writers, especially of Langenstein and Henricus de Hoyta.  Brants gives a useful bibliographical list of both mediaeval and modern authorities in the second chapter of his Theories economiques aux xiii^{e} et xiv^{e} siecles.  Those who desire further information about any particular writer of the period will find it in Stintzing, Literaturgeschichte des roem.  Rechts, or in Chevallier’s Repertoire historique des Sources du moyen age; Bio-bibliographie.  The authorship of the treatise De Regimine Principum, from which we shall frequently quote, often attributed to Aquinas, is very doubtful.  The most probable opinion is that the first book and the first three chapters of the second are by Aquinas, and the remainder by another writer. (See Franck, Reformateurs et Publicistes, vol. i. p. 83.)]

Sec. 3. Teaching.

We shall confine our attention in this essay to the economic teaching of the Middle Ages, and shall not deal with the actual practice of the period.  It may be objected that a study of the former without a study of the latter is futile and useless; that the economic teaching of a period can only be satisfactorily learnt from a study of its actual economic institutions and customs; and that the scholastic teaching was nothing but a casuistical attempt to reconcile the early Christian dogmas with the ever-widening exigencies of real life.  Endemann, for instance, devotes a great part of his invaluable books on the subject to demonstrating how impracticable the canonist teaching was when it was applied to real life, and recounting the casuistical devices that were resorted to in order to reconcile the teaching of the Church with the accepted mercantile customs of the time.  Endemann, however, in spite of his colossal research and unrivalled acquaintance with original authorities, was essentially hostile to the system which he undertook to explain, and thus lacked the most essential quality of a satisfactory expositor, namely, sympathy with his subject.  He does not appear to have realised that development and adaptability to new situations, far from being marks of impracticability, are rather the signs of vitality and of elasticity.  This is not the place to discuss how far the doctrine of the late fifteenth differed from that of the early thirteenth century; that is a matter which will appear below when each of the leading principles of scholastic economic teaching is separately considered; it is sufficient to say here that we agree entirely with Brants, in opposition to Endemann, that the change which took place in the interval was one of development, and not of opposition.  ‘The law,’ says Brants, ’remained identical and unchanged; justice and charity—­nobody can justly enrich himself at the expense of his neighbour or of the State, but the reasons justifying gain are multiplied according as riches are developed.’[1] ’The canonist doctrine of the fifteenth century was but a development of the principles to which the Church had already given its sanction in earlier centuries.  It was the outcome of these same principles working in a modified environment.’[2] With these conclusions of Brants and Ashley we are in entire agreement.