第2章
AlmostthewholesystemofGreekideasuptothetimeofAristotleisrepresentedinhisencyclopaedicconstruction。
Mathematicalandastronomicalsciencewaslargelydevelopedatalaterstage，butinthefieldofsocialstudiesnohigher
pointwaseverattainedbytheGreeksthanisreachedinthewritingsofthisgreatthinkerBothhisgiftsandhissituation
eminentlyfavouredhiminthetreatmentofthesesubjects。Hecombinedinraremeasureacapacityforkeenobservationwith
generalisingpower，andsobrietyofjudgmentwithardourforthepublicgood。Allthatwasoriginalorsignificantinthe
politicallifeofHellashadrunitscoursebeforehistimeorunderhisowneyes，andhehadthusalargebasisofvaried
experienceonwhichtogroundhisconclusions。Standingoutsidetheactualmovementofcontemporarypubliclife，he
occupiedthepositionofthoughtfulspectatorandimpartialjudge。Hecouldnot，indeed，forreasonsalreadystated，anymore
thanotherGreekspeculators，attainafullynormalattitudeintheseresearches。Norcouldhepassbeyondthesphereofwhat
isnowcalledstaticalsociology;theideaoflawsofthehistoricaldevelopmentofsocialphenomenahescarcelyapprehended，
exceptinsomesmalldegreeinrelationtothesuccessionofpoliticalforms。Butthereistobefoundinhiswritingsa
remarkablebodyofsoundandvaluablethoughtsontheconstitutionandworkingofthesocialorganismThespecialnotices
ofeconomicsubjectsareneithersonumerousnorsodetailedasweshoulddesire。LikealltheGreekthinkers，herecognises
butonedoctrineofthestate，underwhichethics，politicsproper，andeconomicstaketheirplaceasdepartments，bearingto
eachotheraverycloserelation，andhavingindeedtheirlinesofdemarcationfromeachothernotverydistinctlymarked。
Whenwealthcomesunderconsideration，itisstudiednotasanendinitself，butwithaviewtothehigherelementsand
ultimateaimsofthecollectivelife。
Theoriginofsocietyhetraces，nottoeconomicnecessities，buttonaturalsocialimpulsesinthehumanconstitution。The
natureofthesocialunion，whenthusestablished，beingdeterminedbythepartlyspontaneouspartlysystematiccombination
ofdiverseactivities，herespectstheindependenceofthelatterwhilstseekingtoeffecttheirconvergence。Hetherefore
opposeshimselftothesuppressionofpersonalfreedomandinitiative，andtheexcessivesubordinationoftheindividualto
thestate，andrejectsthecommunityofpropertyandwivesproposedbyPlatoforhisgoverningclass。Theprincipleof
privatepropertyheregardsasdeeplyrootedinman，andtheevilswhichareallegedtoresultfromthecorrespondingsocial
ordinancehethinksoughtreallytobeattributedeithertotheimperfectionsofournatureortothevicesofotherpublic
institutions。Communityofgoodsmust，inhisview，tendtoneglectofthecommoninterestandtothedisturbanceofsocial
harmony。
Oftheseveralclasseswhichprovideforthedifferentwantsofthesociety，thosewhoareoccupieddirectlywithitsmaterial
needs——theimmediatecultivatorsofthesoil，themechanicsandartificers——areexcludedfromanyshareinthegovernment
ofthestate，asbeingwithoutthenecessaryleisureandcultivation，andapttobedebasedbythenatureoftheiroccupations。
Inacelebratedpassagehepropoundsatheoryofslavery，inwhichitisbasedontheuniversalityoftherelationbetween
commandandobedience，andonthenaturaldivisionbywhichtherulingismarkedofffromthesubjectrace。Heregardsthe
slaveashavingnoindependentwill，butasan"animatedtool"inthehandsofhismaster;andinhissubjectiontosuch
control，ifonlyitbeintelligent，Aristotleholdsthatthetruewell—beingoftheinferioraswellasofthesuperioristobe
found。Thisview，soshockingtoourmodernsentiment，isofcoursenotpersonaltoAristotle;itissimplythetheoretic
presentationofthefactsofGreeklife，inwhichtheexistenceofabodyofcitizenspursuingthehighercultureanddevotedto
thetasksofwarandgovernmentwasfoundedonthesystematicdegradationofawrongedanddespisedclass，excluded
fromallthehigherofficesofhumanbeingsandsacrificedtothemaintenanceofaspecialtypeofsociety。
ThemethodsofeconomicacquisitionaredividedbyAristotleintotwo，oneofwhichhasforitsaimtheappropriationof
naturalproductsandtheirapplicationtothematerialusesofthehousehold;underthisheadcomehunting，fishing，
cattle—rearing，andagriculture。Withthisprimaryand"natural"methodis，insomesense，contrastedtheothertowhich
Aristotlegivesthenameof"chrematistic，"inwhichanactiveexchangeofproductsgoeson，andmoneycomesinto
operationasitsmediumandregulator。Acertainmeasureofthis"non—natural"method，asitmaybetermedinoppositionto
theprecedingandsimplerformofindustriallife，isacceptedbyAristotleasanecessaryextensionofthelatter，arisingoutof
increasedactivityofintercourse，andsatisfyingrealwants。Butitsdevelopmentonthegreatscale，foundedonthethirstfor
enjoymentandtheunlimiteddesireofgain，hecondemnsasunworthyandcorrupting。Thoughhisviewsonthissubject
appeartobeprincipallybasedonmoralgrounds，therearesomeindicationsofhishavingentertainedtheerroneousopinion
heldbythephysiocratsoftheeighteenthcentury，thatagriculturealone（withthekindredartsabovejoinedwithit）istruly
productive，whilsttheotherkindsofindustry，whicheithermodifytheproductsofnatureordistributethembywayof
exchange，howeverconvenientandusefultheymaybe，makenoadditiontothewealthofthecommunity。
Herightlyregardsmoneyasaltogetherdifferentfromwealth，illustratingthedifferencebythestoryofMidas。Andheseems
tohaveseenthatmoney，thoughitsuserestsonasocialconvention，mustbecomposedofamaterialpossessingan
independentvalueofitsown。Thathisviewsoncapitalwereindistinctappearsfromhisfamousargumentagainstintereston
loans，whichisbasedontheideathatmoneyisbarrenandcannotproducemoney。
LiketheotherGreeksocialphilosophers，AristotlerecommendstothecareofGovernmentsthepreservationofadue
proportionbetweentheextentofthecivicterritoryanditspopulation，andreliesonante—nuptialcontinence，latemarriages，
andthepreventionordestructionofbirthsfortheduelimitationofthenumberofcitizens，theinsufficiencyofthelatter
beingdangeroustotheindependenceanditssuperabundancetothetranquillityandgoodorderofthestate。
THEROMANS
Notwithstandingtheeminentlypractical，realistic，andutilitariancharacteroftheRomans，therewasnoenergeticexerciseof
theirpowersintheeconomicfield;theydevelopednolargeandmany—sidedsystemofproductionandexchange。Their
historicmissionwasmilitaryandpolitical，andthenationalenergiesweremainlydevotedtothepublicserviceathomeand
inthefield。Toagriculture，indeed，muchattentionwasgivenfromtheearliesttimes，andonitwasfoundedtheexistenceof
thehardypopulationwhichwonthefirststepsinthemarchtouniversaldominion。Butinthecourseoftheirhistorythe
cultivationofthesoilbyanativeyeomanrygaveplacetotheintroduction，ingreatnumbers，ofslavelabourersacquiredby
theirforeignconquests;andforthesmallpropertiesoftheearlierperiodweresubstitutedthevastestates——thelatifundia——
which，inthejudgmentofPliny，weretheruinofItaly。（1）Theindustrialartsandcommerce（thelatter，atleastwhennot
conductedonagreatscale）theyregardedasignoblepursuits，unworthyoffreecitizens;andthisfeelingofcontemptwas
notmerelyaprejudiceofnarroworuninstructedminds，butwassharedbyCiceroandothersamongthemostliberalspirits
ofthenation。（2）AsmightbeexpectedfromthewantofspeculativeoriginalityamongtheRomans，thereislittleevidenceof
serioustheoreticinquiryoneconomicsubjects。Theirideasontheseasonothersocialquestionswereforthemostpart
borrowedfromtheGreekthinkers。Suchtracesofeconomicthoughtasdooccuraretobefoundin（1）thephilosophers，（2）
thewritersdererustica，and（3）thejurists。Itmust，however，beadmittedthatmanyofthepassagesintheseauthors
referredtobythosewhoasserttheclaimoftheRomanstoamoreprominentplaceinthehistoryofthescienceoftencontain
onlyobvioustruthsorvaguegeneralities。
Inthephilosophers，whomCicero，Seneca，andtheelderPlinysufficientlyrepresent（thelastindeedbeingratheralearned
encyclopaedistorpolyhistorthanaphilosopher），wefindageneralconsciousnessofthedecayofindustry，therelaxationof
morals，andthegrowingspiritofself—indulgenceamongsttheircontemporaries，whoarerepresentedasdeeplytaintedwith
theimportedvicesoftheconquerednations。Thissentiment，bothinthesewritersandinthepoetryandmiscellaneous
literatureoftheirtimes，isaccompaniedbyahalf—factitiousenthusiasmforagricultureandanexaggeratedestimateof
countrylifeandofearlyRomanhabits，whichareprincipally，nodoubt，toberegardedasaformofprotestagainstexisting
abuses，and，fromthispointofview，remindusofthedeclamationsofRousseauinanotdissimilarage。Butthereislittleof
largerorjustthinkingontheprevalenteconomicevilsandtheirproperremedies。Pliny，stillfurtherinthespiritofRousseau，
isofopinionthattheintroductionofgoldasamediumofexchangewasathingtobedeplored，andthattheageofbarter
waspreferabletothatofmoney。Heexpressesviewsonthenecessityofpreventingtheeffluxofmoneysimilartothoseof
themodernmercantileschool——viewswhichCiceroalso，thoughnotsoclearly，appearstohaveentertained。Cato，Varro，
andColumellaconcernthemselvesmorewiththetechnicalpreceptsofhusbandrythanwiththegeneralconditionsof
industrialsuccessandsocialwell—being。Butthetwolastnamedhavethegreatmeritofhavingseenandproclaimedthe
superiorvalueoffreetoslavelabour，andColumellaisconvincedthattotheuseofthelatterthedeclineoftheagricultural
economyoftheRomanswasinagreatmeasuretobeattributed。Thesethreewritersagreeinthebeliefthatitwaschieflyby
therevivalandreformofagriculturethatthethreateninginroadsofmoralcorruptioncouldbestayed，theoldRomanvirtues
fostered，andthefoundationsofthecommonwealthstrengthened。TheirattitudeisthussimilartothatoftheFrench
physiocratsinvokingtheimprovementandzealouspursuitofagriculturealikeagainstthematerialevilsandthesocial
degeneracyoftheirtime。Thequestionofthecomparativemeritsofthelargeandsmallsystemsofcultivationappearsto
havebeenmuchdiscussedintheoldRoman，asinthemodernEuropeanworld;Columellaisadecidedadvocateofthe
petiteculture。Thejuristswereledbythecoincidencewhichsometimestakesplacebetweentheirpointofviewandthatof
economicsciencetomakecertainclassificationsandestablishsomemoreorlessrefineddistinctionswhichthemodern
economistshaveeitheradoptedfromthemorusedindependently。Theyappearalso（thoughthishasbeendisputed，Neriand
Carlimaintainingtheaffirmative，Pagninithenegative）tohavehadcorrectnotionsofthenatureofmoneyashavingavalue
ofitsown，determinedbyeconomicconditions，andincapableofbeingimpresseduponitbyconventionorarbitrarilyaltered
bypublicauthority。Butingeneralwefindinthesewriters，asmightbeexpected，notsomuchtheresultsofindependent
thoughtasdocumentsillustratingthefactsofRomaneconomiclife，andthehistoricalpolicyofthenationwithrespectto
economicsubjects。Fromthelatterpointofviewtheyareofmuchinterest;andbytheinformationtheysupplyastothe
Courseoflegislationrelatingtopropertygenerally，tosumptuarycontrol，totherestrictionsimposedonspendthrifts，to
slavery，totheencouragementofpopulation，andthelike，theygiveusmuchclearerinsightthanweshouldotherwise
possessintoinfluenceslongpotentinthehistoryofRomeandoftheWesternworldatlarge。But，asitiswiththemore
limitedfieldofsystematicthoughtonpoliticaleconomythatwearehereoccupied，wecannotenterintothesesubjects。One
matter，however，oughttobeadvertedto，becauseitwasnotonlyrepeatedlydealtwithbylegislation，butistreatedmoreor
lessfullybyallRomanwritersofnote，namely，theinterestonmoneyloans。TheratewasfixedbythelawsoftheTwelve
Tables;butlendingoninterestwasafterwards（B。C。341）entirelyprohibitedbytheGenucianLaw，Inthelegislationof
Justinian，ratesweresanctionedvaryingfromfourtoeightpercentaccordingtothenatureofthecase，thelatterbeingfixed
astheordinarymercantilerate，whilstcompoundinterestwasforbidden。TheRomantheorists，almostwithoutexception，
disapproveoflendingoninterestaltogether。Cato，asCicerotellsus，thoughtitasbadasmurder（"Quidfenerari？Quid
hominemoccidere？"DeOff，ii。25）;andCicero，Seneca，Pliny，Columellaalljoinincondemningit。Itisnotdifficulttosee
howinearlystatesofsocietythetradeofmoney—lendingbecomes，andnotunjustly，theobjectofpopularodium;butthat
thesewriters，ataperiodwhencommercialenterprisehadmadeconsiderableprogress，shouldcontinuetoreprobateit
arguesveryimperfectorconfusedideasonthenatureandfunctionsofcapital。Itisprobablethatpracticetooklittleheed
eitherofthesespeculativeideasoroflegislationonthesubject，whichexperienceshowscanalwaysbeeasilyevaded。The
trafficinmoneyseemstohavegoneonallthroughRomanhistory，andtheratetohavefluctuatedaccordingtothecondition
ofthemarket。
Lookingbackonthehistoryofancienteconomicspeculation，weseethat，asmightbeanticipatedapriori，theresults
attainedinthatfieldbytheGreekandRomanwriterswereveryscanty。AsDühringhaswellremarked，thequestionswith
whichthesciencehastodowereregardedbytheancientthinkersratherfromtheirpoliticalthantheirproperlyeconomic
side。Thiswehavealreadypointedoutwithrespecttotheirtreatmentofthesubjectofpopulation，andthesamemaybeseen
inthecaseofthedoctrineofthedivisionoflabour，withwhichPlatoandAristotleareinsomedegreeoccupied。Theyregard
thatprincipleasabasisofsocialclassification，oruseitinshowingthatsocietyisfoundedonaspontaneousco—operationof
diverseactivities。Fromthestrictlyeconomicpointofview，therearethreeimportantpropositionswhichcanbeenunciated
respectingthatdivision:——（1）thatitsextensionwithinanybranchofproductionmakestheproductscheaper;（2）thatitis
limitedbytheextentofthemarket;and（3）thatitcanbecarriedfurtherinmanufacturesthaninagriculture。Butweshall
lookinvainforthesepropositionsintheancientwriters;thefirstalonemightbeinferredfromtheirdiscussionsofthe
subject。IthasbeenthetendencyespeciallyofGermanscholarstomagnifyundulytheextentandvalueofthecontributions
ofantiquitytoeconomicknowledge。TheGreekandRomanauthorsoughtcertainlynottobeomittedinanyaccountofthe
evolutionofthisbranchofstudy。Butitmustbekeptsteadilyinviewthatwefindinthemonlyfirsthintsorrudimentsof
generaleconomictruths，andthatthescienceisessentiallyamodernone。Weshallindeedseehereafterthatitcouldnothave
attaineditsdefinitiveconstitutionbeforeourowntime。（3）
NOTES:
1。"Locis，quaenunc，vixseminarioexiguomilitumrelicto，servitiaRomanaabsolitudinevindicant。"——Liv。vi。12。"Villarum
infinitaspatia。"Tac。Ann。iii。53。
2。"Opificesomnesinsordidaarteversantur;necenimquidquamingenuumhaberepotestofficina。"Cic。deOff。i。42。
"Mercatura，sitenuisest，sordidaputandaest:sinmagnaetcopiosa，multaundiqueapportansmultisquesinevanitate
impertiens，nonestadmodumvituperanda。"——Ibid。"QuaestusomnisPatribusindecorusvisusest。"Liv。xxi。63
3。OntheEconomicdoctrinesoftheAncientsseeRoscher’sEssayUeberdasVerhältnissderNational鱧onomiezum
klassischenAlterthumeinhisAnsichtenderVolkswirthschaft（1861）。
Chapter3
TheMiddleAgesTheMiddleAges（400—1300A。D。）formaperiodofgreatsignificanceintheeconomic，asinthegeneral，historyofEurope，
Theyrepresentavasttransition，inwhichthegermsofanewworldweredeposited，butinwhichlittlewasfullyelaborated。
ThereisscarcelyanythinginthelatermovementofEuropeansocietywhichwedonotfindthere，thoughasyet，forthemost
part，crudeandundeveloped。Themedievalperiodwastheobjectofcontemptuousdepreciationonthepartoftheliberal
schoolsofthelastcentury，principallybecauseitcontributedsolittletoliterature。Buttherearethingsmoreimportantto
mankindthanliterature。andthegreatmenoftheMiddleAgeshadenoughtodoinotherfieldstooccupytheirutmost
energies。ThedevelopmentoftheCatholicinstitutionsandthegradualestablishmentandmaintenanceofasettledorderafter
thedissolutionoftheWesternempireabsorbedthepowersofthethinkersandpracticalmenofseveralcenturies。Thefirst
medievalphase，fromthecommencementofthefifthcenturytotheendoftheseventh，wasoccupiedwiththepainfuland
stormystruggletowardsthefoundationofthenewecclesiasticalandcivilsystem;threemorecenturieswerefilledwiththe
workofitsconsolidationanddefenceagainsttheassaultsofnomadpopulations;onlyinthefinalphase，duringtheeleventh，
twelfth，andthirteenthcenturies，whentheunityoftheWestwasfoundedbythecollectiveactionagainstimpendingMoslem
invasion，diditenjoyasufficientlysecureandstableexistencetoexhibititsessentialcharacterandproduceitsnoblest
personaltypes。Theelaborationoffeudalismwas，indeed，inprogressduringthewholeperiod，showingitselfinthe
decompositionofpowerandthehierarchicalsubordinationofitsseveralgrades，themovementbeingonlytemporarily
suspendedinthesecondphasebythesalutarydictatorshipofCharlemagne。Butnotbeforethefirstcenturyofthelastphase
wasthefeudalsystemfullyconstituted。Inlikemanner，onlyinthefinalphasecouldtheeffortofCatholicismaftera
universaldisciplinebecarriedoutonthegreatscale——aneffortforeveradmirablethoughnecessarilyonthewhole
unsuccessful。
Nolargeorvariedeconomicactivitywaspossibleunderthefullascendencyoffeudalism。Thatorganisation，ashasbeen
abundantlyshownbyphilosophicalhistorians，wasindispensableforthepreservationoforderandforpublicdefence，and
contributedimportantelementstogeneralcivilization。But，whilstrecognizingitasopportuneandrelativelybeneficent，we
mustnotexpectfromitadvantagesinconsistentwithitsessentialnatureandhistoricaloffice。Theclasswhichpredominated
initwasnotsympatheticwithindustry，andheldthehandicraftsincontempt，exceptthosesubservienttowarorruralsports。
Thewholepracticallifeofthesocietywasfoundedonterritorialproperty。thewealthofthelordconsistedintheproduceof
hislandsandtheduespaidtohiminkind;thiswealthwasspentinsupportingabodyofretainerswhoseserviceswere
repaidbytheirmaintenance。Therecouldbelittleroomformanufactures，andlessforcommerce;andagriculturewascarried
onwithaviewtothewantsofthefamily，oratmostoftheimmediateneighbourhood，nottothoseofawidermarket。The
economyoftheperiodwasthereforesimple，and，intheabsenceofspecialmotorsfromwithout，unprogressive。
InthelatterportionoftheMiddleAgesseveralcircumstancescameintoactionwhichgreatlymodifiedtheseconditions。The
Crusadesundoubtedlyproducedapowerfuleconomiceffectbytransferringinmanycasesthepossessionsofthefeudal
chiefstotheindustriousclasses，whilstbybringingdifferentnationsandracesintocontact，byenlargingthehorizonand
wideningtheconceptionsofthepopulations，aswellasbyaffordingaspecialstimulustonavigation，theytendedtogivea
newactivitytointernationaltrade。Theindependenceofthetownsandtherisingimportanceoftheburgherclasssupplieda
counterpoisetothepowerofthelandaristocracy;andthestrengthofthesenewsocialelementswasincreasedbythe
corporateconstitutiongiventotheurbanindustries，thepoliceofthetownsbeingalsofoundedonthetradeguilds，asthatof
thecountrydistrictswasonthefeudalrelations。Theincreasingdemandofthetownsfortheproductsofagriculturegaveto
theprosecutionofthatartamoreextendedandspeculativecharacter;andthisagainledtoimprovedmethodsoftransport
andcommunication。Buttherangeofcommercialenterprisecontinuedeverywherenarrow，exceptinsomefavouredcentres，
suchastheItalianrepublics，inwhich，however，thegrowthofthenormalhabitsofindustriallifewasimpededorperverted
bymilitaryambition，whichwasnot，inthecaseofthosecommunities，checkedasitwaselsewherebythepressureofan
aristocraticclass。
Everygreatchangeofopiniononthedestiniesofmanandtheguidingprinciplesofconductmustreactonthesphereof
materialinterests;andtheCatholicreligionhadapowerfulinfluenceontheeconomiclifeoftheMiddleAges。Christianity
inculcates，perhaps，nomoreeffectivelythantheindustry，thrift，olderreligionsthespecialeconomicvirtuesoffidelityto
engagements，obediencetorightfulauthority;butitbroughtoutmoreforciblyandpresentedmorepersistentlythehigher
aimsoflife，andsoproducedamoreelevatedwayofviewingthedifferentsocialrelations。Itpurifieddomesticlife，areform
whichhasthemostimportanteconomicresults。Ittaughtthedoctrineoffundamentalhumanequality，heightenedthedignity
oflabour，andpreachedwithquiteanewemphasistheobligationsoflove，compassion，andforgiveness，andtheclaimsof
thepoor。Theconstantpresentationtothegeneralmindandconscienceoftheseideas，thedogmaticbasesofwhichwere
scarcelyasyetassailedbyscepticism，musthavehadapowerfuleffectinmoralisinglife。ButtotheinfluenceofChristianity
asamoraldoctrinewasaddedthatoftheChurchasanorganization，chargedwiththeapplicationofthedoctrinetomen’s
dailytransactions，Besidestheteachingsofthesacredbooks，therewasamassofecclesiasticallegislationprovidingspecific
prescriptionsfortheconductofthefaithful。Andthislegislationdealtwiththeeconomicaswithotherprovincesofsocial
activity。IntheCorpusJurisCanonici，whichcondensestheresultofcenturiesofstudyandeffort，alongwithmuchelseis
setoutwhatwemaycalltheCatholiceconomictheory，ifweunderstandbytheory，notareasonedexplanationof
phenomena，butabodyofideasleadingtoprescriptionsfortheguidanceofconduct。Lifeisherelookedatfromthepointof
viewofspiritualwell—being;theaimistoestablishandmaintainamongstmenatruekingdomofGod，Thecanonistsarefriendlytothenotionofacommunityofgoodsfromthesideofsentiment（"Dulcissimarerumpossessio
communisest"），thoughtheyregardthedistinctionofmeumandtuumasaninstitutionnecessitatedbythefallenstateof
man。Incasesofneedthepublicauthorityisjustifiedinre—establishingprohacvicetheprimitivecommunity。Thecareofthe
poorisnotamatteroffreechoice;thereliefoftheirnecessitiesisdebitumlegale。Avaritiais，idolatry;cupiditas，evenwhen
itdoesnotgraspatwhatisanother’s，istherootofallevil，andoughttobenotmerelyregulatedbuteradicated。Agriculture
andhandiworkareviewedaslegitimatemodesofearningfoodandclothing;buttradeisregardedwithdisfavour，becauseit
washeldalmostcertainlytoleadtofraud:ofagricultureitwassaid，"Deonondisplicet";butofthemerchant，"Deoplacere
nonpotest。"Thesellerwasboundtofixthepriceofhiswares，notaccordingtothemarketrate，asdeterminedbysupply
anddemand，butaccordingtotheirrealvalue（justumpretium）。Hemustnotconcealthefaultsofhismerchandise，nortake
advantageoftheneedorignoranceofthebuyertoobtainfromhimmorethanthefairprice。Interestonmoneyisforbidden;
theprohibitionofusuryis，indeed，asRoschersays，thecentreofthewholecanonisticsystemofeconomy，aswellasthe
foundationofagreatpartoftheecclesiasticaljurisdiction。Thequestionwhetheratransactionwasorwasnotusurious
turningmainlyontheintentionsoftheparties，theinnocenceorblameworthinessofdealingsinwhichmoneywaslent
becamerightfullyasubjectofdeterminationfortheChurch，eitherbyhercasuistsorinhercourts。（1）
Theforegoingprinciplespointtowardsanobleideal，butbytheirasceticexaggerationtheyworkedinsomedirectionsasan
impedimenttoindustrialprogress。Thus，whilst，withtheincreaseofproduction，agreaterdivisionoflabourandalarger
employmentofborrowedcapitalnaturallyfollowed，thelawsonusurytendedtohinderthisexpansion。Hencetheywere
underminedbyvariousexceptions，orevadedbyfictitioustransactions。Theselawswereinfactdictatedby，andadaptedto，
earlyconditions—toastateofsocietyinwhichmoneyloanswerecommonlysoughteitherwithaviewtowastefulpleasures
orforthereliefofsuchurgentdistressasoughtrathertohavebeentheobjectofChristianbeneficence。Buttheywerequite
unsuitedtoaperiodinwhichcapitalwasborrowedfortheextensionofenterpriseandtheemploymentoflabour。The
absolutetheologicalspiritinthis，asinotherinstances，couldnotadmitthemodificationinrulesofconductdemandedbya
newsocialsituation;andvulgargoodsensebetterunderstoodwhatwerethefundamentalconditionsofindustriallife。
Whentheintellectualactivitypreviouslyrepressedbythemoreurgentclaimsofsocialpreoccupationstendedtorevive
towardsthecloseofthemediaevalperiod，thewantofarationalappreciationofthewholeofhumanaffairswasfelt，and
wastemporarilymetbytheadoptionoftheresultsofthebestGreekspeculation。HencewefindinthewritingsofSt。
ThomasAquinasthepoliticalandeconomicdoctrinesofAristotlereproducedwithapartialinfusionofChristianelements。
Hisadherencetohismaster’spointofviewisstrikinglyshownbythefactthatheaccepts（atleastifheistheauthoroftheDeRegiminePrincipum）（2）theAristoteliantheoryofslavery，thoughbytheactionoftheforcesofhisowntimethelast
relicsofthatinstitutionwerebeingeliminatedfromEuropeansociety。
Thisgreatchange——theenfranchisementoftheworkingclasses——wasthemostimportantpracticaloutcomeoftheMiddle
Ages。Thefirststepinthismovementwasthetransformationofslavery，properlysocalled，intoserfdom。Thelatterwas，by
itsnature，atransitorycondition。Theserfwasboundtothesoil，hadfixeddomesticrelations，andparticipatedinthe
religiouslifeofthesociety;andthetendencyofallhiscircumstances，aswellasoftheopinionsandsentimentsofthetime，
wasinthedirectionofliberation。Thisissuewas，indeed，notsospeedilyreachedbytheruralasbytheurbanworkman。
Alreadyinthesecondphaseserfdomisabolishedinthecitiesandtowns，whilstagriculturalserfdomdoesnotanywhere
disappearbeforethethird。ThelatterrevolutionisattributedbyAdamSmithtotheoperationofselfishinterests，thatofthe
proprietorontheonehand，whodiscoveredthesuperiorproductivenessofcultivationbyfreetenants，andthatofthe
sovereignontheother，who，jealousofthegreatlords，encouragedtheencroachmentsofthevilleinsontheirauthority。But
thattheChurchdeservesashareofthemeritseemsbeyonddoubt——moralimpulses，asoftenhappens，conspiringwith
politicalandeconomicmotives。Theserfsweretreatedbestontheecclesiasticalestates，andthemembersofthepriesthood，
bothbytheirdoctrineandbytheirsituationsincetheNorthernconquests，wereconstitutedpatronsandguardiansofthe
oppressedorsubjectclasses。