Business Ethics: What Thou Sayeth?

Between the years of 1404 and 1407, Christine de Pizan wrote a book for Prince Louis called ‘The Book of the Body Politic.’

I know: she is more famous for her ‘The City of Ladies’ and getting into the medieval equivalent of a Twitter beef over the ‘The Romance of the Rose.’ However, for the purposes of this blog, we’re going to focus on her lesser-known take on business ethics. Writers were reliant on patrons at the time so, like a lot of freelancers, Ms. de Pizan had to branch out into many subjects to keep her patrons happy.

‘The Book of the Body Politic’ is unique in the ‘advice to royals’ genre in that de Pizan addressed the proper behavior of merchants (or indeed, anybody besides the nobility.) It is also one of the earliest defenses of the importance of merchants and trade in general. De Pizan wrote that, “It is very good for a country and of great value to a prince and to the common polity when a city has…an abundance of merchants.”

How might they contribute? A good merchant ‘under threat of damnation’ will present their goods honestly and are truthful in words and promises, even if it costs them.

If the ‘under threat of damnation’ feels a little extreme, consider that she is clearly influenced by a writer from 100 or so years before her, Thomas Aquinas.

I know he is mostly known for the ‘Summa Theologica’ and being a proto-nerd, but he did, like a lot of people who know one thing well, feel called upon to branch out into other subjects. (In his defense, economic theory wasn’t its own thing at the time and could be reasonably rolled into ethics.) For the purposes of this blog, we’re focusing on his views of the ‘just price’ and how he viewed the morals of economics.

He did not say anything to merchants directly, but he clearly thought that merchants were prone to fraud and selling inferior or adulterated goods. Merchants could be allowed, but only if the price they charged were ‘just.’ His view on what was that it should be set, not only by how much it took to make the thing on sale, but on who was making it (possibly their class/skill) and how much the common people could afford.

Aquinas held that there was a ‘common price’ that was good for the community at large. Charging a stranger more than a local or charging way more than it took to make (including labor) and ship something was not the ‘common price’ and was up there with the seven deadly sins. It would also be not the ‘common price’ to, say, take grain to an area that was suffering a famine and charge the ridiculous amounts that the starving people were willing to pay. In a lot of places, this was flat out illegal. These kinds of behaviors were treated as fraud.

Perhaps this is why de Pizan admonishes merchants to tithe to the church and to give charitably. They were in need of an antidote to the lure of fraud.

What both are saying is that merchants have a duty to the community. They are supposed to be charging a ‘common price’ and that they can provide ‘great value to the common polity.’

The difference is one of tone. Aquinas is just a half-step over Aristotle (who wanted to ban making a profit outright) in accepting that merchants can do something good, provided they behave. He didn’t much care about profits in general- the idea of investment capital wouldn’t be a thing for many centuries yet. De Pizan was definitely not thinking in terms of investment capital either, but she insisted that successful merchants, defined as people who manage their budget well and make some profit, are naturally benefitting the communities they work in.

It is a great reminder that economics is a changing subject and that we should not assume our ancestors accepted the same principles as we do.

Sources:

medievalist.net ‘How Thomas Aquinas Influenced Economic Theory and Practice’

medievalist.net ‘Business Ethics According to Christine de Pizan’