Note 191-4 — Chapter IV

Dante, Inferno, XI, 106 ff., suggests that interest-creditors had violated the command of Moses, I, 3. Macchiavelli seems to judge otherwise: Compare Istoria Fior., VII, a, 1464; VIII, a, 1478. Very interesting discussions on the legitimateness of the taking of interest in 1353 seq., in which the Dominicans, up to the time of Savonarola, defended the strictest opinion. (M. Villan, III, 106.) Luther, Tract on Trade and Money, 1524, and Sermon on Usury, 1519. Later still, Luther became more moderate. Thus, in his letter to the Danzig counsel, 1525, in Neumann, Geschichte des Wuchers in Deutschland, 617 ff., in which, for instance, he blames the forcible carrying out of interest-prohibitions, draws a distinction between rich and poor, etc. So, too, in his letter: An die Pfarrherren, wider den Wucher zu predigen, 1540. Melanchthon, Phil. moral., 137 ff., is also more moderate. Calvin was clearer in this matter, and no longer recognized the canonical prohibition of interest. (Epistolæ et Responsa, Hanov., 1597, epist. 383.) Similarly Zwinglius, who will not praise interest, but considers it a natural consequence of property (Opp. ed. Tugur., 1530, I, 319 ff.), and even Erasmus, ad. Evang. Luc., 6, 44. Adagia v. Usuræ nautt. In Shakespeare, compare Merchant of Venice. Bodinus also rejects on principle, even Roman interest, which he held to be 1½ per cent. a year: De Republ., 1584, V. 2. Even the practical Dutch excluded the so-called "table-keepers," from the communion up to 1657. Compare the contests hereon in Laspeyres, Gesch. d. volkswirthsch. Ansich. d. Niederl., 258 ff.