of dignity according to the estimate to which they were held to be entitled.  The Aristotelean division of industry into artes possessivae and artes pecuniativae was generally followed, the former being ranked higher than the latter.  ’The industries called possessivae, which are immediately useful to the individual, to the family, and to society, producing natural wealth, are also the most natural as well as the most estimable.  But all the others should not be despised.  The natural arts are the true economic arts, but the arts which produce artificial riches are also estimable in so far as they serve the true national economy; the commutation of the exchanges and the cambium being necessary to the general good, are good in so far as they are subordinate to the end of true economy.  One may say the same thing about commerce.  In order, then, to estimate the value of an industrial art, one must examine its relation to the general good.’[2] Even the artes possessivae were not all considered equally worthy of praise, but were ranked in a curious order of professional hierarchy.  Agriculture was considered the highest, next manufacture, and lastly commerce.  Roscher says that, whereas all the scholastics were agreed on the excellence of agriculture as an occupation, the best they could say of manufacture was Deo non displicet, whereas of commerce they said Deo placere non potest; and draws attention to the interesting consequence of this, namely, that the various classes of goods that took part in the different occupations were also ranked in a certain order of sacredness.  Immovables were thought more worthy of protection against execution and distress than movables, and movables than money.[3] Aquinas advises the rulers of States to encourage the artes possessivae, especially agriculture.[4] The fullest analysis of the order in which the different artes possessivae should be ranked is to be found in Buridan’s Commentaries on Aristotle’s Politics.  He places first agriculture, which comprises cattle-breeding, tillage, and hunting; secondly, manufacture, which helps to supply man’s corporal needs, such as building and architecture; thirdly, administrative occupations; and lastly, commerce.  The Christian Exhortation, quoted by Janssen,[5] says, ’The farmer must in all things be protected and encouraged, for all depend on his labour, from the monarch to the humblest of mankind, and his handiwork is in particular honourable and well pleasing to God.’

[Footnote 1:  Aquinas, Summa, II. ii. 77, 4; Nider, op. cit., II. x.]

[Footnote 2:  Brants, op. cit., p. 82.]

[Footnote 3:  Geschichte, p. 7.]

[Footnote 4:  De Regimine Principum, vol. ii. chaps, v. and vi.]

[Footnote 5:  Op. cit., vol. i. p. 297.]

The division of occupations according to their dignity adopted by Nicholas Oresme is somewhat unusual.  He divides professions into (1) honourable, or those which increase the actual quantity of goods in the community or help its development, such as ecclesiastical offices, the law, the soldiery, the peasantry, artisans, and merchants, and (2) degrading—­such as campsores, mercatores monetae sen billonatores.’[1]