Views of Nicholas Cabasilas on usury

Two works by Nicholas Cabasilas are devoted to the problem of usury - the treatise “The Word against Usurers” and the letter “To the Most Pious Augusta on Interest,” addressed to the mother of the young Emperor John V Palaiologos. Both opuses were written by the author in the late 40s - early 50s. XIV century 1 - in the years when the state of public discomfort in the empire, supported by endless internal political unrest and the persistent threat of intervention, was combined with the deep impoverishment of the country. The defeat of the Zealot movement in Thessalonica, the transfer of power in the country into the hands of separatist-minded magnates, and the forced patronage of foreign merchants on the territory of the empire finally confirmed the status of futility for the city's economy. Nicholas Kavasila, a young educated aristocrat who, like many of his contemporaries, was looking for the cause of social unrest, isolated one from the chaos of the empire’s troubles - usury - and elevated it to the root cause of all misfortunes in the country. Usury, which only accompanies general impoverishment, more than the true causes of this phenomenon, was striking to contemporaries. In itself, the appropriation of someone else's property in the form of high loan interest did not change the nature of production at that time; the moneylenders only parasitized the body of the empire. “Usury does not change the method of production, but attaches itself to it like a parasite and brings it into a miserable state. It sucks out its juices, exhausts it and forces reproduction to take place under increasingly miserable conditions” 2. It is not surprising that Nicholas Kavasila singles out usury as the main cause of social ills: in the empire of the 14th century. the percentages were extremely high. Interesting in this regard are the observations of N.P. Matsis, who noted on the basis of documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople that loan interest during the 14th century. (he makes observations from 1324) grows significantly. The smallest percentage recorded by the patriarchal acts of the late 14th century was 15 3 . A fairly weighty argument to prove the increasing influence of usury is a comparison of the following facts. In 1324, Patriarch Isaiah demanded that only the debt be collected from the debtor's widow, but without interest, thus acting in accordance with the provisions of the Holy Scriptures on interest. According to the decision of Patriarch Matthew I (end of the 14th century), it is confirmed in the case of Manuel Kotzas 4 percent 26.6 (from a debt of 27 perpiri, 30 perpiri is due in 5 months, including the capital amount and due interest) 5. Если вспомнить, что дозволенное законом количество колебалось от 4 до 8% (в особых случаях, связанных с риском, до 12%) 6 , то картина гнета ростовщичества в империи становится выразительной. There is no doubt that in the second half of the 14th century. a high percentage has already become the norm. Трактат Николая Кавасилы «Слово против ростовщиков» (Logos kata tokidzonton), опубликованный П. Минем 7 по парижским рукописям 970 и 1213 8 , не изучался специально в исторической литературе. В лучшем случае, две-три цитаты из этого сочинения попадали на страницы исследований, посвященных социально-экономической истории поздней Византии. Чаще же авторы ограничивались лишь указанием на то, что такой трактат существует, ссылкой на него либо внесением в список литературы 9 . Конспективно рассмотрены некоторые аргументы трактата в книге А. Ангелопулоса о Кавасиле 10 . Элементы оценки сочинения Николая Кавасилы о ростовщиках (правда, без аргументов) содержатся в докладе К. П. Кирриса на XIV Международном конгрессе в Бухаресте 11 . Another work of Nikolai Kavasila on usury is the letter “To the Most Pious Augusta on Interest” (Te eusebestate Auguste peri tokou) published from the Parisian manuscript 1213 by R. Guyan in 1935. 12 Fragments of this opus are given in the article by I. Shevchenko, but the purpose of quoting is not to analyze Kavasila’s attitude to usury, but the need to clarify the chronology of his life 13. We find an exposition of the general plot of the letter to Anne of Savoy in R. Guyan and A. Angelopoulos 14. In general, the writings of Nikolai Kavasila regarding usury are assessed in historical literature primarily as rhetorical, that is, not aimed at reflecting real events and situations. Somewhat different in this regard are the conclusions of church writers who consider the treatise to be a kind of manifesto in defense of the poor, in defense of divine justice. A. Angelopoulos evaluates the position of Nicholas Kavasila, set out in the treatise “The Word against the Moneylenders” in precisely these tones: “The frankness with which he develops arguments under a despotic regime is the heroic activity of one person, the defender and comrade-in-arms of those who in this earthly life experienced oppression of all types of dinates and suffered from the injustice of legislation” 15. A. Angelopoulos even believes that Nicholas Kavasila understood the need for a “social revolution” (koinonike epanastasis) 16. In an editorial in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, Kavasila's views receive a similar assessment: “...his “Word against the usurers” is clear evidence of sympathy for the needs of the people exploited by various rulers, who often covered up their dark deeds with the bright ideal of the Church. Nikolai Kavasila was a defender of the people, a seeker of social justice...” 17. To understand the meaning of the position of Nikolai Kavasila and his understanding of the social problems of the life of the empire, let us turn to the analysis of his writings. The treatise “The Word against Moneylenders” is polemical from the first line to the last. Nicholas Kavasila immediately identifies the object of his criticism: “There are those who believe that the law that prohibited interest does not need to be defended” (Tr., 728 A). It is with them, the supporters of charging interest, that the author is arguing. The treatise is built on the principle of “argument - counterargument”. Nikolai Kavasila begins each new thesis with the words of his opponent, a defender of usury (“but nothing comes of it for me, he says, for I lent silver, food and clothing to the poor” - 733 D; “but, he says, I delivered many from poverty” - 733 B; “where do we get the means to live from, he says, when they neither know agriculture, can’t trade, and are not fit for any other craft?” - 745 C and other theses). This is followed by a rebuttal to the pro-growth view of the issue at hand. Nikolai Kavasila’s counterarguments are often accompanied by emotionally charged commentary (“this is funny, absurd, and reckless” – 733 C; this is “the impudence of impudence” – 733 D). The journalistic nature of the treatise is deepened by the form of direct dialogue (“Why aren’t you ashamed?” – 748 D; “You are worse than those who are sent to Gehenna” – 736 A), turns of oral speech (“Do you hear?” – 732 D; “So, what am I saying?” – 733 A), subjectivity of presentation (“I think”, “I believe” – 733 A). Nikolai Kavasila believes that the main evil of usury is the generation of misfortune (“now the fruit of interest is the groaning and gnashing of teeth” - 733 D) and poverty (“this does not eliminate poverty, but deepens it” - 733 C). In response to the desire to assert that all the interest ultimately goes back to helping the poor, Nikolai Kavasila sarcastically remarks: “But not from your own (your pocket), while your hands have interest... And if you spend all the interest on the poor, what then do you spend on yourself?” (733 D). When Cabasilah's opponents try to present the loan agreement as a voluntary agreement, he categorically opposes it: “And it is not by a voluntary decision that they reduce their money, but they bear (to you) by being deprived, and the loss is replaced by a loss” (748 A–B). The result of this so-called voluntary consent speaks for itself: “You tied it with receipts” (748 B). The cascade of arguments and counterarguments in this topic of the treatise ends with the forced recognition of the moneylenders that the meaning of their activity is to make a profit: “...If we do not collect anything from the poor, where does the rich get interest?” (740 A). The result of the dialogue is Kavasila’s sharp accusation against the moneylenders: “Strangling the poor, pinning them down with hunger, stripping them – this is no longer interest, but a more serious evil. Likewise, thieves commit a more serious act if they undress a poor man, and a much greater offense if they themselves were rich” (740 A). The elevation of usury to the rank of a crime is one of the leading themes of the treatise. On its pages there are constantly comparisons of a creditor with a robber, burglar, blasphemer, murderer (732 A - B, 738 A - B, 740 A, 744 C and others). Moreover, Nikolai Kavasila persistently pursues the idea that usury is an even greater evil than crime, for those who lend money at interest do not even try to hide the crime of their activities: “Robbers live in the desert or in the mountains, drawing their swords on travelers; if cities are populated by them, then, driven by greed, they neglect judges and laws... If grave robbers commit a crime at night, then the law allows them to rob the living even during the day” (738 B – C). The harm caused to society by a burglar and murderer is obvious. The usurer, being the death of people (olethros on), participates “in the routine order of life”, leads a “habitual human way of life” (748 D), that is, despite all the obviousness of the crime, he is a hidden criminal. Moreover, if a crime is usually associated with some kind of risk, then charging interest, Kavasila notes, does not pose any danger to the moneylender. When supporters of receiving interest try to justify this type of activity by calling it a profession, a craft, Nikolai Kavasila again evokes associations with the activities of criminals: “Isn’t this what both church robbers and robbers refer to? Do you allow them to do evil? Have you ever tolerated the atrocities of burglars? Did you allow the robber to undress you? And the fact that he strikes is also (not) anything terrible?.. (And all this is because) they did not know any other craft” (745 C - D). Nikolai Kavasila believes that charging interest, just like robbery, cannot be called a profession, a “business,” since these types of activities are not based on labor: “no one gains interest by labor,” “... those who do not work in any way should not receive income” (729 A). The moneylender’s income, according to Cavasilas, is akin to robbery not only because it is not based on labor, but also as a direct appropriation of someone else’s property: “And if you take more than you give, you are accused of appropriating someone else’s property” (733 D - 736 A). The entire train of thought of the author of the treatise leads to the conclusion that moneylenders are responsible before the law: “This means breaking the law if, when borrowing money, you return it with interest” (740 A). But if Nicholas Cabasilas unequivocally classifies usury as a crime, then what should be the punishment? The treatise contains rich legal observations. First of all, Nikolai Kavasila turns his attention to the legislation of those countries that prohibited usury: “We look... at states of all centuries, well-structured, in which there was no interest anywhere” (736 B). The treatise provides examples of the wise, from the author’s point of view, legislation of Lycurgus and Solon, who abolished debts in their time. Cabasilas draws the readers' attention to the Greeks' adherence to these laws: "And if you had abolished the laws of Solon or Lycurgus, having come to the Athenians, you would have died before you could shout" (736 A). Nikolai Kavasila also turns to not so distant examples - to the legislation of Emperor Basil I of Macedon, during whose reign, in the difficult situation of the fight against Paulicianism, all collection of interest on loans was abolished. “And so that you do not refute the exaggeration of words, I will give you Vasily as a witness, and you will not dare to cross out a man whose name is great for everyone” (748 B). The author of the treatise considers it important to cite the words of Vasily I, during whose reign hunger and drought reigned: “The root of the disease... is in the moneylenders” (748 BC). The words of the emperor: “Abolish the agreement on heavy interest, so that (only) the land will give growth as usual” (748 B) essentially become the main theme of the sermon of Nicholas Cabasilas. However, the historical excursion into the legislation on interest does not have a clear solution in the treatise. Nikolai Kavasila writes: “There are legislators who introduced interest, and there are those who abolished it” (741 B). This is where a dispute flares up between Cabasilas and his opponent over what law should be followed. Supporters of usury tend to follow the letter of the old (compared to the “Prochiron” of Basil I) Justinian legislation, which sanctioned the system of charging interest, if only on the grounds that Justinian’s laws are older (741 B). Taking advantage of this opponent’s argument, Nicholas Kavasila concludes: “How ancient is ... the legislator who abolished interest; against you and your decisions I support the divine law” (741 C). The court of God, as the only fair author of the treatise, contrasts with contemporary legislation. Nicholas Kavasila condemnsly states that the moneylender “is not responsible before earthly judges” (745C). He believes that the court of his days is infected with a thirst for profit and... Because of this, the moneylender does not receive the punishment due to him according to the law of God: “thanks to judges like you, you enjoy a good name” (745 B). Since the activities of usurers are not condemned by law, it is quite natural that they do not disdain their ill-gotten gains (729 A). The author of the treatise, speaking about the injustice of his contemporary laws, constantly reminds of the upcoming judgment of God: “Today’s punishment is one thing, the future judgment is another” (745 B) “... people have a double life, a double judgment” (745 A). The power of earthly judges, according to Kavasila, is limited: “They do not determine our future life, they judge (us) in the wrong court” (745 A). He emphasizes that contemporary rulers have power only “as long as the voyage lasts” (745 A). In addition, Kavasila notes, a person’s earthly fate and the otherworldly path do not coincide: “and the meek glory, and justice will join those who have found there with the most evil...” (745 B). The main reproach that Nicholas Cabasilas throws at the moneylenders is disrespect for the divine law: “Now you are breaking the law of God” (733 D), “you are reproaching God’s law” (736 A, 741 C). Nicholas Cabasilas questions the justice of human laws: “How much better are judges who carry thoughts in accordance with God’s judgment than those who agree with human laws” (740 D). When asked by the moneylender to whom he is inflicting injustice, Nikolai Kavasila replies: “Most of all, to God himself, against whom you commit outrages, breaking the law” (748 A). The author of the treatise reinforces these words with a reference to the message of the Apostle Paul: “You boast in the law, but by breaking the law you dishonor God?” 18 19 What provisions of the Holy Scriptures regarding usury does Nicholas Cabasilas call for to be observed? First of all, this is the saying of David (the treatise begins and ends with it - 728 B, 749 B): “He will free their souls from both interest and injustice.” The author reminds that a true Christian, observing the norms of social behavior established by the Holy Scriptures, “does not give in interest and does not take in interest” 20 . The treatise especially condemns the collection of loan interest from brothers and fellow tribesmen (741 C, 748 D) 21. Nikolai Kavasila sees one of the violations of the divine law in the substitution of the concepts of “interest” and “loan”. Nicholas Kavasila, confirming the words of the Evangelist Luke “... lend, expecting nothing,” 22 believes that “lenders should be in the cities” (736 A). According to the treatise, interest should by no means be an obvious component of any credit transaction: “If a loan was silently made and the lender did not mention interest, and later demands it along with the loan, he will talk nonsense” (744 D). Nikolai Kavasila clearly separates the interest from the loan, recognizing the injustice of the first and the humanity of the second: “Today you are accused by us not for lending money, but for not only repaying the loan, but also charging interest on top of that” (733 C). Cabasilas speaks of the attempts of usury supporters to pervert the true meaning of the divine prohibition regarding interest: “He (God) decides in two ways: to keep the creditors in the cities, and to eliminate interest. They, since it is not allowed to take interest, decide not to lend, they themselves abolish creditors in the cities and blame the law for this” (736 D). The second way of distorting the content of God’s commandment lies, as Nicholas Kavasila sees, in the desire to shift the blame for the increase in the level of loan interest to the Holy Scripture, which allowed lending: “equal guilt was attributed to the law, which did not expel the creditors, but brought them to us when it was necessary to expel them” (736 D). By the way, such attacks on the policy of prohibiting interest are reflected not only in the treatise in question. It may be recalled that a similar situation arose during the reign of Vasily I, who banned growth. Leo VI the Wise writes about this in the 83rd short story: “This order, due to the poverty of the people, led not to the better, as the legislator thought, but to the worse. Previously, in the hope of interest, many gave a loan, but when a law appeared according to which one cannot benefit from the provision of a loan, some became inhumane, cruel and unresponsive to those in need of such a loan...” 23. Those who neglect the divine commandment to prohibit interest should be punished, according to Nicholas Kavasila, with the same punishments that apply to apostates. The words “depart from me, you cursed, into eternal fire” 24 sound like a refrain in the treatise (732 D, 733 D). Fiery Gehenna was more than once promised by Cabasilah to the moneylenders: “You who have interest, do you really think to avoid Gehenna?” (733 A; also 732 D, 736 A, 745 A, 745 C). Violation of the divine commandment is, according to Kavasila, at the same time a deviation from the accepted moral norm. Because of this, the author of the treatise, turning to his opponents, appeals to their human feelings - conscience, duty, justice. Moral arguments against usury form the content of many passages in the work 25 . Undoubtedly, the treatise was written not so much to appease creditors who take high interest rates from debtors, but rather to expose usury as a social evil that deals a blow to the urban economy (“you are entangling cities with great disaster” - 748 C). It should be noted that Nicholas Cabasilas’s angry sermon against moneylenders ends not with the usual “amen” for such writings, but with an affirmation of the moneylender’s responsibility to people (...to koino ton anthropon pollon hupeuthunos on). The second work of Nikolai Kavasila, dedicated to the problem of usury, is a letter, the address of which we consider its title. The essay “To the Most Pious Augusta on Interest” differs significantly in the nature of its arguments from the “Words Against Usurers” that we examined. This is not so much a psogos to usury as a business note, a petition addressed to Anna of Savoy, the widow of the former Emperor Andronikos III and the mother of the reigning Emperor John V Palaiologos. The letter, despite its more business-like and specific character compared to the treatise, is not, of course, devoid of rhetorical verbal ornamentation, determined by the law of the genre. The ornately constructed praises addressed to Anna and the emperor correspond to the usual praises of encomists: the kindness of the rulers, prudence, humanity, and a penchant for justice are mentioned here. The letter gives an angry rebuke to the moneylenders. They are called here robbers, thieves (A., 274), shameless, inhuman, putting money above justice and compatriots (276.40). Moneylenders, according to Cavasila, are ready to take away the most necessary things from debtors: they “drive them out of the house, take away their clothes...” (277.). However, criticism of usury, perhaps, does not sound like the main theme of the essay, but only an argument for the proposals set out in the letter. It should be noted that the rise of usury and the impoverishment of debtors are associated in the letter with the period of civil wars: Nicholas Kavasila raises his voice in defense of “those deprived of everything during a period of general storm.” The author further explains his understanding of the storm: “I call the storm the time when the emperors were in a quarrel, when the cities were consumed by strife, neglected harmony and were divided among themselves, when the sword was drawn against the laws and the hands of Christians were stained with the blood of their compatriots” (274. 34–275. 3). Nicholas Kavasila asks Anna of Savoy, in the name of saving those who suffered during the civil war and were burdened with debts, to restore the law of her deceased husband Andronikos III, which abolished the payment of interest during the war between him and his grandfather Andronikos II 26. He addresses Anna and the emperor: “You, the best and most just, save this law, show that this amazing emperor was a more prudent legislator than Solon, who should be revered according to the law and more than the law requires... Give force to the law established by him” (275. 10-15). The author of the letter even appeals to the memory of the deceased emperor and to the saints: “The Great Emperor, who issued this law, asks you to join me. I believe that the saints would do the same for you” (277. 17–20). The law of Andronicus III on the abolition of debts is called in the letter democratic (demotikos), fair and humane (277). In an effort to achieve success, Nicholas Kavasila seasoned his request with a fair amount of flattery towards Anna and the emperor: “All people who have reason associate with you good deeds towards the unfortunate... Do mercy in response to the prayer of all these (people), convince the best emperor, who surpasses all others in kindness, to establish the law” (277. 20-25). The author tries to use a convenient political moment - a lull in the course of political civil strife, when Anna of Savoy regains power and influence: “Do not hesitate, do not delay the decision, only you can promote justice with a wave of your hand. Let them know, evil and inhuman... that they cannot apply their plans when you are in power..." (276.37–277.3). As in the treatise, Nikolai Kavasila touches on the topic “loan - interest”. He cites the objection of supporters of usury in connection with the request to restore the law of Andronicus III: “No one will lend money if there is no hope of receiving interest” (276). In this regard, Cabasilas says that the law of Andronicus III does indeed forgive debtors interest, but by doing so it “does not in any way offend the creditors who return their property” (276). He tries to reason with the moneylenders by reminding them of a difficult time when “everyone is a victim of misfortune,” when “some are lost forever, while others are about to perish” (274). The author of the letter is convinced that the measures he proposes represent “what must be done in the interests of the state” (277). Thus, what the moneylenders call harmful to the state (to de blapsei ten politeian - 276), Cabasilas considers socially useful. The analysis of the views of Nicholas Kavasila will not look complete if we limit ourselves to the presented description of his two works. The question should be raised about the relationship between Kavasila’s position and the system of economic views of the Middle Ages. Undoubtedly, the concept of Nicholas Cabasilas on the issue of usury, as well as many manifestations of economic thought during the Middle Ages, took shape not without the influence of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. First of all, perhaps, it should be said about the effectiveness of Plato’s thesis of moderate asceticism. Plato considered it necessary to eradicate the “ignoble passion for profit” 27. Undoubtedly, the economic psychology of medieval authors was also influenced by Plato’s desire to consider the problem of wealth from an ethical point of view: “It is impossible to become very rich while remaining virtuous...” 28 . Considering that justice and the desire for profit are incompatible phenomena, Plato, advocating a fair type of state, says “that in our state there should be neither gold, nor silver, nor large profits through crafts and usury...” 29. Plato’s desire to give a moral color to the problem of “wealth - poverty” (“Wealth corrupted the souls of people with luxury, poverty fed them with suffering and drove them to shamelessness”) 30 is also felt in the works of Nicholas Kavasila, as well as Alexei Makremvolit and other Byzantine authors. Plato’s position regarding usury is quite definite: “You cannot... give money at interest: in this case, it is allowed not to return either interest or the entire debt to the usurer at all” 31. However, like Cabasilas later, Plato, speaking out against usury, recognized the need for credit: “... you cannot lend money to someone who does not inspire confidence” 32. Aristotle’s thesis about the internal meaninglessness of money had a great influence on the attitude of medieval writers to hoarding and wealth: “This kind of wealth may actually have no meaning, and a person who possesses it in abundance may die of starvation, like the legendary Midas, who, due to the insatiability of his desires, all the offered dishes turned into gold” 33. Aristotle sharply condemned usury, which turned money into an object of property: “... with good reason, usury causes hatred, since it makes the banknotes themselves an object of property, which thus lose the purpose for which they were created: the purpose of banknotes is to facilitate barter trade, while the collection of interest leads precisely to the growth of money... The described type of wealth acquisition turns out to be unnatural primarily” 34. It is interesting to note that, following Aristotle, who played on the etymology of the word tokos 35 (“This explains the very name of this growth as “offspring”: just as children resemble their parents, so interest are banknotes derived from banknotes.” 36), Nikolai Kavasila also draws attention to this nuance, giving his comparison the color of a sharp contrast: “Aren’t you ashamed to call (such an activity) the best of of all names? (Tr., 733 V) 37 . The influence of Aristotle's thesis that money can only be considered as a measure of value on the social psychology of the Middle Ages was unusually great. According to Aristotle, “money cannot give birth to money,” they are sterile and unproductive. This position in the teaching of the Greek philosopher gave rise to the medieval thesis “pecunia pecuniam perere non potest.” Only the earth can produce fruits and growth 38 . In the chain of arguments in the works of Nicholas Cabasilas, this Aristotelian thesis can be distinguished. He argues that if the earth must give birth according to nature (kata fusin), then copper and gold can only give birth contrary to nature (para fusin). According to Kavasila (Tr., 748 C), it is this unnatural growth that gives rise to general sterility (akarpian). According to another Aristotelian thesis, processed in a scholastic spirit by Thomas Aquinas, money is counted among consumable things as opposed to non-consumable things. The sale of consumable things conveys to the buyer dominium, absolute ownership. Charging a special fee for the use of an item (or a sum of money) was presented as a double sale of the same item. 39 Without considering the weaknesses of this concept, we note that Nicholas Cabasilas undoubtedly adhered to it when he wrote: “If the one who borrowed a sum of money loses it ... then the one who gave him the money as collateral cannot cause trouble by demanding money over which he is no longer master as a result of events.” 40 But noting the influence of the economic views of Greek philosophy on the position of Nicholas Cabasilas on the issue of charging interest, we cannot help but see that it corresponds primarily to the Christian religious and ethical concept, which represents a condemnation in usury of such negative manifestations of human nature as greed, self-interest, inhumanity, and a tendency to deceive. The criticism of the views of growth supporters contained in the treatise of Nikolai Kavasila from a purely moral position is quite understandable: in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, all economic concepts (labor, wealth, income and others) have, first of all, an ethical connotation. The primacy of the spiritual over the earthly, affirmed by Christian dogma, makes it possible to evaluate the collection of interest as nothing other than a sin, as a deviation from the law of natural justice. According to Christian teaching, on the eve of the future afterlife, which made any accumulation meaningless 41, relationships between people should develop as fraternal relationships, based on selfless help to each other (can be compared with the thesis of Cabasilas: “... you took interest from your brothers, but from your reserves you did not concede anything to those in need” - Tr., 732 D). It is no coincidence that Nicholas Kavasila deploys his main arguments against the background of the main commandments of Christianity - “love your neighbor” (Tr., 732 C, 740 A) and “thou shalt not kill” (Tr., 741 C). The negative attitude towards usury was generated by the feudal economy, where the true value was recognized for the land (“only the land can give birth”). The influence of the Christian teaching on the prohibition of interest on the minds of medieval writers was complemented by the direction of church decrees on this issue. As is known, starting from the Council of Nicaea in 325, the condemnation of usury was contained in the decrees of many synods, as well as the works of the church fathers 42 . As a writer, Nicholas Kavasila was not alone in his speeches against usury. This phenomenon of social life was condemned by many authors of antiquity 43 and the Middle Ages. Both at the dawn of the Middle Ages and during its heyday, voices were heard condemning the charging of interest. Augustine, Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, Eustathius of Thessalonica, Savonarola, Luther, Fenton - this list of opponents of usury in the Middle Ages can be continued. But it should be noted that the motives that prompted them to criticize were different. If Girolamo Savonarola, for example, raised his voice against the “malicious abyss and the most vile worm of usury” 44, expressing the sentiments of the middle strata of the bourgeoisie of Florence against the emerging usurious capital and the economic dominance of the city’s patriciate, then the English theologian Fenton 45 condemned usury from the position of the dying class of feudal lords in the era preceding the bourgeois revolution. Luther opposed the unfair charging of interest, reflecting the views of the moderate burghers, who formed the basis of the reform movement in Germany 46 . The angry sermons of Nicholas Cabasilas reflected the condemnation of usury, traditional for the medieval way of thinking, from an ethical and religious point of view. The author's views do not go beyond the traditional assessments characteristic of the economic thought of that time. Undoubtedly, Cabasilas remains, in the writings examined here, a son of his class, expressing concern primarily in relation to those aristocrats who, like him 47, suffered during the period of the civil war and the Zealot movement. Even if we consider that in some places he advocates showing sympathy for the truly poor (although it is impossible to differentiate between genuine and relative poverty in his writings), then in this concern for the general welfare, his concern for his own and others like him’s future is manifested first of all. However, despite the ordinary nature of Nikolai Kavasila’s argumentation and the class limitations of his position, the author’s writings against usury are of interest to the researcher, since the rhetorical theme traditional for the Middle Ages was undoubtedly prompted by events in public life. Both works, judging by the arguments, the presentation of the theme, and the emphasis, were written by Nikolai Kavasila at approximately the same time. The letter to Anna of Savoy is dated more or less definitely: Nicholas Kavasila says in it that he is not yet 30 years old. R. Guilland believes that the opus was written around 1347 - R. Guilland. Le traité inédite “Sur l’usure de Nicolas Cabasilas. Etudes byzantines. P., 1959, p. 85 (reprint of 1935 article). I. Shevchenko calls the terminus post quem of the letter of 1341 (1345) and dates it to the time around 1350 - I. Ševčenko. Nicolaus Cabasilas’ correspondence and the treatment of late byzantine literary texts. – BZ, 47, Bd. 1, 1954, p. 56. P. Loenertz dates this work of Cabasilas to 1351 - R. - J. Loenertz. Chronologie de Nicolas Cabasilas 1345–1354. – OCP, Miscelanea Georg Hofmann S. J., v. XXI, I–II. Roma, 1955, p. 223. A. Angelopoulos names the date of the letter as 1351–1352. – A. Angelopoulos. Nikolaos Kabasilas Chamaetos. He dzoe kai ergon autou. Thessalonike, 1970, p. 92. H. P. Matses believes that the letter was sent to the widow of Andronikos III around 1350 - N. P. Matses. Ho tokos en te homologia tou patriarcheiou Konstantinoupoleos kata tous XIY kai XY aionas. – EHBS, 38, 1971, p. 73. K. Marx. Capital, ch. 36. – K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch., vol. 25, part 2, p. 145. N. R. Matses. But tokos..., p. 71–83. F. Miklosich et J. Muller. Acta et diplomata graeca sacra et profana. I, 104; II, 313; N. P. Matses. Ho tokos..., p. 71, 73–75. Even if we take into account that the calculation of interest is not based on 100, as Justinian’s legislation assumes, but only on 72 nomisma per liter (nomisma is equal to 2 perpyra), the level of interest in the 14th century. seems very high. See: E. Schilbach. Byzantinische metrologische Quellen. Dusseldorf, 1970, S. 183, 189. Cod. Just., IV; 32, 26; Basil., 23, 3, 74. J.–P. Migne. Patrologia cursus completus. Series graeca posterior, t. 150, 1865. p. 727–750 (hereinafter referred to as Tp.). Early incomplete editions of 1604 and 1695 are not available to us. – A. Angelopoulos. Nikolaos Kabasilas..., b. 89, no. 3. A list of the 16th century is kept in the manuscript cabinet of the Moscow State Historical Museum. Nikolai Kavasila's treatise “The Word against Moneylenders”. See: Systematic description of manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal (Patriarchal) Library of Archimandrite Vladimir, part 1. Greek manuscripts. M., 1894, 213.5 (also 259, 439). According to Savva's catalog, the manuscript has the code Sin. 426, l. 60–69. O. Tafrali. Thessalonique au XIV siècle. P., 1913, p. 113; A. P. Kazhdan. Agrarian relations in Byzantium XIII – XIV centuries. M., 1952, p. 178; B. T. Goryanov. Late Byzantine feudalism. M., 1962, p. 343; M. Ya. Syuzyumov. On the question of the nature of the performance of the zealots in 1342–1349. – VV, t. 28, 1968, p. 31; G. Weiss. Joannes Kantakuzenos – Aristokrat, Staatsmann, Kaiser und Mönch – in der Gesellschaftentwicklung von Byzanz im 14. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden, 1969, S. 77; K.– P. Matschke. Fortschritt und Reaktion in Byzanz im 14. Jahrhundert. Konstantinopel in der Bürgerkriegsperiode von 1341, bis 1354. Berlin, 1971, S. 12. A. Angelopoulos. Nikolaos Kabasilas..., p. 85–87. C. P. Kirris believes that the treatise "was intended to ask for the protection of a class of ruined nobles during the civil war." – S. R. Kyrris: Eléments traditionnels et éléments revolutionnaires dans l’idéologie d’Alexios Makrembolitès et d’autres intellectuels byzantins du XIYe siècle. – XlVe Congrès international des Etudes Byzantines. Resumés – Communications. Bucarest, 1971, p. 36. R. Guilland. Le traité inédite “Sur l’usure” de Nicolas Cabasilas. – Eis mnemen S. Lamprou, Atn., 1935, p. 273–277 (hereinafter referred to as A.). The appendix to the article by P. Giyats remained inaccessible to us. The text of the letter was used in fragments contained in the said article by R. Guyan, as well as in the article: R.-J. Loenertz. Chronologie... See also about the publication by D. Zakifinos: A. Angelopoulos. Nikolaos Kabasilas..., b. 89, no. 2. I. Sevčenko. Nicolaus Cabasilas’ correspondence..., p. 55–56. R. Guilland. La traite inédite..., p. 81–87; A. Angelopoulos. Nikolaos Kabasilas..., p. 87–88. A. Angelopoulos. Nikolaos Kabasilas..., p. 87. "Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate", 1971, No. 5, p. 75. Epistle to the Romans by St. Apostle Paul, 2.23. Kai ek tokou kai ex adikias lutrosetai tas psuchas auton. Cp.: Psalter, 71. 14. Book of the prophet Ezekiel, 18.8. See also: Exodus, 22.25; Psalms, 14.5. Leviticus 19.17–18; 25.35–37; Deuteronomy 23.19. M. Ya. Syuzyumov. Economic views of Leo VI. – VV, t. 15, 1959, p. 48. Gospel of Matthew, 25.41. I wrote a special article about the reflection of moral standards in the treatise of Nikolai Kavasila, “Ethical problems of “The Word against Moneylenders” by Nikolai Kavasila” (for ADSV, 14). A. Angelopoulos. Nikolaos Kabasilas..., b. 87. Plato. Laws, book. 5. – Soch., vol. 3, part 2. M., 1972, p. 222 (747 V). Ibid., book. 11, p. 418 (919 V – C). Ibid., book. 5, p. 216 (742 C). Aristotle. Policy. Per. S. A. Zhebeleva. St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 25 (1, 3, 12–18). There, p. 28 (1, 3, 22–4, 2). The direct meaning of the Greek word tokos is child, offspring; figurative – growth, percentage. Aristotle. Politics, p. 28 (1, 3, 22–4.2). A.P. Kazhdan drew attention to a similar analogy from Eustathius of Thessalonica: “We allow the gift to be swallowed, and then we force the one who tasted it to spew it back and even in abundance. And we call such a shameful act the beautiful word “child.” – A.P. Kazhdan. Byzantine publicist Eustathius of Thessalonica. VV, vol. 28, p. 69. See also: R. Fenton. A treatise of usurie. L., 1611, V. I, p. 2, § 1–2, p. 3–7. W. J. Ashley. Economic history of England in connection with economic theory. M., 1897, p. 171; S. Ya. Bulgakov. The main motives of the philosophy of economy in Platonism and early Christianity. – In the book: History of economic thought, vol. 1, issue. 3. M., 1916, p. 45; P. G. Vinogradov. Economic history of the Middle Ages. - In the same place, s. 73; A. Ya. Gurevich. Categories of medieval culture. M., 1972, p. 256 – 259. Thomae Aquinatis Summa Theologiae, II, 2, quest. 78, art. 1. See about this: W. J. Ashley. Economic history..., p. 172; P. G. Vinogradov. Economic theory of the Middle Ages, p. 73. R. Guilland. Le traité inedité..., p. 83. As we know, scripture is largely inconsistent. On the contradictions in the Bible on the issue of wealth, see: S. N. Bulgakov. The main motives of the philosophy of economy..., p. 39. W. Endemann. Die Nationalökonomischen Grundsätze der kanonistischen Lehre. – Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik. Herg. v. Hildebrand., Bd. I, 1863; F. X. Funk. Zins und Wucher. Tübingen, 1868. We also find condemnation of usury in the Western Church. In 443 Pope Leo condemned both secular and ecclesiastical moneylenders. In 1179, by order of Pope Alexander III, the moneylenders were excommunicated from the church. In 1311, Pope Clement V branded the view that usury was permissible as heresy. – W. J. Ashley. Economic history..., p. 166–170; P. G. Vinogradov. Economic theory of the Middle Ages, p. 64–65. See for example: P. M. Belov. Anti-usurious ideas in the works of Sallust. - “Uch. zap. Gorky ped. Institute", vol. 61, 1966, p. 196–206. P. Villari. Girolamo Savonarola and his time, vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 229. R. Fenton. A treat... O. I. Chernushevich’s assessment of Luther’s position on usury, who believes that Luther reflected “the new that appeared in the economic relations of his time,” raises some objections. See: O. I. Chernushevich. Martin Luther's views on usury. – In the collection: Some questions of general history. Tula, 1972, p. 96. It seems that all of Luther's arguments against usury are very traditional, reflecting the position of early Christianity on this issue. The representative of a more radical trend in the Reformation, John Calvin, whose teaching corresponded to the interests of the bourgeoisie of the period of primitive accumulation of capital, actually showed a new economic situation in his assessment of usury: he defended the charging of interest. The exponent of the traditional medieval point of view on interest, the English theologian R. Fenton, calls Calvin “the main patron of usury.” – R. Fenton A treatise..., V. 1, p. 2, § 3, p. 11. M. A. Polyakovskaya. Political ideals of the Byzantine intelligentsia of the mid-14th century. (Nikolai Kavasila). – In: ADSV, vol. 12. Sverdlovsk, 1976.