Inspired by the "Earlier Industrial Revolution" thread, I dug up the Roman Commercial Revolution thread from SHWI.
This is courtesy of blair3@tcnj.edu who is a member of SHWI. I command copied this post out of SHWI.
I was reading The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World, 200 BC to 300 AD today. It's in Volume 82 of the Journal of Roman Studies- An interesting discussion of credit in the Roman world:
"Roman banking may have been largely monetized, but it also displays a distinct lack of sophistication in the use of money in comparison with Italy after the commercial revolution of the 13th century. In Medieval Italy it was possible to make payments by transfer between different banks, and both cheques and negotiable paper came into existence. Perhaps even more important was the bill of exchange, which which proved vital in the development of commercial exchange in Europe in the 13th century. "
So far, so good. But what about Rome?
"In the roman world, outside of Egypt, there are no traces of affiliation between banks in different places.... this means that, indefault of any clearing system, banks could not be used to transfer funds from one place to another. Perhaps even more important... there were no bills of exchange and no negotiable paper. Furthermore, cheques.... are unknown outside of Egypt."
Furthermore, "Even in Egypt cheques relied upon trust of the payee (there was no relevent legislation[1]) and there is no evidence that cheques could be endorsed so as to become negotiable. The vulnerability of banks, in which interest bearing deposits could be withdrawn on demand and partnerships were dissolved by the death or wish of one party, cannot have been conducive to the devleopment of complex procedures, or to the full use of such services as were offered."
"In the Roman world the possibility of moving funds without the physical transer of coin was confined to the elite, who could rely on friends with widespread interests, or to those who, like governors under the Republic, could make private use of the system for the transfer of tax revenues through publicani. Under the Principate there appears to be no evidence of private individuals taking advantage of the government's mechanism for the transfer of revenues or through the publicani."
And, tantalizingly, for the purposes of a WI, "Part of the explanation for the explanation for the lack of sophistication of Roman banking may be that banks were not, for the most part, used by the elite".
Hmm. On the other hand, the Principate and late Republic had the publicani, which are about as close to corporations as the world was going to get for centuries. "The existence of the societas publicanorum did not - to alarge extent - depend on the individuals involved; a representative could act 'for the company;' ownership was fungible, traded in the form of shares[2] andd separated from the control of the company."
"We also learn that the shares were traded. In his second speech against Verres (1,55,143), Cicero implies the transferability of shares, when he quotes an exceptional restriction: Qui de L. Marcio M. Perperna censoribus redemerit... socium non admittito neve partem dato neve redimito, i.e. anyone who had been leasing under the censors L. Marcius and M. Perperna was not admitted to the current lease, neither as a partner, nor as a shareholder, nor should he be allowed to buy any shares later. His quote and the context of the case reveal that shares were often traded between participes after the contract had been assigned to a societas publicanorum.
What makes the partes look even more like modern shares - and is additional evidence parties were not just loans with variable interest rate, as proposed by Duff45 - is the mention of variable "stock prices." In P. Vat 12,29 Cicero speaks of partes illo tempore carissimae, of 'shares that had a very high price at that time.' He implies that the value of the shares depends upon the success of the enterprise and was as such subject to fluctuations, just like today's stock market. In fact, the "stock-market jargon" in this and similar quotes have led some scholars to believe that a "stock-market life" existed in Rome [2].46'
http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/malmendier/personal_page/Papers/Share...
It was once suggested that the POD could be placed in the 3rd century. But, hmm. What about something in the founding of the principate, or with the Gracchi? If we could somehow get the publicani into banking, the corporations could use their power to enforce debts; they could transfer money between various outposts of the corporation.
Was this sort of association ever used for other purposes, besides tax collection? ISM that they were involved in mining, since that was a publicani function, but what about other activities?
Thoughts, anyone?
[1] Does anyone else think that seems odd?
[2] Weird, eh?
This is courtesy of blair3@tcnj.edu who is a member of SHWI. I command copied this post out of SHWI.
I was reading The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World, 200 BC to 300 AD today. It's in Volume 82 of the Journal of Roman Studies- An interesting discussion of credit in the Roman world:
"Roman banking may have been largely monetized, but it also displays a distinct lack of sophistication in the use of money in comparison with Italy after the commercial revolution of the 13th century. In Medieval Italy it was possible to make payments by transfer between different banks, and both cheques and negotiable paper came into existence. Perhaps even more important was the bill of exchange, which which proved vital in the development of commercial exchange in Europe in the 13th century. "
So far, so good. But what about Rome?
"In the roman world, outside of Egypt, there are no traces of affiliation between banks in different places.... this means that, indefault of any clearing system, banks could not be used to transfer funds from one place to another. Perhaps even more important... there were no bills of exchange and no negotiable paper. Furthermore, cheques.... are unknown outside of Egypt."
Furthermore, "Even in Egypt cheques relied upon trust of the payee (there was no relevent legislation[1]) and there is no evidence that cheques could be endorsed so as to become negotiable. The vulnerability of banks, in which interest bearing deposits could be withdrawn on demand and partnerships were dissolved by the death or wish of one party, cannot have been conducive to the devleopment of complex procedures, or to the full use of such services as were offered."
"In the Roman world the possibility of moving funds without the physical transer of coin was confined to the elite, who could rely on friends with widespread interests, or to those who, like governors under the Republic, could make private use of the system for the transfer of tax revenues through publicani. Under the Principate there appears to be no evidence of private individuals taking advantage of the government's mechanism for the transfer of revenues or through the publicani."
And, tantalizingly, for the purposes of a WI, "Part of the explanation for the explanation for the lack of sophistication of Roman banking may be that banks were not, for the most part, used by the elite".
Hmm. On the other hand, the Principate and late Republic had the publicani, which are about as close to corporations as the world was going to get for centuries. "The existence of the societas publicanorum did not - to alarge extent - depend on the individuals involved; a representative could act 'for the company;' ownership was fungible, traded in the form of shares[2] andd separated from the control of the company."
"We also learn that the shares were traded. In his second speech against Verres (1,55,143), Cicero implies the transferability of shares, when he quotes an exceptional restriction: Qui de L. Marcio M. Perperna censoribus redemerit... socium non admittito neve partem dato neve redimito, i.e. anyone who had been leasing under the censors L. Marcius and M. Perperna was not admitted to the current lease, neither as a partner, nor as a shareholder, nor should he be allowed to buy any shares later. His quote and the context of the case reveal that shares were often traded between participes after the contract had been assigned to a societas publicanorum.
What makes the partes look even more like modern shares - and is additional evidence parties were not just loans with variable interest rate, as proposed by Duff45 - is the mention of variable "stock prices." In P. Vat 12,29 Cicero speaks of partes illo tempore carissimae, of 'shares that had a very high price at that time.' He implies that the value of the shares depends upon the success of the enterprise and was as such subject to fluctuations, just like today's stock market. In fact, the "stock-market jargon" in this and similar quotes have led some scholars to believe that a "stock-market life" existed in Rome [2].46'
http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/malmendier/personal_page/Papers/Share...
It was once suggested that the POD could be placed in the 3rd century. But, hmm. What about something in the founding of the principate, or with the Gracchi? If we could somehow get the publicani into banking, the corporations could use their power to enforce debts; they could transfer money between various outposts of the corporation.
Was this sort of association ever used for other purposes, besides tax collection? ISM that they were involved in mining, since that was a publicani function, but what about other activities?
Thoughts, anyone?
[1] Does anyone else think that seems odd?
[2] Weird, eh?