Here also it was of decisive importance that for the Puritan there was only the alternative of divine will or earthly vanity. Hence for him there could be no adiaphora. As we have already pointed out, Calvin’s own view was different in this respect. What one eats, wears, etc., as long as there is no enslavement of the soul to earthly desire as a result, is indifferent. Freedom from the world should be expressed, as for the Jesuits, in indifference, which for Calvin meant an indifferent, uncovetous use of whatever goods the earth offered (pp. 409 ff. of the original edition of the Institutio Christianae.) ↩
The Quaker attitude in this respect is well known. But as early as the beginning of the seventeenth century the heaviest storms shook the pious congregation of exiles in Amsterdam for a decade over the fashionable hats and dresses of a preacher’s wife (charmingly described in Dexter’s Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years). Sanford (Studies and Reflections of the Great Rebellion) has pointed out that the present-day male haircut is that of the ridiculous Roundheads, and the equally ridiculous (for the time) male clothing of the Puritans is at least in principle fundamentally the same as that of today. ↩
On this point again see Veblen’s Theory of Business Enterprise. ↩
Again and again we come back to this attitude. It explains statements like the following: “Every penny which is paid upon yourselves and children and friends must be done as by God’s own appointment and to serve and please Him. Watch narrowly, or else that thievish, carnal self will leave God nothing” (Baxter, Christian Directory, I, p. 108). This is decisive; what is expended for personal ends is withdrawn from the service of God’s glory. ↩
Quite rightly it is customary to recall (Dowden, Puritan and Anglican) that Cromwell saved Raphael’s drawings and Mantegna’s Triumph of Caesar from destruction, while Charles II tried to sell them. Moreover, the society of the Restoration was distinctly cool or even hostile to English national literature. In fact the influence of Versailles was all-powerful at courts everywhere. A detailed analysis of the influence of the unfavourable atmosphere for the spontaneous enjoyment of everyday life on the spirit of the higher types of Puritan, and the men who went through the schooling of Puritanism, is a task which cannot be undertaken within the limits of this sketch. Washington Irving (Bracebridge Hall) formulates it in the usual English terms thus: “It [he says political freedom, we should say Puritanism] evinces less play of the fancy, but more power of the imagination.” It is only necessary to think of the place of the Scotch in science, literature, and technical invention, as well as in the business life of Great Britain, to be convinced that this remark approaches the truth, even though put somewhat too narrowly. We cannot speak here of its significance for the development of technique and the empirical sciences. The relation itself is always appearing in everyday life. For the Quakers, for instance, the recreations which are permissible (according to Barclay) are: visiting of friends, reading of historical works, mathematical and physical experiments, gardening, discussion of business and other occurrences in the world, etc. The reason is that pointed out above. ↩
Already very finely analysed in Carl Neumann’s Rembrandt, which should be compared with the above remarks in general. ↩
Thus Baxter in the passage cited above, I, p. 108, and below. ↩
Compare the well-known description of Colonel Hutchinson (often quoted, for instance, in Sanford, Studies and Reflections of the Great Rebellion, p. 57) in the biography written by his widow. After describing all his chivalrous virtues and his cheerful, joyous nature, it goes on: “He was wonderfully neat, cleanly, and genteel in his habit, and had a very good fancy in it; but he left off very early the wearing of anything that was costly.” Quite similar is the ideal of the educated and highly civilized Puritan woman who, however, is penurious of two things: (1) time, and (2) expenditure for pomp and pleasure, as drawn in Baxter’s funeral oration for Mary Hammer (Works of the Puritan Divines, p. 533). ↩
I think, among many other examples, especially of a manufacturer unusually successful in his business ventures, and in his later years very wealthy, who, when for the treatment of a troublesome digestive disorder the doctor prescribed a few oysters a day, could only be brought to comply with difficulty. Very considerable gifts for philanthropic purposes which he made during his lifetime and a certain openhandedness showed, on the other hand, that it was simply a survival of that ascetic feeling which looks upon enjoyment of wealth for oneself as morally reprehensible, but has nothing whatever to do with avarice. ↩
The separation of workshop, office, of business in general and the private dwelling, of firm and name, of business capital and private wealth, the tendency to make of the business a corpus mysticum (at least in the case of corporate property) all lay in this direction. On this, see my “Handelsgesellschaften im Mittelalter” (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, pp. 312 ff.). ↩
Sombart in his Kapitalismus (first edition) has already well pointed out this characteristic phenomenon. It must, however, be noted that the accumulation of wealth springs from two quite distinct psychological sources. One reaches into the dimmest antiquity and is expressed in foundations, family fortunes, and trusts, as well as much more purely and clearly in the desire to die weighted down with a great burden of material goods; above all to insure the continuation of a business even at the cost of the personal
