1A long-established strand of literature aims at analyzing the contribution from theologians, canonists and moralists to economic issues. The research agenda focuses mainly on the scholastic current (see recently Chaplygina and Lapidus, 2016). For example, Pierre Januard (2021; 2022) discussed the notion of risk and the relationship between price and justice in the work of Thomas Aquinas. Before the scholastic period, Hengstmengel (2021) showed that the paradox of value was developed by Church Fathers long before Adam Smith.

3From a methodological perspective, starting from the well-known Max Weber’s work ([1905] 2002) highlighting a “Protestant ethic”, the relationship between Christian thought and economic ideas can be investigated through the study of some religious movements. For example, Todeschini (2017) focused on the Franciscans, Baeck (1988) on the Jesuits in the Salamanca’s school, and Ekelund at al. (2002) on the Protestants. In this paper, we follow this research agenda by focusing on one of the most powerful and intellectually richest currents of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that flourished in France, Holland, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Italy, the Jansenism.

4This choice is motivated by the pioneering works of Perrot ([1984] 1992) and Faccarello ([1986] 1999) who highlighted how the Jansenists subscribed to the proto-“invisible hand” theory, as is particularly evident from the works of the Jansenist Pierre Le Pesant de Boisguilbert (1746-1714). Some recent studies (see, e.g. Cottret, 2002; Van Kley, 2008; Orain, 2014) went further by showing that the 18^th century Jansenists paved the way for the economic ideas of Melon, Montesquieu, or the Gournay’s Circle in the decades 1730-1750. Orain argued that “in taking a step away from theodicy, millenarianism, and divine interventions, … Jansenism promoted a new method and new ideas that had an impact on the future economists they taught, and even beyond that, on the enlightenment” (Orain, 2014, 484-485). This literature, however, overlooks a crucial question: how could this Jansenist movement have been the source of new economic ideas from a theological and philosophical perspectives?

9However, based on the existing literature, little is known regarding the implications of the pre-Unigenitus Jansenism (the “first Jansenism”) for economic ideas. Previous studies (Perrot, [1984] 1992; Faccarello, [1986] 1999) focused exclusively on the works of Jean Domat (1625-1696) or Nicole and were confined to the main Jansenist idea that self-interest could produce a socially acceptable outcome. Nevertheless, turning our attention to the beginning of the movement is relevant and serves our purposes, since the main theological ideas of Jansenism were developed during the 17^th century and the Port-royal experience.

10After briefly describing the theological basis of Jansenism (section 1), our paper develops the thesis that the Jansenist theology helped the emergence of new political economy ideas, by focusing on three study cases. In the first case (section 2), we investigate the Jansenist vision of work in contrast to traditional Catholic doctrine and the Protestant approach. Early Jansenists view labour as a free, selfless and voluntary action. They promote a particular vision of spiritual work—the internal conversion—resulting in the formation of the Solitaire group of Port-Royal. As a result, the concepts of labour and poverty are closely related: poverty caused by willful idleness is morally wrong from the early Jansenists’ perspective. Against this background, we find some evidence of the Jansenist nature in the works of a few physiocrats such as Nicolas Baudeau or Guillaume-François Le Trosne, for example. The second case study focuses on theological reflections on human nature (section 3). Relying on Pascal’s and Nicoles’s concept of self-love, we show that some authors, such that Boisguilbert or d’Aguesseau, develop Nicole’s idea that the interaction of individual self-love can lead to a socially acceptable outcome. Finally, we demonstrate that the new exegetical method of the early Jansenists makes it possible for new liberal ideas about interest-bearing loans to emerge (section 4). Charging interest is permitted in the case of loans granted to the rich or to lay people. These ideas will provide intellectual tools for the 18^th century Jansenists, particularly Boidot, Aubert, and Mignot on the liberal vision of usury.

1. The Foundation of Jansenist Doctrine

11Jansenism is a new theological movement, primarily in France, within the Catholic post-Tridentine Counter-Reformation. The basis of the doctrine is a pessimistic view of human nature following Augustine of Hippo (354-430). We can characterize Jansenist theology in three points.

13(ii) The “self-love.” Jansenists consider the natural inclination of human beings is to seek pleasure. In order to define the notion of “pleasure”, theologians use the concept of delectation:

Our soul, henceforth obedient to no motive save that of pleasure, is at the mercy of the delectation, earthly or heavenly, which for the time being attracts it with the greatest strength. At once inevitable and irresistible, this delectation, if it come from heaven or from grace, leads man to virtue; if it come from nature or concupiscence, it determines him to sin. (Forget, 1910)

14It follows that all decisions and actions are driven by the pursuit of delectation: man commits good or evil deeds depending on whether or not he has received grace. Delectation associated with God’s grace is called celestial delectation, while delectation for the purposes of concupiscence is earthly delectation. These two delectations are for Jansen “like the two arms of a set of scales” and form the “the heart of Jansenist doctrine” (Taveneaux, 1968, 29). Such a view entails two implications: (i) all men are self-loving and self-interested agents, and (ii) such motivations have adverse effects, as men can never pursue charitable behaviour (because of humanity’s irreparable depravity). The concept of self-love [amour-propre] is at the core of the theology of the early Jansenists like Saint-Cyran, Nicole, Quesnel and especially Pascal, who states:

The nature of self-love and of this human Ego is to love oneself only and consider oneself only … He wants to be great, and he sees himself as small. He wants to be happy, and he sees himself as miserable. He wants to be perfect, and he sees himself as full of imperfections. He wants to be the object of love and esteem among men, and he sees that his faults merit only their hatred and contempt. (Pascal, [1670] 1958, 42)

15This view gives birth to the concept of self-deception, namely man deceives and deludes himself. As the moralist-theologian Nicole argues:

the corrupted man not only loves himself but … loves himself in an unrestricted way … he turns his attention to himself. He desires any kind of goods, honors, and pleasures for his own purposes. He makes himself the center of everything: he wants to dominate everything, and all men are busy only to content him, to praise him, to admire him. (Nicole, 1671, 121)

16Consequently all economic activities that serve to satisfy earthly delectation originated from original sin and the pursuit of self-love.

17(iii) A new exegetical approach. Jansenism was part of the pastoral renewal of the 17^th century that, in France, according to Abbot Henri Bremond, took the form of the “French School of Spirituality” [“Ecole Française de la Spiritualité”]. Indeed, the Council of Trent marked the beginning of the first official catechisms of the Roman Church, such as Bellarmin’s catechism (1598), published by Pope Clement VIII and translated into French by the bishop of Avranches. Thus, teaching activities are closely associated with the Jansenist experience (notably through the Petites écoles de Port Royal). Essentially, this pastoral renewal is an anti-scholastic reaction, which is common to almost all the Catholic movements of the beginning of the century in France (such as in Bérulle, St. Vincent de Paul and St. François de Sale). The Aquinas “synthesis” that regarded economic phenomena (such as interest loans and private property) through the association of ancient philosophy, Church Fathers’ theology, and Roman law (see Bernard, 1950; Noonan, 1957; 1966; Finley, 1973; Taveneaux, 1977; among others), was defeated by Jansenists. Arnauld, in his Apologie de M. Jansénius évêque d’Ypres (1644), claims that “the Doctors of the [Scholastic] school were too much interested in useless and curious questions or treated them more as philosophers than as theologians” (Arnauld, 1644a, I, 305). In the Apologie pour feu M. de St Cyran, he goes further, stating that “the scholastic theology is a pernicious science” (Arnauld, 1644b, II, 82).

19The remaining sections of this article will consider how each of the aforementioned points influenced the emergence of new ideas in political economy. Section 2 will show that point i. (“irreversible grace”) was at the root of a new vision of labour and poverty, section 3 will link point ii. (“self-love”) with original views on the relationship between human nature and social harmony. Finally, section 4 will demonstrate that point iii. (“a new exegetical approach”) opened up new liberal ideas supporting the practice of interest-bearing loans.

2. Labour and Poverty

20Since Max Weber ([1905] 2002) propounded his celebrated analysis of the Protestant work ethic, the conception of labour has played a crucial role in studies of the relationship between religion and economic theory. This section aims at characterizing the Jansenist vision of labour and its consequences for the concept of poverty.

2.1. An Original View of Labour

22This is an important point because such a view contrasts with both the Protestant approach and the Catholic doctrine. On the one hand, according to Calvinist predestination, men work to “reveal” divine providence and God’s continuous generosity. Calvin defines work as actions that implement the creative and redistributive process necessary for a harmonious society, as Bauer (2017) states. On the other hand, following the Council of Trent, the Catholic doctrine considers work to be an “ascetic activity.” The sermon of Bourdaloue (1632-1704) is a prime example: “God’s justice repairs the sin of man by labour, and work is the way that God’s justice maintains all the states of the world.” (Bourdaloue, 1750, 277, our emphasis). In this way, work is “punishment for disobedience and rebellion” (Da Silva, 1995) and leads to a life of drudgery. Even nowadays, the position of the Catholic Church follows this line. Paragraph 2427 of the official Catechism states that “[work] can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus … man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish.”

23These two different interpretations derive from the understanding of original sin. All of the theological currents share the finding that original sin considerably increased the distance between God and men, but they differ in their beliefs about its implications for work. For Calvin, at the time of the creation of the world, work was a part of human nature, it was “joyful and pleasant” and harmony was ensured. However, after humanity was deformed by sin, men sought to restore this lost harmony, while God continues to be creative through man’s work. Consequently, “the fruits of labour are the result of this continued creation” as Bauer (2017) states. In the traditional Catholic doctrine perspective, as the Council of Trent reappraised matters, work is an effort that needed to be exacting and corresponds to an act of penitence, opening the way for man to atone for original sin.

24In contrast, Jansen, Saint-Cyran and the subsequent Jansenist theologians consider that the decision to work is driven by delectation alone and that the consequences of work have little impact on society. As Quesnel states: “anyone who works for God does not work in vain, even if this work is useless to others” (Quesnel, 1842, 76, our emphasis). However, the Jansenists distinguish between labour driven by celestial delectation—which aims to make the “pleasures” generated by divine grace increase through spiritual work—from labour driven by earthly delectation.

25While all Jansenists show profound contempt for the latter kind of work they promote spiritual and ascetic labour. This type of work aims to pursue the “pleasures” generated by divine grace through “difficult and long” efforts (Jacquemot in Chantin, 1998, 89): “Saint-Cyran considers divine grace to require a total conversion: a victory of the ‘new man’ over the ‘old man’ at the price of heroic efforts and great moral austerity” (Pernot, 2012, 64). This explains Saint-Cyran’s concept of renouvellement. The grace that the Christian receives leads to an initial delight (delectation); through spiritual work (an internal conversion) he can obtain other graces and thus other delights:

As the initial divine grace is a free gift, it is not only to our prayers but to our work that God promised the increase of graces, provided we consider that in working we always need the same grace. (Saint-Cyran in Orcibal, 1962, 86, our emphasis)

Christians must adopt a behaviour of reluctance, namely a ‘retreat’ from the world, which does not mean that they must give up God-desired occupations, but that they must make retreat their ideal … Hence the austere rules imposed by Saint-Cyran on his followers. (Cognet, 1965, 392)

Let us now speak of spiritual occupations. ... Since it is well-known that idleness is an enemy of the soul, and that the apostle says that the man who does not work is unworthy to eat, God must always find you busy with some spiritual exercise. … It is necessary that in winter you are busy with the spiritual exercises all the morning until the hour of Terce. And in summer until time of Prime. I call the spiritual exercises the oration, the reading of holy books, the meditation of holy things, and the psalmody. (Le Roy, [1659] 1699, 440-441, our emphasis)

30Secondly, man constantly needs to be busy: “Now observe that it is better to vary the exercises and to resort to the work of the hands than to fall asleep while reading, and to become bored with too much reading” (ibid., 442, our emphasis). All the early Jansenists strongly condemn idleness [l’oisiveté]: “When we stop going to prayer or reading, we must use the work of the hands, in order to be always busy, since according to the rule of Saint Benedict, idleness is the enemy of the soul” (ibid., our emphasis). We detail such a view in the following section.

31In summary, two points deserve particular attention. First, the Jansenist vision of labour corresponds to traditional Catholic doctrine that considers work as an exacting activity requiring “heroic efforts.” However, the main difference with Catholic doctrine is that the harshness of labour is not due to penance originating in original sin but to the pursuit of some pleasure. Second, the renouvellement method can be related to Calvinist thought, since work seems to be a “creative” process desired by God that changes the “old man” into a “new man.” Nevertheless, an important difference relates to the fruits of labour. For Calvin, economic success is a testimony to divine action. In Jansenist thought, such success is suspicious; for Quesnel, “it is not a small consolation for those who work a lot and who do not see the fruit of this work to be assured that they will not lose anything of their reward” (Quesnel, 1699, 141), since “life is too negligible to put in mind to change condition” (Quesnel in Préclin, 1935, 381).

2.2. The Vision of Poverty

33During the 17^th century another important concept relates to the activity of work was poverty. Economists and theologians discussed oisiveté [idleness] in terms of poverty (Clément, 2008) and debated the need for the unemployed to receive alms and charity. For the historian Jean Delumeau, the terms related to “idleness” or “laziness” in Christian writings were due to the development of trade and the emergence of the merchant/bourgeois class in the late-17th early-18th centuries: “undoubtedly, it is thanks to the trading environment and under the impetus of economic and social changes that the Latin Christian discovered the cardinal sin of sloth” (Delumeau, 1983). Thus, this sin of “sloth” is a major topic for the early Jansenists. For example, Quesnel devotes a large part of his pastoral writings to strongly condemning any form of idle behaviour: “Idleness… is the first barrier to salvation” (Quesnel, 1702, 458); “Everything commits man to a hard and busy life, and idleness is a source of damnation” (Quesnel, 1705, 273); “idleness attracts dism” (ibid., 166), etc. Against this background, from the early Jansenists’ perspective, poverty based on voluntary unemployment is morally wrong.

No; and those who do so are punishable before God, and before men. They are forced to work to earn a living. Because the goods and the wealth of men who have nothing are their arms, their health, and their industry alone. Since it is forbidden for the rich to take the goods of others, it is forbidden for the poor who do not want to work, when they can, to appropriate the goods of the rich. We are not even required to give alms to men who are in this state, because alms … are only for the true poor … instead of for men who we call the voluntary poor. (de Barcos, [1688] 1691, 351-352)

35Martin de Barcos makes a clear distinction between the “true poor” and the “voluntary poor”. The latter are people who do not work voluntarily and who should not receive charity and alms for three reasons:

Thus giving alms to [the voluntary poor] is subject to several disadvantages: [i] because we keep them in idleness, [ii] we prevent them from exercising charity by helping themselves, and others by their work, [iii] and we give to non-poor people the goods that need to be given over to the true poor. (ibid.)

36De Barcos’ main message is that assisting (in the form of charity and alms) people who are deliberately idle is both inefficient and inequitable as it encourages them to remain in the state of idleness while such help should be allocated to the “true poor”. At this stage, de Barcos’ perspective raises two questions: (i) Why is the state of idleness undesirable? (ii) What is “true poverty”?

37The first question is addressed by Quesnel and some Solitaires, including the son of the abbess Catherine Arnauld, the Bible scholar Louis-Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy (1613-1684). The theologian was intellectually very close to de Barcos—their period of residence at Port-Royal was identical. In his Lettres Chrétiennes et Spirituelles (1690), published posthumously by his friend Pierre Thomas du Fossé (1634-1698), de Sacy glorifies intellectual work and strongly opposes oisiveté [idleness] along the same lines as de Barcos: “idleness is much to be feared, because it leads to all evils … produces aversion to work” (de Sacy, 1690, 167, our emphasis). De Sacy also shares the Saint-Cyran’s renouvellement method, in which “old men” must become “new men” through a heroic effort of “conversion.” Thus, the theologian defines work as being in the “spirit of prayer” (ibid., 47), whereas idleness discourages men from following the path in life required by God. In the same line, pastorally Quesnel gives the following advice: “[Jesus Christ] teaches us to save the poor from idleness, giving alms to help them work, not to keep them lazy” (Quesnel, 1699, 463, our emphasis).

38Regarding the second question, Saint-Cyran himself provides a definition of the “perfect poor” whereby three conditions had to be met:

1. Having no external goods;

2. Having no desire to obtain any; and in contrast, finding joy in having none;

3. Having no attachment to necessary things.

Without the spirit of poverty, religions are vain shows of piety. The man who has no goods, and who takes as much pleasure in having none … is truly poor in spirit. (Saint-Cyran in Orcibal, 1962, 445)

40The notion of pauvreté volontaire [voluntary poverty] that de Barcos develops will merge with the pauvreté calculée [calculated poverty] of the abbot Nicolas Baudeau (1730-1792) and Turgot (1727-1781) a century later (see, e.g. Clément, 2010; Chopelin-Blanc and Clémence, 2008). These two kinds of poverty depend on rational economic behaviour through a cost/benefit analysis: “The establishment of free relief for some men would immediately create poor people, that is to say, give so many men an interest in becoming [poor], by abandoning their occupation” (Turgot in Daire, 1844, 301). Although Turgot promotes charity workshops, he condemns unconditional social assistance (Clément, 2005), as he claims in his article “Foundation” in the Encyclopédie:

to enable a large number of men live without charge is to fund idleness and all the disorders that follow; it is to make the condition of the idler better than that of the worker; in consequence, it is for the State to decrease the sum of labour and the productions of the land, of which a part becomes necessarily uncultivated: hence it results in frequent scarcity, increased poverty, and depopulation. The race of the industrious is replaced by a vile population, composed of vagrant beggars and given to all manner of crimes. (Turgot in Daire, 1844, 301)

41Baudeau develops a similar idea. In the Idées d’un citoyen sur les besoins, les droits et les devoirs des vrais pauvres (1765) the theologian devotes the third chapter to “alleged poverty.” He claims that the government needs to take action to remove “false poverty” in order to increase the efficiency of the social assistance that needed to be allocated to the “true poor:”

• 21 Baudeau also develops a typology of the “true poor” who need to be helped by the government—“the tr (...)

the kingdom is currently inundated with false poor who live from crime … it is still necessary for [the government] to repress imposture, to prevent it at best, to punish it with justice and intelligence. (Baudeau, 1765, 97-98, our emphasis)²¹

42For Baudeau, charitable behaviour increases the numbers of the false poor and encourages idleness: “the desire to perform in the art of beggarliness, combined with avarice … must have made the true needy imagine a thousand artifices to increase their evils and the appearance of their poverty. These wiles gave them a more glorious, but very idle and very convenient life” (ibid., 98-99). In this line, Beaudeau and de Barcos share the same view. Indeed, de Barcos’s advices: “That is why the Fathers and Councils so expressly forbid to assist them [the false poor] … experience argues that this serves only to maintain them in idleness, in vice, and in debauchery” (de Barcos, [1688] 1691, 352).

the author [Baudeau] develops [in the Analyse] the theory of private interest that underlies all the thought of eighteenth-century political economy, from Boisguilbert to Smith. … This theory is rooted in seventeenth-century French moral theology. It appeared more carefully under the pen of the Jansenist moralists. (ibid., 54, our emphasis)

45First, following the approach of the Tableau Économique, the wealth of nations is due solely to the agricultural sector. Thus, if a man is healthy and does not work, he produces nothing, which is harmful to his society. As “agriculture is only waiting to be freed from the barriers that prevent it from expanding, it only needs freedom to sell its products and security for the farmers” (Le Trosne, 1764, 1), the vagrancy and idleness “compress” agriculture, “which prevents it from deploying its full strength” (ibid.). Le Trosne acknowledges that agricultural work is painful and he is afraid that the state of idleness will grow: “But this state is too comfortable for many people not to embrace it and see it as the greatest happiness to be free from work, to be free from all taxation, from all burdens, from all dependence, and free from all anxiety about the next day” (ibid., 3).

In this respect, let us give the labourer the justice he deserves. He is naturally good and generous, especially in the Cantons where there remains a little facility. He willingly gives to the poor of the country he knows and knows to be in need of help; but who could painlessly see his livelihood snatched by strangers, by people who only ask for food because they don’t want to work; how much would the generosity of a man who would like to encourage idleness by such inappropriate distributions? (ibid., 5, our emphasis)

48This passage is fascinating because it highlights the difficulty of separating the true poor from the false poor, who are the vagabonds and the beggars. Even acts of charity can be counter-productive, as these vagabonds can pose as the real poor. Against this background, in the second part of his Mémoire, the jurist proposes some tools and legal reforms with two goals: (i) to differentiate the true poor form the false poor, or the vagabonds, and (ii) to eliminate false poverty. Regarding the first point, Le Trosne develops an original view:

In the countryside the poor invalids who wish to have permission to beg, will present themselves in an Assembly formed by the Lord … the Parish Priest, the Syndic and the ten biggest Wheat Cutters of the Parish; they will expose their state of infirmity and poverty, the helplessness of their children, and they will obtain, by the plurality of votes, a certificate which will contain the names of the Parishes in which they can beg. (ibid., 68)

49Regarding the second point, Le Trosne claims that “there are only two ways to make vagrants in working; it is to oblige them using forces or to punish them so severely that they still prefer the party of work” (quoted in Schnapper, 1985, 156). He defends very strict measures, such as imprisonment and sending to the galleys. This vision took shape in 1767, with the emergence of the “dépôts de mendicité” [“warehouse for beggars”], where all “able-bodied individuals suspected of living on alms” (i.e., “the false poor”) were locked up on a simple administrative measure (see Grenot, 2014, chap. II). This measure was initially introduced in 1764 by a royal declaration that Beaudau considers “worthy” of the “paternal care of the government” (Beaudau, 1765, 3). Indeed, as argued by Michèle Grenot,

The ‘real right to necessities’ applies only to those who are considered a ‘true poor,’ that is, those who accept their fate, who meet the criteria of morality, work, or whose non-work can be explained by old age, infirmity, illness, as opposed to the ‘false’ poor ‘simulator.’ It is common to simulate an infirmity, illness or pregnancy, in order to beg with impunity. (Grenot, 2014, chap. II)

50What is interesting in Baudeau and especially in Le Trosne is their closeness to Jansenist authors such as Quesnel and de Barcos, as they aim to radically denounce idleness and make the distinction between false and true poor. For theologians and moralists at the end of the 17^th century, idleness is a sin because it goes against the nature of men—which is fallen since the original sin; whereas for the economists of the Sect, idleness poses an economic threat because it is contrary to the principles of the Tableau Économique, and a societal threat, as any kind of crime follow.

54Up to now, in examining the concept of labour, we have focused on the rigorist Jansenist tradition represented primarily by Saint-Cyran, Jansen, and de Barcos. During the Port-Royal period, a more moderate current (termed “centrist” by Taveneaux) emerged from the teachings of Pierre Nicole and Jean Domat. This current notably considered the question of human nature, self-love, and social harmony that influenced Boisguilbert and d’Aguesseau.

3. Human Nature: Self-Love and Social Order

56Following the Augustinian tradition, Pascal introduces the concept of “moi” [“Ego”]. In a long fragment entitled amour-propre [self-love], Pascal argues that “the nature of amour-propre and of this human self is to love only oneself and consider only oneself” (Pascal, [1670] 1958, 42, our emphasis). Thus, Pascal defines amour-propre as the love of self in the eyes of others, and claims that men act hypocritically in order to satisfy their self-love (self-deception):

Thus, human life is nothing but a perpetual illusion; there is nothing but mutual deception and flattery. No one talks about us in our presence as he would in our absence. Human relations are only based on this mutual deception; and few friendships would survive if everyone knew what his friend said about him behind his back, even though he spoke sincerely and dispassionately. (ibid., 44)

57For Pascal, the origin of the human nature of self-love is original sin, in accordance with the theses of Saint-Cyran and Jansen, and self-love alone drives human action:

God has created man with two loves, the one for God, the other for himself; but with this law, that the love for God shall be infinite, that is without any other limits than God himself; and that the love for oneself shall be finite and relating to God. Man in this state not only loves himself without sin but could not do otherwise than love himself without sin. Since, sin being present, man has lost the first of these loves; and the love for himself, being left alone in this great soul capable of an infinite love, this self-love has extended and overflowed in the empty space which the love of God has quitted; and thus he loves himself alone, and all things for himself, that is, infinitely. This is the origin of self-love. (Pascal, 1859, 428)

59Following Pascal, Nicole addresses this question in his essay, De la charité et de l’amour propre ([1675] 1845). The moralist offers a solution by introducing the concept of “amour-propre éclairé” [“enlightened self-love”]. For Nicole, the human tendency to self-love has two purposes: (i) the satisfaction of vanity (the desire to dominate all men), and (ii) the desire to preserve material properties (the “acquisitive passions”). Following the terms of Lazzeri (1993), the former (“conceited self-love” [self-love inspired by vanity]) is the prime expression of self-love and depends on natural human traits, while the latter (“convenance self-love” [self-love inspired by propriety]) is driven by reason. Nicole’s key innovation is to reverse the initial prevalence of “conceited self-love” over “convenance self-love”. Men “like to subjugate everyone, but like life and commodities even more,” so that “the fear of death” is “the first link of civil society, and the first obstacle of conceited self-love” (Nicole, 1671, 124). This view has two implications.

60Firstly, using reason-based arguments, passions are achieved only through the protection of political order. Without political order, “all men are enemies, and there will be general war … Political order is, therefore, an admirable human invention to provide in each individual all necessary commodities” (ibid., 123). Secondly, the interaction between the “conceited” and “convenance” forms of self-love can force every man to adopt a “honest” behaviour consistent with society’s interests. Indeed, “in order to be increasingly appreciated by everyone, man will seemingly behave with great civility. By this game of pretence, human corruption takes on all the appearances of honesty, benevolence and love” (Weber, 2007). This is the definition of “enlightened self-love”.

61Nicole’s conclusion is that the self-love tendency is a source of social welfare: “there is nothing from which we derive greater services than from the very greed of men”. Finally, the socially acceptable outcome that Nicole describes is not market-based and seems to emerge from (i) the interaction of all individual self-love and (ii) the strong political organization of society (the political order). The second point is of crucial importance. For Nicole, the political order can only be assured by the power of the Prince, who derives his legitimacy from God. Thus, the protection of royal power is vital for a social harmony to emerge. This idea goes against the Salamanca School which advocated civil disobedience and the possibility of dethroning an unjust king (see on this point Leblanc, 2011, 7-8). In his treaty “De la Grandeur” (1671) Nicole asserts that “it is never lawful for anyone to rebel against his sovereign, nor to engage in civil war … There is no disorder that can give subjects the right to draw the sword, and they can only use it by the will of the one who carries it by the command of God” (Nicole, [1671] 1845, 391). It is interesting to observe how close Nicole’s idea is to the concept of “legal despotism” that will be developed a century later by physiocrats, notably Mercier de la Rivière in 1767.

63(i) Along the same lines as Nicole, d’Aguesseau addresses the issue of social harmony as a problem linked to human nature—“Is it natural for man to love his fellows?” (d’Aguesseau, 1819, 372)—and considers that men act according to their own self-love:

Interest, vanity, the love of pleasure, the fear of pure and sincere friendship. Deceived several times by vain appearances, we imperceptibly fall into a universal distrust, which finally leads us to think that all that seems to be mutual love between men could well be only a specious name … Hence, the famous problem, which consists in knowing whether it is natural for man to love or hate his peers. (ibid., 375)

64To address this question, d’Aguesseau distinguishes between the “nature” of man and the “object” of human love.

65Firstly, the nature of man is self-love. However, d’Aguesseau’s interpretation differs greatly from Nicole’s concept as described above. Following Descartes, d’Aguesseau defines the nature of man as his reason: “living according to reason is to live according to the general spirit of nature” (d’Aguesseau, 1819, 596). Such a definition is inconsistent with Nicole, who considers the nature of man as fallen after original sin. In contrast d’Aguesseau thinks that “nature is not entirely fallen, and, for sure, it becomes lost when reason is misused” (Jaume, 2009, 47).

66Secondly, the object of human love is complex and depends on relationships with others: “It is therefore only in the human beings … [and] in men that I find the object, clean and specific, of my relative love” (d’Aguesseau, 1819, 379). Therefore, d’Aguesseau suggests that men find their self-love by loving others. The intuition is the following:

I note that every day I am attached to people to whom I have done good, often even more so than to people from whom I have received good … The reason is not difficult to discover. I feel, in some way, below my benefactors, as they force me by their favours to recognize that I did not have what they gave me … hence an implicit admission of my weakness … On the contrary, when I do good to my fellows, I believe for the same reason in exerting a kind of superiority over them by giving them what they did not have. We only indulge ourselves in these feelings … but I had the proof that they seem to offer me the strength and my perfection … so that men become the object of my love, by the good that I do to them. (ibid., 381)

67Thus, by loving other men, one will receive love from them in return and one will enjoy a feeling of superiority that will satisfy one’s self-love. At the end of this process social harmony will be ensured. Nicole and d’Aguesseau share an understanding of the origin of actions (self-love) and the consequences (social harmony) but differ in their understanding of the process. The fact that men love each other is a means of deception for Nicole, whereas it is a natural and voluntary act for d’Aguesseau: “Consequently the social link appears as the result of good self-love, because it integrates others instead of using them by a cheating calculation” (Jaume, 2009, 47, our emphasis).

68(ii) The main originality in d’Aguesseau’s writing is the analogy of amour-propre (self-love) and amour de la patrie (love of the country). The Mercuriales—a set of speeches made in the Parlement of Paris between 1698 and 1715 and published posthumously in 1759—began with a dedication to self-love and ended with a dedication to “love of country.” These Mercuriales were universally admired in the 18^th century (pocket editions were published and considered to be the moral code of the magistracy of France; see Bulter, 1830, 37). According to d’Aguesseau’s perception of one’s love of country,

each citizen … regards the fortune of the state as his own … [and develops] a fraternal civility … which unites citizens in a similar way as a family … The love of country has become a type of self-love, and citizens come to love each other through love of the republic, even to love it more than themselves. (d’Aguesseau, 1787, 208)

69The fact that each citizen “regards the fortune of the state as his own” is in clear opposition to the thinking of Pascal and Nicole where each person is only concerned with his own well-being. Men cannot, by the fallen nature of their beings, extricate themselves from this condition. D’Aguesseau seems to take an important step in relation to the 17^th century Jansenist moralists with his “l’amour de la patrie.” This vision seems to be in line with the “intérêt bien entendu” of the 19^th century French liberals. According to this doctrine, defined in particular by Tocqueville, citizens know that their fate is linked to that of the society, and thus agree out of a “intérêt bien entendu” in the good of the fatherland. Their behavior is based on an enlightened reasoning so that everyone recognizes the influence that the country’s welfare has on their own. However, for d'Aguesseau, the love of the patrie is indeed a selfish love, since the individual and collective fortunes are placed on the same level.

70From a normative perspective, he claims that prudent rulers must implement policies that are associated with the charms and delights of participation in political institutions: “attaching the state of the government by its charms, this is the great work of sagesse” (ibid., 213). Love of patrie means love of the common good, not love of the monarch: he notes that France is “a great kingdom, but not a patrie; a numerous people, but hardly any citizens” (ibid., 211). Such a perspective highlights d’Aguesseau’s concept of the state: the prince is subject to the “natural law” that ensures the production of the common good. From an intellectual standpoint, in the direct line of the 17^th century Jansenists, d’Aguesseau, like Pothier, took part in a new movement in the juridical field that aimed to codify internal law in the kingdom:

Jansenism played a significant role in the codification of domestic law in the 17^th century, from Domat to Pothier via d’Aguesseau. Beyond the immense work of rationalist classification, one finds in all the great jurists trained in the lineage of the Messieurs de Port-Royal the desire to link the evolution of jusnaturalism to the moral question at the heart of French Jansenism. This attempt stems directly from the reflection on natural law and the law of nations elaborated by the Jansenists in the second French 17^th century (1660-1710). (Leblanc, 2011, 1)

71The origin of this movement is then the search for a “natural law.” However, this “natural law” is not, at the beginning of the 17^th century, a set of principles governing moral and social life, but rather a general “principle” accepted by all men:

Everything becomes floating and uncertain in morality, d’Aguesseau said, if there is not a natural, immutable rule, prior to all positive institutions, which separates the just from the unjust. Undermining this first principle is to provide weapons for ungodliness, to attack the existence of God … Only natural justice, prior to all positive institutions, can give the true measure of our duties and a just notion of the virtues. (d’Aguesseau in Thézard, 1866, 26)

72From d’Aguesseau’s perspective, natural law “does not rely in any way on the empirical study of reality” (Storez, 1981, 394), but rather on “fundamental rules” that are inherent to “reason:” “Natural law is solely these general obligations, or these fundamental rules that reason teaches,” writes d’Aguesseau (ibid.). These rules must be enforced on governments and the state, precisely to ensure social harmony.

74The second author to develop Nicole’s self-love theory was Pierre Le Pesant de Boisguilbert (1646-1714). After studying at the Petite écoles of Port-Royal, Boisguilbert develops a conception of market-based society. He applies Nicole’s vision of self-love to economic relations and considers that the sum of all individual considerations of self-love can lead to social harmony (defining it as the Etat d’Opulence), provided that a “superior and general authority”—Providence—is achieved. For Nicole and Boisguilbert, the presence of an external force (the political order in Nicole and Providence in Boisguilbert) is needed for a socially acceptable outcome to emerge, contrasting with d’Aguesseau. However, Boisguilbert’s Providence differs from Nicole’s Political order since Providence refers to a natural order that ensures free competition in transactions. Hence the best political action is “laissez-faire and laissez-passer:” “all the commerce of the land … is governed by nothing other than the self-interest of entrepreneurs … It is this reciprocal utility which ensures that harmony appears” (Boisguilbert in Faccarello, [1986] 1999, 28).

75Boisguilbert’s view of Providence is close to Physiocratic theory a few years later. We have shown above the impact of Jansenism on some members of the Secte des Economistes, and the similarities of Nicole’s thought with the “legal depostism” of Mercier de la Rivière. For Boisguilbert, the Prince is subjected to a “superior and general authority”—Providence—that governs both nature and society. Thus the role of the sovereign (“legal despot”) is close to that developed by the Physiocrats, since the latter has to ensure the natural laws that guarantee liberty, property, or security. Against this background, if this Providence of a divine nature allows orienting individual interests towards a collective well-being, a link could be made with a specific form of the Smithian theory of the invisible hand.

76At this stage, we need to discuss this Boisguilbert’s Providence by relying on the recent literature that aims to recasting the relationship between religion, theology and the sacred in different Enlightenment contexts (see, e.g. Bloch, 2019; Van der Kooi and Ballor, 2021). Oslington (2011), for example, show that the Smith’s metaphor of the invisible hand in locates in the “natural theological accounts of divine action and providence, mediated through Smith’s Scottish Calvinist environment” (ibid., 63). For Oslington, God’s action as represented by the “invisible hand” is a speciation action takes by God to adjust economic realities. The metaphor is then based to a “special providence, operating against, although ultimately supporting, general providence in the economic realm” (ibid., 66, our emphasis). This “special” providence, defined by a direct intervention of God in the order of the world corresponds to the Boisguilbert’s philosophy. It contrasts with the traditional Cristian’s “general” Providence, in which God’s does not act directly but orders and ordains powers in the world. Jansenism, by moving from a general to a special providence, undoubtedly played a key role in the emergence of liberal ideas about social welfare, as Scottish Protestantism played for Smith.

[Boisguilbert’s] new approach was to inspire the main developments in political economy during the eighteenth century. Quesnay, the physiocracy, Turgot and sensationalist political economy developed the basic free trade ideas proposed by Boisguilbert. (Faccarello, 2014)

79However, an often overlooked aspect is Boisguilbert’s contribution to monetary theory (see Faccarello and Steiner, 2012), which however largely prefigured that of the physiocrats (Menuet and Villieu, 2020). More specifically, Boisguilbert perceives three essential factors:

• 41 Letter from Boisguilbert of July 1, 1704—to be read in the Correspondance des contrôleurs généraux (...)

(i) The role of money circulation. The circulation of money is called “frequency of representation” by Boisguilbert: money “stops, decamps and runs” with consumption, so that “by generating lot of consumption, little money, through its frequent representation, is equivalent to a very large quantity of cash”; if, on the contrary, consumption decreases, “money stops immediately and makes people say that it has disappeared.”⁴¹

(ii) The replacement of metal-money by paper-money. Some years before Quesnay, Boisguilbert writes that “a simple piece of paper, which costs nothing, nevertheless replaces all the functions of money” (Boisguilbert, 1707, 376). Bills of exchange can therefore very well substitute for money to facilitate circulation.

• 42 Boisguilbert already announces this alienation of the miser, the figure of hoarding: “Once again an (...)

(iii) The risk of hoarding behaviours. From being “valets of commerce” when they remain “within their natural limits”, precious metals “set themselves up as tyrants” when they leave circulation, claims Boisguilbert in his Dissertation (1707, 398), whereas “left in a chest, [they] are no more useful than if they were stones” (Boisguilbert, 1695, 212). In this way, holding money can only be the result of unreasonable or fetishist motivations, such as avarice or an irrepressible taste for precious metals.42

80These three points will be distinctive of the physiocratic theory of money (Menuet and Villieu, 2020). Once again, Boisguilbert will have been a pioneer, here on monetary issues. Consequently, there are some elements to suggest the contribution of the Jansenism theology of self-love, and its developments in d’Aguesseau and Boisguilbert, to the genesis of a number of economic ideas in the second half of the 18^th century. Finally, we have to examine one last point in the theology of the early Jansenists, namely the new exegetical method. Far from being a simple abstract intellectual exercise, the reappraisal of the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church in opposition to scholastic thought will lead to interesting insights into the practice of interest-based lending.

4. A New Exegetical Approach: The Interest-Bearing Loan Case

81The influence of Jansenism on “liberal” 18^th century economists—including some members of the Gournay circle and the Encyclopaedists themselves—on the issue of interest-bearing loans is well-established in the literature (see Taveneaux, 1977; Orain, 2014; Menuet and Orain, 2017). However, little is known regarding the theological foundations of the Jansenist view of interest-bearing loans. As discussed in section 1, a striking feature of Jansenist theology is the pastoral renewal of the post-Tridentine period, and the associated anti-scholastic reaction in which the first authors were involved, as well as the new exegetical work that followed, as evidenced by the translation of the Holy Scriptures by de Sacy and Quesnel (see in particular, Muntéano, 1956).

82What is new in the first Jansenist works is the “comparative exegesis” approach, where the interpretation of the New Testament is not made gospel by gospel but is part of a more general conception in which “each of the books of the Bible is illuminated by all those which belong to the same historical genre” (Taveneaux, 1977, 49). Hence, the method is multidisciplinary, mixing understanding of the ancient Greek language, the historical context of the evangelists, and the economic practices during Christ’s lifetime. This new exegesis approach enables the emergence of new “liberal” ideas of political economy, especially regarding interest-bearing loans, as we will see below.

83This new Jansenist exegetical approach takes an explicit form in Jean Le Correur (?-1693), the priest of Saint Germain-l’Auxerrois, the diocese of the Kings of France, who drew a sharp distinction between loans made by the rich to the poor and loans made by the rich to the rich. The theologian, who was very close to the Port-Royal school, wrote important books, such as the Explicitation des Evangiles pour les dimanches et les principales fêtes (1690) and the Principaux devoirs du Chrétien ou Agrégé de théologie (1689). Focusing on interest-bearing loans, his contributions can be found in the Traité de la Pratique des Billets entre les négociants, published four times between 1682 and 1684. The new exegetical approach that states “Scripture cannot be better explained by Scripture itself” (Le Correur in Taveneaux, 1977, 49) is striking. Le Correur focuses on the traditional usurious ban of the Roman Church. This interdict comes from two essential sources in the Scriptures.

84In the Old Testament, the passage from Deuteronomy (XXIII, 19-20) seems clear:

You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not your brother, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything to which you put your hand in the land that you are entering to possess.

85However, the interpretation of this statement is subject to many debates. The Correur provides two new insights.

86First, he focuses on the original text: “Fratri autem tuo absque usura id quod indiget commodabis.” For the theologian, the writers of the Old Testament use the term “commodabis” and not the well-known “mutuum date” found in Luke’s Gospel (Le Correur, 1682, 130-131). Whereas the “mutuum” in the Roman laws refers to a formal contract (roi contractae) for a loan of money, the word “commodabis” refers to a more general favour done for someone (Marrone, 2004). Hence, confusing “mutuum” and “commodatum” is a serious mistake made by the scholastic school (Le Correur, 1682, 129). In this way, from Le Correur’s perspective, the message of Deuteronomy is not a ban on lending money at interest.

87Second, following St Ambroise, Le Correur makes a distinction between the “brother,” who includes those on low income, and the “foreigner,” who includes those of high income. In this way, Deuteronomy “commends to lend free-of-charge to brothers, who are poor; in addition, it orders the practice of Billets [with interest] with regard to foreigners who are rich, because it would be unfair and cruel to exercise it with regard to the poor” (Le Correur, 1682, 158-159). In conclusion, the Old Testament Law prescribes that loans should be free of charge for poor Jews, but not for neighbouring paupers—for example, the Sydonians, Thyrians, and Ehyptians— enriched in the trade.

88In the New Testament, the key passage comes from Christ’s words in the Sermon on the Mount that are reported in Luke’s Gospel (VI, 35): “Date mutuum, nihil inde sperantes” [“Lend to people without expecting to get anything back”]. As argued by Sylvain Piron,

it is through these five words, tirelessly repeated, that the strictly Christian history of usury is played out. They may receive different emphasis, depending on whether one focus more on “sperantes” or “mutuum” in order to universally condemn any hope of gain … which need to be, by definition, a free loan. (Piron, 2008, 4-5)

89Le Correur wonders whether the message of Christ—“lend without expecting to get anything back”—is advice or a commandment. In the first case, “one can therefore consciously choose not to follow [the Christ’s message], as we can, for example, not to make a vow of charity. Thus, one may lend, or not lend, for free” (Le Correur, 1682, 115). In the second case, in contrast, “if these words of Jesus-Christ contain a commandment, it follows that we indispensably need to lend to rich or to poor peoples, a large or a small sum of money, free of charge for as long as they like” (ibid., 115-116). This second case is the one adopted by the scholastic school during the Middle Ages. The goal of Le Correur is to show that the only valid interpretation is that it is advice, hence the practices of the interest-bearing loan are consistent with Christ’s words. Le Correur began by considering that the traditional interpretation (the “commandment” case) has two adverse effects, one of an exegetical nature and the other of an economic nature: “[the interpretation as a commandment] completely ruins the doctrine, which Jesus Christ contained in these words lending without expecting to get anything, and destroying commerce” (ibid., 116, our emphasis).

90To this end, Le Correur sets Christ’s words in the general story of Luke’s Gospel. The well-known “Date mutuum, nihil inde sperantes” is part of the Sermon on the Mount (Luke, VI, 27-32)

• 43 The figure of Caesar has a central role in the New Testament, as we will see. Undoubtedly, Le Corre (...)

in which [Jesus Christ] taught his Apostles the maxims of his Gospel. And since his Kingdom is not of this real world, he did not prescribe any particular rule [or “commandment”] for trade, he left to Cesar⁴³ the things that are in his jurisdiction, and he spoke only of those that regard the heaven. (ibid., 121-122)

91For Le Correur, Christ’s primary intention in the Sermon on the Mount is twofold: (i) concerning trade, Christ gives simple advice and not commandments; and (ii) “the justice of Christians must surpass that of Jews … The Jews needed to lend freely to their friends … and the Christians need to lend freely to their enemies” and to “the poor” (ibid., 122, our emphasis). The term “enemies” is of importance, and, for Le Correur, it does not include the rich:

If one claims that lending should be free even for the rich, because Jesus Christ said, to lend without expecting anything … one answer that he spoke about enemies and poor people. 1. He spoke about enemies; because he said in previous verses love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you [Luke VI, 27-28]. 2. He also spoke about poor peoples; because he said immediately before, do good, and immediately afterwards he added, be full of mischief. Yet, is it that one is not good to the rich, since they are in abundance; and that one is not merciful to them, since there are not in misericordia? Our Divine Master then spoke of lending to poor when he said, lending to people without expecting to get anything back. Date mutuum, nihil inde sperantes. (ibid., 125-126)

93As a reminder, according to the scholastic school, there are three well-known exceptions, where the lender can claim interest: Poena conventionalis, damnum emergens, and lucrum cessans. These cases are “extrinsic titles;” Namely, they are independent of the loan itself. For example, conventional poena allows for monetary compensation when the money lent is paid back late (with respect to the deadline stipulated in the contract). Dammum emergens allows for interest to be charged when the lender, during the term of the loan, does not possess the means to remedy a serious loss or injury that befalls him. Finally, lucrum cessans, although more contentious, is intended to provide a monetary allowance in the event that the money granted to the borrower caused a loss of income for the lender during the same period (this is an opportunity cost; see Lapidus, 1987). In contrast to the scholastic school, Le Correur considers damnum emergens, lucrum cessans, and all the extrinsic titles to be mere “inventions” (Le Correur, 1682, 212). Indeed, if the lender risks a financial loss and an opportunity cost, “he should not lend [his money].” This lender is a “unwise” person, and it is not possible to offset “the harm he did to himself, by his pure and own fault” (ibid., 209).

94Le Correur makes a distinction between “charitable loans” (i.e., loans to the poor), which need to be free of charge, and “commercial loans” (i.e., loans to the rich). In the latter case, it is right to lend with interest, not because of the risk incurred by the lender, but because money is a useful good with a value and a price: “But one derives legitimate interest from a commercial loan only because of the price or and the value of the use of money, which is a useful good, and is even as much and sometimes more useful than land and houses” (ibid., 210, our emphasis). Indeed, the loans for trade or production made between merchants makes the money “fertile,” because they produce a profit through “the industry of a rich and prudent Merchant when he uses [the money] usefully on his trade” (ibid., 184). Hence, through the investment in the trade, lending money to the rich merchants generates additional value, allowing interest to be charged on the loans.

95Le Correur discusses these “commercial loans” in detail. They are based on the practice of commercial paper that entails receiving “for a limited time money at interest under simple notes between accommodated persons, by a pure principle of commerce” (ibid., 51). These are not formal contracts, but simple agreements between rich people, with short-term repayment (six months to a year). Following the same exegetical method, Le Correur shows that “the practice of commercial papers was ordinary and public in the time of Jesus Christ, and he did not condemn it as evil” (ibid., 132). To this end, reference must be made to the parable of the “ten mines” in Luke’s Gospel (XIX, 12-27):

A rich man gave ten marcs of silver to ten of his servants, and told them to use the money until he came back from his trip. When the man had come back, he called his servants … to inquire how much each of them had gained, and he rewarded them according to the profit they had made. One of these servants, who had not made a profit from the silver marc … was blamed by his master, who asked him why he had not deposited his money in the bank, so that on his coming back he could withdraw it with interest. (ibid., 132-133)

96Therefore, for Le Correur, this parable is “based on a practice which was ordinary at the time … We do not read that Jesus Christ condemned the practice of commercial papers. He only blamed avarice, fraud and injustice” (ibid., 133-134).

97Thanks to a new approach “combining with the philosophical exegete, the historical investigation of the human environment, [and] the analysis of economic structures and mentalities” (Taveneaux, 1977, 50), Le Correur makes a distinction between the loans to the poor, which need to be free, and the loans to the rich, which can serve as productive capital and can thus be granted with interest. This new vision captivated some of his contemporaries, such as the Bishop of Grenible, Le Camus, and the Bishop of Aix, Grimaldi. As Taveneaux concludes, “Le Correur announces a way of thinking, a method of analysis and moral conceptions from which were to inspire, some decades later” the 18^th century Jansenists.

98Le Correur is not the only 17^th century Jansenist to advance new liberal ideas on the issue of usury through reassessments of the Holy Scriptures. This was also the case for Pasquier Quesnel (1634-1719), whose thought was to lead to a new current in Jansenism—Quesnelism. A major feature of Quesnelist thinking is the rejection, once again, of the scholastic movement, by redrawing the boundaries of ecclesiastical jurisdictions. One proof of this is the well-known passage, “the Emperor’s Tax,” from the synoptic gospels (Matthew XXII, 17-22; Mark XII, 13-17; Luke XX, 21-26), where the Pharisees present to Jesus a silver coin depicting the emperor. The words of Jesus Christ are famous: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s”. Quesnel interprets these words as “a rule” that “sets the boundaries” and “distinguishes the jurisdiction and domain of the two empires, the heavenly and the spiritual” (Quesnel, 1699, 380). Thus, “temporal things are all part of the [king’s] domain,” meaning “respect, submission, dependence and obedience to the rulers in all temporal matters” (ibid.). This clear distinction between the “spiritual” (“ecclesiastical”) sphere and the “temporal” sphere means that if the Princes give permission for usury in any way, this permission can only be in conformity with the message of Jesus Christ.

99While Le Correur extensively discusses the Scriptures and their meaning on usury, Quesnel endeavours to re-examine the Tradition of the Councils, Popes, and Fathers of the Church in light of this distinction of jurisdiction. One of the first prohibitions of usury in Tradition is canon XVII of the Council of Nicea in 325: “De clericis usuras accipientibus.” Quesnel’s thesis is that this prohibition is a disciplinary law reserved for clerics and does not apply to the laymen (Taveneaux, 1977, 126): “It is worth noting that … what is said about usury, at the very least, nothing can be concluded in general, for the clarification of this matter with regard to the laymen; because the Council does not speak of them, but only of the clerics [clericis]” (Quesnel, 1689, II, 245). To support this thesis, Quesnel sets the Council of Nicea in its historical context:

What is noteworthy … is that this canon was made only one month after the Emperor Constantine had published a law, by which he settled the interests that were legitimately to be taken. From this we learn that it was this imperial law that gave the Fathers of Nicaea the opportunity to make this canon, in order to prevent the ecclesiastics … from being carried away by the spirit of avarice, and from using their money or their goods in a way that, in order to be acceptable to the laymen, did not leave the ecclesiastics ashamed and unworthy of the holiness of their state. (ibid., 146)

101Finally, the Jansenist anti-Scholastic approach in the 17^th century and the reappraisal of Scripture and Tradition through a new exegetical method resulted in the emergence of new ideas about interest-bearing loans. For the first time, the interest loan can be permissible outside of extrinsic titles or particular types of contract (such as the triple contract; see Menuet, 2018). Indeed, the general condemnation of usury in scholastic thought comes from three sources: ancient philosophy, especially that of Aristotle; Roman law; and Scripture and Tradition. The Jansenists denied the first two, focusing only on the last, thereby fragilizing the scholastic anti-usury architecture. Thus, with Quesnel and Le Correur, two distinctions are made: first, the difference between charity loans made to the poor, which must be free, and commercial loans between rich people, where interest is authorised; and second, the difference between loans for laymen and those for clergymen. These distinctions were essential tools for the liberal 18^th century Jansenists, especially during the conflicts that divided the Jansenist movement in the Church of Utrecht. Thus, the “bible” of the liberal Jansenists—the Traité des prêts de commerce (1738) of Boidot, Aubert, and Mignot—precisely adopted the Le Correur’s ideas and established the key idea that “usury” is simple profit from the use of money. This Traité had an important influence on 18^th century economists, such as Turgot, and Encyclopaedists (see Menuet and Orain, 2017).

5. Conclusion

102Intellectually, the Jansenists developed a strict vision of St Augustine’s theology in a period characterised by the great theological disputes that followed the Council of Trent. Both rigorist and modern, the early Jansenists developed new theological and philosophical ideas such as self-love and self-deception. The main contribution of this article has been to show that the Jansenist theology matters in understanding the emergence of new ideas in political economy, such as the legitimation of interest loans, the development of natural law, and the issues of poverty that will become more explicit in the 18^th century. Beyond the well-known figures of Boisguilbert in political economy and Domat in the legal sciences, other 17^th century theologians and moralists exerting decisive influences on the history of ideas included Saint-Cyran, Quesnel, Le Roy, de Barcos, d’Aguesseau, de Sacy, and Le Correur. For example, Saint-Cyran developed a vision of work as a personal and individual action; de Barcos distinguished the “true poor” from the “false poor”; Quesnel and de Sacy opposed idleness; d’Aguesseau saw a likeness between self-love and love of country and contributed to setting “natural law” at the centre of legal discussions in 18^th century; and finally, Le Correur made a distinction between loans granted to the poor and commercial loans between the rich, which can be legitimately charged with interest. In addition, evidence has been presented for the links between the early Jansenists to a number of economists (such as Baudeau and Le Trosne). Finally, a natural extension of our analysis would be to connect the early Jansenists, as presented in this paper, with the second Jansenists (see Orain, 2014; Menuet and Orain, 2017) to obtain an overview of the influence of the Jansenist movement on economic ideas. Future works might usefully analyse the impact of Jansenist thinking on economists in the post-Revolutionary period, as in Clément Juglar (see Dal-Pont Legrand and Frobert, 2010).

I am indebted to the Editor-in-chief Jean-Sébastien Lenfant, to the Managing Editor Francesco Sergi, and to the anonymous Referees for their comments. I owe special thanks to Arnaud Orain for his encouragement and very helpful comments. I thank Annie L. Cot, Muriel Dal Pont-Legrand, Franck Jovanovic, Nikolay Nenovsky, Patrick Villieu and participants at the Charles Gide Workshops 2019 (Montréal) for comments. The usual disclaimer applies. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.