Note 191-1 — Chapter IV

The apostolic canons and several decrees of councils of the fourth century prohibit the taking of interest by the clergy. A Spanish provincial council dared, in 313, to extend the prohibition to the laity. Pope Leo I. condemned the taking of interest by the laity also, but only in the form of a moral law. (443.) The synod of Constantinople (814) punished the violation of the prohibition with excommunication. See Thomas Aquin. (ob. 1274.) De Usuris, in the Quæstiones disputatae et quod libetales. The canon law, however, always permitted delay-interest (Verzugszinsen), and Gregory IX, allowed justa et moderata expensa et congruam satisfactionem damnorum to be taken into account, (c. 17, X.) De Fora Comp. II, 2. A tacit recognition of the productiveness of capital is to be found in c. 7, X. De Donatt. inter. Virum. cett. IV, 20; and the later schoolmen, Antonin and Bernhardin, (ob. 1459 and 144) are pretty clear on the point. But Albertus Magnus had already recognized the damnum emergens and Thomas Aquinas the lucrum cessans as causes of interest. (Tübinger Zeitschr., 1869, 151, 159, 161.) The essentially modern character of Roman law, which, in the form it has finally assumed, is in harmony with a high development of national economy, accounts for the fact that the glosse of Accursius relying on Irnerius and Bulgarus entirely ignores the prohibition of interest. For a similar reason, in the 16th century, Donellus and Cujacius stand entirely on Roman ground. In the interval, indeed, men like Bartolus and Baldus were not disquieted by the canon law. (Endemann, Studien in der Römisch-Canonischen Wirtchaftsund Rechtslehre, I, 18, 27 seq. 61.) Compare the rich historical material in Salmasius, De Usuris, 1638; De Modo Usurarum, 1639, and De Mutuo, 1640.