To say that the mediaeval method of approaching economic problems was fundamentally different from the modern, is not in any sense to be taken as indicating disapproval of the former.  On the contrary, it is the general opinion to-day that the so-called classical treatment of economics has proved disastrous in its application to real life, and that future generations will witness a retreat to the earlier position.  The classical economists committed the cardinal error of subordinating man to wealth, and consumption to production.  In their attempt to preserve symmetry and order in their generalisations they constructed a weird creature, the economic man, who never existed, and never could exist.  The mediaevals made no such mistake.  They insisted that all production and gain which did not lead to the good of man was not alone wasteful, but positively evil; and that man was infinitely more important than wealth.  When he exclaims that ’Production is on account of man, not man of production,’ Antoninus of Florence sums up in a few words the whole view-point of his age.[1] ‘Consumption,’ according to Dr. Cunningham, ’was the aspect of human nature which attracted most attention....  Regulating consumption wisely was the chief practical problem in mediaeval economics.’[2] The great practical benefits of such a treatment of the problems relating to the acquisition and enjoyment of material wealth must be obvious to every one who is familiar with the condition of the world after a century of classical political economy.  ’To subordinate the economic order to the social order, to submit the industrial activity of man to the consideration of the final and general end of his whole being, is a principle which must exert on every department of the science of wealth, an influence easy to understand.  Economic laws are the codification of the material activity of a sort of homo economicus; of a being, who, having no end in view but wealth, produces all he can, distributes his produce in the way that suits him best, and consumes as much as he can.  Self interest alone dictates his conduct.’[3] Economics, far from being a science whose highest aim was to evolve a series of abstractions, was a practical guide to the conduct of everyday affairs.[4] ’The pre-eminence of morality in the domain of economics constitutes at the same time the distinctive feature, the particular merit, and the great teaching of the economic lessons of this period.’[5]

[Footnote 1:  Irish Theological Quarterly, vol. vii. p. 151.]

[Footnote 2:  Christianity and Economic Science, p. 10.]

[Footnote 3:  Brants, Les Theories economiques aux xiii^{e} et xii^{e} siecles, p. 34.]

[Footnote 4:  Gide and Rist, History of Economic Doctrines, Eng. trans., p. 110.]

[Footnote 5:  Brants, op. cit., p. 9.]