fbpx
01 / 05
Grim Old Days: A. Roger Ekirch’s At Day’s Close, Part 2

Blog Post | Human Development

Grim Old Days: A. Roger Ekirch’s At Day’s Close, Part 2

What was the world really like when nightfall meant fear, filth, and fire?

Summary: A. Roger Ekirch’s book offers a vivid and unsettling portrait of life after dark before the modern era. In a world lit dimly by candles and haunted by both real and imagined dangers, the setting sun marked the beginning of fear, vulnerability, and isolation. From rampant crime to ghostly superstitions, nocturnal life was fraught with hardship, mystery, and menace that shaped how generations lived.


Read part one of the book review.

The historian A. Roger Ekirch’s book At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past provides a fascinating window into our ancestors’ world. The book provides insight into everything from the nocturnal dangers they faced, such as the threats of crime and fire, to their deeply uncomfortable sleeping arrangements. For excerpts from the book on that last subject, click here.

Nighttime in the past was far darker than today. Lighting was of poor quality and prohibitively expensive. “Preindustrial families were constrained by concerns for both safety and frugality.” Indeed, “even the best-read people remained sparing with candlelight. In his diary for 1743, the Reverend Edward Holyoke, then president of Harvard, noted that on May 22 and 23 his household made 78 pounds of candles. Less than six months later, the diary records in its line-a-day style, ‘Candles all gone.’”

Use of candles during the day was widely considered so extravagantly wasteful that it was avoided even by the wealthy. In 1712, the rich Virginia planter William Byrd II recorded finding an enslaved woman on his plantation named Prue “with a candle by daylight” for which he barbarically “gave her a salute with [his] foot” (in other words, kicked her). Jonathan Swift advised servants to never light candles “until half an hour after it be dark” to avoid facing wrath.

Most people, of course, had no servants (free or enslaved) and even fewer candles to spare. “At all hours of the evening, families often had to navigate their homes in the dark, carefully feeling their way” and relying on familiarity with the house. “Individuals long committed to memory the internal topography of their dwellings, including the exact number of steps in every flight of stairs.” The wood stair railing of a plantation in colonial Maryland features a distinctive notch to alert candle-less climbers of an abrupt turn.

“All would be horror without candles,” noted a 16th-century writer. Yet “light from a single electric bulb is one hundred times stronger than was light from a candle or oil lamp.” Although they were the best form of artificial lighting our ancestors knew, candles created only small and flickering areas of light. Rather than completely filling a room as artificial light does today with the flick of a light switch, candle light merely “cast a faint presence in the blackness,” not reaching the ceiling or the end of a room and leaving most of one’s surroundings still drenched in darkness. Even objects within the reach of the pitifully small pool of light could appear distorted. A French saying mocking the poor quality of candle illumination stated, “By candle-light a goat is lady-like.

“Prices fluctuated over time, but never did wax . . .  candles become widely accessible. . . . Tallow candles, by contrast, offered a less expensive alternative. The mainstay of many families, their shaft consisted of animal fat, preferably rendered from mutton that was sometimes mixed with beef callow. (Hog fat, which emitted a thick black smoke, did not burn nearly as well, though early Americans were known to employ bear and deer fat.)” Vermin found such candles delectable. “Tallow candles required careful storage so that they would neither melt nor fall prey to hungry rodents.” Unpleasantly, candles “made from tallow gave off a rancid smell from impurities in the fat. . . . Wicks not only flickered, but also spat, smoked and smelled. . . . Still, despite such drawbacks, even aristocratic households depended upon them for rudimentary needs,” as wax candles were so expensive.

“Only toward the eighteenth century did cities and towns take half-steps to render public spaces accessible at night.” The average person remained indoors after sunset. “For most persons, the customary name for nightfall was ‘shutting-in,’ a time to bar doors and bolt shutters.”

Centuries later, little had changed. “Across the preindustrial countryside, fortified cities and towns announced the advance of darkness by ringing bells, beating or blowing horns from atop watchtowers, ramparts, and church steeples.” As rural peasants retreated into their homes, “townspeople hurried home before massive wooden gates, reinforced by heavy beams, shut for the evening and guards hoisted drawbridges wherever moats and trenches formed natural perimeters.” The writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote of his panic as he rushed toward Geneva’s barred gates: “About half a league from the city, I hear the retreat sounding; I hurry up; I hear the drum being beaten, so I run at full speed: I get there all out of breath, and perspiring; my heart is beating; from far away. I see the soldiers from their lookouts; I run, I scream with a choked voice. It was too late.” When the Swiss writer Thomas Platter (1499–1582) found himself locked outside Munich’s city gate, he was reduced to seeking overnight shelter at a “leper-house.” In one French town, when a guard rang the bell signaling the gates were closing a half-hour too early, “Such was the mad crush of panicked crowds as they neared the gate that more than one hundred persons perished, most trampled in the stampede, others pushed from the drawbridge, including a coach and six horses. For his rapacity, the guardsman was broken upon the wheel. . . . Just to approach ramparts without warning at night constituted a crime.”

The time of shutting-in varied with the length of the day. “In winter, when darkness came on quickly, they could shut as early as four o’clock.” Laws even banned leaving one’s home at night. “In 1068, William the Conqueror (ca. 1028–1087) allegedly set a national curfew in England of eight o’clock.” Streets were blockaded to further discourage venturing outside after nightfall. “Lending weight to curfews, massive iron chains, fastened by heavy padlocks, blocked thoroughfares in cities from Copenhagen to Parma . . .  Nuremberg alone maintained more than four hundred. In Moscow, instead of chains, logs were laid across lanes to discourage nightwalkers. Paris officials in 1405 set all of the city’s farriers to forging chains to cordon off not just streets but also the Seine.” In the early 1600s, one writer noted of the French town of Saint-malo: “In the dusk of the evening a bell is rung to warn all that are without the walls to retire into the town: then ye gates are shut, and eight or ten couple of hungry mastiffs turn’d out to range about town all night. . . . Courts everywhere exacted stiffer punishments for nighttime offences” than daytime ones. For example: “For thefts committed after the curfew bell, towns in Sweden decreed the death penalty.”

Toward the end of the Middle Ages, 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. became the standard “hour for withdrawing indoors” in much of Europe.

After nightfall, “for the most part, streets remained dark.” Even where early attempts at street lighting were made, they were seldom adequate. “As late as 1775 a visitor to Paris noted, ‘This town is large, stinking, & ill lighted.’ . . . Lamps in Dublin, as late as 1783, were spaced one hundred yards apart just enough, complained a visitor, to show the ‘danger of falling into a cellar.’”

Sunsets were seldom considered beautiful. “Rarely did preindustrial folk pause to ponder the beauty of day’s departure.” Instead, most surviving descriptions of sundown were characterized by anxiety. “Begins the night, and warns us home repair,” wrote one Stuart poet.

Most ordinary people feared nighttime. “We lie in the shadow of death at night, our dangers are so great,” noted one English author in 1670. Shakespeare’s Lucrece calls nighttime a “black stage for tragedies and murders” and “vast sin-concealing chaos.” “According to Roman poet Juvenal, pedestrians prowling the streets of early Rome after sunset risked life and limb” because the darkness hid so many threats. Centuries later, similar warnings are recorded: “Except in extreme necessity, take care not to go out at night,” advised the Italian writer Sabba da Castiglione (c. 1480–1554).

Many cultures widely believed that demons, ghosts, evil spirits, and other supernatural threats would emerge after sundown, hiding in the all-encompassing darkness. “Evil spirits love not the smell of lamps,” noted Plato. “In African cultures like the Yoruba and Ibo peoples of Nigeria and the Ewe of Dahomey and Togoland, spirits assumed the form of witches at night, sowing misfortune and death in their wake.” The most feared time of night was often the “dead of night,” between midnight and the crowing of roosters (roughly 3 a.m.), which the Ancient Romans called intempesta, “without time.” The crowing was thought to scare away nocturnal demons.

Hence, “in the centuries preceding the Industrial Revolution, evening appeared fraught with menace. Darkness in the early modern world summoned the worst elements in man, nature, and the cosmos. Murderers and thieves, terrible calamities, and satanic spirits lurked everywhere.”

The night was filled with terrors both real and imagined. Fear of the night was ancient. In Greek mythology, Nyx, the personification of night and daughter of Chaos, counted among her children Disease, Strife, and Doom.

The Talmud, an ancient religious text, warns, “Never greet a stranger in the night, for he may be a demon.” After all, darkness hid “vital aspects of identity in the preindustrial world.” At night, “friends were taken for foes, and shadows for phantoms.” Ghostly nighttime encounters were widely reported throughout the preindustrial age, as widely held superstitions combined with a dearth of proper lighting to create traumatic experiences in the minds of many of our ancestors. “There was not a village in England without a ghost in it, the churchyards were all haunted, every large common had a circle of fairies belonging to it, and there was scarce a shepherd to be met with who had not seen a spirit,” an 18th-century writer in the Spectator claimed. “The late eighteenth-century folklorist Francis Grose estimated that the typical churchyard contained nearly as many ghosts at night as the village had parishioners.” Fear of such folkloric creatures was near-universal. Most ordinary people felt genuine, acute distress regarding the pantheon of evil spirits they feared lurked in the night:

Especially in rural areas, residents were painfully familiar with the wickedness of local spirits, known in England by such names as the “Barguest of York,” “Long Margery,” and “Jinny Green-Teeth.” Among the most common tormenters were fairies. In England, their so-called king was Robin Good-fellow, a trickster. . . . “The honest people,” if we may believe a visitor to Wales, “are terrified about these little fellows,” and in Ireland Thomas Campbell reported in 1777, “The fairy mythology is swallowed with the wide throat of credulity.” . . . Dobbies, who dwelt near towers and bridges, reportedly attacked on horseback. An extremely malicious order of fairies, the duergars, haunted parts of Northumberland in northern England, while a band in Scotland, the kelpies, bedeviled rivers and ferries. Elsewhere, the people of nearly every European culture believed in a similar race of small beings notorious for nocturnal malevolence.

In the minds of our ancestors, every shadow might hide trolls, elves, sprites, goblins, imps, foliots, and more. A favorite prank of young men was to affix “candles onto the backs of animals to give the appearance of ghosts.” The impenetrable darkness of the night before humanity harnessed electricity gave rise to imagined horrors beyond modern comprehension.

Other denizens of the nocturnal world included banshees in Ireland whose dismal cries warned of impending death; the ar cannerez, French washwomen known to drown passersby who refused to assist them; and vampires in Hungary, Silesia, and other parts of Eastern Europe who sucked their victims’ blood. . .  As late as 1755, authorities in a small town in Moravia exhumed the bodies of suspected vampires in order to pierce their hearts and sever their heads before setting the corpses ablaze. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, reports of werewolves pervaded much of Central Europe and sections of France along the Swiss border, notably the Jura and the Franche-Comté. The surgeon Johann Dietz witnessed a crowd of villagers in the northern German town of Itzehoe chase a werewolf with spears and stakes. Even Paris suffered sporadic attacks. In 1683, a werewolf on the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce road supposedly savaged a party that included several priests.

And that is not all that the darkness ostensibly hid. “Known as boggles, boggarts, and wafts, ghosts reportedly resumed their mortal likenesses at night.” It was popularly believed that those who died by suicide were doomed to wander the night for all eternity as ghosts, and such ghosts were sometimes thought to assume the form of animals such as dogs.

Ghosts afflicted numerous communities, often repeatedly, like the Bagbury ghost in Shropshire or Wiltshire’s Wilton dog. Apparitions grew so common in the Durham village of Blackburn, complained Bishop Francis Pilkington in 1564, that none in authority dared to dispute their authenticity. Common abodes included crossroads fouled by daily traffic, which were also a customary burial site for suicides. After the self-inflicted death in 1726 of an Exeter weaver, his apparition appeared to many at a crossroads. “‘Tis certain,” reported a newspaper, “that a young woman of his neighbourhood was so scared and affrighted by his pretended shadow” that she died within two days. Sometimes no spot seemed safe. Even the urbane. [English writer Samuel] Pepys feared that his London home might be haunted. The 18th-century folklorist John Brand recalled hearing many stories as a boy of a nightly specter in the form of a fierce mastiff that roamed the streets of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Material problems sometimes exacerbated such anxieties. Amid an episode of widespread starvation in Poland, one observer in 1737 opined, “This calamity has sunk the spirits of the people so low, that at [Kamieniec], they imagine they see spectres and apparitions of the dead, in the streets at night, who kill all persons they touch or speak to.”

Such superstitions inspired a feeling of terror that was all too real and could result in actual deaths. Sometimes our forebears literally died of fright, experiencing cardiac arrest from the sheer shock of glimpsing sights in the darkness that they interpreted to be fairies or other such entities. And ordinary people accused of being witches or werewolves could face execution. “In Cumberland, of fifty-five deaths arising from causes other than ‘old age’ reported in the parish register of Lamplugh during a five-year period from 1658 to 1662, as many as seven persons had been ‘bewitched.’ Four more were ‘frighted to death by fairies,’ one was ‘led into a horse pond by a will of the wisp,’ and three ‘old women’ were ‘drownd’ [sic] after being convicted of witchcraft.” (Note that fairies were considered dangerous, not adorable; an 18th-century rebel group of agrarian peasants in Ireland even adopted the moniker of fairies “to intimidate their adversaries”).

Many deaths attributed to legendary beings hiding in the darkness were caused by the darkness itself. Lethal nighttime accidents were common because of the poor state of lighting. “On most streets before the late 1600s, the light from households and pedestrians’ lanterns afforded the sole sources of artificial illumination. Thus the Thames and the Seine claimed numerous lives, owing to falls from wharves and bridges, as did canals like the Leidsegracht in Amsterdam and Venice’s Grand Canal.” Canals, unguarded ditches, ponds, and open pits of varying kinds were far more commonplace in the past, as concern for safety was considerably lower than in the present. “Many people fell into wells, often left unguarded with no wall or railing. If deep enough, it made little difference whether dry”—the fall was sufficient to cause death. Straying from a familiar route could prove lethal. “In Aberdeenshire, a fifteen-year-old girl died in 1739 after straying from her customary path through a churchyard and tumbling into a newly dug grave.

“Even the brightest torch illuminated but a small radius, permitting one, on a dark night, to see little more than what lay just ahead.” Wind could blow out a torch or lantern in an instant. William Shakespeare described the frequent horror of “night wand’rers” upon seeing their “light blown out in some mistrustful wood” in his poem Venus and Adonis (1593). Traveling when the moon was bright could be the difference between life and death; by the 1660s, one in every three English families bought almanacs forecasting the lunar phases, and in colonial America, such almanacs “represented the most popular publication after the Bible.” In parts of England, the evening star (the planet Venus) was known as the Shepherd’s Lamp for its role in helping the poor navigate the night. An overcast sky could, of course, deprive a traveler of any celestial light from the stars or moon. Spaniards called such occasions noché ciéga, blind nights.

Making nocturnal navigation even harder, ordinary people in the past were rarely fully sober. This lack of sobriety, when combined with darkness, could lead to confusion and accidents. “A New England newspaper in 1736 printed a list of more than two hundred synonyms for drunkenness. Included were ‘knows not the way home’ and ‘He sees two moons’ to describe people winding their way in the late evening.” In some cases, intoxication contributed to hallucinations of the supernatural and to deadly accidents. In Derby in England, one preindustrial “inebriated laborer snored so loudly after falling by the side of a road that he was mistaken for a mad dog and shot.” Similarly tragic episodes abounded. “On a winter night in 1725, a drunken man stumbled into a London well, only to die from his injuries after a neighbor ignored his cries for help, fearing instead a demon.”

When natural phenomena illuminated the night unexpectedly, our forebears often reacted with distress. Examples of such sources of illumination included comets, aurora borealis, and swamp gas lights (caused by the oxidation of decaying matter in marshlands releasing photons). Many people took swamp gas lights to be a supernatural occurrence, termed will-o’-the-wisps.

All unusual nocturnal lights inspired terror and wonder in the people of the past, who often understood the lights as supernatural signs or portents. A comet in 1719 “struck all that saw it into great terror,” according to an English vicar, who noted that “many” people “fell to [the] ground” and “swooned” in fear. “All my family were up and in tears . . . the heavens flashing in perpetual flames,” wrote George Booth of Chester in 1727, when the aurora borealis, usually only visible farther north, made a rare appearance in England’s night sky and caused panic. One colonist in Connecticut “reportedly sacrificed his wife,” killing her in the hope that a human sacrifice might appease the heavens, upon seeing an unexpected light overhead (likely a comet). Occasionally, unexpected natural light sources could prove helpful. “Only the flash from a sudden bolt of lightning, one ‘very dark’ August night in 1693, kept the merchant Samuel Jeake from tumbling over a pile of wood in the middle of the road near his Sussex home.” More often, unanticipated lights in the darkness led to tragedy. “‘Pixy led’ was a term reserved in western England . . . for nocturnal misadventures attributed to will-o’-the-wisps.” Many deaths by drowning resulted from our forebears’ rash reactions to the sight of such “pixies” (in actuality, swamp gas).

Other nocturnal dangers were all too human, although they might pretend otherwise. “In Dijon during the fifteenth century, it was common for burglars to impersonate the devil, to the terror of both households and their neighbors. Sheep-stealers in England frightened villagers by masquerading as ghosts.” In 1660, the German legal scholar Jacobus Andreas Crusius claimed, “Experience shows that very often famous thieves are also wizards.” Many criminals indeed attempted to perform magic through grotesque superstitious rituals. “Some murderers hoped to escape capture by consuming a meal from atop their victim’s corpse. In 1574, a man was executed for slaying a miller one night and forcing his wife, whom he first assaulted, to join him in eating fried eggs from the body.” And that was not all.

The most notorious charm, the “thief’s candle,” found ready acceptance in most parts of Europe. The candle was fashioned from either an amputated finger or the fat of a human corpse, leading to the frequent mutilation of executed criminals. Favored, too, were fingers severed from the remains of stillborn infants. . . . To enhance the candle’s potency, the hands of dead criminals, known as Hands of Glory, were sometimes employed as candlesticks. Not unknown were savage attacks on pregnant women whose wombs were cut open to extract their young: In 1574, Nicklauss Stiller of Aydtsfeld was convicted of this on three occasions, for which he was “torn thrice with red-hot tongs” and executed upon the wheel (In Germany, a thief’s candle was called a Diebeskerze.). . . . Before entering a home in 1586 a German vagabond ignited the entire hand of a dead infant, believing that the unburned fingers signified the number of persons still awake. Even in the late eighteenth century, four men were charged in Castlelyons, Ireland, with unearthing the recently interred corpse of a woman and removing her fat for a thief’s candle.

Many households also turned to attempts at magic to defend against thieves and monsters, using “amulets, ranging from horse skulls to jugs known as ‘witch-bottles,’ which typically held an assortment of magical items. Contents salvaged from excavated jugs have included pins, nails, human hair, and dried urine.” Some hung wolves’ heads over doors. “To keep demons from descending chimneys, suspending the heart of a bullock or pig over the hearth, preferably stuck with pins and thorns, was a ritual precaution in western England. . . . In Somerset, the shriveled hearts of more than fifty pigs were discovered in a single fireplace.”

Fear of not only evil spirits but of such flesh-and-blood criminals lurking in the darkness kept most people indoors. In 1718, London’s City Marshal noted, “It is the general complaint of the taverns, the coffeehouses, the shopkeepers and others, that their customers are afraid when it is dark to come to their houses and shops for fear that their hats and wigs should be snitched from their heads or their swords taken from their sides, or that they may be blinded, knocked down, cut or stabbed. . . . As late as the mid-eighteenth century, a Londoner complained of the ‘armies of Hell’ that ‘ravage our streets’ and ‘keep possession of the town every night.’” Almost anyone who ventured outside did so armed. “As soon as night falls, you cannot go out without a buckler and a coat of mail,” opined a visitor to Valencia in 1603.

On a night in Venice, a young English lady suddenly heard a scream followed by a “curse, a splash and a gurgle,” as a body was dumped from a gondola into the Grand Canal. “Such midnight assassinations,” her escort explained, “are not uncommon here.” First light in Denmark revealed corpses floating in rivers and canals from the night before, just as bloated bodies littered the Tagus and the Seine. Parisian officials strung nets across the water to retrieve corpses. . . . In Moscow, so numerous were street murders that authorities dragged corpses each morning to the Zemskii Dvor [Zemsky Court] for families to claim. In London . . . Samuel Johnson warned in 1739, “Prepare for death, if here at night you roam, and sign your will before you sup from home.”

“On moonless nights in many Italian cities, young men called ‘Bravos’ prowled as paid assassins.” In some cases, affluent and highborn youths roamed the night looking for a fight: ”Some cities saw the rise of nocturnal gangs composed of blades with servants and retainers in tow.” Most ruffians and thieves hiding in the darkness were common people out to commit robbery, not bored young noblemen hoping to enter a swordfight. “During the late sixteenth century, pedestrians in Vienna or Madrid rarely felt safe after dark. Foot-pads [thieves] rendered Paris streets menacing, a visitor discovered in 1620; one hundred years later, a resident wrote that ‘seldom not a night passes but some body is found murdered.’”

In London in 1712, a gang called the Mohocks terrorized the population: “Besides knifing pedestrians in the face, they stood women on their heads, ‘misusing them in a barbarous manner.’” The poet Jonathan Swift so feared that gang that he made a point of coming home early. “They shan’t cut mine [face],” he reasoned.

A lack of proper lighting afforded criminals ample cover to commit crimes. In 1681, the British dramatist John Crowne observed that night is “The time when cities are set on fire; / When robberies and murders are committed.”

Indeed, nocturnal crime was so common that a dictionary in 1585 defined thieves as felons “that sleepeth by day” so that they “may steale by night.” Surviving records suggest most preindustrial crimes occurred at night. “In the eighteenth century, nearly three-quarters of thefts in rural Somerset occurred after dark, as did 60 percent in the Libournais region of France.” “Of Italian peasants, a poem, ‘De Natura Rusticorum,’ railed: “At night they make their way, as the owls, / and they steal as robbers.”

Even indoors, nocturnal thefts were so common as to be unremarkable. In 1666, Samuel Pepys awoke “much frighted” by the noise of a theft, but upon realizing the thief was merely robbing a neighbor and not Pepys’s own home, he went back to sleep feeling relieved. Urban areas were not the only sites of crime. Bands of thieves roamed the countryside. “Bands of a half-dozen or more members were typical, as were violent break-ins. . . . Wooden doors were smashed open with battering rams and shutters bashed apart by staves. Gaping holes were cut through walls of wattle and daub. Nine thieves in 1674 stormed into the Yorkshire home of Samuel Sunderland. After binding every member of the household, they escaped with £2500.” Criminal gangs were more common in some areas than others. “French gangs, known as chauffeurs, grew notorious for torturing families with fire.” Criminals either carried no lights or “dark lanterns,” which emit light from only one side. (Merely possessing such a lantern constituted a crime in Rome and could lead to imprisonment).

In preindustrial societies, violence left few realms of daily life unscathed. Wives, children and servants were flogged, bears baited, cats massacred, and dogs hanged like thieves. Swordsmen dueled, peasants brawled, and witches burned. . . . Short tempers and long draughts made for a fiery mix, especially when stoked by the monotony and despair of unremitting poverty. The incidence of murder during the early modem era was anywhere from five to ten times higher than the rate of homicide in England today. Even recent murder rates in the United States fall dramatically below those for European communities during the sixteenth century. While no social rank was spared, the lower orders bore the brunt of the brutality.

The thieves of the past were not picky and would even pry “lead from the roofs of dwellings.” After all:

Economic necessity begot most nocturnal license. With subsistence a never-ending struggle, impoverished households naturally turned to poaching, smuggling, or scavenging food and fuel. The common people are thieves and beggars,” wrote Tobias Smollett, “and I believe this is always the case with people who are extremely indigent and miserable.”

“The working poor also took precautions, for even the most mundane items—food, clothing, and household goods—attracted thieves.” Each household, however humble, barricaded itself as night fell. “Doors, shutters, and windows were closed tight and latched.” Throughout most of history, locks were feeble and easily picked. “Not until the introduction of the ‘tumbler’ lock in the eighteenth century would keyholes better withstand the prowess of experienced thieves. In the meantime, families resorted to double locks on exterior doors, bolstered from within by padlocks and iron bars. . . . Also common, naturally, for those who could afford the expense, was the practical use of candlelight to ward off thieves. . . . In the Auvergne of France, so alarmed by crime were peasants in the mid-1700s that an official reported, ‘These men keep watch with a lamp burning all night, afraid of the approach of thieves.’”

While darkness caused lethal accidents, offered cover for crimes, and terrified our ancestors with the fear that the night might hide supernatural threats, fire could also kill. Understandable fear of fire motivated brutal punishments for arsonists and would-be arsonists. “A mob in 1680, upon learning that a woman had threatened to burn the town of Wakefield, carried her off to a dung heap, where she lay all night after first being whipped. A worse fate befell a Danish boatman and his wife, upon trying to set the town of Randers ablaze. After being dragged through every street and repeatedly ‘pinched’ with ‘glowing tongs,’ they were burned alive.” A 24-year-old University of Paris student was burned alive for arson in 1557. In Denmark, beheading was the usual punishment for arson. After a Stockholm bellringer failed to sound the alarm when a fire flared in 1504, he “was ordered to be broken on the rack, until pleas for mercy resulted instead in his beheading.”

Candles, hearth flames, and poorly cleaned or designed chimneys all posed constant fire hazards. “Some homes lacked chimneys altogether, to the consternation of anxious neighbors. Complaining that John Taylor, both a brewer and a baker, had twice nearly set his Wiltshire community ablaze from not having a chimney, petitioners in 1624 pleaded that his license be revoked. Of their absence in an Irish village, John Dunton observed, ‘When the fire is lighted, the smoke will come through the thatch, so that you would think the cabin were on fire.’”

Most ordinary homes among the impoverished masses were infested with vermin, and rats and candles proved a highly combustible combination. Flickering candles “made tempting targets for hungry rats and mice. Samuel Sewall of Boston attributed a fire within his closet to a mouse’s taste for tallow.” The Old Farmer’s Almanack advised placing candles “in such a situation as to be out of the way of rats.”

“Despite the introduction of fire engines in cities by the mid-seventeenth century, most firefighting tools were primitive,” the fire engines being mere tubs of water transported by runners on long poles or wheels. Rather than assisting in fighting the flames, neighbors often robbed burning homes. “Fireside thefts were endemic.” In England, “So routine was this form of larceny that Parliament legislated in 1707 against ‘ill-disposed persons’ found ‘stealing and pilfering from the inhabitants’ of burning homes.” “There was much thieving at the fire,” noted the Pennsylvania Gazette of a 1730 Philadelphia blaze.

“Often, barely a year passed before some town or city in England experienced disaster. From 1500 to 1800, at least 421 fires in provincial towns consumed ten or more houses apiece with as many as 46 fires during that period destroying one hundred or more houses each.” England was hardly unique in this regard. Across the preindustrial world, fires raged:

Fires spread terror from Amsterdam to Moscow, where an early morning blaze in 1737 took several thousand lives. Few cities escaped at least one massive disaster. . . . Toulouse was all but consumed in 1463, as was Bourges in 1487, and practically a quarter of Troyes in 1534. The better part of Rennes was destroyed in 1720 during a conflagration that raged for seven days. . . . Boston lost 150 buildings in 1679 after a smaller blaze just three years before. Major fires again broke out in Boston in 1711 and in 1760 when flames devoured nearly 400 homes and commercial buildings. . . . While New York and Philadelphia each suffered minor calamities, a fire gutted much of Charleston in 1740.

Rural areas were not necessarily safer from the threat of fires. The Danish writer Ludvig Holberg (1684–1754) observed, “Villages were laid out with the houses so close together that, when one house burned down, the entire village had to follow suit.” After all, rural construction materials were highly flammable. “Once ignited, a thatch roof, made from reeds or straw, was nearly impossible to save.”

ScienceDirect | Trust

People Overestimate the Actual Dishonesty of Others

“Do people believe that others are similarly, more, or less dishonest than they truly are? The accuracy of dishonesty beliefs is not only important for psychological knowledge, but also has implications for organizations and policymaking. In this paper, Study 1 presents a research program on moral decision-making comprising 31 different effects from 11 experiments, where participants could anonymously lie for personal gain. Crucially, participants were also asked to estimate what percentage of other people would lie in the same situation. An internal meta-analysis summarizing all belief-behavior comparisons revealed that people substantially overestimate others’ dishonest behavior (g = 0.61; k = 31; N = 8126), by 13.6 percentage points on average. This effect holds across study contexts and participants’ own behavior, and 63.5% of participants overestimated dishonesty by 5 percentage points or more (only 25.4% underestimated it). We then examined potential consequences of biased dishonesty beliefs in three pre-registered follow-up studies. Study 2 (N = 981) found that providing correct information about actual honesty levels enhanced general prosocial expectations (e.g., trustworthiness, fairness). Study 3 (N = 285) revealed that professional managers have pessimistic beliefs also about people’s real-world dishonesty (e.g., insurance fraud, workplace theft), and moral pessimism predicted greater support for freedom-restrictive countermeasures to reduce dishonesty (e.g., surveillance). Study 4 (N = 741) demonstrated that providing managers with correct information about actual honesty levels causally reduced their support for freedom-restrictive countermeasures. In conclusion, the pessimistic bias in dishonesty beliefs about others is robust, and it shapes prosocial expectations and policy preferences.”

From ScienceDirect.

Blog Post | Trust

Why Free Economies Are Honest Economies

Market freedom rewards honesty. Regulation breeds corruption.

Summary: Many people assume that markets breed dishonesty, but the opposite is true. Commerce depends on trust. Repeated exchange and reputation make honesty not just virtuous, but profitable. When trade is open and competition thrives, deceit is punished and integrity is rewarded. By contrast, heavy regulation invites corruption and favoritism. A truly commercial society, grounded in voluntary exchange and mutual accountability, is also a more honest and trustworthy one.


In my previous essays, I argued that a trade society is both a prosperous and trust-based society. Trust and trustworthiness in society revolve around norms of honesty. Dishonesty breeds distrust and frays the threads of our social fabric. Some may worry that dishonesty is the lifeblood of a commercial society: a system that runs on lies, with an every-man-for-himself attitude and shady opportunists around every corner. In fact, greater honesty is best achieved through reputational pressures and the mutual accountability that is fostered by frequent exchange; frequent exchange is enabled by the removal of corrupting restrictions.

In his Lectures on Jurisprudence, the Scottish economist Adam Smith described the commercial society in the following terms:

Whenever commerce is introduced into any country, probity and punctuality always accompany it . . . Of all the nations in Europe … the most commercial, are the most faithfull to their word … A dealer is afraid of losing his character, and is scrupulous in observing every engagement … When people seldom deal with one another, we find that they are somewhat disposed to cheat … When the greater part of people are merchants they always bring probity and punctuality into fashion, and these therefore are the principal virtues of a commercial nation.

In Smith’s view, fear of reputational damage and unemployment prevents fraud and dishonesty. He believed that success within a commercial society stems from “prudent, just, firm, and temperate conduct” and “almost always depends upon the favour and good opinion of … neighbours and equals; and without a tolerably regular conduct these can very seldom be obtained. The good old proverb, therefore, that honesty is the best policy, holds, in such situations, almost always perfectly true.” For Smith, the market in many ways makes us accountable to each other: repeated dealings and fear of reputational damage incentivize honest behavior. And plenty of empirical evidence supports his outlook.

Laboratory experiments demonstrate that trade teaches participants whom to trust and whom not to. Dishonest behavior is punished in the marketplace, providing an incentive for participants to be honest in their dealings. For example, one study found that adding market competition to the experiment reduced sellers’ over-diagnosis of high-quality treatment (when lower-quality would suffice) and increased buyer trust. Another experiment found that introducing market competition into one-off exchanges boosted trust and efficiency to match that of trading networks built on repeated interactions. Adding market competition and private reputation information in one experiment tripled trust and trustworthiness while increasing efficiency tenfold. By practicing honesty to protect their reputations, trade participants eventually internalize honesty as a habit.

Conversely, trade restrictions lead to greater dishonesty. For example, Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption across numerous countries using multiple surveys of business people and country experts (Figure 1). Various studies that rely on the CPICPI have shown that a greater amount of international trade and foreign direct investment and low levels of state control of the economy curtail corruption. High levels of regulation—including regulation on trade—tend to be a strong predictor of corruption. Even seemingly small adjustments to trade procedures can make a difference. For example, the World Bank’s 2020 Doing Business report found that “economies that have adopted electronic means of compliance with regulatory requirements . . . experience a lower incidence of bribery.” That includes digital trade reforms such as electronic single-window systems, e-payments, paperless clearance, online certificate issuance, and more.

Figure 1. Corruption Perceptions Index scale

More recently, a 2023 study looked at firm-level data across 138 countries and confirmed that the imposition of more red tape in public services—such as import licenses—is associated with a greater tendency to pay bribes, particularly in nondemocratic countries. Similarly, a recent study found that India’s trade liberalization since the early 1990s, especially tariff reductions, significantly reduced the economic advantages of politically connected firms by decreasing their reliance on political favoritism. It appears that the friendlier a nation’s economy is to trade, the less corrupt it tends to be. Economic restrictions and regulations allow corruption to grow, instead of the economy. By reducing barriers, more trade is unleashed, which in turn promotes the “probity and punctuality” that Smith described.

When the level of economic freedom within countries is compared to their level of corruption, economically-free countries come out looking relatively clean. And the scores of the freest countries are more than twice as high as those of the least free countries (Figure 2). That’s because various aspects of economic freedom—including trade openness—are associated with less corruption. Freer trade makes reputation king, mitigating corrupt incentives and embedding honest norms throughout society.

Figure 2. Economic freedom and corruption

Source: Robert Lawson, Ryan Murphy, and Matthew D. Mitchell, “Economic Freedom of the World in 2022,” in Economic Freedom of the World: 2024 Annual Report, eds. James Gwartney, Robert Lawson, and Ryan Murphy (Fraser Institute, 2024), p. 33. Higher CPI scores denote less corruption.

As a case in point, East Germany suffered under severe trade restrictions prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. After testing randomly selected German citizens on their willingness to cheat at a die-rolling game, researchers found that those who had East German (communist) roots were significantly more likely to cheat compared to those with West German (capitalist) roots. It was also shown that the longer the person had exposure to communism and its trade barriers (i.e., those who were at least 20 years old when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 compared to those who were only 10 years old), the greater their likelihood to cheat.

These findings are supported by the work of the Mercatus Center’s Virgil Storr and Ginny Choi, who discovered a significant difference in attitudes between members of nonmarket and market societies: More than double the number of nonmarket residents versus market residents believe that avoiding fares on public transport, cheating on taxes, and bribery are justifiable. Those from nonmarket societies are also more accepting of theft compared to those from market societies (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Market versus nonmarket societies on dishonest behavior

Source: Virgil Henry Storr and Ginny Choi, Do Markets Corrupt Our Morals? (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), p. 172.

Follow-up studies by other researchers have drawn similar conclusions about market societies and honest behavior. For example, a 2023 study surveyed residents in both market and nonmarket societies on their attitudes toward claiming government benefits to which they are not entitled, avoiding fares on public transport, and cheating on taxes. After controlling for a number of variables, they found that those with greater exposure to markets were less likely to justify these dishonest actions. What’s more, individuals who preferred markets (“market thinking”) were also less likely to justify dishonesty. The researchers concluded that there is “a universal association between markets and morality” and “a robust association between an increase in market exposure and an increase in civic morality.”

Even within communist countries, research shows that the more trade-oriented areas tend to be the least corrupt. A study in China Economic Review employed the National Economic Research Institute (NERI) Index of Marketization, which measures five major fields of Chinese marketization with 23 indicators. Examining different provinces in China, the authors’ analysis found that deregulation and trade reduce corruption: a 1 percent increase in the marketization index leads to a 2.72 percent reduction in corruption. Regions that increased trade openness by 1 percent experienced a 0.35 percent reduction in corruption.

Overall, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that open economies stifle the spread of corruption and reinforce honest habits through reputation-building exchange. The removal of trade barriers allows for more commerce to take place and, consequently, more reputations to be a stake—a powerful incentive to keep honorable reputations intact. The most enduring way to achieve this is through genuinely honest conduct. A commercial society is, at its core, a society of integrity: it limits the opportunities for corruption and encourages honest behavior in the process. The norms of commerce—Smith’s “probity and punctuality”—settle in like a kind of glue, helping to bind society together.

Blog Post | Culture & Tolerance

What You Need to Know About Humans to Advance Human Progress

Neither nature nor nurture can be ignored.

Summary: Human progress depends on understanding human nature to some degree. Our blended capacities for cooperation, competition, empathy, and aggression cannot necessarily be ignored or overwritten by social engineering. Sustainable progress arises when institutions and innovations work with our evolved psychology rather than against it, channeling our instincts toward creativity, cooperation, and flourishing.


“Nature versus nurture” is a debate older than the field of psychology itself. Are we born with fixed traits, or are we shaped entirely by our upbringing? Of course, this is a false dichotomy. Both genes and environment shape most psychological traits. The real question is not nature versus nurture, but how much each contributes to different outcomes.

This question matters deeply for thinking about human progress. Any attempts at improving the human condition must be compatible with human nature, or they will risk creating more problems—such as the collapse of communist and socialist economies, for example—than they solve. And understanding human nature means grappling with our biological constraints and evolutionary history. Progress for squirrels might mean a world devoid of natural predators, where every tree grows acorns year-round. But human progress is a distinctly human concept.

As a psychologist, I am interested in the psychological foundations of human progress. To understand and sustain human progress, we must first understand the nature of the humans who are progressing. Strangely, the beings most capable of reflecting on our own values are also the most skilled at obfuscating them, as my graduate advisor, Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker, has explored at length in his books The Blank Slate and Rationality. Many influential thinkers throughout history have questioned or outright denied the concept of human nature. 

Superficially, that makes sense. Unlike some animals, which can walk and forage minutes after birth, human infants are born helpless and remain dependent on others for years. We are not born with language, and the languages we learn to speak depend entirely on the environment we were brought up in. As the English philosopher John Locke noted, all knowledge appears to come from experience, whether firsthand or taught by others. The human mind, at birth, is seemingly a true blank slate.

The blank-slate view was profoundly influential on the Enlightenment philosophy that set the stage for the miraculous forms of human progress in the coming centuries. If every baby starts out essentially the same, only advantaged or disadvantaged by their environment, then the case for equality becomes not just moral, but empirically necessary. It suggests that no one is born inherently superior, and that differences in status, intelligence, or virtue are all shaped by experience, not destiny. If all minds begin equally blank, then all individuals are capable of reason, learning, and democratic self-governance.

The idea that human nature was endlessly flexible fueled optimism, but it also began to cast blame on modern society. If we are all a product of our environments, then violence, poverty, and inequality were the results of a manipulated system. This philosophy was most famously embodied by the Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that humans were born fundamentally good and were corrupted by society. In his view, the natural state of humanity was one of egalitarian peace, disrupted only by the emergence of social institutions that fostered competition and inequality.

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in stark contrast, believed the default state of human life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. For Hobbes, society constrained the worst of our innate impulses, and a strong legal system made crime more dangerous than cooperation. While Hobbes’s vision was often caricatured as bleak or authoritarian, modern psychology has increasingly validated his core insight. Humans are not born peaceful and rational, but possess a mix of impulses—some prosocial, others aggressive, impulsive, and self-serving. As the Canadian developmental psychologist Richard Tremblay has shown, the most aggressive humans are, in fact, toddlers. Although they cannot inflict real harm, most toddlers hit, steal, and lie as soon as they are capable. As all parents know, these innate antisocial behaviors must be patiently weaned out of children through healthy socialization and repeated instruction.

These two visions—Rousseau’s romanticism and Hobbes’s realism—have shaped centuries of thought about human nature and the role of institutions. One sees society as the source of our problems; the other sees it as the solution. Both, in their extremes, miss the full picture. We are born capable of both empathy and cruelty, cooperation and tribalism, innovation and superstition. Society both nurtures us and constrains us. Different aspects of different ideologies and institutions both facilitate and prevent human progress.

Institutions are not just abstract systems—they are extensions of human psychology. Their success or failure often hinges on how well they accommodate and channel our evolved tendencies. When institutions align with human nature, they can guide self-interest into cooperation, aggression into justice, and tribalism into civic identity. When they ignore it, they risk collapse, corruption, or unintended negative consequences.

Consider the market economy. At its best, it transforms individual ambition into mutual benefit. Entrepreneurs seek profit, but in doing so, they create goods, services, and jobs. This is not a triumph over human nature—it is a clever use of it. As the Scottish economist Adam Smith noted, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Contrast that with utopian communes that attempt to erase hierarchy, suppress competition, or eliminate private property. These experiments often fail because they ignore deep-seated human drives for status, autonomy, and reciprocity. When institutions deny these drives, they invite dysfunction.

Successful democracies are not built on the belief that humans are all born the same, but that our differences can complement each other, given sufficient freedom and equality before the law. Checks and balances, the rule of law, and free speech are not just moral principles, but safeguards against the psychological realities that humans are fallible, competitive, and prone to power-seeking. Progress is not achieved by transcending our psychology, but by building systems that align with our best impulses and constrain our worst.

Despite these self-evident truths, discussions of progress often neglect human nature in favor of nurture. Whether arguing for government intervention in the market, increased social welfare spending, or profound cultural change, advocates of such positions share a commitment to reshaping our environments. Yet even in identical environments, outcomes vary dramatically depending on psychological factors such as trust, optimism, gratitude, and self-control. These are not variables that can be socially engineered. Instead, they are traits that arise from genetic inheritance, individual beliefs, decisions, and cultivation of habits.

Even in this almost miraculous age of superabundance—characterized by unprecedented material wealth, a high degree of freedom, and technological sophistication—many people feel lost, cynical, and devoid of purpose. To improve people’s psychological outlook, a deep understanding of human nature is necessary. That consists of considering not only our environments but also human nature itself. Without that understanding, progress can lead to unintended, sometimes negative, consequences. Material abundance can breed obesity and lethargy; excess freedom can lead to decision paralysis; technological progress can erode attention spans and lead to addiction. History shows that we are not blank slates who can be remolded into something we are not.

My role at Human Progress will be to not just examine the psychological aspects of progress—mental health, optimism, rationality, cooperation, creativity, and productivity—but to understand how progress interfaces with human nature and leads to human flourishing. In the words of the American economist Thomas Sowell, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Progress is a negotiation between our aspirations and our nature—between what we were built to be and what we hope to become. The most enduring advances come not from denying our instincts, but from designing systems that guide them toward constructive ends.

Blog Post | Trade

In Trade We Trust: How Markets Build Social Fabric

Far from eroding community bonds, markets weave broader networks of trust.

Summary: Many worry that markets, while efficient, corrode social trust and weaken community bonds. The evidence suggests the opposite: trade depends on trust, and commercial societies encourage people to extend trust beyond family and friends to strangers and colleagues. Experiments and cross-country studies show that economic freedom fosters cooperation, honesty, and reciprocity.


In my previous piece, I argued that a trade society generates prosperity, a widespread abundance of capital. But that raises another question: Does commercial exchange also lead to an abundance of social capital? While many may accept the economic efficiency of a market economy, they may see the trade-off as the fracturing of our social fabric and the deterioration of social capital.

But trade requires trusting attitudes and trustworthy behaviors to function properly, making a commercial society equivalent to a trust-based society. The American economist Ryan Murphy of the Bridwell Institute has distinguished between what he calls bonding social capital and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital refers to what increases the bond of affection with those in our inner circle, such as our family and friends. Bridging social capital refers to what builds social bridges, expanding our social network to those outside our inner circle. Too much bonding can interfere with bridge-building and can even burn bridges, creating a host of problems such as corruption and hostility toward out-groups. Trade acts as a social bridge. And a trade society is one full of social bridges.

Research from the Mercatus Center’s Virgil Henry Storr and Ginny Choi demonstrates the bridge-building capacities of market economies. They found that people in both market and nonmarket societies trust close family and neighbors. However, as social distance increases—from family and friends to neighbors or strangers—trust decreases. And yet, this decline in trust is slower in market societies. Compared with those in nonmarket societies, people in market societies are more likely to (at least somewhat) trust friends, colleagues, and even strangers. As Choi and Storr concluded, “People around the world seem to have equally strong core networks, but those living in market societies seem to have stronger periphery networks.”

Figure 1. Market versus nonmarket societies on trust

Source: Virgil Henry Storr and Ginny Choi, Do Markets Corrupt Our Morals? (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), pg. 180.

Other survey data support Storr and Choi’s findings and suggest that commercial societies produce trust. Utilizing data from the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) index and the World Values Survey, researchers ran cross-country regressions with over 50 countries for the years 1995 and 2000. They found that economic freedom plays a significant and possibly causal role in the development of trust within countries. Even after controlling for variables such as urban population, age, human capital, government share of gross domestic product, political institutions, and inequality, countries with higher levels of economic freedom have been shown to have higher generalized trust than less free countries. But these trust levels are not fixed! Countries that experience pro-market reforms also see improvements in trust. 

Drawing on European survey data and the EFW index, Mercer University economist Antonio Saravia looked at the effects of economic freedom on generalized trust for the years 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995. After implementing several controls, Saravia found that a 10 percent increase in economic freedom led to a 2.5 percent increase in generalized trust.

Figure 2. Economic freedom and generalized trust across countries

Source: Niclas Berggren and Therese Nilsson, “Economic Freedom as a Driver of Trust and Tolerance,” in Economic Freedom of the World: 2020 Annual Report (Fraser Institute, 2020), p. 193.

Figure 3. Economic freedom and trust in Europe

Source: Antonio Saravia, “Institutions of Economic Freedom and Generalized Trust: Evidence from the Eurobarometer Surveys,” European Societies 18, no. 1 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2016): 13.

The evidence appears to indicate that market-based economic institutions have a positive effect on trust. However, one of the criticisms of the trust literature is that survey data and real-world behavior do not always match up. Contrary to expectations, people tend to be more trusting and trustworthy in experiments than survey answers, and laboratory experiments can give us a better sense of how economic institutions shape the trust-based behaviors of individuals.

The results of various laboratory experiments by Storr and Choi are telling. In studies published between 2018 and 2022, the two researchers demonstrate that in markets where cheating is possible, participants learn to reward trustworthy partners with greater trust and reciprocity (measured through token transfers). Those with positive market interactions received significantly more tokens than cheaters. What’s more, even strangers received more tokens than cheaters. In experiments where cheating was prevented or its effect neutralized, positive relationships were treated similarly to relationships between strangers. Storr and Choi stressed that participants knew nothing about each other and could not communicate beyond offers. That means the relationships were purely commercial, with no distortions stemming from race, sex, religion, or the like. In short, when corruption and dishonesty are absent from the marketplace, trust and equal treatment emerge. When dishonesty is a factor (as it is in the real world), trustworthiness is incentivized, and dishonesty is stigmatized. Positive market transactions breed trust and trustworthiness.

Figure 4. Trustor transfers by relationship type

Source: Storr and Choi, Do Markets Corrupt Our Morals? (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), p. 208.

Using similar trust games as the one featured in Storr and Choi’s study, other laboratory experiments primed random participants to unconsciously think about markets. The results indicate that a market mindset makes people more trusting of others. George Mason University economist Omar Al-Ubaydli and colleagues explain their findings:

Priming markets leaves people more optimistic about the trustworthiness of anonymous strangers and therefore increases trusting decisions and, in turn, social efficiency. . . . Absent markets, economic interactions with strangers tend to be negative. Market proliferation allows good things to happen when interacting with strangers, thus encouraging optimism and leading to more trusting behaviors. Participation in markets, rather than making people suspicious, makes people more likely to trust anonymous strangers. Our results seem therefore to corroborate the idea of doux commerce. [Italics in original.]

Another pair of economists selected internet business professionals from two cutthroat industries: domain trading and online adult entertainment. Multiple laboratory games between these internet professionals and Berkeley students yielded surprising results: The business professionals were more trustworthy, trusting, generous, and honest. As the study’s authors put it, “Internet business people were, on the whole, ‘nicer’ than students.” An earlier study performed similar experiments with company CEOs and students. Although CEOs are often caricatured as being greedy Gordon Gekko clones, they ended up being both more trusting and more trustworthy than students in the experiments.

The fact that the commercial society exists should be awe-inspiring. The absolute scale of trust and cooperation is incredible. But markets aren’t magical. They are spaces in which people engage in repeated trade, where individuals learn to consistently rely on and cooperate with each other. As people demonstrate a pattern of trustworthy behavior, exchange becomes more fluid, and trust becomes more concrete. Long-term success in the market depends partly on developing strong bonds of trust. And this practical necessity for economic success can eventually develop into a personal virtue.