A Jewish maxim teaches that the Bible, and its many values and moral constructs, were realized by those who lived before us as modeled in the Divine image, recorded, and passed down. So too did Medieval clergy look to Scripture, and other sources from antiquity, to strongly guide their moralization of labor. Certain stigmas about licit and illicit trade practices, recorded in the Pentateuch and which likely even pre-dated the Israelites, have continued to hold sway over thinkers even into today. In this essay, using Jacques LeGoff’s essay “Licit and Illicit Trades in the Medieval West” as a guide, I will show how Medieval ways of moralizing labor were largely based on similar ancient stigmas and taboos. Looking to the Pentateuch and touching on Greek thought, I will try to show that Biblical stigmas about mercantile trade and currency, among other taboos about purity and societal division, made their way into Medieval thought.

To start, the ethno-centric rules surrounding usury and other commercial activities presented in Deuteronomy tinge mercantile trade from the outset as something to be shunned, especially when dealing with clients in one’s own society. This tinge made its way to Medieval society in widespread bans on usury, money-handling and other forms of commercialism. This ethno- centric ancient Israelite view is represented in Deuteronomy 15:3, where different rules are drawn for exacting foreigners of their debt, and special care in the next verse paid to making sure there are no poor among “you.” “You,” in this sense, being the ancient Israelites. The merchant, reaching across societies to make money, is hardly working to help those among their own, and are instead contributing to their own coffers and the bank account of foreigners. The Book of Deuteronomy understands that poverty is inherent in groups of societies, noting that poor will“never cease” in the land, and that the Israelite needy require charity, help and brotherhood to overcome their woes. Clearly, a merchant who straddles the divide between one’s mother society and foreign societies, and merely to make money at that, will be looked down upon in this construct. In Medieval times, when Christian ideals of charity, salvation and brotherhood were at the forefront (at least for theologians), mercantile trade from a philanthropic perspective is filledwith issues. For example, LeGoff notes that Medieval commercial trade was “proscribed when conducted with an eye to profit,” but permitted in more charitable circumstances (58). Though the passages in Deuteronomy which we read did not outright ban mercantile activity, it was clearly looked down upon as less righteous than activities which either helped fellow men within Israelite society or at least involved infusing one’s own labor into their earnings. This view passed down to Medieval thinkers, who were grounded in ancient Israelite Scripture.

An ancient distinction made between work which is the result of human passion and work which results from the trade of others’ goods also continued through Medieval times. This emphasis on labor, and thus stigmatization of merchants, is highlighted in the Book of Proverbs. In the Proverbs, it is written that wealth accumulated in the name of vanity will vanish, while true labor leads to increased wealth. In pre-modern societies, long before refrigerators and other luxuries graced households, much trade between societies was likely based in luxury goods, food additives and other items not essential to survival. It is unlikely that premodern societies such as the ancient Israelites imported vast quantities of their foodstuffs and other goods as we do today, instead growing it themselves in fields governed by strict religious law. Thus, the merchant would likely trade in vain means, whether it be jewelry, art, or other luxurious items. And merchants trade the products of other’s labor. The same animosity which the left in the United States directs towards the insulated office-bound CEO, CFO and other businesspeople parallels this ancient dislike of merchants, in that people looked to others who traded the products of their own labor with disdain and frustration. Also notable is LeGoff’s critical realization that since man’s work in Medieval times was supposed to be like that of the Divine, which is recorded in Genesis and is remarkably productive and clearly labor-intensive, mercantile trade which simply benefits off of others’ labor is inherently inferior and un-G-dly.

The popular Medieval conception of wrongdoing in mercantile commerce lies not only in Deuteronomy and Proverbs, but in the Book of Sirach, which was key to Christian thinkers (it is not in the Jewish canon). It says in the Book of Sirach that merchants cannot keep themselves from doing wrong, as sin inserts itself into buying and selling. This conception, especially coming from early sources, makes sense. In a time before regulations could crack down on unstructured trades, and without the Internet or newspapers to communicate common prices, merchants could likely inflate prices to unreasonable measures, among other kinds of lies. The Book of Sirach is included in the canon of several Christian sects for several reasons, including that it reinforces Christian ideals of honesty and charity. The Book of Sirach’s dislike of currency and metal-based wealth, as opposed to what it views as the more honest labor of agriculture, sheds indirect disdain on merchants too. That is, the book notes that gold ruins people, destroying the fools who engage with it and corrupting those who follow it (31:5 – 31:7). This suggests again that merchants, whose trades of others’ material goods can leave them only with gold or other currency, are caught up in gold’s enticing vices. The final excerpts we read in class from the Book of Sirach further suggest that trades which allow humans to apply their passions and labor to objects are most desirable, leading to diligent careers and honorable. Merchants, excluded from such activities, are clearly also excluded from such honor.

The next similarity between medieval and ancient conceptions of moralizing labor is the distinction between which groups are permitted to engage in which kind of labor. LeGoff notes in his essay that certain activities were forbidden to Medieval clerics and religious authorities (58). This mirrors conceptions of class purity found in ancient Israelite societies, when priests and high priests were banned from engaging in impure activities, lest their holiness be muddied. Of course, as LeGoff rightfully notes, this thus lends a certain stigma to those laymen who do participate in the activities unfit for their holier brethren (59). This idea of purity serves as a clear link to the argument that medieval conceptions of moralizing labor mirrored the that of the ancients. LeGoff notes the blood taboo, which affects primarily those practitioners of death: executioners, butchers, even soldiers. So too, in ancient Israelite times, did an entire corpus of law emerge on how to properly cleanse those Priests who had to touch the unclean dead or work with dying animals. The link between ancient and Medieval, in taboos and ensuring purity of their clergy, is clear.

The component which worried me about arguing the ancient and medieval conceptions of moralizing labor were similar is their different view of asceticism, at least on paper. While the ancient Israelites and other ancient writers recognized a natural progression into social classes, with renowned works such as Plato’s The Republic developing schemes which divided society into different classes, this outlook clashes ideologically with Christian belief. In Christianity, “avarice,” “greed,” “gluttony” and innumerable other keywords associated with luxury were roundly condemned by church elders and the clergy. This condemnation is based on fundamental Christian tenets, including the inherent purity of man in his natural state, and thus the soil of trade and other activities, according to LeGoff. And, the idea that all people, rich or poor, are children of Christ and worthy of his salvation. In such a worldview, any desires to self- aggrandize or otherwise improve one’s net worth or belongings, on paper, was sinful. Now, regardless of this theological position, it is well-known, and supported by a quick glance at the bloody history, ruined châteaux and crumbling castles of medieval Europe, that despite theological inclinations to the contrary, Europeans in Medieval times still sought out money, worked to build defensible (and thus economically viable) estates and engaged in other forms of feudal commercialism.

In a way, though, ancient ways of moralizing economic activity continued in medieval times even after the transition to a widely accepted view that various types of trade were compatible, not exclusive from, Christian salvation. LeGoff notes that ancient views of various trades making up different parts of the society’s “body,” and thus each a key component, became popular (67). This “anthropomorphic image,” taken from the ancients and propagated by medieval theologians, is key. Clearly, ancient ideals can be twisted or renegotiated to fit a variety of needs. Lastly, ancient Greek and Roman techniques of associating certain trades and occupations with Divinity certainly resonate with the Medieval Christian tradition of patron sainthood for different trades and guilds (68).

In this short essay I sought to show a link between ancient modes of thought about licit and illicit practices in commercial activity. I drew a connection between various stigmas associated with trade which made their way from the Bible into (especially early) Medieval conceptions of moral labor, the ancient emphasis on purity, and a variety of brief ideas and images taken from the ancients and employed in Medieval thought, each of which can provide a book’s worth of exploration and elaboration.

* Page numbers refer to class reader from GOVT 20.03, Political Economy and Morality. References are to Jacques LeGoff’s essay “Licit and Illicit Trades in the Medieval West,” and the Bible.