A critical response to: Bruce L. Benson’s, "Enterprise of Customary Law"

          Although Bruce L. Benson’s, Enterprise of Customary Law was an informative paper full of useful information, it failed to address several key issues concerning mercantile law. For example, by conveniently omitting the role of religion in mercantile law, Benson missed an important lynchpin that should have been addressed. Additionally, by completely ignoring the banking and mercantile roles of both the Catholic and Jewish religions, Benson then missed the opportunity to better discuss how and why middlemen developed. Instead, Benson restated the over simplified thesis that middle men developed because extreme distances meant it was unlikely buyers and sellers would meet in person, and therefore would never develop lasting and trusting relationships. However, that oversimplification ignores the relationship between the Christian and Jewish faiths and the role of the government. Additionally, by ignoring those relationships, Benson failed to show how that relationship not only changed over time, and how it directly led to the demonizing of the Jewish people. 

Benson could have addressed that demonizing issue quite easily by stating the basic premiss of exchange was an exchange where both parties expected something of more value than what was given up, Benson stated those distances made exchanges more difficult. While true, the argument completely ignores the question of why middle men should spring up at all? Christian laws made lending money at a profit illegal. However, the laws were circumvented by merchants and others using Jewish merchants and bankers. 

Benson’s text only coved the first two chapters of his book, and for al I know, Benson could have ultimately addressed the issue later, but by failing to make mention the role religion played in the mercantile industry during the first two chapters, not only did Benson miss an important opportunity to discuss the Jewish question, but also the opportunity to show how the mercantile exchanges of Church medallions ultimately bifurcated the Church, while simultaneously causing the Jewish people to be seen as evil within the Christian and Muslim worlds, ultimately leading to the many atrocities against the Jewish people. 

However that was not the only historical issue Benson also failed to make note of. In his treatment of England, Benson failed to recognize the mercantile role in the war between Spain’s Philip II, and Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen of England. By completely failing to show how merchants in the latter half of the sixteenth century not only led to the destruction of the Spanish Armada, and ultimately led to the emergence of England as an important naval power and mercantile trader; Benson failed to adequately explain how both changed the world outside Europe. 

In conclusion, Benson claimed Merchant Law “evolved into a universal legal system through a process of natural selection.” Although he correctly stated merchants transacted business across international boundaries, however, without also examining the roles of both the Church and State, Benson’s first two chapters failed to make use of helpful and important discussions that should have been addressed. Instead, Benson chose to keep the discussion secular. While can be good from a scientific review, from a historical perspective it weakened his overall conclusion because, as demonstrated by Philip II, who declared bankruptcy several times while Elizabeth I did not, merchants supported Elizabeth I and simultaneously turned their collective backs on Philip II. Therefore, by not addressing the historical significances that change the world, Benson missed opportunities he should have exploited.