![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
It is generally thought that medieval thinkers regarded money as a commodity, a lump of metal valuable only according to its intrinsic value. This paper contends this view by discussing the conceptualisation of the nature and role of money as it emerges from the juridical literature considering the forms of settlement of a monetary loan. Considering the paying power of money, then, it appears that the medieval authors conceived money as first and foremost a unit to express debts and prices; this money of account was considered as firmly distinct from the various means of payment that could be used to discharge a debtor of what was due. In this context, a nominal monetary mutation—that is, a change in the value of a coin in terms of money of account—was considered to have effect on the paying power of that coin in the debt contract, that remained anchored to the nominal expression, not to the intrinsic metal content per unit of value.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 “In nomismate tria quaeruntur: metallum, figura et pondus. Si ex his aliquid defuerit, nomisma non erit. [13] Tria sunt autem genera argenti et auri et aeris: signatum, factum, infectum. Signatum est quod in nummis est; factum, quod in vasis et signis, infectum, quod in massis; quod et grave dicitur, id est massa”. All translations from Latin are of the author, unless otherwise stated.
2 It might come as a surprise that Keynes’s theory fits so clearly the elements of a system so foreign to the gold exchange standard he was experiencing in the interwar period, but there is ample trace of his keen interest in the history of monetary systems (Fantacci Citation2013), from notes on Solon’s monetary reform (to all effects, an enhancement of the means of payment in terms of the unit of account), and its distributive consequences on the debt burden—the σεισάχθεια, literaly, the solution of burdens—(Keynes Citation1978, 223–294), to his readings in that “Babylonian madness” of clay tablets registering debts in shekels, recalled in a recent study by Ingham (Citation2000). In addition, the remarks on the conceptualisation of money and usury by the Church finds an echo in the General Theory (Keynes Citation[1936] 1973, 351–352); moreover, in a private letter dating back to 1946, for the knowledge of which I have to heartily thank professor Luca Fantacci and his unrivalled mastery of the Keynes archives, he points out that the Scholastic justification of interest as a compensation for a damnum emergens strikingly coincides with his theory of liquidity preference: interest is not seen as an ex ante remuneration of productivity (lucrum cessans), impossible to compute abstracting from the real employments of capital, but rather as a measure of the current or potential sacrifice of the liquidity of the lender, a prejudice rather than a profit (801 KCA, JMK/PP/45/126, J.M. Keynes to Sir Cornelius Gregg, 9 of April, 1946).
3 All quotations of Roman Law are from Corpus Iuris Civilis Citation197322, as translated by Scott, The Civil Law, 1932, with minor amendments.
4 Though the affinity could not be further explored, this passage deserves to be contrasted with Smith [Citation1776] 1904, I.4, 28: “The inconveniency and difficulty of weighing those metals with exactness gave occasion to the institution of coins, of which the stamp, covering entirely both sides of the piece and sometimes the edges too, was supposed to ascertain not only the fineness, but the weight of the metal. Such coins, therefore, were received by tale as at present, without the trouble of weighing”. The echo is not uncommon were one to consider that this analogy resonated through the centuries, from the De regimine principis of Thomas Aquinas and the De Moneta of Nicole Oresme, down to the Lezione delle Monete of Bernardo Davanzati and the Della Moneta of Ferdinando Galiani. Oresme, in particular, offers a vivid description in his treatise, “ Sed cum in huiusmodi permutacione et transportacione rerum multe difficultates acciderent, subtiliati sunt homines usum invenire monete, que esset instrumentum permutandi ad invicem naturales divicias, quibus de per se subvenitur humane necessitati” (Oresme [∼1358] 2020, c. I., 120).
5 “Origo emendi vendendique a permutationibus coepit. Olim enim non ita erat nummus neque aliud merx, aliud pretium vocabatur, sed unusquisque secundum necessitatem temporum ac rerum utilibus inutilia permutabat, quando plerumque evenit, ut quod alteri superest alteri desit. Sed quia non semper nec facile concurrebat, ut, cum tu haberes quod ego desiderarem, invicem haberem quod tu accipere velles, electa materia est, cuius publica ac perpetua aestimatio difficultatibus permutationum aequalitate quantitatis subveniret. Eaque materia forma publica percussa usum dominiumque non tam ex substantia praebet quam ex quantitate nec ultra merx utrumque, sed alterum pretium vocatur. Sed an sine nummis venditio dici hodieque possit, dubitatur, veluti si ego togam dedi, ut tunicam acciperem. Sabinus et Cassius esse emptionem et venditionem putant: Nerva et Proculus permutationem, non emptionem hoc esse. Sed verior est Nervae et Proculi sententia: nam ut aliud est vendere, aliud emere, alius emptor, alius venditor, sic aliud est pretium, aliud merx: quod in permutatione discerni non potest, uter emptor, uter venditor sit”.
6 This concept is also expounded in a dense passage of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, V.5, 1133b, 11–15. This text was quite probably known to Paulus (Marotta Citation2012), though not to Accursius—not at least in the terms of the revival of the Aristotelian tradition of the second half of the XIII century. The Latin text of the Aristotele Latinus, (Aristoteles Latinus Citation2016) on which the (later) Western tradition was grounded, reads: “ Pro futura autem commutacione si nunc nichil indiget, quoniam erit si indigeat, nummisma fideiussor est nobis; oportet enim hoc ferenti esse accipere. Patitur quidem igitur et hoc idem. Non enim semper equale potest; verumptamen vult manere magis. Propter quod oportet omnia appreciari; sic enim erit semper commutacio, si autem hoc, communicacio” [Translation: “As for future exchange, if today there is lack of nothing, as there will always be a lack, money is to us a guarantee that it will indeed be so: in fact, those who hold money should see it accepted. Surely, money undergoes the same destiny < of any good>. In fact, it cannot always stay equal, but it tends to be especially steady. For this reason, all goods should be measured in terms of money: in this way, the exchange will always be possible, and thus communication”]. For extensive comments, see: Amato Citation2016, 235–238, as well as the critical note on the very same passage in Oresme Citation2020, 202.
7 “Nota quod ex duobus praebet utilitatem, sui usus, et sui dominii. Primo ex substantia: quia tantum valet unus nummus, quantum argenti tantundem in massa. Secundo ex quantitate: quia aequiparatur quantitas nummi aequivalentiae rei: et sic per nummum sit aequalitas in quantitate”.
8 The sentence: “electa materia est, cuius publica ac perpetua aestimatio difficultatibus permutationum aequalitate quantitatis subveniret” was translated by Scott as: “a substance was selected whose public and perpetual value, by its uniformity as a medium of exchange, overcame the difficulties arising from barter”. Sargent and Velde prefer to render the passage as follows: “a material was selected which, being given a stable value by the state, avoided the problems of barter by providing an equality of quantity”.
9 In this respect, the complex array of payments of the Roman economy could help contextualising the excerpt from the Digestus. Far from consisting of coins only, Rome’s monetary economy was to a highly degree based on credit: payments could be made in instalments and by credit letters, rather than by bulky coin transfers. For Roman authors, it seemed that pecunia meant quite a vast array of means of payment, not only aurei or sestertii (Cfr. Harris Citation2011, 227ss).
10 “Appellata est autem mutui datio ab eo, quod de meo tuum fit: et ideo, si non faciat tuum, non nascitur obligatio”.
11 “Mutuum damus recepturi non eandem speciem quam dedimus (alioquin commodatum erit aut depositum), sed idem genus”.
12 Si ita fideiussorem accepero: “quod ego decem credidi, de ea pecunia mille modios tritici fide tua esse iubes?,” non obligatur fideiussor, quia in aliam rem, quam quae credita est, fideiussor obligari non potest, quia non, ut aestimatio rerum quae mercis numero habentur in pecunia numerata fieri potest, ita pecunia quoque merce aestimanda est.
13 “Quia licet species possint aestimari pecunia, sicut ut tot aureos dari pro tali re: tamen pecunia non potes faciliter aestimari speciebus”.
14 “Sequitur ergo ut cum pecunia datur in mercem, non possit obligari fideiussor”; “cum merces datur, in pecunia potest se obligare fideiussor”.
15 “Cum quid mutuum dederimus, etsi non cavimus, ut aeque bonum nobis redderetur, non licet debitori deteriorem rem, quae ex eodem genere sit, reddere, veluti vinum novum pro vetere: nam in contrahendo quod agitur pro cauto habendum est, id autem agi intellegitur, ut eiusdem generis et eadem bonitate solvatur, qua datum sit”.
16 Accursius then quotes D. 32.1.53pr., the jus de argento legato.
17 Accursius then refers to D. 18.1.1., the title on the contrahenda emptione commented above.
18 On this interesting remark, consider the history of the Sealed Florin, or Fiorino di Suggello. It was a peculiar money of account whose birth in 1294 was linked with the establishment of the Ufficio del Saggio (Assay office) in Florence; the saggiatore, assayer, was tasked with the control over the quality of the gold florins and, if their intrinsic value were within a tolerance band [down to 70.5 grains front to the theoretical 72.0 of the full-bodied 1252 gold florin], he closed them in a purse, sealing it and accompanying it with a full guarantee of the number of florins there contained. Soon afterwards the Fiorino di Suggello lost its practical function (not, of course, the office of the assayer), becoming a pure money of account, while the gold florin was traded quoting its price in Fiorino di Suggello (Goldthwaite Citation1994, 32–33, 54).
19 “Item quid si accepero pecunia ad numerum: nunquid potero reddere frumentum ad mensuram? Respondeo: non. Item quid si accepero argentum ad pondus: nunquid potero reddere pecuniam? Respondeo: non tamen aere contaminatam. […] Nam in mutuo quatuor considerantur: quorum si quod defuerit, non erit mutuum. 1. Natura scilicet ut ad hos sit inventa, sicut pecunia, ad numerandum; 2. Item consuetudo; 3. Item aptitudo, quod datio talis ad numerum, vel ad pondus aptetur suae naturae; 4. Item actus, scilicet ut detur secundum suam naturam: nam si dedero pecuniam in sacculo non numeratam, ut tantundem reddas: non erit mutuum sed innominatus contractus”.
20 In what follows, all the quotations from Bartolus are taken from the Opera Omnia of 1581, printed in Lyon by the Compagnie des Libraires (Bartolus a Saxoferrato Citation1581). It ought to be remarked that, albeit the representativeness of Bartolus, a limit of the present study is to focus, in this section, on a single author and on a particular fragment of his work. Further research will be needed to give a better ground to the insights offered in this first, tentative analysis. Indicatively, the textuality left by Bartolus himself, especially the commentaries and the casuistry, as well as a contrastive reading of contemporary jurisconsults, such as Alberico da Rosciate, and of one of his pupils, Baldo degli Ubaldi, might be some promising directions and expansions.
21 And then, as a corollary: “Si tu dares moneta alterius materiae, quo no esset eius de lige, de iure posset creditor licite refutare: quia aliud pro alio solui non posset, ut dictum est” (Bartolus a Saxoferrato Citation1581, D. 46.3.99).
22 A point on which Bartolus writes again when commenting on Paulus (D.48.10.19, Qui Falsam), where he states that, while Innocent has maintained that the material of the money should be identical before and after the coinage, minus the coinage expenses, the commented law states that the ouvrage should not be deducted: therefore, he concludes, the minting costs should be met by the government.
23 “Haec mutatio possit attingere duobus modis, utrumque mutetur materia, vel forma, itaque in bonitate aliqua mutatio contingit; vel non mutetur materia, vel forma, sed mutatur eius bonitas, id hoc florenus auri, vel alia moneta de argento grossior valeret plus hodie quam consueverat”.
24 It is interesting to compare the passage with that of Carlantonio Broggia, author of a treatise on money dating back to the first half of the XVIII century: “Quando io parlo di diminuzione o di diminuire, si dee intendere che la moneta scema rispetto al solito nel peso o nella bontà; e quando parlo d’ingrossare, di ristorare e di restituire, debbesi intendere che la moneta ha ricevuto più intrinseco di quel che aveva per avanti. Allorché parlo di alzare o di sbassare si debba intendere del prezzo” (Broggia [Citation1748] 1804–1816, Parte Antica, Tomo IV, 318).
25 “Secundo modo contingit mutatio, ut dixi, et hic est advertendum, si quidem debitor non est in mora, tunc liberatur, solvendo illam monetam absque dubio: quia variatio nulla contingit circa bonitatem rei intrinsecam. Nam in eadem forma, et materia redditur secundum quod debet. Et contingit mutatio respectu aestimationis, quod non imputatur debitori, qui non est in mora. Sed si debitor fuisset in mora, diceres tu, incontinenti omne detrimentum inde contingens a tempore morae pertinet ad eum, et istud est subtile et difficile videre”.
26 Advertatis, nam vos scitis, quae quando quis est in mora in non solvendo, ipse non tenetur de interesse, quod consistuit in lucro: sed de interesse quod constituit in damno. Modo videamus in casu proposito, ut in creditor sit damnificatus, quasi pecunia minuta sit minus bona, in sui aestimatione; an vero perdidit lucrum, quasi ab initio habuisset illam pecunia, emisset ex ea plures florenos, quam posset emer modo, et sic fuisset lucratus tantum. Nam si hoc esset interesse, non attenderetur.
27 “Advertatis: res dicitur deteriorari, quando eius aestimatio respectu pecunie esset vilior, et ideo in caeteris speciebus, quae aestimatur per pecunia. Illud est facile videre: sed in pecunia quae non aestimatur per res, est videre, utrum una pecunia per aliam aestimetur. Breviter mihi videtur quae pecunia auri, vel argenti grossa aestimetur per minutam et hoc apparet ad sensum. Minuta autem nunquam aestimatur per grossiorem, non enim possum dicere, quae per florenum aestimatur unus nummus parvus, et per consequens nec duo, nec tres, et sic de singulis in infinitum. Modo ad propositum: si debes mihi centum libras pecuniae minutae, dico, quae pecunia mutata non dicitur deteriorata respectu aestimationis suae: quia non habet aliquid quo aestimetur”.
28 Compare per contra with Trifone (Citation1962, 698–699). The main conclusion of his study, namely that Bartolo maintains that what matters for the settlement of a debt contract is the value of money at the time of the opening of the contract, as can be inferred from the quoted passages and the following comment, is a complete misreading.
29 “Sed quaero, quid si ego mutuavi tibi, vel in dotem dedi centum libras in florenis, nunc vis mi reddere, an ego cogar recipere, vel tu dare in eadem aestimatione, quae erat tunc: an in ea qua est nunc tempore solutionis? Respondeo. Ista verba, “soluo centum libras in florenis,” hoc est dicere, “istos florenos do tibi in solutum pro centum libris,” Et ideo non possunt peti nisi centum librae, sicut si aliqua res esset data in dotem aestimata. Et damnu et lucru florenis pertinet ad eum qui recipit”.