Market Scene, Jan Van Horst

THE economic writer Werner Sombart (1863-1941) described the “buy local” spirit of European economic life before the rise of modern capitalism, when even advertising was considered unseemly:

The centre of this whole was the individual man. Whether as producer or as consumer, his interests determined the attitude of the community as of its units, determined the law regulating economic activities and the practices of commercial life. Every such law was personal in its intent; and all who contributed to the life of the nation had a personal outlook. Not that each person could do as he liked. On the contrary, a code of restrictions hedged about his activities in every direction. But the point is that the restrictions were born of the individualistic spirit. Commodities were produced and bought and sold in order that consumers might have their wants sufficiently satisfied. On the other hand, producers and traders were to receive fair wages and fair profits. What was fair, and what sufficient for your need, tradition and custom determined.

And so, producer and trader should receive as much as was demanded by the standard of comfort in their station in life. That was the mediaeval view; it was also the view current in the early capitalistic age, even where business was carried on along more or less modern lines. We find its expression in the industrial codes of the day, and its justification in the commercial literature.

Hence, to make profit was looked upon by most people throughout the period as improper, as ” unchristian ” ; the old economic teaching of Thomas Aquinas was observed, at least officially. The religious or ethical rule was still supreme; there was as yet no sign of the liberation of economic life from its religious and ethical bonds. Every action, no matter in what sphere, was done with a view to the Highest Tribunal — the will of God. Need it be pointed out that the attitude of Mammon was as opposed to this as pole is to pole?

He continued:

Producer and trader should receive sufficient for their need. One outstanding result of this principle was strictly to circumscribe each man’s activity in his locality. Competition was therefore quite out of the question. In his own sphere a man might work as he willed — when, how, where — in accordance with tradition and custom. But to cast a look at his neighbour’s sphere — that he was forbidden to do. Just as the peasant received his holding — so much field, with pasture and woodland, as would keep him and his family, just as he never even dreamt of adding to his possessions, so, too, the craftsman and the merchant were to rest content with their portions and never covet their neighbour’s. The peasant had his land, the town-dweller his customers : in either case they were the source whence sprang his livelihood ; in either case they were of a size sufficient for the purpose. Hence, the trader had to be assured of his custom, and many were the ordinances which guarded him against com- petition. Besides, it was commercial etiquette. You did not run after your customers. You waited until they came, 44 and then ” (in the words of De Foe’s sermon), ” with God’s blessing and his own care, he may expect his share of trade with his neighbours.” 2 99 The merchant who attended fairs did not do otherwise ; ” day and night he waits at his stall.” 3*>

To take away your neighbour’s customers was contemptible, unchristian, and immoral. A rule forMerchants who trade in commodities was: “Turn no man’s customers away from him, either by word of mouth or by letter, and do not to another what you would not have another do to you.” It was, however, more than a rule; it became an ordinance, and is met with over and over again. In Mayence its wording was as follows: “No one shall prevent another from buying, or by offering a higher price make a commodity dearer, on pain of losing his purchase; no one shall interfere in another’s business undertaking, or carry on his own on so large a scale as to ruin other traders.” In Saxony it was much the same. No shopkeeper shall call away the customers from another’s shop, nor shall he by signs or motions keep them from buying.”

But to attract customers even without interfering with your neighbour’s business was regarded as unworthy. As late as the early 18th century in London itself it was not considered proper for a shopkeeper to dress his window tastefully, and so lure purchasers. De Foe, no less than his later editors, did not mince words in expressing his contempt for such a course, of which, as he mentions apparently with some satisfaction, only a few bakers and toymen were guilty. To the things that were not permitted belonged also advertising your business and praising your wares. The gentle art of advertising first appeared in Holland some- time about the middle of the 17th century, in England towards its end, in France much later. The Ghentsche Post-Tijdingen, founded in 1667, contained the first business advertisement in its issue of October 3rd of that year. At this time none of the London news-sheets published advertisements ; even after the Great Fire not one business thought of advertising its new address. It was not until 1682, when John Houghton established The Collection for the Improvement of Husbandry and Trade, that the merchant community of London became accustomed to utilizing the Press as a medium for advertising. This had been preceded by the practice, in a small way, of distributing bills in the streets to passers-by.

[Source] [emphases added]

Please follow and like us: