Principles of Political Economy, Vol. 2Roscher, Wilhelm
General
Principles of Political Economy, Vol. 2
Roscher, Wilhelm
Economics
[Footnote 191-3: Thus the emperor Basil, in the year 867, as
_Justinian_ had before him, forbade the further payment of
interest, once the amount already paid equaled the
principal. (L. 29 seq.; Cod. IV, 32, Nov., 121, 2.) Compare
Sachsenspiegel, I, 54. _Edward the Confessor_ is said to
have issued the first prohibition of interest. (_Anderson_,
Origin of Commerce, a. 1045.) _Edward III._ forbade all
interest as the ruin of commerce. (Idem a., 1341.) About
1391, the lower House had its zeal aroused against the
"shameful vice of usury;" and again, in 1488, all interest
on money and all rent-purchases stipulated for on unlawful
conditions, were threatened with a fine of £20, the pillory,
and six months imprisonment. (_Anderson_, a., 1488.) In
France, the edict of Philip IV. of 1312. Compare
_Beaumanoir_, Coûtumes, ch. 67, des Usures, No. 2.]
[Footnote 191-4: _Dante_, Inferno, XI, 106 ff., suggests
that interest-creditors had violated the command of _Moses_,
I, 3. _Macchiavelli_ seems to judge otherwise: Compare
Istoria Fior., VII, a, 1464; VIII, a, 1478. Very interesting
discussions on the legitimateness of the taking of interest
in 1353 seq., in which the Dominicans, up to the time of
_Savonarola_, defended the strictest opinion. (_M. Villan_,
III, 106.) _Luther_, Tract on Trade and Money, 1524, and
Sermon on Usury, 1519. Later still, _Luther_ became more
moderate. Thus, in his letter to the Danzig counsel, 1525,
in _Neumann_, Geschichte des Wuchers in Deutschland, 617
ff., in which, for instance, he blames the forcible carrying
out of interest-prohibitions, draws a distinction between
rich and poor, etc. So, too, in his letter: An die
Pfarrherren, wider den Wucher zu predigen, 1540.
_Melanchthon_, Phil. moral., 137 ff., is also more moderate.
_Calvin_ was clearer in this matter, and no longer
recognized the canonical prohibition of interest. (Epistolæ
et Responsa, Hanov., 1597, epist. 383.) Similarly
_Zwinglius_, who will not praise interest, but considers it
a natural consequence of property (Opp. ed. Tugur., 1530, I,
319 ff.), and even _Erasmus_, ad. Evang. Luc., 6, 44. Adagia
v. Usuræ nautt. In _Shakespeare_, compare Merchant of
Venice. _Bodinus_ also rejects on principle, even Roman
interest, which he held to be 1½ per cent. a year: De
Republ., 1584, V. 2. Even the practical Dutch excluded the
so-called "table-keepers," from the communion up to 1657.
Compare the contests hereon in _Laspeyres_, Gesch. d.
volkswirthsch. Ansich. d. Niederl., 258 ff.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account