As I discussed in my previous post, much of how medieval thinkers considered economics is based on Aristotle's work, predominantly from the Nichomachean Ethics. Moving forward, the large concern is how to determine just exchange and/or fair market value in exchange. As I previously mentioned, Aristotle suggests both an arithmetical dynamic (where factors outside the value of the commodity do not affect the justness of exchange) and a geometrical one (where context and outside factors do matter). As Joel Kaye plots out in Economy and Nature in the Fourteenth Century, the thirteenth and fourteenth century scholastics took Aristotle's economic models and modified them. Aristotle's approach as lined out in the Ethics was often interpreted as merely finding the proper point of just price and then determining where an exchange falls in relation to that point, an arithmetical approach to exchange. This approach is of course limiting as it does not take into consideration the dynamics of the market or the respective positions of the buyer and seller in exchange. The same seller could offer two entirely different prices for a commodity at different times depending on the scarcity of the commodity; for Aristotle, this would be an unjust approach as the commodity should only have one value.
As Kaye indicates, medieval scholars such as Jean Buridan and Walter Brumley modified Aristotle's models, depicting fair market value less as a fixed point for a commodity and more like a range within which just price could be achieved. In this, the need of the buyer and seller are what fuel value. Each participant of exchange brings with them their own respective need/desire for that exchange, and that need drives how they perceive fair market value. Shortly after harvest, a seller of fruit may expect a moderately high price in exchange for his goods due to their freshness and quality. A few weeks later, however, that seller, noting the impending expiration of his produce, may be willing to sell that fruit at a lower price as his need to recoup some profit from it affects his selling position. Likewise, a well fed person has an entirely different estimation of value for a piece of fruit than one who is starving. While it may not seem significant at first glance, the acknowledgment that factors outside the quality of the commodity itself can affect fair market value demonstrate a marked shift on how medieval thinkers perceived economic exchange.
Taking a step back then, it's important to also consider the historical context of how trade and mercantilism is received in late medieval England. There isn't a quick, easy answer to this question, but I find two books go a long way to helping: Roger Ladd's Antimercantilsm in Late Medieval English Literature and Diana Wood's Medieval Economic Thought. Bracing these two against one another nets the following: mercantilism was a source of great concern and distrust in late medieval England, primarily from the 12th century on, with a number of texts railing against he societal ills that could result in societal breakdown where cupidity overrides caritas; however, there is also a trend, notably from the thirteenth through early fifteenth centuries, of amelioration for trade and mercantilism, with other texts demonstrating beneficial exchange and even casting merchants as heroes. Wood, who takes the latter track, suggests that this stems from the greater role that mercantilism plays in the everyday life of urban London in addition to the growing political and social power from a mercantile class. In sum, it seems that trade and mercantilism had a tenuous reception in late medieval England, where it may both be a socially disruptive force and one that allows new individuals to participate in social avenues previously denied them. Some key texts to mention here are Wynnere and Wastoure and Sir Amadace, both of which provide a mixed presentation of mercantilism. All of this brings me to the pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica and where my project has focused: marriage and economics.
I put the above gif here (with the very problematic relationship it suggests) to demonstrate how, in some ways, medieval marriage was seen as its antithesis as can be demonstrated with the Oeconomica. The Oeconomica, or Le livre de Yconomique d‘Aristote in Oresme's translation of it, is a text mistakenly attributed to Aristotle that advises on the ideal method for establishing and running a household. This of course goes back to the Greek origins of the term economics: the oikos in Greek is the household, the Greek household operating as its own unit of taking in and producing commodities that could be traded for other goods. At its root, Economics is thus the study of the household. The Oeconomica thus has extensive suggestions for how to operate trade in the household for best sustainability. The text also, however, has a large section instructing how to best choose a wife to run one's household, lining out the virtues of an ideal wife along these lines. While this does treat the wife as something of a commodity that one needs to purchase for his business' success, as well as potential children with said wife as future investments, the text at large presents an interesting connection between economics and marriage.
As my project has proceeded, I've become more and more interested in this connection, especially as I've seen it lining up in Middle English texts. In my next post, I'll start talking about medieval marriage and how I've become oriented on this topic more specifically.
As my project has proceeded, I've become more and more interested in this connection, especially as I've seen it lining up in Middle English texts. In my next post, I'll start talking about medieval marriage and how I've become oriented on this topic more specifically.
True story: I keep waiting for the right time to drop this reference in a conference paper. Soon...
No comments:
Post a Comment