Mediaeval Socialism

Mediaeval Socialism, by Bede
Jarrett

The Project Gutenberg eBook, Mediaeval Socialism, by Bede Jarrett
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: Mediaeval Socialism
Author: Bede Jarrett

Release Date: October 4, 2006 [eBook #19468]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK
MEDIAEVAL SOCIALISM***
E-text prepared by David Clarke, Martin Pettit, and the Project
Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net/) from page images generously made available
by Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries
(http://www.archive.org/details/toronto)

Note: Images of the original pages are available through Internet
Archive/Canadian Libraries. See
http://www.archive.org/details/mediaevalsocial00jarruoft

MEDIAEVAL SOCIALISM
by
BEDE JARRETT, O.P., M.A.

[Illustration: Logo]

London: T. C. & E. C. Jack 67 Long Acre, W.C., and Edinburgh New
York: Dodge Publishing Co.

CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 5
II. SOCIAL CONDITIONS 17
III. THE COMMUNISTS 29
IV. THE SCHOOLMEN 41
V. THE LAWYERS 55
VI. THE SOCIAL REFORMERS 68
VII. THE THEORY OF ALMS-GIVING 80

BIBLIOGRAPHY 91
INDEX 93
MEDIAEVAL SOCIALISM
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The title of this book may not unnaturally provoke suspicion. After all,
howsoever we define it, socialism is a modern thing, and dependent
almost wholly on modern conditions. It is an economic theory which
has been evolved under pressure of circumstances which are admittedly
of no very long standing. How then, it may be asked, is it possible to
find any real correspondence between theories of old time and those
which have grown out of present-day conditions of life? Surely
whatever analogy may be drawn between them must be based on
likenesses which cannot be more than superficial.
The point of view implied in this question is being increasingly adopted
by all scientific students of social and political opinions, and is most
certainly correct. Speculation that is purely philosophic may indeed
turn round upon itself. The views of Grecian metaphysicians may
continue for ever to find enthusiastic adherents; though even here, in
the realm of purely abstract reasoning, the progressive development of
science, of psychology, and kindred branches of knowledge cannot fail
by its influence to modify the form and arrangement of thought. But in
those purely positive sciences (if indeed sciences they can properly be
called) which deal with the life of man and its organisation, the very
principles and postulates will be found to need continual readjustment.
For with man's life, social, political, economic, we are in contact with
forces which are of necessity always in a state of flux. For example, the
predominance of agriculture, or of manufacture, or of commerce in the
life of the social group must materially alter the attitude of the
statesman who is responsible for its fortunes; and the progress of the
nation from one to another stage of her development often entails (by
altering from one class to another the dominant position of power) the

complete reversal of her traditional maxims of government. Human life
is not static, but dynamic. Hence the theories weaved round it must
themselves be subject to the law of continuous development.
It is obvious that this argument cannot be gainsaid; and yet at the same
time we may not be in any way illogical in venturing on an inquiry as
to whether, in centuries not wholly dissimilar from our own, the mind
of man worked itself out along lines parallel in some degree to
contemporary systems of thought. Man's life differs, yet are the
categories which mould his ideas eternally the same.
But before we go on to consider some early aspects of socialism, we
must first ascertain what socialism itself essentially implies. Already
within the lifetime of the present generation the word has greatly
enlarged the scope of its significance. Many who ten years ago would
have objected to it as a name of ill-omen see in it now nothing which
may not be harmonised with the most ordinary of political and social
doctrines. It is hardly any longer the badge of a school. Yet it does
retain at any rate the bias of a tendency. It suggests chiefly the
transference of ownership in land and capital from private hands into
their possession in some form or other by the society. The means of this
transference, and the manner in which this social possession is to be
maintained, are very widely debated, and need not here be determined;
it is sufficient for the matter of this book to have it granted that in this
lies the germ of the socialistic theory of the State.
Once more it must be admitted that the meaning of "private ownership"
and "social possession" will vary exceedingly in each age. When