What are the factors that led to the remarkable little change of the official attitudes towards usury in the late middle ages and the early years of the Renaissance?
Although usury was considered as a sin against humanity, it was being exercised during the commercial revolution in Europe since it was acknowledged that interest was essential for the business. Geisst argues, "It was only when money began to be understood as a legitimate method of facilitating a trade that it could be universally accepted and interest understood as a method of facilitating business" (70). In addition, the rising commercialism popularized the money and usury. During the quattrocento, people get to learn new dimensions of the uses and nature of money, which changed the negative interpretations of money. More ideas concerning usury and interest circulated and were the main predictors of the change of the positive attitude about usury. For instance, simony such as selling the church offices captured the attention of many and hence becoming one of the pivotal factors to change the perception of the usury. In addition, other ideas such as monopoly and debasement of coin became more popular and shed light to how people think about usury.
New ideas concerning money were also pivotal issues that contributed to the usury debate and consequently helped the later generation comprehend the scope of the problem. For instance, Bernardo Davanzati, an Italian writer asserted that money is, "an excellent invention, and an Instrument of doing infinite good; if any makes ill use of it, ‘tis not the thing but the person that is to be blamed and punished" (68). The money would be utilized for evil practices if its intrinsic qualities such quantity in circulation were not well known. Bankers and politicians came to realized that qualities such as money supply were determinant of inflation. Therefore, the popularization of the ideas of interest and money enhanced the positive perception about usury.
In the ancient Roman Empire, usury was perceived as the violation of the law because it was usurping the power that was only entitled to God. People believe, "only God had the ability to tinker with time, not a man" (68). This belief condemned those who charged usury to the other individuals. However, the concept of the supply of money, which influenced the amount of good produced in the economy during the Renaissance, illustrated the need for the usury. This concept required that, to increase the number of goods in the economy, more money was required. The increase in money supply and the amount of goods should be equivalent, or else inflation would occur. As a result, people realized the need for usury as a way to increase the supply of money in the economy and hence the production of goods and services. This discovery made people view the usury as a way of increasing amount of goods produced and to control inflation rather than a violation of law. Therefore, the usury was widely practiced and was among the great cultural paradoxes despite being criticized in the medieval and ancient world.
How did people in the medieval and ancient world determine the rate of interest was usurious?
In the ancient and medieval times, the usurious rate of interest was determined by the nature of the lender. According to Geisst, if the "manifest usurer" or the professional lender charged the interest, the medieval world would consider the rate as usurious irrespective of the implied rate (69). However, if it was the rate of return derived from a profitable partnership venture, it was unclear to determine whether the rates were usurious. If the return was gained by lending to another person, then the practice of usury prevailed. If the return were derived from the maritime venture where profitable business transaction facilitated the exchange of goods, more scrutiny would be required to regulate moral qualities. Church authorities would never scrutinize such transaction unless the transaction involves the issues of ligation. The parties involved in such transaction are required to be careful to avoid violation church law. Therefore, the rates involved in such transaction would not be considered as usurious unless the parties or transactions do not adhere to the church law.
Another factor that was used to determine whether transactions or rates were usurious is the level of risk. During the middle age, the level of risk was measured through "judging the borrower's character or familiarity to the lender" (69). In this case, the usury can be considered as a subjective charge. According to the Deuteronomy Jews were not in a position to charge interest to other Jews because they viewed lending money to Jews as less risky than lending to non-Jews. In this case, the usury was permitted since a fee was charged to a non-member in a tribal society. However, if a standard concept to determine the risk was not available, and there were no stated rate of interests, one man paying extra units would claim usury. This is because, in the Aristotelian terms, there is no apparent justice. Therefore, when inequitable treatment occurs when charging rates, this is considered as usurious rate. Furthermore, the compound interest charges produce the case of usury because frequently charged interests are more unjust. Geisst asserts, "It would not be until a more standard set of interest rate calculations was introduced that usury would become more clearly understood not as simple interest alone but compound interest expressed in frequency terms" (70). This illustrates that the usury would only be determined if the standard set of interest rate were put into place and compound interest defined in occurrence terms.
The liberal view of the benefits derived from the lenders determined whether the rates were usurious or not. For instance, the church council viewed ‘montes' provided server benefits when they lend money to the poor irrespective of the earlier church protests. Therefore, ‘montes' were viewed as assets to the poor and the church because "such type of lending is meritorious and should be praised and approved" (72). The church council concluded that the interest charged should not be considered usurious.
How did the writers change attitudes concerning the ideas of money as usury?
Many scholars and writers such as William Shakespeare have been in the frontline to display the ideas and attitudes about usury. In "The Marchant of Venice" Antonio acquires a loan from Shylock and agree to pay for a pound of flesh if he fails to repay the debt. However, in the court, Portia (in disguise) argues that Shylock had the right to precise his bond. However, according to the law, he is forbidden to do so if he sheds a drop of blood. Shakespeare's use of "shedding one drop of blood" implies that lending should not harm the creditor (88).
Another French Jurist, Charles Domuoulin wrote several materials to refute the negative attitude and ideas on Usury. He wrote, "Tolerating usury was a necessary as tolerating the use of money" (88). He argued that the scholastics who condemns the idea of usury are wholly mistaken because they lack practical experience and ignore the law. However, some writer had presented their views that do not support the ideas of usury. One of the writers who strongly refuted that usury in the mid-sixteenth century is Thomas Wilson. His well-known book, "A Discourse upon Usury" argues to urge the Parliament to maintain the rate of interest at 10 percent. He condemns usury because if its excessive interest that exceeds the normal rates of interest in the market. He provided a distinction between the interest and usury, which consequently sparked a debate about usury in England. Although his method of writing was neoclassical, he employed modern conclusion that tends to protect the society from the usury.
Other writers such as Roger Fenton and Robert Filmer wrote books that seem to provide personal views concerning the ideas of usury. In 1962, Fenton based his argument on the former church councils and scripture to assert that usury is immoral and illegal. Although he did not clearly distinct the tolerable interest and usury, he admits that according to the country's law and God's rule one should not take any usury. On the other hand, Filmer defended the usury by arguing, "Without interest, the care of orphans would be a problem for the state." (92). He argued that interests facilitate annuities, which in turn reduces the expenses. Although there are many writers that argue to refute the ideas of usury, those supporting seems to win the debate. This is depicted by wide use of the usury in the ancient days and even in the contemporary world.
Works Cited
Geisst, Charles R. Beggar Thy Neighbor: A History of Usury and Debt. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2013. Print.
