Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and Economic History Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Economic History.
http://www.jstor.org
In the study of Roman money Theodore Mommsenremains 135 years after his
work a toweringfigure,more pragmaticthan theoreticalin his economics, yet still
sound. He saw the politics in monetaryhistory, and especially its connectionwith
the strengthof the state. His view is more penetratingthan MV = PT, fashionable
in twentieth-centuryscholarshipon Rome. And it is bettereconomics thanoffered
by the Polanyi School as the alternativeline of analysis. The Polanyists infer an
absence of a Roman monetary system from the failure of some part to be as
sophisticatedas the best. On the contrary,the Romanmonetarysystem does not
look so differentfrom that of Europe since Mommsenwrote, uneven in its use of
monetarydevices, but sensibly so.
809
thana sort of controlon the qualityof the metal, and thingshadgone back, by the force
of events, to the primitive system, where a seal was impressed on copper bars. . . . It
was inevitable to get to the point where the Romans had got, that is, to demonetize
money and to consider it only as a precious metal; because private citizens take back
theirrightnot to accept currencies,when the latterhave no longerweightand title fixed
by law.8
12 Frezoul's article, "A propos de la hausse des prix sous Diocletien," is contained in the
Melanges Carcopino(Paris, 1965). C. R. Whittaker'sarticle, "Inflationand the Economy in the
Fourth Century A.D.," is published in C. E. King, ed., Imperial Revenue, Expenditureand
MonetaryPolicy (Oxford, 1980)(BAR Series 76).
3 See Whittaker,"Inflationand the Economy."
'4 JulienGuey's article, "L'Aloi du dernierromainde 177a 211 apres J.C.," was publishedin
the Revue Numismatique, 4 (1962).
Is See her "Fiscalitdet monnaie, problemesde methode," in Dialoghi di Archeologia(1976/77)
and "Devaluationset fiscalit6"in AA.vv., Les Devaluationsci Rome (Rome, 1975).In the firstof
these articlesCorbierpointsout that Heichelheimhadbeen influencedby the monetarysituationof
the Europeof his time, but fails to repeat the procedureof what concerns Guey and herself.
16 The standardreferenceis K. Polanyi's "The Semanticsof Money Uses" (1957),reprintedin
his Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economics, G. Dalton, ed. (Boston, 1968).
17 M. Weber, General Economic History (a course of lectures delivered in 1920, edited by
Hellmanand Palyi) (New Brunswick,N.J., 1981), pp. 236ff.
Apart from Sture Bolin, who seems to have gotten there all by
himself, other Roman monetaryhistoriansacknowledgethe influenceof
the "substantivist" school on their thought. Michael Crawford, for
example, an eminent Roman monetary historian and acknowledged
Polanyist (an inspirationwhich he shares with other Cambridge-based
ancient historians and which he probably derives from Moses Finley),
set himself in a closely argued article of 1970 a very ambitioustask.
A wide variety of objects may function as money in the different uses which this
possesses, for payment, for storing wealth, for measuringvalue, and as a means of
exchange. ... In the Roman world coined money was clearly dominantover other
forms of money in the first three uses, and I want here to explore the extent to which it
served as a means of exchange, partly because this is the most distinctivefunction of
money and one for which coined money or a token substituteis essentialto achieve any
greatversatilityand partlybecause the problemsinvolved seem particularlycomplex.22
24 See von Scheel, "I concetti fondamentali."Here von Scheel expressed, on the contrary,the
opinionthat in Rome money's main functionwas to serve as a meansof exchange. "In the pecunia
thereis firstof all the concept of the universaland publiclyrecognizedmeansof exchange.. . . The
aim of money is to constitutea meansfor the circulationof goods which, throughits intromission,
and the juxtaposition of merx and premium,becomes a special negotium, the emptio-venditio" and
"forjuridicalnegotia we cannot thinkof any other measurethan what is representedby pecunia"
(p. 736). Crawfordtends to play downjuridicalevidence, butone cannotfail to be impressedby the
remarkablewealth of quotes from the corpusjuris von Scheel is able to assemblein orderto back
his statementon the main functionof money in Rome. The periodhe studies coincides with that
studiedby Crawford.
what were called "internal drains," which were seasonal and thus
foreseeable, and which it could not, contra Crawford,offset completely.
To those we may add the equally seasonal "autumn drains," which
drew gold reserves, every year, from the coffers of the Bank of England
to the plains of the Midwest. Americanfarmershad to be paid for their
crops, and they wanted gold coins. Gold had to come from New York
and from London, attractedby a seasonal interest rate differential.The
differentialreversed itself when farmersreturnedthe coins, by purchas-
ing in the shops, by paying taxes and other debts.
In the same period, in spite of the presence in British India of an
administrationof exceptional economic sophistication, the phenomena
that Crawfordnotices in the RomanEmpirewith referenceto the money
market, all existed, and persisted. They were studied by scores of
specialists, who wrote admirable reports on them. But suppose this
writtenevidence had perished, and only evidence of the existence of the
phenomenahad survived. Would Crawfordthinkthe monetarypolicy of
the Raj had no "economic motivation"?
What an economist sadly misses when reading Roman monetary
history is a sense of the development of the monetary and financial
system in the millennium spanned by the Roman state. The centuries
Crawfordrefers to, for instance, saw the transformationof Rome from a
relatively unimportantrepublic into a great world power. Yet he writes
that in that period "The Roman coinage system underwentno sudden,
majorchanges." But, in that very period, the Romans developed their
monetarysystem from the relative simplicityof a predominantlycopper
currency to the extreme sophistication of a trimetallic system, and
extended it to apply to the greaterpartof the lands they conquered,thus
forming a domestic monetary area larger than any the West has ever
known. Crawford's statement is equivalent, in historical terms, to
sayingthat the Britishmonetarysystem had undergoneno suddenmajor
changes from the time Sir Isaac Newton established the sterling/gold
parity to the outbreak of the First World War.
But no satisfactory description exists of this evolution, which a
practitioner of money and banking finds very remarkable indeed.
Roman monetary authoritiesmay have known finance but not econom-
ics, as Finley and Crawfordtell us, but they did manage to supply the
Empire with coins for many hundreds of years. The system of mints
they established and the division of power between central and local
authorities on coinage supply was highly functional.25 As to the
motivation of money issues, be it to enrich themselves, as Finley
asserts, or to pay their soldiers, as Crawfordmaintains,Roman emper-
ors do not seem all that remote from our own statesmen's motivations.
25
On the supply of money and workingof the Roman monetarysystem, compareCrawford's
pessimismwith what is, in my view, a morerealisticassessment, containedin K. Hopkins,"Taxes
and Trade in the Roman Empire,"Journal of Roman Studies, 70 (1980).
coinage in the late Republicand early Empire," in Journalof Roman Studies, 71 (1981). Claude
Nicolet, in his famous contributionfor the Annales, tconomie, Socidt6,Civilisation(ESC) (1971),
had even contended that the Roman writers had a clear understandingof the relation between
money and prices. He quoted very convincing passages from Roman writers, among which the
famousone from Suetonius, which Lo Cascio quotes againin his article,provesthatthat writer,at
least, knew not only that money has an influenceon prices, but that it also influenceschanges in
outputthroughchanges in the interest rate. For the verbatimquotation,see Lo Cascio, p. 86.