regulations as that sales were not to begin before a certain hour, that unsold goods could not be withdrawn until a certain time, and that raw materials as tallow, for example - must not be sold to outsiders. The universal prohibition of forestalling, regrating, and engrossing illustrate the above point, and are also connected with the idea of a just price. Indeed the price of the town's manufactures was regulated; and that of the trader's merchandise was fixed within certain limits, though it came to be allowed a maximum and minimum within which it might play. And this suggests the minute regulation of trade and industry, largely through the agency of gilds, a regulation which characterized the whole economy, and which, again, was commonly in the interest of the consumer, being notably so in the case of foodstuffs. An interesting feature of town economy was its communal property and undertakings. Thus a common town pasture was frequent; many towns got control of the seignioral mill (and the burghers were required to patronize such mills, the proceeds often going to decrease taxes). Bakeries, ovens, market places, and stalls might be added to the list. Then, too, in times of scarcity it was considered the duty of the town government to furnish grain. It sometimes made common bargains with foreign merchants for the materials needed by its artisans. Public works were carried on by the compulsory labor of the community. The gilds, which were more or less closely associated with town government, serve to emphasize much the same line of thought. They were associations of merchants or craftsmen for the mutual benefit of their members, having as their ends protection, monopoly of the trade or craft, good workmanship, and fraternal and religious benefits. These associations served to train men in business ethics, to develop personal relationships, and to harmonize the interests of producer and consumer. And the craft gilds developed skill, protected the artisan, and increased the dignity and worth of labor. The ideas of just price, of regulation of quality and quantity of output, and of wages and conditions of employment characterize their dealings. In view of the exaggeration in the old idea concerning the freedom and equality in towns, it remains to be said that this idea is only relatively true. Depending upon the origin of the town, almost from the beginning there were three or four distinct classes which successively dominated. A considerable number of inhabitants did not have the franchise, and the craft gilds, even, were in part monopolies of the masters (aldermen, wardens, commonalty) against the serving men. As compared with rural life, however, there was a nearer approach to freedom which was quite marked in the earlier times in England. General Significance of the Period. The general significance of the Middle Ages as a period in the evolution of economic thought is rather difficult to state by reason of its complexity. In a sense, its negative aspect is large. While the chasm left by the downfall of Rome may have been exaggerated, yet civilization, as it had been, was in ruins. As to its positive characteristics, the Middle Ages constitute, first, a period of adjustment and fusing; secondly, one of transitions. During its centuries, Roman institutions, standing for a narrow individualism and, on the whole, for a materialistic philosophy; Christian religion, teaching the brotherhood of man and idealism; Germanic customs, showing a broad and democratic individualism and leaning toward idealism; Aristotle's philosophy, emphasizing the common good and arguing for some degree of common use of property, with a correspondingly limited individualism,2 — all these were to be combined and fused. This was more or less consciously the work of the scholastics. Thus Thomas Aquinas labored to adapt Aristotle while he assailed Rome; and one Nicholas von Cusa, while deeply versed in the contemporary learning of the Occident, turned his atten 1 In towns which grew up under the protection of some clerical noble, for example, all the aids, etc., exacted on a manor might be rendered by the townsmen. 2 See above, pp. 43 f. Aristotle's argument against communism in the ownership of property is deservedly a classic, as has already been stated. tion to the East: he sought to reunite the Greek and Latin churches, and studied the holy book of the Mohammedans.1 As a transitional period it was during the Middle Ages that, objectively, national economy replaced independent domestic economy; that commerce and manufactures encroached upon the sole rule of agriculture; and that slavery was gradually abandoned for serfdom and free labor. But it is the world of thought which is of interest here. In it one finds a transition from the materialism of later paganism to the modified idealism of Christianity. At the same time the individualism of the Romans was succeeded by the idea of a society broader even than the city state of the Greeks, though not so broad as the dream world-empire of the Church. We pass from systems of thought which postulate a natural inequality among men, and slavery, to ideals of brotherhood and freedom. The Church, too, became more dissociated, formally at least, first from politics, then from industry, thus making for the separation of morals from economics achieved in modern times. An economy in which land was regarded as the basis began the great transition to one in which personal relations dominated. In one, industry in manufactures and trading was despised; in the other, it was fostered; in the one, money was imperfectly understood and men generally condemned its accumulation; in the other, it was better understood, and probably came to be overappreciated. Between these rather opposite views lay the Middle Ages. During this great transition it was well that the idea of protection was strong. It appears in the Church and Christianity, in the towns and gilds; custom, regulation, monopoly, are met everywhere. The whole economic philosophy of the Middle Ages might be summed up in the doctrine of just price. In a period of turmoil among such great opposing systems of thought, and classes and races of men, before the rise of nations, it was well that the idea of protection was strong. But for further ideas let the reader, if interested, compare the chapter which precedes this with the two which follow next. 1 Stumpf, The Political Ideas of N. v. Cusa (1865), quoted by Contzen, Geschich. d. volkswirths. Lit. im Mittelalter, p. 65. |