And again about usury

The money you have is an instrument of freedom; those you are chasing are instruments of slavery. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The growth of influence, wealth and the methods of achieving them by the moneylenders of Babylon led to discontent and hatred not only of the Babylonians. The Jewish people gave the world the legend of the “Whore of Babylon.” This image characterized not so much representatives of a famous profession, but cities and states. A reputation has developed for wealth that “keeps pace” with unscrupulousness and unscrupulousness.

 The image of Babylon as “the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” is formed, to a large extent, by the glory of Babylonian usury with its incredible profitability and incredible cynicism and commercialism.

 Mitanni is a Hurrian state (XVII-XIII centuries BC BC), in the territory of northern Mesopotamia - gives us another example of usury in the ancient world. By the way, Mitanni is the birthplace of Princess Taduhippa, daughter of King Tushratta, better known as Nefertiti, wife of the famous Akhenaten. 

The land of Mitanni was communal property, without the right of alienation. However, large moneylenders actively bought up the plots of small farmers. Due to the absence of private land ownership, the sale was formalized in an original way: the moneylender - the buyer of the plot was adopted by the seller, with the allocation of part of the community plot, cultivated by the seller's family. The adoptive parent received a gift from the new son, equal in value to the transferred land. 

  At the same time, the community duty from the land transferred in this way continued to be borne by the adoptive seller, becoming dependent on the moneylender. During his activity, one of the significant moneylenders was adopted in this way 150 times. 

 The consequence of such a transfer of land was the ruin of the community members and the strengthening of the class stratification of society.

 Mitanni moneylenders lent grain and livestock, receiving as collateral the field of the debtor - the future adoptive parent. Or his wife and children. Adoption of girls from poor families was practiced, which allowed the moneylender to marry off the adopted girl (receiving a reward) or sell her as a concubine.

The concept of usury is mentioned in the Vedic religious texts of ancient India. The Sutras (700–100 B.C.) and Jatakas (600–400 B.C.) mention a “kushidin” moneylender and condemn usury.. Vasishtha, one of the seven divine sages of Hindu and Vedic mythology, forbade Brahmins and Kshatriyas from taking part in usury. In the Jatakas, usury is mentioned as a way of humiliating a person.

Only by the second century AD, the attitude towards usury in ancient India became more tolerant. The ancient Indian law book Manu Smriti mentions usury as an acceptable method of acquiring wealth or livelihood. Moreover, the size of the rate depended on the category of the borrower. According to the laws of Manu, the yield on loans varied from 24% per annum if the loan was taken by a brahman, to 60% for a shudra.

The loan agreement was described in sufficient detail in the laws of Manu. The continuity of debt obligations was established. Obligations to repay the debt, after the death of the debtor, passed to his heirs. However, relatives could avoid the obligation to repay the debt if the debts of the deceased were recognized as “vicious”, i.e. arising as a result of the vices of the deceased. Yes, alcohol and women, where without them...

If it was impossible to pay the debt on time, the debtor was obliged to work it off. But taking into account the caste affiliation of the parties to the transaction. A creditor from a lower caste could not force a debtor from a higher caste to work. Such a debtor had the opportunity to repay the debt gradually, without rushing. 

In addition, in ancient India, the period for collecting debts was not limited and interest on the loan could not exceed double the amount of the debt.

Unlike Ancient India, usury in the Middle Kingdom in the era of Confucius (5th century BC) took on the most unsightly forms. The principles of loan relations were prescribed in ancient Chinese law. The agreement was formalized as a promissory note, and provided for a deposit and the possibility of deferred payment. If it was impossible to pay off the moneylender, the borrower sold or mortgaged the property (land). If there was a shortage of funds, the debtor was forced to sell children, other family members or himself into slavery.

  The interest on loans was not limited by law, and creditors increased it to 200-300% per annum. Moneylenders bought mortgaged land from debtors, turning into large landowners.. 

 The existing practice of loans, coupled with tax pressure, contributed to the development of usury. Petty officials - administrators of land accounting and the tax system - became moneylenders. In the “History of the Ming” we read: “In the districts and counties, the property of hundreds of families was appropriated every year.” Moneylenders, having taken away the land, leased it to the previous owners at 50-80% of the harvest.

  The tenants were mired in debt. Unable to pay off their debts, they sold not only their wives and children, but also themselves into slavery. Debt slavery developed in China. Need forced the already landless peasants to pledge their relatives. The right to repurchase was limited to three years. After this period, the mortgaged peasants turned into slaves. Some moneylenders and landowners acquired hundreds and thousands of slaves. Upon the removal of a high-ranking official who ruled under Wu Zong (18th emperor of the Tang dynasty in 840-846), grain and treasures worth 250 million liang were discovered - wealth equal to the state income for several years.

 The practice of debt relations in antiquity can be judged by the study of the native tribes of Africa, Australia and America in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Albert Schweitzer, who worked as a doctor in the French colonies of equatorial Africa, in 1914 describes the customs of the natives in “Letters from Lambarene”:

 “The legal side of their life is extremely complex, because the boundaries of responsibility extend, according to our ideas, unusually far. His entire family, down to his most distant relatives, is responsible for the actions of a black man. If someone, using someone else's canoe, delayed it for a day, he is obliged to pay a fine amounting to a third of its value... Punishment is considered fair only when, having been exposed, he himself is forced to admit his guilt... If for some reason the culprit is not punished, he explains this only by the fact that the victims are extremely stupid... As long as he can deny it with some semblance of plausibility, he is indignant with all his soul sentence, even in cases where he is truly guilty. 

A certain native owed another four hundred francs, but did not even think of repaying the debt, but instead bought himself a wife and began to celebrate the wedding.. And when everyone was sitting at the wedding table, the lender appeared and began to reproach him for buying a wife for himself instead of paying off the debt. A palavra ensued (dispute consideration by a council of elders in the presence of the closest relatives of the disputing parties). Finally, they agreed that the debtor would give his creditor his first daughter, who would be born after this marriage, as his wife, after which he remained among the guests and feasted with him. Sixteen years later he came for the wife he had been promised. Thus the debt was paid.”

to be continued