ
and Barabbas should not lead one to conclude
that they are really the same person.

INDEX

Abelabd, 14.

Acts of the Apostle), 168.

communism in, 44, 46.

Adam, 140.

and Eve, slavery the result of

their sin, 92.

Administrative occupations, posi-
tion in artes possessivae, 143.

Aegidius Romanus, 98, 197, 225.

Agriculture, position in a/rtee posset-
aivae, 142, 143."

its encouragement recom-
mended, 143.

AlbertuB Magnus, 16, 82, 176, 186,
197.

Albigenses, the, belief in com-
munism, 66.

Alcuin, 14.

Alexander of Hales, 176, 185.

Alexander III., Pope, 187.

attitude to usury, 174.

Alfric, see Colloquy of Archbishop,
The.

Almsgiving, as justice, not charity,
69.

duty of, 80.

enforcement by the State, 85.

summary of medieeval teach-
ing on, 84.

the early Church on, 52.

Ambition, a virtue, 79.
Ambrosius de Yignate, 191, 208.
Ananias, 46, 52.
Ancients, loss of economic teaching

of, 15.
Angelus de Feriglis de Perusio,

209, 210.
Antoine, 87, 172, 223.
Antoninus of Florence, 9, 68, 79,

110, 122, 181, 196.
Ape of Aristotle, the, see Albertns

Magnus.
Apostles, the, attitude to manual

labour, 223.

attitude to private property

and communism, 48.

attitude to usury, 168.

Apostles, the, fornication expressly
forbidden by, 168.

teaching regarding slavery,

89.

Apostoli, the, belief in commun-
ism, 66.

Aquinas, tee Thomas Aquinas.

Aragon, personal rent charges per-
mitted in, 205.

Architecture, see Manufacture.

Archivio Qiuridico, 225.

Ardant, 69.

Aristotle, 14, 16, 36, 97, 98, 142,
146, 169, 215, 219.

as source for Thomas Aquinas,

62.

attitude of Thomas Aquinas to

his opinion, Si et seq.

Cossa on his influence, 17.

his principles maintained

through Thomas Aquinas, 19.

his theory of slavery opposed

to that of St. Augustine, 93.

influence on controversies of

the schools, 17.

influence on mediaeval thought,

16.

renewed study of, 16.

Arnold, 203.

Artes pecuniativae, 142,

Artes possessivae, 142.

encouragement recom-
mended by Aquinas, 143.

ArnobiuB, 45.

Ashley, Sir W. H., 3, 6, 7, 18, 21,
23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 40, 76, 105, 113,
126, 134, 146, 149, 175, 185, 186,
187, 188, 190, 191, 195, 196, 197,
198, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 211,
212.

Augustinians, the, 195.

Ausmo, Nicholas de, 156.

Avarice, an offence against liberal-
ity, 79.

a sin towards the individual

himself and the community, 78.

relativity of, 75.

INDEX

233

Avarice, theneoesBarybaBisof trade,

145.
Aymbite oflnwit. The, 151.

Baldus, 187, 208.

Pavovaia, a sin, 77, 78.

Barabbas, 231.

Bartlett, Dr. V., 56, 90.

Bartolus, 187.

Baudrillard, 76.

Beauvaia, Vincent de, 7, 16.

B^gards, the, belief in communism,

66.
Benedict xiv., Pope, an encyclical

of, 183.
Benigni, 61.
Bergier, 45.

Bemardine of Siena, 112, 181.
Biel, 99, 100, 104, 106, 107, 108, 112,

118, 121, 124, 145, 150, 156, 180,

185, 205, 208, 211, 221.
Bimetallism, Oreame'a support of,

219.
Blanqui, 146.
Bohemia, communistic teaching in,

86.
Bohm-Bawerk, 174, 200, 203, 211.
Bottomry, contract of, 211.
Brant, Sebastian, 137.
Brants, V. L. J. L., 9, 10, 13, 19,

21, 66, 101, 111, 112, 114, 121,

122, 123, 142y 159, 181, 208, 215,

216, 217, 218, 225.
BreSlau, refusal to pay rent in, 204.
Brunetto Latini, 123.
Building, see Manufacture.
Buridan, 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 109, 110,

143, 180, 191, 198, 217.

Cabet, 42.

CaepoUa, 108, 118, 120.

Cajetan, 65, 79.

on the Swmma, 68.

Calippe, AbW, 49, 62.

on Thomas Aquinas, 68.

Cabxtus III., Pope, decree regard-
ing rent, 205.

Gambium, 165. '

conditions justifying, 157-

dealt with by Brants, 159.

minutum, 157, 158.

; motives justifying, 157.

per litteras, 157, 158.

siccum, 167.

the three kinds of, 157, 158.

when justifiable, not a loan,

158. I

Campsor, the, his remuneration ap-
proved, 156.

Canon law the source of knowledge
of Christian economic teaching,
13.

Canonist doctrine, dealt with by
Sir W. Ashley, 2.

Dr. Cunningham's esti-
mate of its importance, 27.

its impracticability de-

. monstrated by Endemann, 20.

value of the study of, 29.

Canonists, the, 117.

Capital, question of the productiv-
ity of, 198 et seq.

CarletuB, 120, 150, 193, 211.

Carlyle, Dr., 44, 58, 63.

Castro, Paul, 208.

Catholic Encyclopaedia, The, defini-
tion of ' Middle Ages,' 3.

— — on Communism, 46.

on Just Price, 112, 126.

on Political Economy, 30.

on Population, 225.

on Slavery, 90, 100.

Cato, 162. .

Cattle-breeding, see Agriculture.

Census constitutivus, 203.

reservativus, 203.

Centesima, the maximum rate of
interest in Rome, 161.

Cesana, monies pietatis at, 196.

Champagny, 80.

Change, see Camhiwm.

Chevallier, 20.

Christ, 42, 231.

a working man, 137.

attitude to manual labour, 223.

to private property and

communism, 47.

teaching regarding slavery, 89.

Christendom, economic unity of,
11.

Christian economic teaching, 13.

economists, their attempts to

reinstitute mediseval economics,
228.

Christian Monitor, The, 1 39.

Christian Exhortation, The, on the
protection of the farmer, 143.

Christianity, as providing an ethical
basis of society, 31.

attitude to manual labour, 137,

223.

attitude to slavery, 88.

foundations and origin of iti

code of social justice, 229.

234 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Christianity, influence in abolition
of Boman slavery, 99 et seq.

possibility of adopting ethics

without dogmas of, 229.

reformation of family life by,

226.

relation of economic teaching

of, to socialism, 33.

social theory of, 12.

Church, economic teaching of the
mediseval, 12.

the, attitude to commerce at

end of the Middle Ages, 152.

the, attitude to monies pietatis,

197.

the, effect of economic teach-
ing of, on material progress,
223.

the, necessity for understand-
ing economic teaching of, 32.

the, principles followed by, in

fixing price, 114.

the, prohibition of usury not

peculiar to, 160.

the, socialist view of iti teach-
ing on usury, 198.

the early, 230.

teaching on usury, 167 et

eeq.
Cicero, 56, 58, 162.
Civil Law, Commentaries on, a

source of knowledge of Christian

economic teaching, 13.
Civilisation, result of its advance

in the thirteenth century, 15.
Classical economists, recent reaction

against, 29.
Cleary, Dr., 35, 135, 160, 161, 162,

163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169.

17d, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 185,

186, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 196,

197, 205.
Clement of Alexandria, see St.

Clement.

of Borne, see St. Clement.

Clergy, the, and usury, 169.

the, prohibition of trading by,

151.
Coinage, see Money.
Collegantia, 207.
Oolloquy of Archbishop Alfric, The,

149.
Oommenda, the, 206.
Commendatarius, the, 207.
Oommendator, the, 207.
Common estimation, of just price

not the final criterion, 134.

Commerce, attitude of later fifteenth
century to, 150.

attitude of mediaeval theolo-
gians to, 136.

attitude of the Church at end

of Middle Ages, 152.

condemnation of, by early

Christians, 145.

condemnation of, by scholastics,

146.

dangerous to virtue, 145, 151.

definition of, 144.

extension of, in thirteenth

century, 15.

factors making for its illegal-
ity, 151.

gradual change of mediaeval

attitude to, 152.

justification of, not based on

payment for labour, 154.

legitimacy dependent on

methods, 146.

legitimacy dependent on

motives, 148.

motives regarded as justify-
ing, 153.

necessity for, realised, 147.

necessity of controlling its

operations, 154.

not dealt with by early writers,

position in the artes potsessivae,

143.
prohibition of speculative, 151.

rules applyiJig to, defined by

Kider, 150.

Communism, alleged, of early Chris-
tians, 43.

not part of scholastic teaching,

66.

Community of user, doctrine of, 85.

no relation to modern

socialistic communism, 86.

Commutations, see Exchange.

Compensation, for failure to repay
loans by date stipulated, 185.

for profit hindered, 189.

Competition, effect of unrestricted,
31.

Comte, his definition of ' Middle
Ages ' followed by Dr. Ingram, 3.

Conquerors, their right to enslave-
ment of the conquered adopted
by Aquinas, 96.

Constantine, 43.

Constantinople, fall of, regarded
as end of the Middle Ages, 4.

INDEX

235

Consumption, regulation of, 32.

'wisa, importance of, 227.

wise, the aim of mediaeval

teaching, 223.
Contract, Thomas Aquinas On, 38.
Corinthians, Epistle to the,, 48.
Corpus Juris Canonici, 13, 146.
Cossa, L., 5, 6, 17, 108, 220.
Credit, 119.
Crusades, the, influence of, 15.

the, influence on trade, 146.

Cunningham, Dr. W., 2, 9, 10, 11,

13, 23, 24, 26, 27, 79, 116, 122,

124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 138,

139, 152, 212, 218.
Currency, see Money.
Cyprian, 168, 170.
attitude to property, 50.

Damnum emebqens, 185, 196.

nature of, 186.

universal admission of, 187.

Dante, 216.

De Begimine Principwm, doubtful
authorship of, 20.

Delisle, 27.

Dimocratie Ghritienne, 199.

Deposit, Thomas Aquinas on, 38.

Desbuquois, Abb6, 36, 39, 104, 110,
116, 120.

Deuteronomy, 163.

Devas, 30, 49, 226.

Dictionary of Political Economy, 30,
105, 112, 135, 212.

Dictionnaire de Thiologie, 45.

Didache, the, attitude to usury, 168,
170.

Diocletian rescript, regarding sales,
104.

Distribution, just, the aim of medi-
aeval teaching, 223.

need for just, 31, 227.

regulation of, 32.

Dominicans, the, 195, 196.

Dominium eminens of the State, 69.

Donatus, 14.

Dublin Review, The, 43.

Duns Scotns, 149, 185, 188, 192.

Dureau de la Malle, 225.

Ecclesiastes, 151.

Eck, 211.

' Economic,' interpretation of, 3, 6

et aeq. <

• Economic Man,' imaginary figure

conceived by classical economists,

8.

Economic Review, The, 44.

Economics, causes of lack of interest
in, 14.

Elvira, the Council of, decree against
usury, 169.

Emperor, the, temporal vicar of
God, 11.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, The, de-
finition of ' Middle Ages,' 4.

Endemann, 19, 20, 23, 27, 34, 108,
120, 124, 134, 151, 155, 157, 158,
177, 186, 187, 190, 191, 195, 196,
203, 204, 216, 218.

Ephesians, Epistle to the, 89.

Equality, of men, 94.

Esdras, 165.

Espinas, A., 8, 17, 163, 197, 218.

Essenes, the, and communism, 47.

Ethics, error of disregarding in
economics, 29.

Eve, see Adam and.

Exchange, regulation of, 32.

justice in, 36 et seq.

theory of, see Oambivm.

Exodus, 163.

Ezekiel, 165.

Fatheks, the, see Church, the early.

Eavre, 173.

Feudalism, increased organisation
of, in thirteenth century, 15.

Fornication, expressly forbidden by
the Apostles, 168.

Franciscans, the, 195, 196.

Franciscua Fatricius de Seulis, 225.

Franck, A., 20, 90, 97.

Fratricelli, the, belief in commun-
ism, 66.

Fundamentum, distinction from titu-
lus, 64 et seq.

Funk, Dr., 113, 172, 203.

Galileo, 159.

Gand, Henri de, 110, 149.

Garden of Eden, private property
in, 55.

Gasquet, 224.

Genesis, 137, 226.

Genoa, the Archbishop of, 207.

letter from Alexander

III. to, 187.

Gentile, prohibition of usury be-
tween Jew and, 164.

Gentiles, prohibition of usury not
imposed on converts from, 168.

— . — taking of usury ftom, justified,
165.

236 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Genucian Law, the, interest prohi-
bited by, 160.

Gerbert, 14.

Gerdilius, 100.

Geraon, 39, 71, 104, 106, 108, 112,
118, 137, 182, 197.

Gide and Rist, 9.

Golden Age, the, private property
in, 55.

Gospel, the, preached to the poor,
137.

Gospels, the, on usury, 166.

Goyau, G.,67, 224.

Haney, L. H., 2, 5, 41, 136.

Heeren, A. H. L., 146.

Hettinger, 226.

Hilary of Poictiers, 60.

Hincmar, 14.

Hiring, Thomas Aquinas on, 38.

Hogan, Dr., 43, 47, 49, 137.

Hohoff, Abb6, 114, 199.

Hoatiensis, 188.

Hoyta, HenricuB de, 19.

Huet, 47.

Hunter, W. A., 105, 161.

Hunting, see Agriculture.

Idleness, contrasted attitudes of
ancient and Christian civilisa-
tions to, 137.

Income, unearned, approved by
scholastics, 113.

justice of, 198 et seg.

socialist theory of its in-
justice not supported by scholas-
tics, 214.

recognition of, 212.

Individualism, of Christianity, 12.

Industry, development of, in thir-
teenth century, 15.

Ingolstadt, 211.

Ingram, Dr. J. K., 2, 3, 4, 12, 17,
18, 23, 24.

Innocent ill.. Pope, attitude to
usury, 175.

in favour of unearned income,

207.

Insurance, a contract of, 210.

Interamna, monies pietatis at, 196.

Interesse proximum, suggested alter-
native term to damnum emergens,
187.

Inttresse remotum, suggested alter-
native term to lucrum ceiswns,
187.

Interest, justification of, 184.

Interest, laws regarding, in Rome,

160.
takingofgdiaapproved byGreek

and Roman philosophers, 161.

see also Usury.

Irish Ecclesiastical Record, The, 43,

47, 49, 109, 137.
Irish Theological Quarterly, The, 9,

68, 128, 129, 130, 132, 135.
Isidore, 95.
Isidore of Seville, 15.
his opinions on money

regarded as final, 214.
Italian States, forced loans in the,

196.
Ivo, 169.

Janet, P. A. R., 59, 61, 89, 91, 93,

97.
Jannet, Claudio, 183.
Janssen, J., 28, 68, 86, 125, 138,

139, 141, 143, 150, 154, 224.
Jarrett, Fr., 83, 84,
Jeremiah, 165.
Jerusalem, the Church of, social

system in, 44 et seq.
St. Paul's appeal for funds,

48.
the Council of, prohibition of

usury not imposed on converts

by, 168.
Jesuits, the, invention of trinus

contractus attributed to, 211.
JeiBxshEncyclopaedia, The,oa usury,

165.
Jews, attitude to usury, 160, 165.
■ — — prohibition of usury between,

164.
John of Salisbury, 14.
Jourdain, 5, 14, 16, 149, 176, 183,

221.
Jus ahiiiendi, 87.

divinum, 173.

kumanum, 174.

Tiaturale, 173.

Just price, a Christian conception,

104.
authorities empowered to

fix, 108.
comparison of mediseval

theory with that of classical econ-
omists, 125.
difference from modern

competition price, 116.

elasticity of, 117.

factors determining, 109

tt seg.

INDEX

237

Just price, fixed by common esti-
mation, 115 et seq.

fixing of, by law, 106.

in money-lending, 179.

mediseTalteachingon,103.

necessity for adhering to,

108.

of wages, see Wages.

rules for guidance in fixing

by law, 107.

nature of, 127 et seq.

value of canonical doc-
trine, 123.

Justiniafi, rates of interest fixed
by, 161.

Justinian Code, 28, 172.

Kellbhbe, Father, 129, 130, 131,

132, 133, 134.
Knabenbaur, 166.
B:nies, 80, 114, 135.
Koran, the, the taking of interest

forbidden in, 166.

Labour, as title to property, 65.

Christian teaching on its dig-
nity, 137.

division into honourable and

degrading, 141.

necessity and honourableness

of all forms of, 140.

only one constituent in the

estimation of just price, 157.

— ^ relative importance of, in de-
termining value, 113.

the motives which should ac-
tuate, 153.

Lactantius, 45, 56 et seq., 91.

Langenstein, 19, 107, 111, 112, 121,
122, 124, 137, 141, 203.

Larceny Act, the, 27.

Lateran Council, the, judgment in
favour of montesjiielatis, 197.

Councils, the, of 1139 and

1179, declaration against usurers
by, 174.

Laurentius de Eodiilphis, 157, 195,
209.

Law, natural and positive, in rela-
tion to property, 64.

Le Blant, 216.

Lecky, 176, 211.

Leo the Grreat, 146.

Lessius, 117, 124.

Letting, Thomas Aquinas on, 38.

I^evaaseur, 138, 139, 224.

Leviticus, 163.

Liberalitai, its opposing vices, 74.

meaning of, 73.

Liberality, relation to justice, 73.
Lisieux, Bishop of, see Oresme,

Nicholas-
List, 146, 224.

Loan, Thomas Aquinas on, 38.
Loans, analogy between sales and,

182.
forced, in the Italian States,

195.

the real nature of, 178.

Locatio operarum, 210, 213.
Logic, mediasval study of, 14.
Loria, 149.

Lucca, montes pietatis at, 196.
Lucrum cessans, 185, 186, 195, 202.
recognition of, 187 et

seq.
Lyons, Council of, ordinances

against usurers, 175.

Maoleod, 218.

Magnificentia, duty of, 77.

Maimonides, 164.

Malthusianism, 225. .

Mansi, 169.

Mantua, monies pietatis at, 196.

Manufacture, position in the artes

possessivae, 142 et seq.
Marcian Capella, 15.
Marriage, attitude of Thomas

Aquinas towards, 225.
Marshall, 30.
Martin v.. Pope, his bull on rent,

204.
Marx, Karl, theory of value not

supported by scholastics, 113, 114.
Mastrofini, his interpretation of a

verse of St. Luke, 166.
Maximian, rescript regarding sales,

105.
Mayronia, Francois de, 149, 156.
Mediaeval, interpretation of, 3 et

seq.
Menger, Anton, 199.
Merchant, the, necessity for control

of, see Commerce.
Metz-Noblat, de, 183.
Meyer, Rudolph, 198.
Middle Ages, definition of the term

by various authorities, 3 et teq.
early writers of, no re-
ference to economic questions, 13.
Milan, 211.
Mohammed, prohibition of usury by

his followers, 160.

238 MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

MohammedanB, taking of interest
by, forbidden, 166.

Monasteries, the, their example in
manual labour, 138, 223.

Money, as a form of capital, 201.

a vendible oommodity, 158.

changing, aee Cambium.

different kinds of variation of,

219 et seq.

ignorance of early Middle Ages

regarding, 214 et aeq.

invention of, 103.

most suitable metals for, 219.

not discussed by early medi-

aBval writers, 14.

sterility of, 180.

the sovereign's power in rela-
tion to, 219.

treatment of, by Isidore of

Seville^ 15.

utility of, as treated by Aris-
totle, 16.

variations in value of, 216 et

seq.

value of, not to be changed un-
necessarily, 219.

Monopolies, mediaeval views on,
124.

Monies pietatis, 194.

attitude of the Church to,

197.

controversy over interest

charged by, 196.

Montes prqfani, 195 et seq.

Moral theology, 130.

Morality, economic, in the Middle
Ages, 10.

More, Sir Thomas, 48.

Mosheim, 44.

Munificence, duty of, 77.

Mutuum, 202, 210, 213, 214.

nature of, 178, 183.

risk involved in, 192.

KaturaIi eights, distinction be-
tween absolute and commensurate
in slavery, 95.

Navarrus, 190.

Necessaries, twokinds distinguished
by Thomas Aquinas, 83.

Neumann, 182.

New Testament, the, 176.

cited in support of pro-
hibition of usury, 174.

Nice, Council of, on usury, 169, 170.

Nicholas v., Pope, bull on personal
rent charges, 205.

Nider, 39, 110, 118, 134, 150, 181,

193.
NittijF. S., 43, 69.
Noel, Conrad, 49.
Numa, as origin of ' nummi, ' 15.

OocupANOV, as title to property,
65.

Old Testament, the, 176.

attitude to usury, 163,

165.

cited in support of pro-
hibition of usury, 174.

Oresme, Nicholas, 143, 215, 216,
219.

his influence, 221.

his work on money, 214,

217 et seq.

Origin, 45.

Or vieto, first m,ontes pietatis started
at, 196.

Ownership, see Property.

Padita, myites pietatis at, 196.

Palgrave, 30, 105, 112, 135, 212.

Parma, mantes pietatis at, 196.

Partnership, division of remunera-
tion, 209.

scholastic teaching on, 202,

205 et seq.

the two kinds of, 209.

Parmficentia, a sin, 77, 78.

Patria potestas, 226.

Pelagius, views condemned by Coun-
oU, A.D. 415, 61.

Pennafort, Raymond de, 27, 149.

Periculum sortis, 191, 192, 212.

P6rin, 183, 226.

Perugia, montes pietatis at, 196.

Philip the Fair, his method of in-
creasing the revenue, 216.

Philosophers, the, their condemna-
tion of usury, 161.

Pigonneau, 146.

Plato, his objection to usury, 161.

Plutarch, attitude to usury, 163.

Poena conventionalis, 185.

difference from interest,

186.

Political economy, errors of classi-
cal school, 8.

difference between medi-
aeval and modern methods, 6.

Pope, the, his denunciation of
Philip the Fair, 216.

the spiritual vicar of God,

10.

INDEX

239

Popes, the, and almsgiving, 69.

,, pronouncements by, on rent,

;> 204.

their protection of rnorUes pie-

tatis, 197.

Population, medieeval attitude to,
224.

Poverty, as the cause of sin, 78.

Prescription, as title to property,
65.

Price, just, see Just price.

Friscian, 14.

Prodigality, an offence against
liberality, 79.

a sin towards the individual

and the community, 78.

distinction from liberality, 76,

Production, an honourable vocation.
226.

cost of, as a factor in deter-
mining value. 111 et seq.

extended, the aim of mediseval

teaching, 223.

regulation of, 32.

Professions, see Labour.

Profit, of the campsor to be deter-
mined by just price, 158.

' Profiteer,' the, doctrine of just
price a weapon against, 125.

Profiteering, prohibition of, 151.

Property, duties attaching to, 69.

duties in respect of exchange

of, 102.

immovable, rule for determin-
ing value, 120.

in human beings, 88.

private, duties attaching to,

40.

right of, 39.

teaching of mediseval

Church, 41 et seq.

the foundation of medi-
aeval economics, 40.

the keystone of economic

system of later theologians, 66.

Proverbs, 165.

Prutz, 146.

PscUms, 137, 165, 171.

Rabanas Maubas, 14.

Rambaud, 7. 8, 13, 80, 87, 100, 114,

146, 151, 182, 183, 188, 197, 203,

213, 215.
Reformation, the, 211.
attacks on monastic life durmg,

138.
Renaissance, the, 218.

Rent, pronouncements on, by the

Popes, 204.
refusal to pay, in Breslau, 204.

scholastic teaching on, 202

et teq.

Eevue ArcMologique, La,, 61.

Riches, the early Church on their
abuse, 53.

Rickaby, 75.

Risk, remuneration for, 152, 157,
191.

Rist, see Gide.

Roman Empire, the, fall of, re-
garded as beginning of Middle
Ages, 3.

jurists, their views on slavery

accepted by Thomas Aquinas, 94.

Romans, Epistle to the, 48.

Rome, condemnation of usury by
the philosophers of, 162,

laws regarding interest in, 160.

Numa, King of, 16.

policy of, enforced by clergy,

the attitude to manual labour

in, 137.
Rosoher, W. G. F., 5, 13, 19, 34,

46, 48, 87, 88, 107, 108, 112, 114,

121, 125, 142, 163, 166, 172, 186,

204 215 217.
Ryan,' Dr.' J. A., 49, 74, 117, 123,

135.

Sabatub, 223.

St. Ambrose, 49, 52, 60, 82, 171.

•■ quoted by Aquinas, 71.

St. Anselm, 14.

St. Anthony, advice to his followers,

223.
St. Augustine, 49, 57, 60, 63, 92,

93, 97, 98, 105, 146, 154, 172,

224.
theory of slavery analysed by

Janet, 93.
views on slavery accepted by

Aquinas, 94 et seq.
St. Barnabas, 45.
St. Basil, 49, 153, 171, 224.

quoted by Aquinas, 71.

St. Benedict, 152.

Rule of, 224.

St. Clement of Alexandria, 45, 49,

54, 168, 170.
St. Clement of Rome^ 49, 54.
St. Cyprian, 45, 50, 168, 170.
St. Gregory Nazianzen, 54.
8t. Gregory of Nyssa, 171.

240

MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

St. Gregory the Great, 49.

St. Hilary, 171.

St. Isidore, 62.
• St. Jerome, 49, 145, 171, 224.

St. John Chrysostom, 49, 51, 52.

St. Joseph, represented as a carpen-
ter, 139.

St. Justin, 45.

St. Justin Martyn, 49.

St. Luoian, 45.

St. Luke, 82.

St. Luke, doubtful meaning of a
verse in, 168.

interpretation of a doubtful

verse in, 168, 171.

St. Macharius, 223.
St. Matthew, 38, 47.
St. Pachomius, 223.
St. Paul, 137.

attitude to private property

and communism, 48.

on possession, cited by St.

Augustine, 60.

' teaching on slavery, 89.

followed by Chris-
tian teachers, 90.

St. Peter, 46.

teaching on slavery, 89.

St. Peter Damian, 83.

St. Thomas, see Thomas Aquinas.

Sale, Roman law as applied to, 104.

Thomas Aquinas on, 38.

treatment by fifteenth-century

writers, 18.

Sales, analogy between loans and,
182.

Salvador, 48.

Salvian, 55.

Sapphira, 46, 52.

Saturnus, result of banishment from
heaven, 56.

Saving, an act of liberality, 72 et
seq.

Soberer, 146.

Scotus, Duns, see Duns.

ScotuS Erigenus, 14.

Semaine SocicUe de France, La, 49,
62, 68, 104, 111.

Seneca, 59, 89, 90.

view of usury, 163.

Serfdom, 99.

Sertillanges, 80.

Servua, St. Augustine's theory of
origin, 93.

Sevona, montes pietatit at, 196.

Sicily, personal rent charges per-
mitted in, 205.

Sidgwiok, Professor Henry, 29, 31.

Sinigaglia, 225.

Sixtus v., Pope, condemnation of
trinus contractus, 211.

Slater, Father, 109, 128, 129, 130.

Slavery, analogy with property, 97.

attitude of Christianity to, 88.

limits of master's rights, 100.

three kinds of, 99.

views of Christian Church and

philosophers reconciled by Aqui-
nas, 93 et acq.

Smith, Adam, 29.

Societas, 206, 207, 210, 213.

Socialism, as providing an ethical
basis of society, 31.

danger of, 32.

relation of its economic teach-
ing to Christianity, 33.

Socialists, claim to authority of the
early Christians, 49 et teq.

attempts to 'construct Utopia,

228.

their communism ttjt the 'com-
munity of user' advocated by
scholastics, 86.

their interpretations of St.

Augustine, 58.

their main principles, 230.

their philosophy at variance

with Christianity, 231.

their principles not derived

from mediaeval teaching, 230.

their view of the Church's

teaching on usury, 198.

Sociua stans, 207.

Solon, laws of, as affecting usury,
160.

Songe du Vergier, 225.

Stagyrite, the, see Aristotle.

Stoic tradition, the, 58.

Stoicism, inferiority to Christian
teaching on slavery, 89.

Stoics, the, 93.

Stintzing, 20.

Sudre, 47, 48.

Summa Angelica, 186.

Astesana, 186.

Pisana, 156.

Superabundance, relativity of, 75.

'Teaching,' interpretation of, 3,
19 et seq.

mediaeval, its relation to prac-
tice, 21.

ethical nature of, 27.

Temperance, in the use of goods, 70.

INDEX

241

TertnUian, 45, 49, 145, 168, 170.

Theisaloniant, Epistle to the, 137.
Thirteenth century, progress made
in the, IS,

Thomas Aquinas, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 36, 41, 42, 46, 52, 62 et seq.,
67, 69, 70, 71 et seq., 74 et seq.,
77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 91,
93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 105,
111, 112, 114, 117, 119, 121, 131,
132, 133, 135, 136, 141, 143, 144,
146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154,
156, 162, 167, 173, 174, 176, 182,
186, 188, 189, 193, 194, 195, 197,
206, 207, 208, 215, 230.

Ticinum, Synod of, decree on usury,
173.

Tillage, see Agriculture.

Time, the sale of, 182.

Tvmothy, 151.

Titid'os, distinction from fimda-
mentum, 64.

Tmctatus Universi Juris, 19.

Tradesman, see Commerce.

Trade, tee Commerce.

Troplong, 226.

Trimis contractus, 210, 211.

Trithemius, 85, 124, 137, 149.

Twelve Tables, the, maximum rate
of interest fixed by, 160.

Uneiarwmfcenus, doubtful meaning

of, 160.
Usufruct, Aquinas on, 38.
Usurers, see Usury.
TTsury and the clergy, 169.

a sin against justice, 175.

attitude of the Apostles, 168.

attitude of various religious

and legal systems, 160.
borrowing at, ciroumstanceB

justifying, 194.
broader basis of discussion

after twelfth century, 173.
dealt with by ecclesiastical

courts, 175.

condemned by Councils, 13.

by philosophers, 161, 162.

as a sin against charity,

168, 171.
controversies over prohibition,

159.

definition of, by Lateran Coun-
cil, 197.

doubt as to Gospel teaching

on, 167.

Usury, ecclesiastical legislation on,
174.

inconclusive teaching of the

early Church, 172.

increased payment for credit

regarded as, 119.

injustice of, according to

Aristotle, 16.

in the Old Testament, 163.

not suppressed by civil law,

172.

patristic and episcopal utter-
ances in favour of, 172.

not permitted by civil autho-
rities, 197 et seq.

popular attitude to, 163.

prohibition of, 133, 173, 183,

184.

proof of justice of un-
earned income, 213.

position in canonist doc-
trine, 33.

not imposed on converts

from Gentiles, 168.

secular legislation j^i" favour of,

declared void, 175.

teaching of the early Church,

167 el seq.

treatment by fifteenth-century

writers, 18.

Value, factors determining, 129.
not systematically treated till

fourteenthand fifteenth centuries,

111.

See also Price.

Vaudois, the, belief in communism,

66.
Verona, montes pietatit at, 196.
Viennei Council of, 175.
Vio, Thomas da, 196.
Virgin, the Blessed, represented

spinning, 139.
Virginity, recommended for the

few, 225.
Viterbo, montes pietaiis ttt, 196.

Wages, rules determining, 120._

as factor in cost of production,

111.

attitude of mediaeval and mod-
ern working classes towards
fixing, 126 et seq.

fixed by a public authority,

121.

242 MEDLEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING

Wages, paucity of authority on,
before sixteenth century, 121.

Wallon, 90, 137, 140.

Wealth, theory of, according to
Aristotle, 16.

Wealth, not an end in itieU

80.
Weber, 206.
William of Paris, 176.'
Wolowski, 216, 217, 221.

Printed by T. snd A. Oonbtasli, Fiintera to Hig H^jeity
at the EdiDbuigh nnivenitr Preii, Scotland

OTHER WORKS BY GEORGE O'BRIEN

Published by Maunsel & Co., Dublin and London.

THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF IRELAND IN THE
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

' A volume quite indispensable to the student of Irish affairs.'

— Wtstminster Gazitie.

' Mr, O'Brien handles his theme soberly and without bias ; and his calm,
unflinching analysis and his devotion to the best traditions of scholarship
make this volume a memorable contribution to Irish economic literature.'

—Tie Nation.

' Dr. O'Brien is to be congratulated. . . . The most illuminating account
of the social and economic life of seventeenth-century Ireland we have ever
seen, written in an unusually non-partisan spirit.' — The Athtnaeum.

' Whether the Irish are economical or not, they have produced an economist
in the person of Dr. O'Brien.'— 7X« Pilot (Boston).

THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF IRELAND IN THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

' Mr. O'Brien is no political hot-gospeller ; on the contrary, he writes with
scrupulous moderation, and is less anxious to make points for a side than to
state and analyse essential facts.' — The Nation.

' Mr. O'Brien has made a most valuable contribution to the study of Irish
history, and his book deserves to be widely read,' — Nem Witness.

' Mr. O'Brien has produced a sincere and useful piece of work,'

— Manchester Guardian.

'Mr. O'Brien's book is worthy of its important theme.'

— Aberdeen Free Press.

' Mr. O'Brien's scholarly volume is an interesting refutation of the theory,
which Mr. Bernard Shaw has recently reiterated in public lectures in Dublin,
that the young Nationalists are romantic dreamers unacquainted with the
economics of history.' — TAe Z>>a/(New York).

' It is not every man of strong political opinions who is able to set himself
as Mr. G. O'Brien has done to examine each element of economic life in its
bearing for good or for evil on the prosperity of the whole community.' — Hints
en thi Study of English Economic History, by the late Dr. Cunningham.