“…The reviewer seems to equate aversion against usury with aversion against interest payments (Hodgson, 2020: 2 and 9). Usury (making use of the distress of other people by requiring extraordinarily high interest rates) indeed was opposed, as many still disapprove of it nowadays, but this did not stand in the way of the rise of interest-bearing loans and extensive financial markets, for instance in 9th-century Islamic Iraq, where a main role was played by private bankers, money exchangers and other financial intermediaries – not by the state as suggested by the reviewer (van Bavel, 2016: 59–60 and 74–76; van Bavel et al ., 2014). The same in catholic Italy and the Low Countries, where, despite canonical usury laws, all kinds of interest-bearing ‘sale and lease’ constructions were employed from the high Middle Ages, followed by extensive markets for private and public debts and, later, the introduction of the formalized mortgage (De Luca and Lorenzini, 2018; Zuijderduijn, 2009: 139–182, 227–247).…”