Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:16:05.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Usury in Greek, Roman And Rabbinic Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Robert P. Maloney*
Affiliation:
Mary Immaculate Seminary, Northampton, Pa.

Extract

The Christian teaching on usury did not develop in a vacuum. Christianity was born in a semitic milieu and spread rapidly through the Graeco-Roman world. Naturally, its ancestry and its environment influenced its moral thinking. The Fathers of the Church were well acquainted with the thought of others about usury. Besides many references to the clear Old Testament usury prohibition, the writings of the Fathers reflect and interact with attitudes toward interest-taking in Greece and Rome and in early rabbinical literature. It will thus be helpful to examine those strains of thought that existed side by side with the early patristic teaching and influenced it.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Demosthenes, , In Pantaenetum 5354.Google Scholar

2 Plutarch, , Moralia 10.829.Google Scholar

3 Demosthenes, , Pant. 5354.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

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

8 Demosthenes, , Phorm. 5152 (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 Because of the publication of numerous Greek documents since 1897, Beauchet's work is now clearly outdated, but it is still very useful for its many details concerning the practice of interest-taking.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 89. 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. 5354 (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. 5152 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 5.68.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 8687; 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 14.8485 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

123 Cf. Dt. 15.7-11. Google Scholar

124 Philo, , De virtutibus 14.8283 (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 86b87a; 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 1.1011.Google Scholar

159 Temurah 6b.Google Scholar

160 Philo, , De virtutibus 8687 (Loeb transl.).Google Scholar

161 Philo, , De specialibus legibus 2.7477 (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, 2125.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 10.36.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