UCSB LIBRARY. HISTORY OF ECONOMICS H ISTORY OF ECONOMICS or Economics as a Factor in the Making of History By Rev. J. A. DEWE, A.M. Late Professor of History in the College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, now Professor of History at the University of Ottawa NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO NZIGER BROTHERS PRINTERS TO THE HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE 1908 YUbil Obetat. REMY LAFORT, Censor Librorum, ffmprtmatut. ^.JOHN M. FARLEY, Archbishop of New York, Niw YORK, NOVEMBER 30, 1907. COPYRIGHT, 1908, BY BENZIGER BROTHERS. INTRODUCTION HISTORY is no longer a study of isolated events, but rather of the workings of unseen laws and influences. As the different phenomena of chemistry and physics receive their orderly arrangement and their power to interest only from their association with certain laws, so, in history, the facts that make up the narrative are but the material or medium through which are conveyed the workings of laws both universal and ever constant. The study of history has thus lost much of the dry- ness, and, perhaps, also some of the disregard in which it used to be held. No longer is it a mere committal to memory of battles and sieges, of alternating wars and treaties, of the rise and succession of dynasties. It is now a scientific research into the influences that bring about all these different results. The action of the motor power of certain laws is now seen in all the pages of history, and every event that takes place can be attributed to the action of some law. The study of history, therefore, has been raised to the dignity of a science, a science that specially interests the mind of the seeker after true wisdom. None other, perhaps, deals so effectively with the mainsprings of human conduct. It reveals the future by means of the past, and shows to mankind what particular environment it must seek after in order to achieve the greatest happi- ness of the greatest number. Moreover, to the student who has emerged from the embryo condition of the small boy, this scientific study of history should hold out most fascinating attractions, since it presents the 6 Introduction key with which to unlock some of the most actual, press- ing problems of our present civilization. The influences or laws that shape the events of his- tory are many and various. They may, however, all be summed up under three great categories, namely : Physi- cal Surroundings, Religion, and Economics. From time immemorial, the physical surroundings of a nation have vitally determined its history. Climate, whether hot or cold, the configuration of the country, whether it be an island or a part of a continent, the resources of the soil, whether agricultural or mineral, have their share in determining the political place and habitual occupations of a nation. Athens, Carthage, Venice, England, all became great maritime and com- mercial powers on account of their proximity to the sea. Small frontier nations, on the other hand, like Phenicia and Prussia, have been forced into a condition of hot-bed artificial strength, owing to the necessity of constantly providing against danger from their more powerful neighbors. To an almost equal extent have the produc- tions of the soil been instrumental in determining the whole character and history of a nation. The abun- dance of precious metals, the bountiful supply of iron, or the exuberant fertility of the soil, all determine the aver- age occupation of the citizen and the wealth of the nation and the power of the State. Religion is another very important influence in the shaping of history. Man's conduct is swayed, to a great extent, by his religious belief. If we leave aside the influence of religion, the history of the Eastern peoples is an insoluble enigma. If, in Greek history, we leave religion out of account, the old Greek oracles with their inspiring utterances, obeyed alike by all classes of society, would no longer appear on the pages of history, Introduction 7 and the Greek religious assemblies, such as those of the Amphictyonic Councils, which at one time seemed likely to bring about the unity of Greece, would likewise van- ish. Indeed, Greek history, without the religious ele- ment, would be cut down by at least one half, and even the remaining half would be void of meaning. The same might be said of Roman history. There every important transaction of the State is blended with some religious act. The taking of the auspices, the con- sultation of the augurs, the offering up of sacrifices, accompanied all the acts of Roman life, whether public or private. Even down to the time of Caesar, an un- lucky omen might thwart the action of the most power- ful magistrate. If we turn over the pages of modern history, bright with the rays of dominant Christianity, we find religion still a most important factor in the shaping of history. The Mohammedan invasions, the Crusades, the wars against the Albigenses, the Thirty Years' War, the War in the Netherlands, were all brought into being by the religious element. Then, again, was it not the struggle between empire and Papacy that practi- cally dominated the theater of European politics for three centuries? We might mention, as well, all the different institutions molding society that have been started by the spirit of religion: the monasteries and convents of the Middle Ages, the universities, the guilds, and all the different ordinances that have regu- lated man's public and private life. Finally, we come to the third category of formative causes, namely, economics. This element, as we shall see, is also of the greatest importance, and this not only on account of its own intrinsic activity, but because it is so intimately bound up with the other two important 8 Introduction formative influences in history, namely, physical sur- roundings and religion. By economics is meant the science of wealth, and this, again, means the knowledge of the laws that gov- ern the production of wealth, and its distribution. We might, perhaps, express this definition in simpler terms by saying that economics is the science of how a man makes his wealth, and how he gets it. It is evident, then, that economics must have an almost unbounded influence on human conduct, both public and private. For the great majority spend the greater part of their time either in producing or dis- tributing wealth, and, from the point of view of exten- sion, the time that an ordinary man has to employ in earning his daily bread is greater than that which he can possibly expend in explicit acts of religion. This all-pervading activity of economics is still more apparent in the State or commonwealth. In the whole course of ancient and modern history, there is scarcely any single important political event that has not been caused, either directly or indirectly, by some economic influence. Religion and physical causes may also have been present, but the economic factor seems to have been the most constant and the most pervasive. Although we shall be anticipating what will come afterwards, a few examples taken from typical nations will serve to illustrate this statement. In ancient history, the great revolution that was fol- lowed by the rise of the people to political power was occasioned directly by economic causes. In Greece, it was the misery of the debtor, combined with the de- pressed condition of trade, that occasioned the reforms of Solon reforms which, in their turn, led up to the completely democratic constitution of Clisthenes. In- Introduction 9 deed, one remarkable feature of the genius of Solon is the way in which he saw that his legislative reforms, in order to be effectual, must also be accompanied by eco- nomic reforms. He saw that any concession of political power would be useless if the people were still left to groan in misery, and to starve by inches, and hence the great part of his reforms not only relieved the misery of the debtor, but tended generally to further industries of all kinds and the expansion of trade. In Rome, we find exactly the same parallel. For years there was serious friction between the Patricians and the Plebeians. And the main causes of this friction were likewise economic. The people were cut off from the land, while the laws of debt were unjustly severe. Indeed, the great socialist leaders in Republican times, according to Mommsen, all took their stand on some economic question. Cassius endeavored to deal with the agrarian question, Manlius with the law of debt, while Maelius tried to introduce the custom of distributing, gratis, cereal foods among the poorer classes. In modern times, the relation between politics and economics is still closer. Hostilities between nation and nation, the formation of alliances and treaties, the good or bad understanding between rulers and their subjects, can nearly all be traced to economic causes. We might quote, as an illustration, the Hundred Years' War between England and France. During the whole of that war, England had on her side the faithful assistance of Flanders, and of the two duchies of Gas- cony and Guienne. The reason of this alliance was the constant interdependence of England and these coun- tries, which was mainly economic. England was, during the Middle Ages, essentially an agricultural country, fleece being her most important product. Flanders, on IO Introduction the other hand, had the art of manufacturing the fleece into wool. Thus, the two countries were mutually de- pendent, one upon the other. Neither could have repudiated the alliance without great inconvenience. Gascony and Guienne, also, carried on extensive trade transactions with England, but in a different way. Eng- land was dependent mainly on these two duchies for her imported wines. Then, again, although England had salt mines, she had not discovered the art of working them, so that, for salt, she also had to depend upon these two duchies, and thus, all during the vicissitudes of the Hundred Years' War, there was a natural and effective tie between these countries and England. Another example which illustrates in a different way the importance of economics as an influence in the shaping of history, we find in the rise and fall of the political power of Venice. It was commerce that first made Venice so powerful in the arena of European politics. The sea trade routes from the East to the West converged through Venice, which thus became the clearing-house of the world. Merchants from all parts thronged the Rialto, while through her was exchanged the wealth of nations. Venice thus became also the cen- ter of distribution. In the wake of this material pros- perity soon appeared a power that, in European politics, was colossal. Her ambassadors were found in all the capitals of Europe, while she rapidly became the focus of the manifold activity of European politics. When, however, the old trade routes were done away with, the cause of her power was obviously undermined. Her political influence began to wane with the decline of her trade, and she quickly became reduced to the condition of an insignificant power. In more modern times, it would be no exaggeration to Introduction II say that the great majority of wars and revolutions have been brought about by economic causes. The War of Louis XIV, the Seven Years' War, the War of the American Revolution, were mainly struggles for the pos- session of wider markets. The overthrow of the mon- archical dynasty in France was occasioned mainly by economic discontent aroused by heavy taxes and enact- ments, while, in America, the great war between North and South was brought about by the different economic conditions prevailing in the two sections conditions which made slavery favorable to the Southerner, and unfavorable to the Northerner. All these are but casual examples, selected at wide intervals of time and place, which illustrate the impor- tant connection between economics and history. This illustration, however, is only partial, but in the course of this work we shall find constant proof that it is impos- sible to understand clearly the sequence of political events without considerable knowledge of the economic factor. Even the intervention of the religious and physical elements is blended with economics. As a great writer has pointed out, all great religious movements are con- nected with the material well-being of the people. And with regard to the physical element, the advantages or disadvantages of soil and climate are closely dependent for their importance upon the economic activities of the people themselves. The study, therefore, of the economic interpretation of history is all-important for a right understanding of history. Historical events are grouped together by such close ties of natural connection as to aid the memory considerably. Most distant periods are found to present most interesting parallels, and this gives cohesiveness to 1 2 Introduction the structure of historical knowledge, while the scientific mind also receives full satisfaction in viewing the ulti- mate causes of the historic phenomena that are so numerous and otherwise so perplexing. We are now brought to the final justification of the economic treatment of history. Surely, only that is really worthy of the name of knowledge that contributes to the welfare of the individual man and of society. While the knowledge of a past that has no bearing on the future is a useless encumbrance upon the mind, the economic study of history is full of salutary lessons for the present and guidance for the future. How many arduous questions are facing the states- man of to-day! Questions essentially economical, and upon the solution of which depends the fate of statesmen and the rise or fall of nations. Such questions as Pro- tection, Free Trade, the power which the government has to interfere with corporations and trade-unions, and the expediency of so doing, the problem of providing for the poor and the unemployed, the problem of peacefully reconciling with one another the colonial aspirations of the countries of Europe, and also of the United States ; all these are vital problems, and to many seem new. But, as we shall see, they are all, or most of them are, old problems dressed up in a different form. They have appeared over and over again in the pages of history, ancient and modern, and with them has also often ap- peared the key to their solution. To the student of history, to the statesman, to the citizen desirous of contributing his share to the well- being of the State, to the intelligent man, who wishes to discourse with authority on modern problems, the eco- nomic study of history will prove as advantageous as it is interesting. Introduction 13 Nothing now remains by way of introduction except to indicate briefly the main divisions of the subject. The first part deals with the economics of the ancient period of history; the second treats of the economics of the medieval period; and the third has to do with the economics of the modern period. During the preparation of this work, much assistance and unfailing courtesy have been tendered me by the chiefs of different libraries in foreign countries, in the United States, and in Canada, notably the libraries of Harvard and Yale Universities. Also, I wish to make mention of my indebtedness to Mr. Martin O'Gara, of the University of Ottawa, for valuable time generously given in the reading of the proofs and especially the compilation of the index. J. A. DEWE. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PART I GREEK AND ROMAN PERIOD CHAPTER I. Economic Conditions in Greece. The Production of Wealth in Ancient Greece. Distribution of Wealth. State Administration of Finances . . .19 CHAPTER II. Influence of the Economic Element in Molding Greek History . . . . 35 CHAPTER III. Economic Condition of Ancient Rome. Roman Production of Wealth ... . .52 CHAPTER IV. Distribution of Roman Wealth. Financial Administration of the Ancient Roman State . . 62 CHAPTER V. Influence of Economics on Roman History . 75 CHAPTER VI. The Rise of the Capitalists and the Fall of the Gracchi . . . . . .87 CHAPTER VII. Conspiracy of Catiline. Ascendency of Julius Cassar, and the Downfall of the Republic . . 97 PART II MEDIEVAL PERIOD INTRODUCTION . . . . . .113 CHAPTER I. The Feudal System . . . .118 CHAPTER II. The Towns . . . .128 CHAPTER III. The Guilds and the Crafts . . .141 CHAPTER IV. Commerce and Industry of the Middle Ages. The Distribution of Wealth . . . 1 50 CHAPTER V. Influence of the Economic Element on Medieval History ...... 165 CHAPTER VI. Influence of the Economic Element in the Contest between the Empire and the Papacy . .182 CHAPTER VII. Influence of the Economic Element in Raising the Middle Class to the Possession of Political Power 1 90 1 6 Contents PART III MODERN PERIOD PAGI INTRODUCTION . . ' ' . . . .211 CHAPTER I. Economic Theories During the Modern Period of History . . . . . .213 CHAPTER II. Geographical Discoveries . . . 223 CHAPTER III. Production of Wealth . . .231 CHAPTER IV. Distribution of Wealth . . . 246 CHAPTER V. Government Administration of Finances . 262 CHAPTER VI. Influence of Economics on Wars and Treaties 281 CHAPTER VII. The Economic Element in National Treaties 296 CHAPTER VIII. Influence of the Economic Element on the French Revolution . . . . .301 CHAPTER IX. A General Survey of the Connection between the Economic Element and Recent Political Events . 317 Index . . ." s . ' ' . . 3 2 5 PART I GREEK AND ROMAN PERIOD HISTORY OF ECONOMICS CHAPTER I ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN GREECE THE Greeks had no conception of political economy as a science. They did, however, busy themselves with certain facts and data that constitute the material of this science, namely, with the production and distribu- tion of wealth. They raised crops, breeded cattle, ex- tracted the precious metals, traded with one another and with foreign nations; but they did all this without hav- ing any established formulae or principles, and without any sight of those tendencies that constitute the laws of political economy. One of the reasons of this would arise from the nature of the subject itself. The phenomena that make up the material of political economy seem vague and indeterminate. Only after much patient reflection does it become apparent that what seemed to be so many heaps of facts are really produced and regulated by constant and undeviating influences. The Greek mind, therefore, especially in its infancy, would naturally shrink from striving to reduce to the condition of a science such indefinite and apparently inappropriate material. Moreover, even if the material of political economy had seemed all that could be desired, the Greek mind itself had not received the necessary previous training. 2O Greek and Roman Period It was still in an infantile condition. It was ruled chiefly by instinct and imagination. The habit of care- ful observation and of the use of deduction and in- duction, so necessary for constructing a science, was at first wanting. It is not surprising, therefore, that, owing to the apparent want of adequate material, and the de- ficiency of any previous scientific training, the Greek mind should have failed to construct a science of political economy. And yet the ancient Greeks had some theories regard- ing the production and distribution of wealth. These theories, it is true, were not drawn up in scientific form, but they constitute the germ of the science of political economy, and they foreshadow some of the latest politi- cal economic theories. The treatise written by Xenophon on "Wealth" clearly shows that, even in his time, there had sprung into existence a considerable number of ideas regarding the production and distribution of wealth and these ideas had been slowly developing from the earliest times. His ideas regarding the nature of agriculture, the im- portance of manufactures and trade, could have been discerned already in the legislation of Solon as far back as 594 B.C. Both Plato and Aristotle held opinions on economic subjects, though these opinions are speculative and academic, and chiefly regard the ethical side of political economy. Thus, they extol the value of labor in the ideal city, a city whose inhabitants are of absolutely sound moral principle. But they decry its use in the real city, on account of the sordid love of wealth that so often results. Not only Xenophon, but nearly all the Greek writers, agree in upholding the value of agriculture, one of the Economic Conditions in Greece 21 reasons alleged being that agriculture, unlike other pur- suits, takes away from no man, and they all agree in maintaining the right of the State to regulate trade and commerce. These important theories, it is interesting to note, were very predominant during the last two cen- turies, and when first originated were regarded by many as new. There was, however, one remarkable feature in which the Greeks differed from the Teutonic nations, and rather resembled the Romans, and that was the views which they held regarding private property. Among the early Germans there was no such thing as absolute private property, all land being held in common, and distributed afresh at the beginning of every year. Even in modern times, some trace of this is to be seen in the recognized principle that land may be appropriated for the public service of the State, providing that compensa- tion be given to the owner, while, by the law of attain- der, a criminal's goods may still be confiscated. But, amongst the early Greeks, the idea of private property was deeply rooted. Even though the fruits of the ground were not considered as the right of the owner or producer, yet the ground itself was held to be abso- lutely the property of the owner. Religion itself de- fended the rights of private ownership, and no law could be passed infringing upon such rights. This notion of the inviolability of property affected considerably the economic life of Greece. Since the land remained to the family, and could not be alienated from the family, either by sale, or by the debt of the owner, or even up to later times by confiscation, the Greek hus- bandman remained more or less fixed to the soil. There was very little mobility in agricultural labor. At the same time, one can easily perceive how the occupation 22 Greek and Roman Period of agriculture, on account of its ancient traditions, and its intimate connection with the sacredness of private property, was always held in the highest esteem. Such were the main general ideas held by the Greeks regarding economics. These ideas were of the simplest kind, and formed the basis of no constructive system. They did, however, give a certain kind of continuity to the economic activity of the Greeks, and explain many things in their economic legislation that would be other- wise inexplicable. We will now briefly review the economic condition of ancient Greece. For the sake of clearness and method, the production of wealth will be considered first, and then its distribution. SECTION I THE PRODUCTION OF WEALTH IN ANCIENT GREECE The southern position of Greece would lead to the natural supposition that the climate, the soil, and nat- ural products are sub-tropical, yet this is not the case. Only in Messenia can anything like sub-tropical vegetation be found. The climate, generally, is mild, and the soil is far from being luxuriant. This is easily explained by the configuration of the land. Mountains and hills everywhere abound, while numerous arms of the sea penetrate far into the heart of the country. Great variety is to be found in the different parts of Greece. Thessaly was always celebrated for its rich pastures and the breed of its horses. The Boeotian mountains were noted for their pleasant groves and ver- dant slopes, and the Boeotian plains for rich soil and Economic Conditions in Greece 23 abundant crops. Attica, in spite of its poor soil, can produce wheat, oil, and timber; Messenia, on the other hand, is noted for its semi-tropical fruits and flowers, a strange contrast to the barren soil of neighboring Elis. Under the soil of Greece were also various de- posits that added materially to her industrial wealth. Near Athens, there were the great clay pits from which the Athenians derived the material for their exquisite pottery. In Mount Pentelicus were the celebrated Pen- telic marbles, so largely used for building purposes. Nor were there lacking the precious metals. The silver mines of Laurium were known even at the time of The- mistocles, and were a great source of wealth. Gold could be found in Siphnos (Cyclades) and in far-off Colchis, and in the Pangean mountains were both gold and silver mines. The natural wealth of Greece, however, must not be measured only by what could be found strictly within her borders. There were also her numerous colonial settlements, all renowned for some kind of product. Along the Black Sea were the huge wheat-fields and timber districts. The lands of Asia Minor could fur- nish the fruits with which to grace the tables of the rich. If we turn to the Western colonies, there was scarcely a town in Italy and Sicily not famed for some specialty. Thus, Acragas was famed for its soil, Syra- cuse for its horses, Tarentum for its oyster fisheries. Of all these different products, there could be no doubt that wheat was the most important. Upon it de- pended the very existence of the citizen, and agriculture, therefore, received a very careful study. Even in early times, we find in Attica an acquaintance with the differ- ent methods of irrigating the soil, and improving its condition by means of fertilizers. 24 Greek and Roman Period The grain was procured from the country through jobbers. In small places it was crushed in small mor- tars, but in the larger towns it was handed over to the miller, his apparatus consisting of a huge millstone re- volving on a cylinder of iron. The miller then sold the flour to the bakers, who baked it into loaves, the weight and size of which were all carefully regulated by statute, and examined by special commissioners. The greatest care was taken to regulate the supply of grain. For example, in the period that followed the war with the Persians, the supply of this essential com- modity became scarce, and a law was passed limiting its exportation under severe penalties. Attempts were also made to prevent merchants from unlawfully enrich- ing themselves by sharp methods of trade. No dealer was allowed to take more than one obol per measure of corn for what he had originally given. Special commis- sioners were also appointed to regulate the sale of corn (sitophulaces) . Unfortunately, however, all these pre- cautions were often unavailing, and artificial means were often used to raise the price of breadstuffs. After grain, perhaps, the olive received in Athens the greatest attention. The olive was valued more for its oil than for the fruit itself, which was dried and sold in its skin. Besides the cultivation of grain and of the olive, that of the vine was also perfected to a considerable extent. Trenches were carefully dug around for the sake of moisture, and the tree was propped up by artificial sup- ports. The juice of the grape was procured in much the same way as it is in certain parts of Italy to-day, the grape being pressed by the feet and the juice collected into vats. There were many different kinds of wines, the principal being the red wine procured from the Economic Conditions in Greece 25 grapes on the hillside, and the white wine from the grapes grown on the plains. Besides agriculture, there were also other important industries, which appeared even from the earliest times. Already, in the Iliad and the Odyssey, we read of car- penters and masons, and in certain trades the principle of division of labor soon became fully recognized. In two respects, however, Greek manufacture differed con- siderably from our modern system. First, in early times, the family was largely self-sufficient. That is to say, the members of the family manufactured all its own neces- saries; some, for example, preparing the food, others making the different pieces of furniture and articles of apparel. Even when, by the eighth and seventh cen- turies before Christ, manufacturing industries became more diffused, certain occupations were still confined to certain families owing to the fact that the son generally followed the trade or profession of the father. Also, certain trades were confined to certain particular streets; one street would contain all the bakers, another all the butchers. Besides this local distribution of trades, another re- spect in which the Greek system differed from our own was that guilds and trade corporations were quite un- known. No doubt, this was partly owing to the strong connection between the family and the trade. It is thus curious to observe that, while the family element was prejudicial to the quick formation of the State, it was also a very successful check to the formation of any arti- ficial combination of trade. Although, however, there were no combinations of trades, or of members of the same trade, there appeared by the fifth century before Christ factories of a very considerable size. Some of these contained hundreds of 26 Greek and Roman Period workmen, who performed their tasks under the super- vision of a kind of foreman. This was especially so with regard to the manufacture of clothes. By the sixth and fifth centuries, one single factory often had the exclusive production of some par- ticular kind of dress. One factory, for example, manu- factured men's hats exclusively, another women's hats exclusively, while another again manufactured nothing but tunics. It is evident from this that there must have been a great number of employees even in one factory. The same principle of division of labor, of allotting one particular task to certain people, exclusively trained for that task, is also found in the building industry. The quarryman extracted the stone or other building material from the quarries. Then one class of men cut the material into the required shape, while yet another set of men had the exclusive task of placing the blocks of stone, or marble, one above the other. Finally, the carpenters made the doors, and other frames, and a special set of men placed the tiles on the roof. In the construction of ordinary dwellings the builder superintended all the different arrangements, but in large public edifices architects were employed, who often enjoyed considerable repute, and were admitted into familiar intercourse with the great. This division of labor always brings into existence men of remarkable genius and long experience. Athens, in this, was no exception, and perhaps in no industry is this so well illustrated as in the pottery industry. It is true that the earthenware destined for ordinary use was rough and clumsy, but, on the other hand, the artistic kind of earthenware displays the greatest talent and technical skill. Certain traditions of the art seem to Economic Conditions in Greece 27 have been handed down from father to son, and their splendid results can still be seen in some of our museums. Altogether, the manufacturing industries of the Greeks display a great amount of organization and in- dustrial skill. And it is not to be wondered at if in later times the position of the manufacturer received the recognition it deserved. What seems at first to have belittled the position of the manufacturer was that he sometimes exhibited greed for money. Nothing seems to have been more repellent to the Athenian mind than an open display of avarice. In the writings of Plato and Aristotle nothing is more evident than the fact that the manufacturer, as such, was deemed worthy of re- spect, but that he too often degenerated into a seeker after mere material gain, and thus came to occupy a lower place in the public esteem. There is one element in the production of wealth in ancient Greece that must not be overlooked, namely, the use of slave labor. Evidently, this must make a consid- erable difference in the rate of wages, average of prices, and especially in regard to the relation between the free laborer and employer. Most of the lower forms of labor, such as working in the mines, rowing the galleys, and many of the tasks in the different factories were done by slaves ; nearly all domestic work in the private houses was also done by them. The result was that the greater part of the citizens were free to devote themselves to the care of the State, and to cultivate their own individual perfection. A high degree of culture supposes leisure, and this leisure was conditioned by the fact that the slaves did a great part of the manual labor, and thus enabled the citizen to devote himself to the cares of State. 28 Greek and Roman Period SECTION II DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH The distribution and interchange of wealth naturally follow upon the production of wealth. But the process is usually slow. This is especially the case in ancient times, when money, the common medium of exchange, and such means of transport as ships and good roads were still wanting. Hence, we find that, in Homeric times, the family was self-sufficient, and made its own necessaries. And even when the town took the place of the family as the unit of distribution, goods still passed directly from the producer to the consumer. It was the sea, more than anything else, that hastened the advent of wealth. The first traders were the Phe- nician captains, who, at first, cautiously hugged the coast and made their wealth as much by piracy as by honest trade. But the place of the pirate was soon taken by that of regular traders. These naturally visited the places with the best harbors, and thus Corinth, Miletus, and Athens quickly appear as the great centers of com- merce and trade. At the same time as the circumference of trade was enlarged, the appearance of money as a common medium of exchange greatly facilitated the progress of the wheels of commerce. At first the coins were measured by weight, but afterwards by tale, and each coin had stamped upon its surface its own proper value. Another element in the progress of the commerce of Greece was the banking system. Even in comparatively early times, there were bankers in Greece. Owing, however, to the multiplicity of their functions they some- what differed from our modern banker. The Greek Economic Conditions in Greece 29 banker was at once a money changer, a money lender, and a receiver of deposits. As money changer, he ex- changed the coins of the different nations an impor- tant function, when we remember that almost every important city minted its own coins. He also loaned money at interest. It was in this way that capital and labor were brought together. No doubt the rate of interest was high, but, on the other hand, money was plentiful, the risks were great, and the banker had all the privileges of a monopoly. However, it must be admitted that there were also usurers of the worst kind, who were a source of danger to the com- monwealth and of ruin to individuals. Plutarch speaks of instances where the usurers would subtract the inter- est immediately after the loan was made, and lend it out again, also on interest. In contracting debts, there would seem to have been in vogue two different systems. First, there was the infor- mal handshake; second, there was the formal contract, in which the debtor pledged something valuable as secur- ity of payment. In very early times he pledged even his own body, but this was forbidden by the laws of Solon. The banker was also a receiver of deposits. In this respect he most nearly resembles our modern banker. But the Greeks were slow to make such deposits. The jars of money that are still found from time to time, while they contribute to our knowledge of Greek numis- matics, also testify to a strong tendency to hoard. Together with the banking system there were other appliances of commerce. There were the importers, whose duty it was to carry the different merchandise from shore to shore. There were also consuls (proxe- noi) in different States, who looked after the interests of 30 Greek and Roman Period commerce, and who were likely to bring together seller and buyer. Even to this day there still remain the ruins of what were once two typical centers of Greek trade. These are the ruins of the deigma or exchange, and the agora or marketplace. The deigma was the place where sellers exhibited samples of their wares. Such a custom would naturally save the expense and trouble of securing the services of a commercial traveler. In Cuba, at the present day, there is still some kind of exchange very similar to the old Greek deigma, and many traders have expatiated upon its advantages. Another center of commerce was the agora. This was the marketplace, where the goods were exposed for retail sale. Fully Greek citizens were allowed, without any condition, to expose their wares for sale, but metics or foreign citizens had to pay duty, such sums of money going to swell the coffers of the treasury. In the center of the agora was an open space surrounded by a portico, and this, like the Roman forum, served as a kind of lounging or general meeting place for the well-to-do. Each part of the agora was apportioned to its own par- ticular trade. Thus, the lamp sellers would be in one part, the fruit sellers in another. This, perhaps, was meant to harmonize with the general custom of setting apart certain streets for particular trades. But business was not conducted only in the deigma, the agora, or even in the street shops. The narrow streets of Athens resounded with the strong and strident cry of the petty huckster or hawker, and such goods, even more than those exposed for sale in the agora, were disposed of only after a considerable amount of harangu- ing and altercation. Economic Conditions in Greece 31 It was not long before the importance of commerce came to be fully realized by the State, and of this the severe laws of debt are more than a sufficient proof. Commerce is essentially based on credit and good faith. If this is shaken, all falls to the ground. At all costs, the lender must be put in a position of safety, for, in the words of Demosthenes, "Commerce emanates, not from the borrower, but from the lender;" hence the severity of the early laws of debt. Even the reputation of the personal integrity of the merchant was secured by law, which inflicted severe punishment on whomsoever should falsely accuse him. State recognition also showed its activity in the appointment of commercial courts to de- cide cases involving commercial laws, all means being used to arrive at a prompt decision. SECTION III STATE ADMINISTRATION OF FINANCES It was not long before State recognition of commerce led to interference for good or evil with every detail of commercial life. For the principle that the citizen was absolutely subordinate to the State, and must seek his own perfection through the collective perfection of the State, naturally applied to commerce as well as to every other department. From some points of view the State regulation of trade was highly beneficial. The overseers of the harbor, of whom there were ten appointed every year, the inspec- tors of weights and measures, and the inspectors of the different goods that were sold, performed tasks both useful and necessary. Such officials were a means of 32 Greek and Roman Period checking wrong-doing and commercial robbery. Almost equally beneficial was the care shown by the State for the poor. There was a special fund set aside for the chil- dren of those who died in war. Pisistratus, the Tyrant, illustrated one phase of the paternal nature of tyrannical governments by causing special provision to be made for those who were mutilated in war. If, in the early years of Greek history, no mention is made of other classes of needy persons, the presumption is that there were none. It must have been after the Peloponnesian war that des- titution became common. After that time, bounties or alms were sometimes awarded by decrees of the people. This, however, was only done when the Senate had carefully examined into the merits of the case, and the amount never exceeded two obols (about eight cents). At the same time, mention is also made of the education of orphan children by the State. Besides looking after the poor and needy, the State also busied itself with the task of regulating the course of trade in the interests of the general welfare. Thus, it was forbidden to kill sheep and goats before the lambing season was over, the object of this being to prevent the depletion of these animals. A similar inten- tion underlay the laws that forbade the exportation of certain articles, such as wheat, and even forbade the loan of money to any vessel that did not return to Athens with a cargo of corn. It was also in the interests of the consumer that the price of salt was carefully fixed by statute, and that, as we have already seen, the profits of dealers in grain were prevented from colliding with the welfare of the citizen buyers. On the whole, State interference with trade does not seem to have been productive of very evil results in Greece, for a considerable margin of liberty was allowed Economic Conditions in Greece 33 to buyer and seller, and there seems to have been very little dishonesty on the part of overseers and other public officials. Certain defects, however, became somewhat apparent in the management of the State's own finances. In an absolute democracy, where the ultimate control of the money is vested in the great body of the citizens, and when all, one after another, try to get into positions of financial trust, defalcations are sure to be found. It is true that the actual administration of the public treasury was confided to the Senate, which received the dues and other sources of revenue, and paid out whatever sums were necessary. But under the Senate were various officials who were responsible for collecting and distribu- ting the revenues, and it was among these that dishon- esty was sometimes to be found. Among these officials was the board of ten, called poletai, one member being elected from each of the ten tribes. These poletai regu- lated the levy of taxes. There were also the officials who collected the tribute from the allies, and, finally, a special set of officials who collected the arrears of tribute. All these found abundant opportunities for dishonesty. The money thus taken in was handed over to the receivers or treasurers (apodecteres) . Their chief duty seems to have been that of erasing the debtors' names in the presence of the Senate, and distributing the sums of money that were paid. Naturally there must have been a considerable amount of bookkeeping and auditing. In the keeping of ordi- nary private accounts slaves were employed as clerks, because they could be forced, by torture, to give evi- dence. But only citizens could be employed as clerks in the public service. These clerks had to render an 34 Greek and Roman Period account to a set of officials, called the logistai, or public auditors. These officials, however, could often be bribed. It thus came to pass that the only means of cor- recting the balance between receipts and expenditures and of checking the dishonesty of public officials was partly reduced to a helpless condition. Altogether, peculation became a crime extremely com- mon among Greek officials. Even Pericles himself, in this particular, was not exempt from suspicion. Nor is this a matter of surprise. The elaborate apparatus necessary for the prevention and detection of public fraud is an invention of comparatively modern times. A brief survey of the production and distribution of wealth in ancient Greece will have revealed much of the same good and evil that we find even in our own modern system. As time went on, the organization of industry became more and more complex, and presented many of the problems that still press for solution even at the present day. We must now consider the way in which this economic system determined some of the important crises of Greek history. CHAPTER II INFLUENCE OF THE ECONOMIC ELEMENT IN MOLDING GREEK HISTORY OF ALL the Greek City-States, Athens stands forth as typical of everything that is greatest and noblest in Greek history. It was Athens that headed the Greek States in the successful resistance to the Persian invader. It was Athens that, through her colonial empire, offered at one time the best prospects of effecting the unity of Hellas. It was Athens that, owing to her peculiar circumstances, has been able to offer to us the purest type of democracy. It is in Athens that we find unified and summarized the history of all the Greek States. In studying the critical turning points of Athenian history, we can not fail to notice how the economic ele- ment has always been a preponderating influence. Dur- ing the early years of her existence, Athens had to face three important economic problems. She had to deal with the appalling decline of agricultural industry, with the extreme poverty of the lower classes, and with the stagnation of trade. These three problems, if left un- solved, might easily have led to the overthrow of Athens in the times immediately preceding the reforms of Solon, and it was only the prompt remedy that he applied that led, not only to the removal of grave economic evils, but to the formation of a full and perfect democracy. First, there was the agrarian problem. The land was worked on the tenant system. This means that the pro- prietor of the land would let it out to somebody else who agreed to pay rent in return for the occupation of 36 Greek and Roman Period the land. The rent paid was no less than five-sixths of the produce. This arrangement left only one-sixth for the support of the tenant and his family. Possibly, if the holding was unusually large, the one-sixth part might prove sufficient. But, in the majority of cases, it was not. Moreover, if the division had been more equitable, if it had been what it usually now is, one- half, or, as in some parts of Italy, two-thirds, even then the interests of agriculture would have suffered. For the knowledge that so large a proportion of any profits on the improvement of the land must go to the landlord always acts as an effective brake on the energies of the cultivator. In addition to the evil effect of this abiding cause, there had also been a succession of bad harvests. The produce was reduced to microscopic proportions, and yet, even of this, the five-sixths had to go to the landlord. Only one resort was left to the wretched tenant, and that was to borrow often giving as security his own body. Such a remedy, however, only delayed the ruin, to make it still more final and overwhelming. Multitudes of peasants, unable to pay their debts, were reduced to the condition of slavery, the land was left to go out of cultivation, and there was fast rising in the State an ever increasing number of men whose misery and starvation were a constant thunder-cloud hanging over the nation. The second problem was the extreme disproportion of wealth between the upper and lower classes. Capital was congested in the hands of a few rich men. It failed to circulate freely, and this always produces a danger- ous state of things in the body politic. This was espe- cially so in the ancient City-State. The whole area of the Athenian City-State did not exceed thirty-six square Influence of the Economic Element 37 miles. Even within this area, the active pulsating life of the State was limited to Athens itself and the country immediately surrounding. Wealth and rags were con- stantly encountering each other, and the results were ever increasing pride on the one hand, and, on the other, ever increasing jealousy and discontent. The third great problem was stagnation of trade. Free commercial intercourse between nation and nation is greatly dependent upon a convenient means of ex- change; in other words, a common currency. Up till now, Athens had adopted the old-fashioned Boeotian system of currency, and this had the effect of cutting her off from the more lucrative commerce with the pros- perous cities and fertile plains of the Asiatic seaboard. There were also other subsidiary causes of stagnation of trade, such as the faulty incidence of taxation, by which is meant that taxes fell unequally and unjustly on the various classes of society; and, finally, there was the want of the capital necessary in order to initiate certain industries. Owing to these different causes, trade in Athens, as also her whole commercial pros- perity, had dangerously declined. Such were the three great problems confronting Athens at the time of Solon. An immediate solution of them was urgently necessary. Elements of disrup- tion were fast manifesting themselves in the State, and even the political existence of Athens seemed on the point of being submerged by the rising waters of sedi- tion and discontent. No doubt political causes of discontent were also present, but these were as yet inarticulate. Demands for political reform presuppose a certain development of political knowledge, and the Athenian populace, in such early times, could hardly have been conscious of 38 Greek and Roman Period their exclusion from political power, and, still less so, of the means of removing such exclusion. It was Solon, who, with a sagacity far ahead of his age, perceived clearly the root of the evil, and, what was more important, applied a remedy that was not worse than the disease. His first measures of reform were partly economical and partly political, and were so interwoven with one another as to furnish an inter- esting object lesson of the connection between economics and history. The intolerable condition of the people was at once alleviated. Debtors were placed in a position where they could once more labor for their daily bread. Pledges, whether in the way of land or of bodies, were at once restored to the debtor. While, even previous to Solon's time, it was considered sacrilegious to pledge the land that was the sacred property of the family, it was now made illegal also to pledge one's own body as security for debt. At the same time the rate of inter- est that could be legally demanded was considerably re- duced. Some historians, following the new Aristotle, have asserted that Solon abolished all outstanding debts. Such a drastic measure, however, would have been quite contrary to the sane reasonableness of Solon's reforms. If any further disproof were needed, we find it in the dissatisfaction of the extreme radical party. The proba- bility is, however, that Solon, recognizing the natural limits of the jurisdiction of the State, absolved from their liability all the creditors of the State. Solon then turned his attention to the betterment of the condition of the trading classes of the community. This he did in the first place by substituting for the old antiquated system of coinage the new coinage already Influence of the Economic Element 39 in use by the great commercial centers of Chalcis and Corinth. What the exact nature of this change was, we can conjecture only from Plutarch, who says that Solon made the mna to consist of one hundred drachmas, whereas before it consisted of only seventy-three. The general result seems to have been to lower the value of the monetary standard, and thus make it easier for debtors to discharge their debts. Such an advantage, however, would be comparatively slight, in comparison with that of assimilating the Attic currency with that of Euboea and the other leading localities. In other ways, also, did Solon encourage industry. He forbade all exports save that of the olive, which was so plentiful. No doubt, to many modern econo- mists, this might seem most prejudicial to the best inter- ests of trade, but we must remember that the necessities of life in Athens were few in number, and that the idea was not to barter the essential for what was only of secondary and immaterial importance. Solon also en- couraged certain industries that would otherwise lan- guish for want of support. In this he was only antici- pating the modern system of bounties in which the manufacturer is paid for every amount of goods that he produces. In Athens, such a policy was signally suc- cessful. Industries that were perishing for lack of initial support speedily began to revive, and to acquire an independent and flourishing existence. Such were the most important of the economic re- forms of Solon. They arrested famine and starvation, warded off the danger of a revolution on the part of starving fanatics, and gradually brought about the formation of a strong middle class. Perhaps it was the last result that was the most important of all. No State can exist long or healthily without a strong middle class. 4O Greek and Roman Period History shows that it is the middle class that saves soci- ety both from the despotism of monarchs and the caprices of the lower classes. And it was owing to the strength of the middle class that Athens was able to pre- sent to the world the flower of a perfect democracy, as well as to lead for so many years the onward march of Greek progress and civilization. Even the political reforms of Solon rested mainly upon the solid bedrock of an economic foundation. First in importance was his division of Athenian society into four classes, according to the amount of wealth which they possessed. The first class was called penta- kosiomedimnoi, whose annual income ranged from five hundred medimni upward; the second class was called hippeis, and comprised all whose income was between three hundred and five hundred medimni; the third class, zeugitai (or owners of a yoke of oxen) , required an income ranging between one hundred and fifty and three hundred medimni, while the fourth class, thetes, con- sisted of all whose income fell below one hundred and fifty. Since only the members of the two upper classes were eligible to the high offices of State, such an ar- rangement substituted an aristocracy of wealth for that of birth. In other words, it substituted an economic for an hereditary qualification for office, and thus introduced a general tendency in the direction of democracy. For a barrier of birth is absolutely insurmountable, while the barrier of wealth is an obstacle that can be overcome. A poor man, endowed with unceasing industry, and helped by good fortune, might rise from the lowest to the highest class, and thus become a candidate for the supreme offices in the State, even for the office of archon. The reforms of Solon had the immediate effect of Influence of the Economic Element 41 introducing equality into the State, and of preparing the way for future reforms. The people were relieved from their intolerable economic condition, and at the same time were entrusted with just so much political power as to prevent them from ever again being oppressed, and to allow them a safe opportunity for self-education. The power which the people now had of electing their magistrates, and of trying them at the end of their year of office, effectually prevented an attempt on the part of the rulers to trample upon their newly acquired politi- cal and economic rights. The reforms of Clisthenes, a few years afterwards, supplied what was wanting in the reforms of Solon, and still further perfected these on the same lines of democracy. Fierce factions in the State still continued after Solon's time. The chief causes of these were tribal exclusiveness and tribal jealousies in other words, the family unit of organization interfered with the solidification of the State as a whole. Such an ob- stacle was now removed by the reforms of Clisthenes, who substituted ten for the old four tribes, and care- fully distributed the townships among the ten tribes so that the old local interests should not again revive. As a consequence, the old senate of four hundred was also superseded, and another senate formed, consisting of five hundred members, fifty being elected from each of the ten tribes. Finally, Clisthenes completed the democratic reforms of Solon by the more frequent meetings of the ecclesia, or popular assembly, and by vesting all the practical supreme power in the hands of this sovereign body of the people. By this time, the City-State of Athens was fast rising toward the zenith of her economic and commercial 42 Greek and Roman Period prosperity. Athens was fast becoming the emporium of Greece. Her marketplace was the largest and the most central in Greece. Crowds of foreign merchants from most distant parts thronged the Piraeus, and wealth was now pouring fast into her lap. It is no wonder that Athens, after the reforms of Solon and Clisthenes, was able to head the Greek re- sistance to the Persian invader. It was the money of Athens that built the most important ships of its navy and thus dealt the decisive blow at the battle of Salamis. And it was the wonderful fecundity and re- cuperative power of Athenian capital, under all shapes and forms, that enabled Athens, after the devastating visits of the Persians, to build another city, fairer and far stronger than before. But, after the Persian wars, there entered a new ele- ment into the economic life of Athens an element that, at one time, seemed to promise to her the sovereignty of the whole Grecian world, but eventually brought about her ruin. This was the colonial empire of Athens, an empire that was formed out of the con- federacy of Delos. It was owing to the guiding hand of Pericles that the confederacy of Delos became transformed into a mari- time empire so vast that it practically turned the waters of the ^Egean and the Hellespont into an Athenian lake. It was also under Pericles that Athens attained its full economic development. Some of the features, however, which were introduced by him mark not only the turn- ing point, but also the beginning of the decline of Athenian greatness. The assertion of Athenian supremacy was in itself a cause of discontent to the allies. The loudest note in the general chorus of disapproval at the assertive policy Influence of the Economic Element 43 of Athens was that Pericles used the contributions of the allies for the purpose of strengthening and beau- tifying Athens. The allies complained that this was a case of misappropriation, for the contributions had always been made for the purpose of a common defense against the Persians. Even from the very beginning, the allies had shown sensitiveness on this point. Thus, they objected to the term phora, as applied to the common contribution, and insisted on its being called suntaxis. Their chagrin, therefore, can easily be imagined when Pericles directed their contributions wholesale to the personal adornment and utility of Athens. Pericles, however, excused himself by saying that Athens had sufficiently fulfilled her duty in defending the allies from any possible attack from the Persians, that, so long as this was the case, the purpose of the contributions had been fulfilled. This statement, how- ever, seemed to the allies an excuse rather than a reason. They bitterly resented the high-handed policy of Peri- cles, and their discontent soon became chronic. It must be admitted that the administration of the contributions of the allies does great credit to the self- restraint of Athens, and the sagacity of Pericles. Many other States would have wasted the funds in wide pro- fusion and wasteful extravagance; whereas Pericles spent the money on worthy objects, such as the advance- ment of art and culture. Moreover, Pericles, in his dis- tribution of the funds, showed remarkable sagacity and economic forethought. According to Plutarch, he did not wish that the Athenian citizens should go without their share in the wealth that had been accumulated through the con- quests and progress of all the citizens. Pericles, ac- 44 Greek and Roman Period cording to the same author, laid the foundations of great edifices, which would require multitudes of indus- tries of every kind in order to complete them. "Differ- ent materials," to use the words of Pericles, "such as stone, brass, iron, ebony, cypress wood, etc., would re- quire special artisans for each, such as carpenters, modelers, smiths, stone-masons, painters, embroiderers, and makers-in-relief, and also bring men into the city, such as sailors and captains of ships, and for those which came by land, as carriage builders, horse breeders, rope makers. Each trade, moreover, would employ a num- ber of unskilled laborers, so that there would be work for every person of every age and class." These words of Pericles are full of significance. They show the mental economic development of his time, as well as his broad sympathy for every class of industry. His last sentence is especially worthy of at- tention. It shows his acquaintance with the economic distinction between skilled and unskilled labor, and the need of providing for both classes. Surely his popularity was founded on something else besides a majestic presence and a gift of sonorous lan- guage. His deeds speak as eloquently as his words for the good of the State. At no time in the history of Athens was money so plentiful and so well distributed. His policy of paying those who took part in the ser- vice of the State requires, however, some explanation. Already there had been precedents for such a policy, but Pericles carried it to its fullest extent. According to Plutarch, he extended the payment for public ser- vice to the dicastai, namely, to those who were serv- ing as jurors; but this really meant the payment of all those who took part in the public service of the State. Taking these into account, there must have been a Influence of the Economic Element 45 considerable number of men in the receipt of public pay. At one time, there were no fewer than forty-eight hun- dred and eighty men engaged in military duties of a remunerative kind, while there were also seventy-nine hundred employed in civic duties, also receiving pay from the State. During the time of Pericles, however, no evil conse- quences seem to have resulted from such a system. Moreover, even according to our modern views, it is only just that those who contribute their time and labor to the service of the State should receive some compensa- tion. We must now turn to the consideration of the weak points in the economic system existing at the time of Pericles. They are important, as showing that not only the rise, but also the fall of Athenian greatness must be sought for in economic facts. One of these defects we have hinted at already. Ex- treme dissatisfaction had been expressed by the allies at the way in which Pericles had appropriated the funds of the League of Delos. Another defect, rather simi- lar to this, might also be mentioned, namely, the nature of the Athenian Cleruchy. The Cleruchy was not an independent colony, but a settlement of Athenian citi- zens still depending upon Athens. The chief Cleruchies were at Chalcis, Naxos, Andros, and Lemnos. There were various reasons for such foundations. One would be the natural desire of having outside lands brought under the direct contact of Athenian influence, especially such a close and important territory as was the island of Euboea. A second reason was the desire to establish outposts on the trade route between Athens and the Black Sea. The inhabitants of the Cleruchies, however, became 46 Greek and Roman Period a source of danger rather than of advantage to the Athenians. Their pride and arrogant interference with the natives of the country were intolerable. In fact, the countries in which the Cleruchies were planted be- came even more zealous than the allies to cast off the yoke of Athenian rule. Another and, perhaps, the most fatal defect in the economic administration of Athens was that the citizens themselves generally held aloof from the trading and commercial movements of the time. Labor and com- merce were, for the most part, in the hands of slaves and alien residents. It is true that, with regard to the slaves, they were treated, for the most part, kindly. Indeed, their comfortable condition would surpass that of many of our modern workingmen. It was only in remote dis- tricts, where the slaves were herded together in great numbers, that we find anything like merciless severity. The resident aliens were also of service to the State, not only on account of their loyalty, but because by their taxes they contributed to the wealth of the State. Not only, as we have seen, were the resident foreigners obliged to pay a tax for selling their wares in the market- place, but each family had to pay a yearly tax, and then, again, it was their increasing industry that went to swell the trade and commerce of Athens. But, all this time, the Athenian citizens them- selves were living on the labor of others. They were not the producers of the wealth that they so lavishly dis- tributed, and it was this that formed one of the main fundamental differences between Athenian and mod- ern democracy. The modern democracy has all the energy and recuperative powers of the living work- man. It can produce its own capital. It is not a para- site, living on others and dependent on others, and thus, Influence of the Economic Element 47 when danger and misfortune threaten, it is capable of exhibiting both wisdom and fortitude. Even though calamities may happen, it can reproduce all the capital it may have lost. Such was not the case with the Athenian democracy. Culture and refinement alone do not make up the strength of a nation. When, for its material comforts and necessities, it has to depend upon others, then it becomes weak and hampered. The economic grandeur and splendor of Athens were after all only borrowed from others. They were not built upon the solid bed- rock of economic industry and resourcefulness, and when the waves broke against the edifice it was bound to fall. It is here that we find the explanation of the speedy downfall of Athens after the death of Pericles. Owing to his genius, the plan of campaign against the Spartans was successful, but when he died the Athenian democ- racy began to show itself in its true character. It showed a complete want of ways and means. It was wanting in the mental qualities that come only from the presence of industry and self-initiative. Nor was this all. Great, indeed, had been the re- sources of Athens at the beginning of her long war with Sparta. Besides all her naval and military resources, she had in the treasury no less than six thousand talents. But even with all this, she could not stand the continual drain upon her resources. She was continually spending without reproducing. This condition of internal weak- ness was hastened by the dissatisfaction of the allies. The long war of seventeen years was at length brought to a close by the complete and final triumph of the mili- tary forces of Sparta. The next few years of Greek history mark the rapid decline of the Greek States, one after another. Sparta 48 Greek and Roman Period for a time has the ascendency, then Thebes. It is not till the time of Alexander the Great and the Macedo- nian conquests that we step out from the murky atmos- phere of petty strifes and factions into the salubrious region of great events. When Alexander succeeded to the throne he seemed to have solved the task of forming a united Greece. The whole of Greece proper was brought under his con- trol, while powerful Macedonian fortresses would have checked any revolution if such were attempted. Even during this period, however, economics as a theory was still undergoing a gradual evolution, but in a new direction. Hitherto the Greeks had busied them- selves with political economy more as an art than as a science; now they begin to regard it from the scientific point of view. Definitions are made and discussed, and theories elaborated. The writer who, perhaps, more than any other ex- presses the advance of Greek thought in this respect is Aristotle. Some of his theories are important as fur- nishing the basis of many speculations, and even of ac- tive policy during the Middle Ages. Many of the treatises of medieval writers are per- meated with Aristotelian views. St. Thomas Aquinas incorporated many of Aristotle's views regarding the conditions justifying the demand for interest and regard- ing the lawfulness of trade. While, for example, Aris- totle praises trade per se, he condemns it in the real city, because it leads to sordid avarice. So, also, St. Thomas declares that trade is only lawful when a merchant seeks moderate gain for his household. Mere speculation, however, could have little effect, whether for good or bad, at a time when the civilized world was torn asunder by constant discord and strife. Influence of the Economic Element 49 It is not till the time of the supremacy of Macedonia, and of the conquests of Alexander the Great, that his- tory pursues once again its broad course of development, and that the economic factor becomes a real and impor- tant factor in that development. After the completion of his conquests, Alexander's desire was to consolidate what he had gained by social and economic means. He strove to amalgamate the Greeks and Orientals by intermarriage. He built large cities, which were intended to become great centers of commerce. He made and improved the roads which con- nected all the important towns. He also increased the circulation of wealth and furthered the interests of com- merce by his wide distribution of the hoards of gold that were found in the Persian treasuries. This had the effect, not only of making capital more accessible, but also of substituting gold for the baser metals as a medium of exchange. Such a reform in the currency was highly desirable, owing to the greater value of gold, and the ease with which it was carried about. He also bestowed great attention upon the improve- ment of agriculture, as is shown by his attempts to irri- gate the fertile plains of Babylon. And, what would be little expected from a military leader, he endeavored to put together an efficient navy, and to circumnavigate the Arabian peninsula. Had he lived longer, success might have crowned all his efforts. As it was, the course of subsequent history showed that the most lasting part of his achievements was his efforts on social and economic lines. Many of the cities that he built became, like Alexandria of to-day, great emporiums of commerce and trade. The blend- ing together of the Greek and Oriental element is still conspicuous even in our own times. And the whole of 50 Greek and Roman Period the trade between the East and the West received a remarkable impetus, both during and after his time. After the death of Alexander, however, we are pass- ing over the last period of Greek economic history the period marked by the domination of Rome. Dur- ing this period the history of Greece proper presents very little that is attractive. We discern, still more clearly than ever, the utter incapacity of Greece to man- age her own affairs. Only one little State, compact and solid, seems still to survive as heir to all the culture and wealth of some of the City-States of ancient Greece. This is the Island of Rhodes. Even by nature this island was signally favored. The air is mild and balmy; perennial sunshine is said to pre- vail, and the soil is remarkable for its exuberant activ- ity. Also the abundance of such natural products as glue, pitch, honey, and saffron ointment enabled her to carry on an extensive trade with both Greeks and Romans, while her position made her the center of the trade between Europe and the Levant. Her political power acquired a corresponding im- portance. By 357 B.C., she had shaken off the fetters of her subjection to Athens. Though for a time she was subdued by Alexander the Great, she became free again after his death. Then after successfully repulsing the sieges of the powerful Demetrius of Macedonia, she showed herself in her true light as a great and very formidable power. The Romans themselves were glad to form an alliance with her against Attalus, King of Pergamus, and on another occasion it was chiefly by means of the Rhodian fleet that the Romans defeated Antiochus III, King of Syria. Unfortunately, however, the Rhodians, in 168 B.C., abandoned their alliance with Rome, and joined the fall- Influence of the Economic Element 51 ing cause of Perseus of Macedonia. They, therefore, shared in the defeat of that prince and were subjected to the severest penalties. The naval supremacy that Rhodes had enjoyed in the ^Egean Sea was completely taken away from her and her trade crippled by the declaration of Delos as a free port. Thus Delos, not Rhodes, now became the center of the Levant trade, and the result was the commercial and political extinc- tion of the last prosperous and powerful Greek City- State. CHAPTER III ECONOMIC CONDITION OF ANCIENT ROME THE Romans, like the Greeks, had in the early stages of their political existence no conception of political economy as a science. Economic problems of a very urgent nature did, indeed, present themselves to Roman statesmen even from the earliest times, but their man- ner of dealing with such problems was essentially prac- tical and not theoretical. Nor was there any time for speculation and cool, scientific inquiry. Hence, while many attempts were made to handle economic subjects in a practical manner, we come across very few discus- sions and theories. But after the middle period of Roman history, in fact almost when Rome was in its decline, various Roman philosophers and jurists began to discuss certain economic theories. Nor was this remarkable, when we consider that the masterpieces of Greek literature were beginning to find their way into Roman society, and especially that the elaborate system of Roman law, strong even on its commercial side, demanded many interpretations. Most of these theories are remarkable for their pes- simistic character. Occasionally they resemble the lamentations of some of our own modern writers. They complain generally of the neglect of agriculture and the decay of industry. Chief among the writers of this sort were Cicero and Seneca, while Virgil, in later times, echoes the same strain more melodiously and more sweetly, when he sings in the Georgics of the oppressive- ness of congested city life, with its vain pleasures and Economic Condition of Ancient Rome 53 empty formalities, as contrasted with the innocent and healthful delights of country life. Such writings showed a just observation of the eco- nomic evils of the times, but they did not attempt to point out any radical remedy. Even when other writers, like Cato and Varro, busy themselves with the agricul- tural industry, they concern themselves almost exclu- sively with its practical details. There is no broad gen- eralization, no formal enunciation of principles. If they do rise above the consideration of the mere con- crete, it is only to utter platitudes regarding the bene- fits of farming life in fostering the natural virtues and begetting honest citizens. There were, however, certain thinkers of a different type who did seriously discuss some very important eco- nomic theories. Foremost among these was Columella. He was born in Spain, about 40 A.D., and wrote a trea- tise, De Re Rustica, in twelve books. One of the inter- esting questions that he raises is whether large or small farming is to be preferred. He decides in favor of the small farming. Perhaps his decision was partly in- fluenced by the fact that in Italy there were so many huge estates badly managed, and worked by slaves to the general detriment of the free laborer. Also among the jurists, as we have already said, were raised certain economic discussions. These afford most interesting glimpses of the views entertained by the Romans regarding the absolute and relative value of money, the advantages and disadvantages of slave labor, and the way in which governments might advanta- geously interfere in such matters as encouragement of population, and curtailment of public and private ex- travagance. In one respect the Roman jurists seem to have held 54 Greek and Roman Period quite a different opinion from the Greek writers, and this was their view regarding interest on money loans. Al- ready in 45 1 B.C., the rate of interest had been carefully kept in check by the Twelve Tables. Not satisfied with this, the Romans afterwards entirely prohibited all lend- ing on interest. Possibly this antagonistic attitude had no small share in the discussion, raised during the Mid- dle Ages, on the lawfulness of lending money on inter- est. And this seems all the more likely, when we con- sider that the provisions of Roman law, and the opin- ions of Roman jurists, formed a considerable part of the European code. The debt, however, that modern political economy owes to ancient Rome is not very great, at least from the theoretic point of view. There were very few princi- ples and theories elaborated, and these were not put to- gether so as to form a science. It is rather from the ac- tive and concrete side that Roman economics influenced posterity, and as we shall soon see, many of our most important commercial and financial institutions find their precedent in Roman times. We shall now give a brief survey of the economic condition of Rome, considering, first, its production of wealth, and then its distribution. ROMAN PRODUCTION OF WEALTH The rich fertility of Italian soil has been much spoken" of by Italian writers, both in prose and verse. Diony- sius says that it compares very favorably with all other countries. According to him, the country is so capable of supplying all the necessities of life that it is scarcely at all dependent upon other countries. He speaks of Economic Condition of Ancient Rome 55 the luxuriant grain-fields of the Campania, of the Mes- sapian and Sabine olive lands, of the rich vineyards called the Tuscan, Albanian, and Falernian. Nor does he omit to speak of the great pasture lands, of the ex- tensive forests, whose wood is so excellent for building purposes. His catalogue of praises also finds room to mention the warm springs, so delightful for bathing, and so efficient in chronic diseases, the many kinds of metals that are under the soil, and finally the de- lightful temperature of the air. Much of this is, no doubt, true, but travelers who are practically acquainted with Italy well know that some distinction will have to be made. A great difference exists between Northern and Southern Italy. In the northern parts of Italy the climate more resembles that of England and Scotland, except that it is very much drier. It is only in the Italian lake district that the orange and lemon are found, and even then only in shel- tered places. It is in the middle and southern parts of Italy, and especially in Sicily, that sub-tropical vegetation is to be found. These districts are able to produce corn, rice, oil, silk, and all sorts of fruits, while in striking con- trast with the severe winters of the northern region are perennial sunshine, and, during the summer, severe droughts. Altogether, Italy, even more than Greece, is an agri- cultural country, and, in fact, from time immemorial, agriculture has been one of the two chief occupations of the Romans, the other being that of war. It is no small wonder that the greatest writers of ancient Rome are more in favor of agriculture than of the other industries. Cicero, for example, says that there is nothing better, more pleasing, more delightful, 56 Greek and Roman Period and more befitting a well-bred gentleman, than the pur- suit of agriculture. The same writer, however, showers disdain on mechanical occupations, and even hurls his denunciations against butchers, cooks, and others of kindred occupations, to whom he himself, however, must have been often indebted for many an hour of pleasure. Partly, therefore, owing to natural circumstances, partly owing to prejudice, agriculture was the absorbing industry of the time. Other industries there were, but they occupied a position comparatively unimportant. Naturally such industries were chiefly connected with the actual necessaries of life. From the earliest days, there was need of clothing, and since large numbers of sheep were on the spot it was inevitable that some kind of woolen industry should be established. But this was carried on only in the private family, generally by the slaves under the supervision of their mistress. Only iA later imperial times was the wool spun in the public factories. The great Augustus himself wore woolen clothing made in his own family. Later on, other material for clothing was introduced. We hear of linen, cotton, and even silk being used for articles of apparel, but, of these industries, the home fac- tories were, for a long time, exceedingly few. Nor was there given a stimulus of any kind to the starting and development of such industries, the reason of this be- ing that goods could be so easily imported from abroad, even from such far-off countries as India and China. Besides the clothing industries, there were also others, which, from their very nature, were more or less indis- pensable. These were, for example, bakers, fullers, cobblers, carpenters, goldsmiths, coppersmiths, dyers, and even flute-blowers, for flute blowing was considered Economic Condition of /Indent Rome 57 in those days a branch of industry. All these formed themselves into guilds, called by the Romans collegia. These associations were, however, very different from our modern guilds. They were not exclusive, anybody outside being allowed to practise the same trade. What seems to have constituted the main object of their existence was for the purpose of handing down the tech- nique of the trade from one generation to another. Most of them had their own rules and forms of worship. In later times the guilds had to receive a license, and only those guilds could be licensed that could prove extreme antiquity. One industry, in particular, deserves mention, partly on account of its contribution to the magnificence of the city of Rome, and partly on account of the great num- bers of workmen to whom it must have been the means of furnishing employment. This was the building in- dustry. Even the ruins of Rome to-day show the size and greatness of some of the public buildings of an- cient Rome, such buildings as those that were in the Roman Forum, and the various temples and baths whose ruins now are scattered throughout the city. In addition to these must also be borne in mind the splendid villas of later Rome, and the great public works that were set on foot by the imperial rulers. Indeed it was Caesar's avowed object to furnish by these means work for the unemployed, and this policy was continued under later emperors. One example of their care in this re- gard was the harbor which was built by Claudius near Ostia. This harbor was contained within two jetties stretching far out into the sea and having a lighthouse at the extremity. Another undertaking of the same em- peror was the construction of a three-mile tunnel to carry away the overflow of the Fucine lake. 58 Greek and Roman Period Other great undertakings of a similar nature were the restoration of the Capitol under Vespasian, the building of the Coliseum under the same emperor, while the new Forum in Rome, the new port near Ostia, and the Trajan aqueduct were all colossal undertakings. All these building operations must have constituted a considerable and never-failing industry, for although many of the employed were slaves, yet many freemen must also have thereby found work. Such, then, were the main industries of ancient Rome. As we have seen, she had nothing except the building industry to rival the extent and development of the in- dustries of ancient Greece. For most of her goods, Rome depended mainly upon importation. She re- ceived everything, and gave nothing back. So profuse, indeed, were the importations of goods, even from such countries as India and Arabia, that the inhabitants of these countries had to ask back some of the exports that they had so lavishly and so expectantly sent over. Agriculture, then, was the main industry of ancient Rome. From the beginning to the end, it was con- sidered to be the cause of the peculiar virtues of the Roman character and, more than any other industry, it was blended with the political fortunes of the Romans. It will not be out of place, therefore, if we give some details regarding some of the most important sections of this industry. First in importance comes the cultivation of grain. In very early times the grain was pounded in mortars, and, after being mixed with water, must have rather resembled our porridge. Soon, however, an improve- ment took place. The pounding was done, not in mor- tars, but in public mills. In these mills the grain was poured into a large funnel, and, after reaching the bot- Economic Condition of Ancient Rome 59 torn, was well ground by a powerful millstone, which was set in motion by the labor of horses or slaves. The next step was to improve the preparation of the grain when thus crushed. This was done by baking and the result was the real equivalent of our bread. As yet, however, there were no loaves, only thin cakes. More- over, all the baking was done at first in private families; not till about the end of the second century before Christ were there public bakers, who, like the members of the other industries, formed themselves into guilds. The bread from these bakeries must have closely re- sembled in taste our modern bread. It contained a little salt and water and was also fermented with yeast. There was also much the same variety that we find in our modern baking. For there were loaves made of the best pure white flour, called panis siligneus, and there were loaves made of a coarse flour, called by such names as panis plebeius, panis sordidus. The second branch of agricultural industry practised in ancient Rome, and which, even to-day, is conspicu- ously flourishing in Italy, was the vine. This, perhaps more than any one branch of industry, is spoken of by Italian writers, both in prose and verse. Some, like Virgil, regard it from the practical and industrial point of view; others, like Horace, regard it rather on its convivial and pleasurable side. The instructions given by Virgil in the two Georgics show a most intimate ac- quaintance with all the details of the cultivation of the vine, and, as for variety, the taste of Horace must have evidently been tickled by samples of all the choicest wines, not only from Italy, but from the Greek Isles. A few words in detail must be said regarding the treatment of the grape when arrived at maturity. This treatment differed from the methods adopted by the 60 Greek and Roman Period Greeks in being more refined and in giving rise to greater variety of wine. First of all there was the juice that descended from the bunches when they were simply brought in contact with one another after being gathered. This kind of juice naturally came from the over-ripe grapes. It was carefully collected apart and was called protropium. Then the grapes were subjected to the same kind of treatment that we read of among the Greeks ; the grape, that is to say, was trodden under the naked feet, pres- sure was applied, and the exuding juice was then col- lected. This went by the name of mustum, and is the same as our modern must. Nor did the process of ex- traction end even here. By means of powerful pres- sure the juice was even extracted from the stalks and husks, and made to form a coarser kind of beverage. Only the mustum was reserved for fermentation, and was carefully preserved in vats coated with pitch. Then, as now, the value of a brand of wine depended greatly upon its age. A vat having on its label the names of consuls who had held office years before would be reckoned in great esteem. The olive was almost as popular in Italy as it had been in Greece. And the ways of preparing it were more numerous and varied. Sometimes it was sprinkled with salt, allowed to remain a few days, and then dried in the sun; at other times the olive was preserved in boiled must. Perhaps the most curious method was that of putting the olive, together with the stalks, into an earthenware vase, and pouring oil on the top. In this condition the contents were allowed to remain, with the result that the flavor of the fresh fruit would last for half a year or more. The Romans had no butter, but they had another Economic Condition of /Indent Rome 61 kind of condiment, of which the olive formed an im- portant ingredient. The other ingredients were corian- der seeds, cummin, fennel, and mint ; all these, after be- ing mixed with oil, forming what the Romans called epyterum, a substitute for our modern butter. The fruit of the olive, however, was chiefly valued for the oil that was obtained in considerable quantities. Enormous quantities of the olive oil must have been used by the Romans. Not only was it in fashion as an article of diet, but even for such a diversity of purposes as fuel for lamps, and for anointing the body, either after bath- ing or before any violent physical contest, it was in use everywhere. Such were the main branches of agriculture, the grain, the olive, and the vine. They furnished occupations that were most suited to the ancient simplicity and rugged character of the Romans, and they were also the main sources of the wealth that Rome herself was able to produce. CHAPTER IV DISTRIBUTION OF ROMAN WEALTH WE HAVE seen that the greater part of the natural wealth of Rome was derived from the land through the industries of the grain, the vine, and the olive. There remains to be seen how this land was divided, and also into whose hands flowed the spoils of Rome's vast con- quests. The original territorial settlement of the Romans was very small. It comprised only Rome itself and the neighboring district. Enterprise and good fortune, however, extended the power of Rome by leaps and bounds. Latium, Campania, Etruria, Sicily, Africa, Greece, all fell under her dominion, even during Re- publican times. The land taken from the enemy was, even from an early period, divided in the following manner: A part was reserved for the State, another part for the Roman colonists, a third part was distributed among the poor in small allotments, while yet another part was rented out to rich citizens, who paid a more or less nominal rent. The part that was reserved to the State generally con- sisted of mines, forests, and great pasture lands. The profits from these were a source of considerable revenue to the State. The land allotted to the colonists became absolutely their private property. When a colony was formed in any district, a law was passed stating the amount of land to be given over, and what burdens should be imposed upon the colonists. Anybody wishing to form part of Distribution of Roman Wealth 63 the colony could then hand in his name, and when all arrangements had been made, the colonists all marched out of Rome with great pomp and solemnity. Naturally, these colonies were very useful for extending Roman influence. Not only did they diffuse the knowl- edge of Roman usages and civilization, but they acted as military outposts. Hence we find that many of the colonies were placed in dangerous and exposed districts. Another portion of land was often distributed among the poor citizens in small allotments. The soil of such lands was generally very rich and did not entail many initial expenses. Another advantage was that the land so distributed was absolutely the property of the per- son to whom it had been granted. As was to be ex- pected, the poorer classes were always anxious that as much of the land as possible should be disposed of in this way. But this wish was not always gratified, and much discontent resulted. We now come to the land that was let out to the rich citizens. Such land was generally of the kind that re- quired a considerable outlay of money. Hence only the rich citizens applied for lands of this descrip- tion. Moreover, a rent had to be paid which varied in value, but, on the average, may be reckoned at one- tenth of the produce of the corn land and one-fifth of the produce of the vine and fruit trees. In other words, such citizens became metayer tenants of the State. Be- sides this rent, another disadvantage was that the occu- pant was only a tenant at will of the State. Any mo- ment he might be dispossessed of his holding. The land in the conquered provinces was subjected to rather different treatment. There, all the land was con- sidered to be the property of the conquerors. But in practice only a portion went directly into the Roman 64 Greek and Roman Period treasury. A great number of private persons were al- lowed to retain their possessions on condition of paying a land tax. The remainder was treated in various ways. Part of it was sold or rented out, the proceeds in either case going directly into the ararium or Roman treasury. Another portion was retained by the govern- ing elements of the province or by the corporations and in various ways was made subservient to public utility. Trade and commerce soon found some place in the economic activity of Rome. Already, by the time of Servius Tullius, coined money became the means of ex- change. Before the use of money, the standard of wealth seems to have been cattle. Of this circumstance the figure of an ox, stamped on the early Roman coin, seems to be a clear indication, while the later word pecunia also points to the same conclusion. As was the case in Greece, the introduction of a com- mon medium of exchange must have greatly facilitated commerce, both inside and outside of Rome. More- over, as Roman conquests expanded, her markets be- came proportionately widened. It is true that Rome, herself, produced very little, but, on the other hand, she was able to pay for her imports by the treasure that poured into her coffers from foreign sources. The chief part in the commercial activity of Italy was taken by the Equites or Roman Knights. Owing to the senatorial Patrician being debarred from extensive trade transactions, and owing to the poverty of the poorer classes, the Equites enjoyed almost the entire monopoly of trade. All the great business transactions were in their hands, and they were also indirectly aided by hav- ing the monopoly of the State contracts. It was to them that the State farmed out the taxes, which means that the State, instead of collecting the taxes, agreed to re- Distribution of Roman Wealth 65 ceive from the Knights a certain sum of money, and al- lowed them to collect and appropriate the taxes for themselves. Such an arrangement had its obvious con- venience for the State, but the disadvantages were many. The Knights were frequently guilty of a great deal of dishonesty and extortion and it was owing to this that the term "Roman Knight" afterwards incurred so much infamy. They also had a monopoly of the slave trade. As Rome's conquests considerably increased, this became a source of unlimited wealth. Delos seems to have been one of the chief marts of the trade. According to Strabo, no fewer than ten thousand slaves were often re- ceived and transported in the same day. From Pliny we also learn that the average rich man could easily maintain a whole legion of them on his yearly income. The great part of Rome's industry was dependent upon slaves. Not only were there slaves in domestic households and in the big workshops, but in later times the vast landed estates in Italy were worked chiefly by slaves. The Knights, therefore, must have enjoyed a very valuable monopoly. But there was, also, another privilege which they enjoyed, perhaps even more important. This was the monopoly of the banking system. From the very earli- est days in Rome a systematic method of keeping ac- counts seems to have prevailed almost everywhere. It was a custom for the father of the household to keep a register in which he wrote in ten different columns the receipts and expenditures. These columns were called, respectively, codex accepli et dispensi. The same custom was followed, but with greater de- velopment, by the Roman banker. Each banker had what was called the liber rationum, much resembling the 66 Greek and Roman Period big ledgers of our modern banks. In these books were written the names of the banker's clients all drawn up in alphabetical order. Two divisions were then made, one for the balance, and the other for the entries of ex- penditure. To quote the exact words of Pliny, "huic omnia expensa, huic omnia feruntur accepta." At certain times, the banks drew up in their books a written account of the finances (rationes redditte) and gave a note to their clients of their exact standing. Nor were these transactions merely a matter of private business; they were all carried out under the supervision of some State official. In Rome, it was the prefect of the city; in the provinces, the governor. Often it would happen that there was a balance or reliquum, which could be paid over at once, or reinvested, according to the will of the client. A still more curious parallel between the Roman banks and our modern banks we find in the check system. Clients who kept a running account were entitled to use a written mandate, called tabulas annulo obsignatis, and this practically fulfilled the same function as the modern check. The Roman banker also fulfilled another very impor- tant function in the economic system. He used to ad- vance money for important enterprises. He thus be- came, like the modern banker, the means by which capi- tal is at once distributed to the parts where it is most needed. Without such a contrivance capital and labor would be separated far apart, to the great detriment of each other. Great, indeed, must have been the importance of the banking system in Roman times, and from it we can measure the importance of the Knights, who monopo- lized this business. It is no wonder that they had be- Distribution of Roman Wealth 67 come, by Cicero's time, one of the most powerful bodies in the State, upon whose action depended the balance of political power. This power may have been exerted wisely or unwisely, but there is little doubt that the Equites, with their command and distribution of capital, maintained the trade and commerce of ancient Rome. As in our own times small retail traders depend indirectly upon the great commercial undertakings, so, in Rome, the retail dealers in the shops, and also the petty huckster, owed their property, and even existence, to the capital of the Equites. FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE ANCIENT ROMAN STATE The revenues of the Roman State were at first few and simple. First, there were the different lands and mines belonging to the State, and forming part of its domain. All the profits arising from these went to the treasury. Then, as time went on, taxes were imposed upon the people. Some of these taxes were direct, others indirect, the former being levied on the very peo- ple who were destined to bear the burden, and the latter being exacted from the payer of the tax only in an in- direct way. The most lucrative of the Roman taxes were direct, and consisted of the following: a. The tribute. This was a tax imposed on all citi- zens. It depended upon the amount of property at which each person was assessed. After being introduced at the reforms of Servius Tullius, it remained in force until 116 B.C. During this year, owing to the great wealth of Rome, it was suspended until the beginning of the reign of Augustus. b. The land tax that was levied on the owners of the allotments of the public land. 68 Greek and Roman Period c. The taxes that were laid upon the inhabitants of the provinces, who were allowed to remain in possession of their holdings. Such inhabitants had to pay either a sum in proportion to the produce, and were then called stipendarii, or to pay a fixed sum, and then went by the name of vectigales. d. The general tribute that was levied on each prov- ince as a whole. This, generally speaking, amounted to about one-tenth of the general produce, but was collected in different ways. e. The tax of the supply of corn that all the prov- inces had to contribute for the maintenance of Rome itself. /. The portoria, or customs duties, which, as trade increased, became very considerable. Other taxes of later introduction might also be men- tioned, such as the tax of five per cent, levied on the manumission of slaves, the tax of one per cent, on articles of sale, the tax of five per cent, on all legacies, near relations being exempted, and, finally, the tax on all sums about which there was a dispute in a court of justice. All these taxes must have furnished a considerable source of revenue. On the whole, however, they were not very burdensome. In no period of Roman history do we read of any disturbance being caused by taxation. Indeed, there would seem to be almost a disproportion between the profuse expenditure, together with the later extravagance of Rome, and the smallness of the tax- ation. Such disproportion is diminished, however, when one takes into account the other subsidiary sources of revenue the confiscations and indemnities inflicted upon the conquered peoples, the forfeiture to the State of unclaimed legacies, and of the property of condemned Distribution of Roman Wealth 69 criminals, the appropriation of the ager publicus in the provinces, and, we might even add, the magnificent be- quest that was made to the Roman people by Attalus, King of Pergamus. There now remains to be considered the way in which all this revenue was administered. In the early times of the kings of Rome, the king, himself, was head of the financial department. Under his control was the ager publicus, out of which were de- frayed public and private expenses, while the treasurers were his own ministers. Some limit, indeed, was placed upon his administration by the Senate, but the Senate then had very little real power. Later on, during the time of the Republic, there began the treasury of the Roman people, called the