Ryan Freiwald
3 October 2017
Col. Miller
ERH 321WX-01
Summary: Early Modern English Views on “Usury”
In the early modern period of history, England was going through a series of major economic, religious, and social changes that allowed for a practice known as “usury” to be more or less acceptable. Usury, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “the illegal action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest” similarly to the way lending companies in modern time loan people money. Usury “was regularly condemned in the Middle ages” because of “the biblical prohibitions against usury posed significant theological, economic, social, and political challenges,” but by the 16th century, the same reasons why usury was banned became the same reasons why usury started to become “viewed in an increasingly positive light” (Kaplan Pages 187-188). The shift in this attitude can be traced to three main changes that occurred in the early modern period.
These changes were the “reduction of charitable institutions,” the belief that morality was linked to success and “that poverty was the result of sin,” and, most importantly, England beginning to “establish native merchant companies” (Kaplan Page 187). All of the previously listed environmental changes, although altering some people’s views on usury, did not changes everyone’s and some of the “older perspectives” on usury sparked a “process of vigorous debate” (Kaplan page 188). The “reduction of charitable institutions” meant that, where people were spending their money donating to religious institutions such as “monasteries”, they were spending their money in business investments. This leads into the second change which was the establishment of “native merchant companies” (Kaplan Page 187). Before the 1600’s, the majority of England’s trading was conducted by German and Italian merchants. However, after England began to take charge of the “in house” trading, people became interested and began to borrow money for startups. This leads to the final shift which was England’s view on poor people. No one wants to be a social outcast, and with the social climate shifting to not being as understanding of the people. Everyone wanted to get a “piece of the pie” and start trading.
The biggest push-back on usury was the religious stance many people took on it. The bible is very clear about usury stating that “if thou lend money to any people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury” (Exodus 22, Verse 25). In normal people terms, this means that if you loan money to someone who needs it, let them pay it back when they are able and, when they are able, don’t make them pay back more than they borrowed (Kaplan Page 194). In conclusion, usury was technically illegal but it started to become more socially acceptable in the 1600’s. Usury started to be seen as the way of the future as poor people needed money in order to start of businesses and the only way they could get large sums of money at the time while keeping both parties satisfied was through usury.
Text Analysis: Text analysis on Bassanio
In class there has been a lot of discussion on the “word of the law vs. the letter of the law.” According to the bible, usury is a sin and should not be practiced by anyone. This goes both way, meaning that people should not lend money to others with interest rates attached and people should not enter into usury deals. This seems like it could be contradictory as it could be argued that the person borrowing the money might not have any other option. However, think about it from a “drugs” perspective. Is a person selling a drugs any more guilty or innocent than the person using them? The person selling the drugs may not like selling them but if they can’t find a job that pays high enough to support their family is it justified? People may think about the person buying the drugs to be the victim of the transaction but using drugs was a personal choice they made that negatively effects everyone around them. Translating this to a usury situation, according to the letter of the law, both parties were guilty if a business transaction occurred in which money was transferred at an interest rate but what if a person needed the money and firmly believed that they would be able to pay it back?
In The Merchant of Venice, although Shylock is considered to be the villain for his practice of usury, Bassanio is also at fault. Bassanio needed money in order to be able to compete to marry Portia and since his friend Antonio was not able to lend the sum needed, he had to borrow from a person who could. Bassanio is not described as a person desperate for money but, on the other hand, someone who is just not a smart spender (which adds to the fact that his need to borrow money was his own fault). In Bassanio’s time of need, Shylock provided a much needed service which gave Bassanio the opportunity to try and marry the girl of his dreams. If Shylock had not loaned him the money, other than making for a very boring and short story, he would have still looked like a bad guy. The point is, Shylock was at fault for loaning the money and Bassanio was at fault for entering into such an arrangement. Usury, although it was becoming more socially acceptable, it was still illegal and, according to the bible, “loving is obeying all the law” (Roman 13, Verse 6).
Works Cited
- The Bible, King James Version
- Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice: Texts and Contexts. M. Lindsay Kaplan. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. Print.