This brief account of the ground which Oresme covered, and the conclusions at which he arrived, will 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 all the theologians of the fifteenth century.[2]

[Footnote 2: Biel, _op. cit._, IV. xv. 11; _De Monetarum Potestate et Utilitate_, referred to in Jourdain, _op. cit._, p. 34.]

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

We have now pa.s.sed in review the princ.i.p.al economic doctrines of the mediaeval schoolmen. We do not propose to attempt here any detailed criticism of the merits or demerits of the system 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 pa.s.s 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 modern writers, especially those hostile to the Catholic 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 Church. 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 progress. This is the lowest standard by which we can judge the mediaeval economic teaching, which was essentially aimed at the moral and spiritual 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 the aim of the mediaeval teaching by saying that, in the material sphere, it aimed at extended production, wise consumption, and just distribution, which are the chief ends of all economic activity.

It aimed at extended production through its insistence on the importance and dignity of manual labour.[1] As we showed above, one of the princ.i.p.al achievements of Christianity in the social sphere was to elevate labour from a degrading to an honourable occupation. The example of Christ Himself 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 advised his imitators to busy themselves with meditation, prayer, and the labour of their hands, and had promised that the fear of G.o.d would reside in those who laboured at corporal works; and similar exhortations were to be found in the rules of Saints Macarius, Pachomius, and Basil.[2] St. Augustine and St. Jerome recommended that all religious should work for some hours each day with their hands, and a regulation to this effect was embodied in the Rule of St. Benedict.[3] 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 inst.i.tutions themselves must have been very great; agriculture was improved owing to the a.s.siduity and experiments of the monks;[4] the monasteries were the nurseries of all industrial and artistic progress;[5] 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.[6] Not the least of the services which Christian teaching rendered in the domain of production was its insistence upon the dominical repose.[7]

[Footnote 1: See Sabatier, _L'Eglise et le Travail manuel_, and Antoine, _Cours d'Economie sociale_, p. 159.]

[Footnote 2: Leva.s.seur, _Histoire des Cla.s.ses ouvrieres en France_, vol. i. pp. 182-3.]

[Footnote 3: _Reg. St. Ben._, c. 48.]

[Footnote 4: List, _National System of Political Economy_, ch. 6.]

[Footnote 5: Janssen, _History of the German People_, vol. ii. p. 2.]

[Footnote 6: _Dublin Review_, N.S., vol. vi. p. 365; see Goyau, _Autour du Catholicisme sociale_, vol. ii. pp. 79-118; Gasquet, _Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries_, vol. ii. p. 495.]

[Footnote 7: _Dublin Review_, vol. x.x.xiii. p. 305. See Goyau, _Autour du Catholicisme sociale_, vol. ii. pp. 93 _et seq._]

The importance which the scholastics attached to an extended and widespread production is evidenced by their att.i.tude towards the growth of the population. The fear of over-population does not appear to have occurred to the writers of the Middle Ages;[1] on the contrary, a rapidly increasing population was considered a great blessing for a country.[2] This att.i.tude towards the question of population did not arise merely from the fact that Europe was very spa.r.s.ely populated in the Middle Ages, as modern research has proved that the density of population was much greater than is generally supposed.[3]

[Footnote 1: Brants, _op. cit._, p. 235, quoting Sinigaglia, _La Teoria Economica della Populazione in Italia_, Archivio Giuridico, Bologna, 1881.]

[Footnote 2: _Catholic Encyclopaedia_, art. 'Population.' Brants draws attention to the interesting fact that a germ of Malthusianism is to be found in the much-discussed _Songe du 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-population (_De Inst.i.tutione Reipublicae_, ix.).]

[Footnote 3: Dureau de la Malle, 'Memoire sur la Population de la France au xiv^e Siecle,' _Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres_, vol. xiv. p. 36.]

The mediaeval att.i.tude towards population was founded upon the sanct.i.ty of marriage and the respect for human life. The utterances of Aquinas on the subject of matrimony show his keen appreciation 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 generation shall be brought up as good and valuable citizens.[1] While voluntary virginity is recommended 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 divine things.[2] Aquinas further says that large families help to increase the power of the State, and deserve well of the commonwealth,[3] and quotes with approbation the Biblical injunction to 'increase and multiply.'[4] aegidius Roma.n.u.s demonstrates at length the advantages of large families in the interests of the family and the future of the nation.[5]

[Footnote 1: _Summa Cont. Gent._, iii. 123, 136.]

[Footnote 2: _Summa_, II. ii. 151 and 152.]

[Footnote 3: _De Reg. Prin._, iv. 9.]

[Footnote 4: Gen. i. 28.]

[Footnote 5: _De Reg. Prin._, ii. 1, 6.]

The growth of a healthy population was made possible by the reformation of family life, which was one of the greatest achievements of Christianity in the social sphere. In the early days of the Church the inst.i.tution of the family had been reconst.i.tuted 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 intestate 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.[5]

[Footnote 5: Troplong, _De l'Influence du Christianisme sur le Droit civil des Romains_; Cossa, _Guide_, p. 99; Devas, _Political Economy_, p. 168; Perin, _La Richesse dans les Societes chretiennes_, i. 541 _et seq._; Hettinger, _Apologie du Christianisme_, v. 230 _et seq._]

The Middle Ages were therefore a period when the production of wealth was looked upon as a salutary and honourable vocation. The wonderful artistic monuments of that era, which have survived the intervening centuries of decay and vandalism, are a striking testimony to the perfection of production in a civilisation in which 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 repet.i.tion of that which we have already fully 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 prodigality, 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 mediaevals 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 impracticability of mere selfishness as the governing 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 socialists of various schools attempting to construct a Utopia in which each man shall be rewarded, not in accordance 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 hara.s.sed and bewildered world to revert to an older and n.o.bler 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 purpose 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 attention 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 improve, 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, whatever the mechanical environment with which he is encompa.s.sed. One reason which suggests the view that the mediaeval teaching is still perfectly 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 unwilling to believe in the Christian religion. The fact of such unbelief 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 Roman 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 Christian religious and ethical teaching are combined in the teaching of the Catholic Church, they are not inseparable. Those who are willing to discuss the adoption of the Socialist 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 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 Catholic Church as exhibited in the writings of the mediaeval scholastics. We hope that the foregoing pages are sufficient to demonstrate the incorrectness of this a.s.sertion. Three main principles appear more or less clearly in all modern socialistic 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 the means of production and any other kind of wealth; in the section on just price we have shown that labour was regarded by the mediaevals as but a single one of the elements which entered into the determination of value; and in the section on usury we have shown that many forms of unearned income were not only tolerated, but approved by the scholastics.

We do not lose sight of the fact that socialism is not a mere economic system, but a philosophy, and that it is founded on a philosophical basis which conflicts with the very foundations of Christianity.

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 modern 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.