Abstract

Between 1276 and 1288, Henry of Ghent composes four quodlibetal questions concerning the ‘economic’ practice commonly known as ‘rent contracts’ or emptio-venditio reddituum. In contrast to other authors of his day, Henry holds that these rent contracts are not legitimate, arguing that the practice is just a form of usury. In particular the Flemish doctor, following Aristotle, denounces the emptio-venditio reddituum as a kind of usurious loan being contra naturam. In this article I want to show that behind his condemnation of this ‘economic’ practice lie two aims: 1) to demonstrate the central role of the master of theology in society, that is, not only in the religious, but also in the civil society of his time; 2) to attack, as a secular master, the religious orders. Henry argues that because the validity of a norm depends on whether or not it conforms to the natural/divine law, rather than to the positive law, the legitimacy of a norm must be established by the theologian. The reason for this is that the theologian knows the natural and religious law better than anyone else. Accordingly, the secular theologian becomes the unique authority in ‘economic’ matters in particular and in ethics more generally. By contrast, the religious orders seem to endorse the emptio-venditio reddituum. Henry argues that this betrays their ignorance concerning the natural law. As a consequence, they should not be given authority in ‘economic’ or moral matters.