Chapter XII: The Greek System (4)

Considerable numbers of _asses_ and the parts of _asses_ have come down to us, many of them bearing marks of value as before described. There is undoubted evidence of a constant reduction of the _as_. The question arises, did the reduction take place _per saltum_ or by a gradual process? Mommsen thinks that the _as_ continued to be of libral weight until shortly before 264 B.C. and that it was then without any intermediate steps reduced to the triens (4 ounces). Mr Soutzo on the other hand maintains with vigour that from 338 B.C., the date at which he fixes the first coinage of _asses_ at Rome, to 264 B.C., the degradation was a gradual process, and he arraigns Mommsen on a charge of disregarding the ancient authorities, who state, as we have seen, that the change was from libral to sextantal _asses_. Mr Soutzo is thus compelled to state that all the _asses_ within that period (338-264 B.C.) although they have a range from almost full libral weight to only 3 ounces were treated as libral _asses_. Now this of course is a very reasonable hypothesis on the principle which I have adopted that bronze money was in fact merely token currency, used only for local circulation and not for extraneous trade. But Mr Soutzo is precluded from adopting such a position unless he gives up the basis of his whole work. He has laid down that the bronze money was not a mere conventional currency, but always was actual value for the amount which it represented. On this assumption he obtains his relation of 1:120 between copper and silver. Assuming that the sextantal reduction was contemporaneous with the issue of the first _denarius_ (which is in direct defiance of the historians), he found that the _denarius_ of 70 grs. = 2 ounces (840 grs.) of bronze; therefore silver was to bronze as 120:1. Again, when the financial crisis took place during the Second Punic war and the _denarius_ was reduced (as we learn from the actual coin weights) to 62 grs., and it was made to pass for 16 _asses_ instead of 10 _asses_, he finds that since 62 grs. of silver = 16 _asses_ of 432 grs. (_unciae_) silver was to bronze as 112:1. But in the latter case he omits to explain why it was that the _denarius_ in paying the troops only counted for _ten asses_. It is evident that if the relation between copper and silver was really as 1:112, there could have been no need for making this difference. But as the soldiers were serving outside Rome, and Roman local token currency would not be taken in payment, it was necessary to pay them according to the market value of bronze. At Rome the _denarius_ was made to pass for 16 _asses_, or three-fifths more than its actual value. It appears therefore that the data given us by Pliny are not sufficient to allow us to come to any definite conclusion as regards the relative value of silver and bronze at that time. Moreover there is no evidence to show that the _denarius_ was reduced from 70 grs. to 62 grs. by the Lex Flaminia. It is on the whole more likely that this reduction took place when the first gold coinage was issued (62 years after the first silver) in 206 B.C., since there was every inducement to make such a change in the silver as would admit of a convenient relation between the gold _scruple_ and 20 _sestertii_. This again raises just doubts as regards the accuracy of Mr Soutzo’s calculation. With reference to the reduction of the _as_ to the sextantal standard we have seen that the truth of his deductions rests entirely on the assumption that the degradation took place _before_ the First Punic war at the same time as the issue of the first silver coinage. This of course is directly contradicted by the historians. But even granting that it was correct, it is difficult to see why we should assume that the Roman _as_, which according to Soutzo’s own principles had been nothing more than a token, should suddenly have been treated as though it really was of the actual value which it represented. There was no reason why, even though the unit of account was the sextantal _as_, the _as_ should have been anything else than a token in its relation to the silver currency: certainly it is strange that, if the Romans after treating the _as_ as a token down to 268 B.C. then suddenly gave it its full monetary value, they did not continue to carry out their new principle. For as a matter of fact there are very great differences in the weight of the sextantal _asses_, and after the reduction to the uncial standard, the same process of degradation went on without ceasing, as Soutzo himself has shown[448]. All these facts point to the conclusion that the bronze coinage at Rome was only a local token currency, such as is our own silver and bronze series at the present day.

Let us now see if we can give a consistent explanation of the statements of the ancient writers which I have quoted above. _Aes rude_ or bronze in an unstamped or unmanufactured state was originally in use at Rome, according to Timaeus. This period corresponds to that time when, as I have endeavoured to show, _asses_ or _bars_ of given dimensions intended to be made into articles for use or ornament passed from hand to hand, as do the brass rods mentioned above at the present moment in the Congo region of Africa. Then came the stamping of the _asses_ towards the close of the regal period (according to Timaeus), when figures of animals were placed thereon. We have seen above (p. 354) that such figures are actually found on certain rough quadrilateral pieces of bronze found in some parts of central Italy. With the use of weight instead of measure for appraising their value, the shape of the _asses_ would become modified, getting shorter and thicker. Finally, they assume the round shape of ordinary coins, and bear certain well-defined symbols on both sides, such as the Janus head and Rostrum on the _as_, that of Mercury on the _sextans_. But as few of these round _asses_ are found to weigh more than 10 _unciae_, it would seem that the process of degradation had already set in before their issue. Gold and silver at the same epoch passed by weight either after the ancient fashion in ingots, or as the coined money of the Greek cities of the South or of the Etruscans. The unit of account continues to be the _as_ of _full weight_. Thus all penalties due to the state would be paid not in reduced _asses_ of only 5 or 4 ounces, but in full libral _asses_ as weighed in the balance. On the other hand although reduced _asses_ were used by the state in paying debts to private individuals, they were only received as tokens, and no doubt the state was bound if called upon to pay a full pound of bronze for every stamped reduced _as_ presented to it, but in ordinary times this made no practical difference, for the bronze currency was purely local all over Italy and Sicily, as we have seen above. It was far too cumbrous to be used as a medium of international trade.

When the Romans after defeating Pyrrhus and taking Tarentum had reduced all Southern Italy and hence obtained great quantities of silver, they proceeded five years before the beginning of the First Punic war to issue silver _denarii_ or ten _as_ pieces. Are these pieces real representatives of the as of account, or do they rather simply represent the value of the then normal _as_ of currency, which was probably not more than a _triens_ or four ounces or perhaps not more than a _quadrans_ or three ounces? The latter is the more likely hypothesis. They had been long accustomed to a bronze token currency, and it was most likely that the new silver currency would be adapted to it. It is then likely that the _denarius_ equalled ten _asses_ of at least 3 ounces each, in which case silver was to bronze as 180:1. In transactions inside the state the balance would be commonly, and in dealing with strangers invariably, employed in all monetary transactions, ancient states being very jealous of alien mintages. This is exemplified by Pliny’s statement that the Victoriates brought from Illyria were treated simply as merchandize. Then came the First Punic war, which lasted for two-and-twenty weary years, during which the resources of the Republic were almost drained dry. The state became virtually a bankrupt and simply paid in modern phraseology 3_s._ 4_d._ in the pound. It was effected thus: up to the present the _as_ of full weight was the unit of account, although the coined _asses_ had by this time come to be simply tokens of about 2 ounces each. The state accordingly enacted that the _as_ of currency should become the unit of account, and paid the state debt by these coins, and at the same time made it legal for private individuals, who were bound under the old order of things to pay their debts in libral _asses_ to discharge their obligations by sextantal _asses_. Thus Pliny is perfectly right in saying that the state made a profit of five-sixths. The influx of silver after the conquest of Southern Italy and the requirements of large quantities of bronze for the building of fleet after fleet, and for military equipment, may have very well tended to appreciate the value of bronze at this period. As the reduction in the size of the _as_ continued, though the unit of account was two ounces, under the pressure of the Second Punic war they repeated the same process. The _as_ was now not more than an ounce, so they decreed that the _as_ of currency should again be the _as_ of account, and the state thus gained a half, this time paying ten shillings in the pound.

The _ounce_ and _libra_ had been long well defined at Rome before the silver coinage first appeared, and whilst we saw that the _sextula_ or one-sixth of the _uncia_ was the lowest weight employed for bronze, the fourth part of this weight, the _scriptulum_, had been regularly employed in weighing silver and gold; as we have seen it owed its origin to the fact that the Aeginetan silver obol was found to be about the weight of the 24th part of an _uncia_ or inch of bronze. The first _denarii_ were the weight of a _sextula_ or 4 _scriptula_ (70 grs.) of the older weight. The _scriptulum_ and _sestertius_ were thus identical, and hence in later days the unit of account was the _sestertius_ and not the _as_. Accordingly when the gold coinage of 206 B.C. was issued, it was based on the _scruple_, and consisted of pieces of 1, 2, and 3 scruples.

We have now traced the origin of Roman currency sufficiently for the purposes of this work. After various fluctuations in the weight of the gold pieces under Sulla, Pompey, Julius Caesar and others, Constantine the Great finally fixed the weight of the _aureus_ or _solidus_ at 4 scruples in 312 A.D., and so it remained until the final downfall of the Empire of the East in 1453. From this famous coin the various mintages of mediaeval and consequently of modern Europe may be said to trace their pedigrees. The _solidus_ was divided into _thirds_ or _tremisses_, for the scrupular system had been abandoned, the _solidus_ being regarded simply as a _sextula_ or one-sixth of the _uncia_, and not as a multiple of the _scruple_. The _tremissis_ therefore weighed 24 grs. Troy, or 32 wheat grains. When the barbarian conquerors of the Roman Empire began to coin silver they took as their model the gold _tremissis_. In the earliest stage of the Anglo-Saxon mintage we find so-called gold pennies of 24 grs. occasionally appearing. These are nothing else than _tremisses_. But silver henceforward was to form for centuries the staple currency of Western Europe, and the silver penny of 24 grs. (whence comes our own penny-weight) became virtually the unit of account. As its weight shows, the penny was based on the gold _tremissis_.

The first regular coinage of gold in Western Europe began with the famous gold pieces of Florence in the beginning of the 14th century. These weighed 48 grs. or 2 _tremisses_. From their place of mintage the name _florin_ (fiorino) became a generic term for gold coins. Accordingly when Edward III. issued his first gold coins of 108 grs. each, although differing so completely in weight from their prototype, they too were called _florins_. In reality however Edward’s coin was 1½ solidus (72 + 36). The first attempt did not prove satisfactory, and with the issue of the famous noble, first of 136½ grs., and afterwards of 129 grs., the series of English gold coins may be said to begin, of which the latest stage is the sovereign of 120¼ grs. Troy.

I have already explained at an earlier stage the origin of the Troy grain; before we end let me add a word on the origin of the Troy ounce. The Troy pound like the Roman has 12 ounces, but whereas the Roman ounce had 432 grs. Troy or 576 grs. wheat, the Troy ounce has 480 grs. Troy or 640 grs. wheat. How came this augmentation of the ounce?

It is in Apothecaries’ weight that we find the key. This standard runs thus

20 grs. = 1 scruple,
3 scruples = 1 drachm,
8 drachms = 1 ounce,
12 ounces = 1 pound.

Now note that there are 24 scruples in the ounce, and 288 scruples in the pound, exactly as in the Roman system. But there is an element foreign to the old Roman system as seen in the drachm of 60 grs. Now Galen and the medical writers of the Empire used the post-Neronian _denarius_ of 60 grs. as a medicine weight. What more convenient weight unit could be employed than the most common coin in circulation? The _drachma_ and _denarius_ had long since been used synonymously in common parlance. But as there were 18 grs. (Troy, 24 wheat grs.) in the old scruple, and there were 60 grs. in the drachm or _denarius_, they were not commensurable, and accordingly to obviate this difficulty the physicians for practical purposes raised the scruple to 20 grs., in order that it might be one-third of the drachm. The number of scruples in the ounce remaining 24 as before, the ounce became augmented by 48 grs. (24 × 2) and accordingly rose to 480 grs. We saw above that the Troy grain is the barley-corn. Why is the latter so closely connected with ‘Troy weight’? When the scruple was raised from 18 grs. Troy, 24 grs. of wheat, to 20 grs. Troy, it no longer contained an even number of wheat grains, for the new _scruple_ contained 26⅔ grs. wheat. As this was inconvenient, and on the other hand the new scruple weighed exactly 20 barley-corns, the latter henceforth became the lowest unit of this system.

_Conclusion._

It now simply remains to sum up the results of our enquiry. Starting with the Homeric Poems we found that although certain pieces of gold called _talents_ were in circulation among the early Greeks, yet all values were still expressed in terms of cows. We then found that the gold _talent_ was nothing else than the equivalent of the cow, the older unit of barter, and we found that the _talent_ was the same unit as that known in historical times under the names of Euboic stater or Attic stater, and commonly described by metrologists as the light Babylonian shekel. Our next stage was to enquire into the systems of currency used by primitive peoples in both ancient and modern times, and everywhere alike we found systems closely analogous to that depicted in the Homeric Poems, and we found that in the regions of Asia, Europe and Africa, where the system of weight standards which has given birth to all the systems of modern Europe had its origin, the cow was universally the chief unit of barter. Furthermore gold was distributed with great impartiality over the same area, and known and employed for purposes of decoration from an early period by the various races which inhabited it. We then found that practically all over that area there was but one unit for gold, and that unit was the same weight as the Homeric Talanton. Next we proved that gold was the first object for which mankind employed the art of weighing, and we then found that over the area in question there was strong evidence to show that everywhere from India to the shores of the Atlantic the cow originally had the same value as the universally distributed gold unit.

From this we drew the conclusion that the gold unit, which was certainly later in date than the employment of the cow as a unit of value, was based on the latter; and finally we showed that man everywhere made his earliest essays in weighing by means of the seeds of plants, which nature had placed ready to his hand as counters and as weights. Then we surveyed the theories which derive all weight standards from the scientific investigations of the Chaldeans or Egyptians, and having found that they were directly in contradiction to the facts of both ancient history and modern researches into the systems of primitive peoples, we concluded that the theories of Boeckh and his school must be abandoned.

Next we proceeded to explain the development of the various systems of antiquity from our ox-unit, taking in turn the Egyptian, Assyrio-Babylonian, Hebrew, Lydian, Greek and Italian. New explanations of the origin of the Talent and Mina and also of the earlier types on Greek coins and of the varieties of standard employed for silver by the Greeks were offered, and finally in dealing with the systems of Sicily and Italy arguments were advanced to show that the Roman _as_ was originally nothing more than a rod or bar of copper of definite measurements, and was in weight and method of division the same as the Sicilian Litra and the Greek Obol.

In how far the propositions here put forward have been proved, it must remain for others to decide.

Laus Deo, Pax Vibis, Requies Mortuis.