Article contents
Usury in Greek, Roman And Rabbinic Thought
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
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
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Fordham University Press
References
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 Because of the publication of numerous Greek documents since 1897, Beauchet's work is now clearly outdated, but it is still very useful for its many details concerning the practice of interest-taking.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
- 10
- Cited by