John Buridan,
in 1327 rector of the University of Paris and a noted Occamist dialectician, is
followed by his disciple Nicholas of Oresme (d. 1384), a theologian at the
University of Paris and later Bishop of Lisieux. Oresme has established himself
in economic history by his Tractatus de
origine, natura, jure, et mutationibus monetarum, a work which directly
influenced the monetary policy of Charles V of France; and perhaps more than
any other medieval author he has, on account of this work, enjoyed a reputation
as an economist.
In his
commentary on the Politics of
Aristotle, Buridan analyzes money’s nature formally in terms of its four
causes. The material cause of money, he says, is some rare material; its
efficient cause is the State; its final cause is the needs of men, who must
exchange goods; its formal cause is the sign of value upon it. Upon these
assumptions, Buridan discusses the morality of the prince altering the legal
value, and holds that such alteration may be made if the community as a whole
benefited by it, but not otherwise. Significantly, Buridan seems to recognize
that the value of money may change even without an official devaluation. He
writes, “It is to be known that an alteration in money can happen because
sometimes money is called strong, i.e., when its price is increased, and
sometimes weak, i.e., when its price is diminished.”
Oresme’s work,
following the path of Buridan, is devoted to the nature of money and to the
morality of alterations in its value by the prince. Money, Oresme teaches again
and again, was invented for the good of the community and belongs to those who
have given up natural riches in exchange for it. It should be “as a certain law
and certain firm ordinance,” and should never be altered in value unless the
community’s necessity authorizes it.
From John T. Noonan, jr.,
The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (1957),
67–8.
