¹ Cf. Demosthenes, , In Pantaenetum 53–54.Google Scholar

² Plutarch, , Moralia 10.829.Google Scholar

³ Demosthenes, , Pant. 53–54.Google Scholar

⁴ Demosthenes, , In Phormionem 50. This work was probably written by a contemporary of Demosthenes, not by Demosthenes himself. For a discussion of the authenticity of each of Demosthenes' works, cf. Blass, F., Die Attische Beredsamkeit (Leipzig 1893) III 225 f.; concerning Phorm. cf. 581.Google Scholar

⁵ Glotz, G., Ancient Greece at Work (New York 1926) 241.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁷ Caillemer, E. and Baudry, F., ‘Foenus,’ DS 2.1214-26, cf. 1215.Google Scholar

⁸ Demosthenes, , Phorm. 51–52 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

⁹ Beauchet, L., Histoire du droit privé de la République athénienne (Paris 1897) IV 243 ff. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Caillemer-Baudry 1215; Glotz 242; Bernard, ‘Usure,’ DThC 15.2319-20. Google Scholar

¹¹ Glotz, 242.Google Scholar

¹² Beauchet IV 249-50. Because of the publication of numerous Greek documents since 1897, Beauchet's work is now clearly outdated, but it is still very useful for its many details concerning the practice of interest-taking. Cf. especially 243-71. Google Scholar

¹³ Glotz, 243.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Bernard, 2320.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Caillemer-Baudry, 1216.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Glotz, 243.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid. Google Scholar

¹⁸ Homer, , Odyssey 1.227; 11.415.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Euripides, , Helena 388; Pindar, Pythia 5.77; 12.14.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. Pliny, 10; ep. 93.Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. Aristophanes, , Acharnenses 615; Theophrastus, Characteres 1.13; 15.10; 17.16; 23.23.Google Scholar

²² Theophrastus, , Characteres 17.16.Google Scholar

²³ Demosthenes, , In Nicostratum 8–9. This work appears under Demosthenes' name, but was almost certainly not written by him, but by a contemporary. Cf. Blass III 520.Google Scholar

²⁴ Demosthenes, , In Neaeram 31. This work also merely uses Demosthenes' name; it was written by a contemporary. Cf. Blass III 535.Google Scholar

²⁵ Nepos, Cornelius, Epaminondas 3.Google Scholar

²⁶ Aristophanes, , Acharnenses 615.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. Aristophanes, , Acharnenses 615; Demosthenes, In Neaeram 31, and In Nicostratum 8-9.Google Scholar

²⁸ Reinach, Th., ‘Eranos,’ DS 2.805-8; cf. 807.Google Scholar

²⁹ Plato, , Leges 11.921d.Google Scholar

³⁰ Demosthenes, , De falsa legatione 255 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

³¹ Lex XII Tabularum 3.5. It is possible that in early Rome creditors might even have dissected the debtor's body, XII Tab. 3.6: ‘Tertiis nundinis partis secanto. Si plus minusve secuerunt, se fraude esto': ‘On the third market day the creditors shall cut shares. If they have cut more or less than their shares it shall be without prejudice’ (transl. Johnson, A. C., Coleman-Norton, P. R., Borne, F. C., Ancient Roman Statutes [The Corpus of Roman Law, ed. Pharr, , 2; Austin, Texas 1961] p. 10), but the meaning of partis secare is controversial.Google Scholar

³² Cf. Aristotle, ' 9.1.Google Scholar

³³ Plutarch, , Moralia 828: ‘For what good did Solon do the Athenians when he put an end to giving one's person as security for debt?’ (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

³⁴ Aristotle, , Ath. 2.2; 4.2; 9.1.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ath. 2.2 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

³⁶ Ath. 9.1 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

³⁷ Plutarch, , Moralia 828.Google Scholar

³⁸ Caillemer-Baudry 1216. Google Scholar

³⁹ Plutarch, , Moralia 829 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Aristophanes, , Nubes 12 ff. (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

⁴² Nubes, 1286 ff. (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

⁴³ The words in general must be used to qualify this statement. As will be seen, there were exceptions to this general attitude. In Sparta, moreover, interest taking was apparently forbidden as part of a larger isolationist policy that abhorred money and commerce. Unfortunately most information concerning Sparta comes from Athenian sources; there are almost no extant indigenous sources. Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Demosthenes, , Pant. 53–54 (Loeb transl.)Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cf. Levasseur, L., ‘Prět à intérět,’ La Grande Encyclopédie 27.608–14; cf. 610; also, Bernard, A., op. cit. 2318. Bernard's work is one of the best general surveys of the question available. He misses the point here, however, as explained above in the text.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Barker, E., ‘Greek Political Thought and Theory in the Fourth Century,’ CAH 6.506 f.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Jaeger, W., Paideia (New York 1943) I 107.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Barker, 514; also, Jaeger I 113.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Barker, 528–29.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Plato, , Respublica 8.10.556a.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Plato, , Leges 11.921d.Google Scholar

⁵² Plato, , Leges 5.742 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

⁵³ Barker, 528.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cf. Aristotle, , Politica 1.10.1258 a-b (Jowett transl.).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Aristotle, , Ethica Nicomachea 4.1.40 f. (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Demosthenes, , Phorm. 51–52 and Pant. 53-54.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. Tacitus, , Annales 6.22.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The Lex Poetelia Papiria (326 B.C.) took away this right. Cf. Berger, A., s.v., RE Suppl. 7.405–9 (see note 64).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Seneca does disapprove of usury in passing. He refers to the practice in De beneficiis 7.10.3, and labels it an unnatural form of human greed, but unfortunately he does not develop the argument: ‘Quid enim ista sunt, quid fenus et calendarium et usura, nisi humanae cupiditatis extra naturam quaesita nomina?' Google Scholar

⁶¹ E.g., Cato the elder and Cicero. Cf. Plutarch, , Vitae parallelae (‘Marcus Cato’) 21.6, and Cicero, , Epistulae ad Atticum 5.21.Google Scholar

⁶² Tacitus, , Annales 6.16 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

⁶³ XII Tab. 8.18a (transl. Ancient Roman Statutes [n. 31] 11).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ The exact rate of interest is not especially relevant to the topic under discussion. For a detailed presentation of the various opinions, cf. Caillemer-Baudry DS 2.1224 f., and especially Klingmüller's outstanding article ‘Fenus’ in RE ² 6.2187-205; cf. 2189-92.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Caillemer-Baudry 1224. An anual rate of 1% could hardly have brought about the huge social unrest that usury caused in Rome. On the other hand, a rate of 100% is so oppressive that it is difficult to imagine how both Tacitus and Livy could consider it an improvement of the debtor's lot (cf. Tacitus, , Annales 6.16; Livy, 7.16).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Klingmüller (n. 64) 2192. The base for computing the interest is not certain; therefore, either annual rate is possible. Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Livy 7.16. Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Livy 6.35.1-5 (Loeb transl.). Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Livy 7.27.3 (Loeb transl.). Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Livy 7.42.1 (Loeb transl.). Google Scholar

⁷¹ Klingmüller 2192-3. Google Scholar

⁷² Tacitus, , Ann. 6.16; Appian, , Bella civilia 1.54. The Lex Marcia, probably from the same period, also gave the debtor legal action against the usurer. Gaius, Institutiones. 4.23, relates: ‘Other statutes, however, set up procedure by manus iniectio, … the Marcia, L. against usurers provided that if they had exacted interest, proceedings by manus iniectio should be taken against them for repayment' (de Zulueta transl.).Google Scholar

⁷³ Cf. Louis, P., Ancient Rome at Work, translated by Wareing, E., (New York 1965) 87; also, Caillemer-Baudry, 1226, and Klingmüller 2194.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Louis 87. Google Scholar

⁷⁵ The secessions of 495 and 286 produced at least temporary reforms. Cf. Louis, , 87.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Berger, A., ‘Leges Semproniae ,’ RE Suppl. 7.412–13.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Befger, , ‘Lex Flaminia ,’ RE Suppl. 7.394–95. There is some doubt, however, about the content of this law.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Berger, , ‘Lex Cornelia,’ Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia 1953) 550.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Weiss, E., ‘Leges Valeriae ,’ RE ² 12.2417.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Plutarch, , Vitae Parallelae (‘Lucullus’) 20.35; Appian, De bello Mithridatico 62, 63, 83.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Cicero, , Epistulae ad Atticum 5.21.Google Scholar

⁸² Cicero, , Att. 4.15.Google Scholar

⁸³ Cicero, , Att. 5.21.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Cicero, , Actio in Verrem 2.3.71.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Cicero, , Att. 5.21; 6.2.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Cicero, , Att. 5.21 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cicero, , Att. 6.1 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Pliny, , Epistulae 7.18; Pliny the Elder, Historia naturalis 14.56.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Juvenal, , Saturae 5.6–8.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Pliny, , Ep. 10.55 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Codex Theodosianus 2.33.1. The 1% rate here referred to is monthly (i.e. 12% per year). (The translation of the Theodosian Code and its Novellae used here and elsewhere is that of Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions [Princeton 1952]).Google Scholar

⁹² Klingmüller 2198. Google Scholar

⁹³ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Cf. Cod. Theod. 2.33.3.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Cod. Theod. 2.33.4.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Codex Justinianus 4.32.28.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Cod. Theod. 4.19.2; Justinian, Novella 121.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Cod. Just. 2.12.20.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Cod. Theod. 2.33.2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Cod. Theod. 4.19.1Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Valentinian, , Novella 12 (transl. Pharr 526).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Even though chronologically Justinian comes slightly later than the period with which this paper is mainly concerned, nevertheless this brief summary of his legislation may be useful. Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Although conciliar teaching on usury lies outside the scope of this paper, it may be noted here that usury was prohibited by a whole string of councils, from 306 right through the Middle Ages. Cf. e.g. the 17th canon of the Council of Nicaea. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Cod. Just. 4.32.26; Nov. Just. 32.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Cod. Just. 4.32.27; Nov. Just. 121.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Cod. Just. 4.32.28.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Nov. Just. 32 (transl. Scott, S. P., The Civil Law [Cincinnati 1932] 16 p. 185).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Nov. Just. 32.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Nov. Just. 120.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Interestingly, when the ecclesiastical prohibition of usury finally entered oriental imperial law, it was a disaster. In his Prochiron legum, Basil the Macedonian (867-886) decreed: ‘Even though many emperors before us deigned to allow interest-taking, perhaps because of the incorrigibility and crassness of creditors, nevertheless we judge that it ought to be repudiated as unworthy of our Christian state because it is prohibited by divine law. Therefore, Our Majesty decrees that no one has the power to receive interest for any reason whatsoever, lest, while we seem to keep the law of God, we should transgress his precept. But if anyone should receive anything anything, let it be imputed as a debt to the creditor’ ( Prochiron legum 16.14, ed. Brandileone, B. and Puntoni, B. [Rome 1895]; translation mine). Basil's decree caused such havoc that his successor, Leo the Wise (886-911), abrogated it (with great delicacy) and set the maximum rate of interest at 4%. ‘Certainly it would be excellent and salutary if the human race, being conformed to the laws of the Holy Spirit, had no need for human regulations. Nevertheless as it is not granted to all to be raised up to the heights of the Holy Spirit and to hear the echo of the divine law, but actually there are very few who arrive there through the practice of virtue, we ought to be quite happy if men at least live conformably to human laws. The judgment of the Holy Spirit condemns in an absolute fashion what is called interest on loans of money, and knowing that, the Emperor of eternal memory, our father, decided to forbid, by a special measure, the receiving of interest. But that prohibition became, because of extreme poverty, a cause, not of betterment, as was the legislator's aim, but of perversion …’ Leo explained that those who would formerly have lent to the poor, because they could no longer make gains from their loans, became hard and inhuman toward those who needed their help (cf. the same problem in Dt. 15.3 f and in Shebi'it X 3-5). Moreover, the law led to perjury and, because of the perversity of human nature, to increased misery. Leo concluded: ‘Without wanting to condemn the law in itself (something which would not please God), granted (as I have said) that human nature cannot attain the sublimity of the law, we abrogate this enactment which was too perfect, and we permit, on the contrary, a return to the practice of loans of money at interest, as the ancient legislators had authorized’ (Nov. 83, ed. Noailles, P. and Dain, A., Les Novelles de Léon VI le Sage [Paris 1944]; translation mine).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Tosephta to Baba Meẓi'a 6.18.Google Scholar

¹¹² With few exceptions, it is impossible to date exactly the rabbis mentioned in the Talmud. To aid the reader, the letter and number given in parentheses after the name of a rabbi indicate the relative chronology used by Strack, H. L., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Philadelphia 1931) 109 ff. The letter indicates the period (here, always T, indicating the earlier Tannaitic period), and the number indicates the generation to which the rabbi belonged:Google Scholar

T1: First Generation of Tannaim — before a.d. 90

T2: Second Generation — 90-130

T3: Third Generation — 130-160

T4: Fourth Generation — 160-190

T5: Fifth Generation — 190-c. 220.

For a comparable relative chronology, cf. the index volume of the Soncino Talmud (London 1935).

¹¹³ Baron, S. W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York 1960) II 250; cf. Baba Meẓi'a V 8.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Cf. Baba Meẓi'a 5.1 ff. Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Cf. Philo, , De virtutibus 86–87; also, Baron II 250.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Cf. Philo, , De specialibus legibus 2.73; see also, for example, Baba Meẓi'a 5.6; henceforth, BM.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Siphre on Deuteronomy 263 (on 23.21); also, 113 (on 15.3).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Baron II 250. Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Mekiltha on Exodus, ‘Tractate Kaspa’ (Ex. 22.24-29) 3.147, translated by Lauterbach, J. Z. (Phila. 1933).Google Scholar

¹²⁰ BM 71a. The letter J will be placed before the abbreviation of a tractate when the citation is from the Gemara of the Jerusalem Talmud. Google Scholar

¹²¹ Tosephta to BM 6.18; henceforth, TBM.Google Scholar

¹²² Philo, , De virtutibus 14.84–85 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

¹²³ Cf. Dt. 15.7-11. Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Philo, , De virtutibus 14.82–83 (Loeb transl.)Google Scholar

¹²⁵ The Talmud and other Jewish writings distinguish four main types of increase': (1) , or fixed interest; (2) or ‘the mere dust of interest': (3) or ‘the semblance of interest'; (4) or interest which is payable by some means other than money. The first of these denotes the ordinary transaction where interest on money is paid directly on a loan. The second denotes some indirect form of interest connected with bargain or sale, even if given more or less gratuitously by the borrower; it also covers cases where a borrower gives something in anticipation of a loan. The sale of futures was prohibited under this second category. The third type of ‘increase’ refers to interest paid out of gratitude for a past loan or out of the desire to induce a future one. The fourth includes many disparate cases, as, for example, when a borrower honors his creditor by allowing him to perform some religious duty in connection with synagogue worship. Cf. Abelson, J., ‘Usury (Jewish),’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 12.557.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Siphre on Deuteronomy 262 (on 23.20); henceforth, SD.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ SD 263 (on 23.21) (my transl. from the French of Bonsirven, J., Textes rabbiniques des deux premiers siècles chrétiens [Rome 1955] 76).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ The letters in parentheses after the name of a tractate indicate whether the citation is from the Mishna (M) or the Gemara (G), which are the two constituent parts of the Talmud. The letters are used only where the origin of the citation is not otherwise obvious. Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Cf. BM 5.4. Google Scholar

¹³⁰ BM 5.2. Unless otherwise noted, all citations from the Talmud are from the Soncino version. But, for the text of the Mishna for Baba Meẓi'a, the translation is from Danby, H., Mishnah (London 1933).Google Scholar

¹³¹ BM 5.3. Google Scholar

¹³² BM 5.4. Google Scholar

¹³³ Cf. The Talmud (London 1935) ‘Nezikin II: Baba Meẓi'a’ 5.361 f.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Cf. TBM 4.3.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Baba Bathra 86b–87a; henceforth, BB.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ BB 145a, last line. Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Baba Kamma 103a; henceforth, BK.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ BM 5.11. Google Scholar

¹³⁹ JBM 5.10. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Mekiltha on Exodus (Ex. 22.24) 3.149.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Cf. Epstein, I. (ed), The Babylonian Talmud (London 1948-52), or Danby, op. cit. Google Scholar

¹⁴² BM 75b (my transl. from Bonsirven 462). Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Philo, , De specialibus legibus 2.73 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ SD 263 (on 23.21); also, 113 (on 15.3). Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ TBM 5.15-17, 19-21. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ TBM 5.20. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Cf. the comments of Lagrange, M.-J., Le Judaïsme avant Jésus-Christ (Paris 1931) 520.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Wilcken, U., Archiv für Papyrusforschung 4 (1907) 567.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ BM 5.6; TBM 5.14; Bekoroth 16 b. Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ TBM 5.15 (my transl. from Bonsirven 472). Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ JBM 5.10 b (my transl. from Bonsirven 460). Google Scholar

¹⁵² BM 71a (my transl. from Bonsirven 461). Google Scholar

¹⁵³ JBM 5.10 (my transl. from Bonsirven 462). Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Sanhedrin 74a. Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Tosephta to Aboda Zara 1.10, 11.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Sanhedrin 74a; Horayoth 8a.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Aboda Zara 58b.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Tosephta to Aboda Zara 1.10–11.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Temurah 6b.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Philo, , De virtutibus 86–87 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Philo, , De specialibus legibus 2.74–77 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

¹⁶² Siphra on Leviticus 25.38 (my transl. from Bonsirven 46); ed. Weiss, , 109c.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Sukkah 29a, b.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ ‘Arakin 30b.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Sanhedrin 3.3.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Temurah 6a, b. The explanations in brackets are mine (based on notes accompanying the Soncino translation).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Cf. e.g. BM 61b; BB 94b. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ TBM V, 21–25.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ BK 94b. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Cf. BK 94b (earlier) and 112a. Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ BK 112a. Google Scholar

¹⁷² BK 30b; BB 94b. Google Scholar

¹⁷³ BB 94b. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ BM 72a, and BB 94b. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ BB 94b. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Dt. 15.7-11. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Shebi'ith 10.3–6.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Ibid. The usual spelling is , though is not uncommon. The word corresponds formally with the Greek but historically it has been difficult to find any meaning of this rather common Greek word which would be applicable to a legal instrument such as the Jewish prozbul. In recent times, however, Greek papyri from Egypt have afforded several instances of a technical juridical usage of , so that this seems the best derivation for prozbul. Cf. Blau, Ludwig, ‘Prosbol im Lichte der Griechischen Papyri und der Rechtsgeschichte,’ Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen der Franz-Joseph-Landesrabbinerschule in Budapest (Budapest 1927) 96-151; esp. 112; Krauss, S., Griechische and Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch and Targum (Berlin 1899) 482; Moore, G. F., Judaism (Cambridge, Mass. 1932) III 80.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Cf. Benoit, P., Milik, J., and deVaux, R., Discoveries in the Judean Desert II: Les Grottes de Murabba'at (Oxford 1961) II 100 f.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Cf. Lev. 5.16, 24; 27.27.Google Scholar