This is a notes page but also an exercise in determining whether there is a ‘there-there’ with a chunk of writing on Cicero I did in August (off blog, but blog adjacent) that I fear may be too unoriginal to be worth continuing to develop. But then I re-read an old post with this sage advice.
I’m trying to decide exactly the shape of two public talks for October one at U Illinois (Urban-Champaign) and the other in Warsaw. The talks for China (Dongguan and Beijing) thereafter are more straight forward. I committed to titles for the two earlier talks to try to push myself to engage more deeply with questions of Value as an abstract concept in Roman Society and the scope of Symbolic or Fiat currency in ancient Italy. The Cicero writing was part of that. My basic working method is to ‘read’ (explore) primary evidence first and then surveying secondary literature to look for confirmation and or contradictions of my own proto-conclusions. I want to know what I think before building on or interacting with others interpretive lenses. The problem is that this means I ‘waste’ time re inventing the wheel sometimes, as ‘new to me’ and ‘today I learned’ are not actually new scholarship.
So today I’ve got a stack of physical literature next to me at my desk most of which I’ve read before but haven’t read recently. I’m looking for intersections with my present project and hoping it helps me decide on next steps in my preparation for these talks.
As an aside I am coming to realize that some of my views on ancient economies has been influenced by ideas adjacent to Modern Monetary Theory. And, I think I may have to dive deeper into that literature perhaps starting here:
Saas, William O., and John T. Harvey. 2026. “A Rhetorical History of Modern Money Theory.” Journal of Economic Issues 60 (3): 821–42. doi:10.1080/00213624.2026.2699653.
Hollander, David B.. “Lawyers, friends, and money: portfolios of power in the Late Republic.” In Money and power in the Roman republic, edited by Hans Beck, Martin Jehne and John Serrati. Collection Latomus; 355, 18-25. Bruxelles: Latomus, 2016.
Hollander’s 2007 book has been a great influence on me for the nature of money. This essay is really about power and the lack of means to define power in the Roman world for all we can map adjacent concepts. He gets at some examples of where money is associated with power but insufficient and also visa versa.
When we speculate about Roman demand for coinage, we need to consider a demand for security. The disruption of traditional forms of power in the late Republic undoubtedly promoted monetization.
p. 25
This quote feels deeply true to me and I think Hollander makes good illustrative use of the literary texts, esp. Verres. Nothing really on Cicero’s letters or own personal fears. This is a good citation as it supports my reading of the evidence I’ve collected.
Rosillo López, Cristina. “Cash is king : the monetization of politics in the late Republic.” In Money and power in the Roman republic, edited by Hans Beck, Martin Jehne and John Serrati. Collection Latomus; 355, 26-36. Bruxelles: Latomus, 2016.
Another author who has influenced my thinking. She starts by discussing a Plutarch passage, I’ve not seen widely discussed.
Why was it the custom for those canvassing for office to do so in the toga without the tunic, as Cato has recorded?
Was it in order that they might not carry money in the folds of their tunic and give bribes?
Or was it rather because they used to judge candidates worthy of office, not by their family nor their wealth nor their repute, but by their wounds and scars? Accordingly that these might be visible to those that encountered them, they used to go down to their canvassing without tunics.
Or were they trying to commend themselves to popular favour by thus humiliating themselves by their scanty attire, even as they do by hand-shaking, personal appeals, and fawning behaviour?
Roman Questions 49
I find Plutarch’s speculation says more about his own assumptions than ancient Romans but still interesting.
… monetization did not necessarily imply the use of coinage. … The appearance of coinage, however, did not ensure monetization.
p. 27
I agree with the first statement but not necessarily the second at least for 3rd century Rome. Monetization pre exists coinage and non-coinage money continues even after the creation of coinage. As I keep reading I think maybe Rosillo-Lopez is primarily focused on a definition of monetization that prioritizes the use of coinage above and beyond other currencies. This is a vocabulary dispute I have with her statements not the basic facts or interpretations which are solid.
If monetization of the state was voluntary and directed from the top, monetization of politics was not; it was left in the hands of those who used money as a medium. However, monetization was not a straightforward evolution, since pre-monetary uses in politics were attested: distributions of grain or wine had been used as a medium of exchange since the second century B.C., before coinage entered politics.
Ibid.
I’m not sure there is ever a time before coinage entered politics in the historical record. I’d waive my hand at Duillius’ distributions and those of Metellus. In fact I think my 2021 article in ancient numismatics goes a long way to showing that the creation of at least some early Roman cast currency may have been tied to distributions of a likely political nature. That said I think there is something interesting here about the state controlling coin production and issuing it for its own purposes but also the state is made up of the very class of people who will use the coinage for political purposes. Two examples come to mind, the Caepio Piso issue and the extra ordinary allocation to Pompey and the likely resulting SC issues.
P. 26 she does a good job summarizing a traditional view of cash flow and coin supply relying on Hopkins 1980 and Von Reden 2010 with a nod to Verboven 2009, 2003, and 1997. I think the underlying data for this view is probably ready for review. She follows LoCascio 1981: 76-86 for a view that the Roman state had a active policy concerned with coin supply against Crawford 1970: 40-46. All of this makes me realize that historians are still relying on data sets and interpretations of data sets that have now been improved through new analyses and new finds. Again the problem is that this material isn’t v accessible even today and didn’t really exist in 2016. I include in this my own publication habits tending to speak to numismatic audiences about my reading of numismatic data whereas it would be more useful if I wrote for a broader historical audience. Ialongo’s advice to me over cocktails in Rome this past summer is ringing in my ears.
In order to obtain cash, the Roman political elite preferred to tap into informal lines of credit, linked to the duties of amicitia, which offered better financial conditions. When this resource failed, they resorted to professional financiers. The need for cash was so vital that in one case, so as to prevent corruption, elections were called so quickly that candidates did not have time to gather the means.
p. 29-30
The first two sentences are a good summation and ones I endorse. Instead of citing primary evidence she cites Verboven 2002 and Andreau 1978 with 1999b. The last sentence is an original interpretation of this fascinating passage:
But all this argument is superfluous, for it ignores the fact that in the previous election Plancius had already been marked down for the aedileship. That election was, in the first place, opened by a consul who, apart from his great general eminence, had been the mover of the very laws concerning corruption with which we are dealing ; and, in the second place, it was opened so suddenly and so unexpectedly that, even had any man contemplated bribery, he would not have found sufficient time for the necessary preliminaries.
Cic. Planc. 49
I’d put the bit in Cicero’s letters on the bribery around the elections for 53 BCE against this as v nice parallel.
P. 31 great discussion about sack of money Caesar sent Basilus in lieu of a province. [Dio’s account]. The page ends with a great claim that elites used cashless exchange not from a moral stand point but because it was most expedient.
P. 32 points to Von Reden 2010 whose view she favors but acknowledges that Harris 2008 holds that loans for sub elite were rare and hard to comeby and the whole matter have been debated and discussed in Lo Cascio 2011.
P. 33 discusses the deposition of funds with Cato to guarantee a fair election in 54 BCE (relevant to my own writing)
P.34 discusses the 4-8% interest rate jump. I partially agree and partially disagree. Must engage properly off blog when I return to writing. She then takes the Quantity theory of Money (QTM) i.e. MV=PT as fact. Here I think is where I begin to question the underlying assumptions.
P. 35 makes a leap to implying? food prices and food scarcity may be linked to the rise of cash because of political bribery. Discussion of Pompey’s commission over the grain supply.
Edmondson, Jonathan. “Investing in death : gladiators as investment and currency in the late Republic.” In Money and power in the Roman republic, edited by Hans Beck, Martin Jehne and John Serrati. Collection Latomus; 355, 37-52. Bruxelles: Latomus, 2016.
This article is good for demonstrating the utility of Harris and Hollander’s insistence that we broaden our definition of money in the late republic. It also reminds us that Romans kept a huge amount of their financial capital not just tied up in real property but also human property. The narrow focus on gladiators obscures the way in which this applies to all enslaved labor both skilled and unskilled. I’ve touched on this in some of my 2024 work especially around Crassus’ estate.
Kleinman, Brahm. “Rhetoric and money: the « lex Aurelia iudicaria » of 70 B.C.” In Money and power in the Roman republic, edited by Hans Beck, Martin Jehne and John Serrati. Collection Latomus; 355, 53-67. Bruxelles: Latomus, 2016.
Less relevant to my present work but interesting summary about what we think we know about who the tribuni aerarii were and what qualified one for this status in 70 BCE and after (p. 54-55) with review of earlier literature. It’s an issue I suspect I’ll care about in future hence this note. P. 55 also has some interesting discussion of Verres that ties in nicely with Hollander’s chapter on power and money. The overall themes of the chapter are rhetoric around corrupted courts and the financial interests of the publicani in court decisions.
Blösel, Wolfgang. “Provincial commands and money in the late Roman Republic.” In Money and power in the Roman republic, edited by Hans Beck, Martin Jehne and John Serrati. Collection Latomus; 355, 68-81. Bruxelles: Latomus, 2016.
Challenge assumptions about rapacity of Roman governors and the lack of available promagistrates to govern provinces. Whole article provides background context for Cicero (and others) refusing a province and explains means of reaping financial benefits from provinces without being governor (staff positions, shares in publicani companies, loaning money to cities). Emphasizes diminished capacity for military glory and financial and political awards tied to such. Well argued and convincing picture building on Brennan’s work.
I’m skipping chapters on 3rd and 2nd century military and financial provinces, just not what I need at the moment.
Lo Cascio, Elio. “Property classes, elite wealth, and income distribution in the late Republic.” In Money and power in the Roman republic, edited by Hans Beck, Martin Jehne and John Serrati. Collection Latomus; 355, 152-164. Bruxelles: Latomus, 2016.
How many poor people were there really? Seems the driving question. Quite interesting on the census. I find myself skeptical about claims on p. 156 about Livy and Dionysius’ numbers being ‘translations’ of earlier numbers. It seems to assume aes grave was worth more than uncial bronzes. But I want to dig in deeper before I pass judgement. This assumption about intrinsic value of bronze become much clearer on p. 158.
Praises Rosenstein 2008 and summarizes his view as:
the enormous wealth of the late Republican aristocracy could not have been derived to a great extent from the landed property, but must have come from other activities or assets: trade through the intermediation of freedmen and slaves; the exploitation of urban property; and above all, moneylending.
p. 162
Of course enslaving is itself its own form of investment. He then qualifies by adding agriculture back into the elite portfolio:
I would be reluctant to conclude that the investment strategies of the aristocracy could not consider the exploitation of the agricultural land as such to allow high incomes, or that landed property was exploited to a large extent in order to satisfy conspicuous consumption.
p. 163
His conclusion to this article reads like adapted trickle down theory suggesting that we must assume the lower classes were better off because the upper classes were flourishing. This seems to be optimistic and challenged by Kim Bowes peasant project and also the nature of slaving societies.
Pina Polo, Francisco. “« Cupiditas pecuniae » : wealth and power in Cicero.” In Money and power in the Roman republic, edited by Hans Beck, Martin Jehne and John Serrati. Collection Latomus; 355, 165-177. Bruxelles: Latomus, 2016.
Starts with claims about Cicero as a philosopher disdainful of material wealth and that this is a trope of ancient philosophy, BUT I’d point to Philodemus (Cicero’s near contemporary) whom weirdly I’ve not blogged about but certainly read a good deal of. His view is that one cannot be an intellectual if you’re distracted by material concerns like household management. His ideal intellectual is one who is VERY rich and can turn everything over to competent stewards. Discusses Cicero’s defense of economic equality in his philosophical writings as an extension of other ‘natural’ inequalities among humans. Pina Polo sees this as playing out in his policies that opposed any legal change to the social order. Overall very solid description of Roman attitudes to wealth as a positive characteristic when morally acquired and concern to maintain and grow patrimony. p. 172 onwards in tension with chapter by Blösel. P. 173 gives a breezy over view of how Cicero grew his revenues. Continues with discussion about how legal serviced also augmented his financial situation if indirectly.
skipping chapter on aediles
Jehne, Martin. “The senatorial economics of status in the late Republic.” In Money and power in the Roman republic, edited by Hans Beck, Martin Jehne and John Serrati. Collection Latomus; 355, 188-207. Bruxelles: Latomus, 2016.
opens with nice reflection on Crassus, what it means to be wealthy, and tension with glorification of austerity among legendary early Romans. Smart overview of intersection of poltical power and wealth and the investments of politicians in making money work towards the increase of their status
My own recent writing complements the essays in this volume nicely. I realize that most of these essays have a brighter breezer approach to the evidence and are more willing to accept certain suppositions as true unless they are directly being challenges by the article. They feel a little alien in my love of nitty gritty detail and close reading. I think this gets at my own struggles to move from trees to the forest. I want to be sure of each foundation stone I lay down and rarely build on other or if I build do not defer but confirm.
A fun survey, useful, and certainly motivation to keep going on my project.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 