The Babylonian Woe

by David Astle

  For instance, in the case of Greece, the silver bullion brokers who were clearly based at Athens, obviously would be able to control the exchange rates of such cities as used their own fiduciary or national currencies,[401] if, as usually would be the case, such cities sought the good graces of Athens towards obtaining food and raw materials and towards marketing their manufactures.

  Thus, through the exchange rates, the bankers and bullion traders would also be able to exercise some control over the political life of such cities. The City of Athens itself, its monetary system based directly on their internationally required products, silver and gold, was clearly under their immediate control. If the state owned the mints, of which there seems to be no knowledge, it would make no difference. The states own the mints today for what it means; which is little or nothing so far as goes control of Monetary Emission.[402]

  With the end of the bronze age in warfare, from one end of the world to the other, enormous amounts of copper and bronze must have come on to the markets of the world as scrap; much of which would have been obtained at little more than the cost of its removal from national arsenals by the money changers or their agents.

  Where copper and bronze fiduciaries, as at Rome, circulated at values many times more than their value by weight of metal on the international bullion markets, relative to their value in silver or gold bullion, clearly such copper and bronze bullion such as came on to the markets as military scrap, would have been more useful towards the counterfeiting of such currencies, than sold at its bullion value. For instance, if the value of one libra of copper as offered on the bullion market (if such could exist) at Rome was one Aes, the value of a minted Aes of one libra weight in an overvaluation of the minted coin relative to copper bullion prices internationally, would be as the demand for them rose and fell, according to supply and demand.

  It appears that at Rome during the middle Commonwealth, the overvaluation of the Aes relative to the same weight of bullion was 400-500%; in the countryside and more distant colonies often being far more. If in latter times (during the 18th Century A.D.), the copper rouble of czarist Russia, issued at an overvaluation of up to 800% according to the value of copper bullion relative to the price internationally of silver bullion,[403] brought into Russia a very inundation of counterfeits minted in Western Europe,[404] clearly the of Aes at substantial overvaluation, made the creation and of counterfeit coin an equally profitable affair in ancient Rome.

  Thus international money power would have succeeded in diminishing the beneficial effects of such national currency, continuing to use Rome as the example, by mass counterfeiting, which would have seen rapid increase once gold and silver commenced to circulate alongside the Aes after the Second Punic War. Clearly the main purpose of the counterfeiters, then, as agents in some degree of the international silver bullion traders, would be to inject their copper or bronze counterfeits into circulation at the best overvaluation possible, which would be through money-lending in the provinces, at the same time requiring repayment, if possible, in silver and gold. Hence the steady disappearance of the precious metals from the circulation, was either due to the activities of the smaller moneylenders dealing in counterfeit, or due to the activities of the Argentarii or Numularii making loans in exactly the same manner as the bankers today, loans which never saw light as money, being always cheques in transit, but which, in the final repayment were as often as not, gold, silver, or Aes; the later being immediately convertible into gold or silver, which seems largely to have then moved Eastward.

  This disappearance of the precious metals from the circulation[405] Eastward seems to have been a factor inspiring the vehemence of Cicero in his Oration: Pro Flaccus. The indignation of Cicero as recorded in this Oration may be traced to the indifference of certain persons who lived close to the Aurelian steps, to the good of the Roman State wherein they lived and whose solidarity enabled them to arrange to have mobs intimidate the proceedings of the court which heard a person, probably a member of the banking family known as the Lollii,[406] attempt to smear the reputation of Lucius Flaccus, who, as Praetor of Syria, had issued edict forbidding this movement of precious metals Eastward for deposit at the Temple in Jerusalem.[407]

  Of Roman banking the great 19th century scholars, Mommsen and Marquardt, wrote:[408]

  “The conduct of banking was done for the most part through the intermediary of the argentarii and of nummularii: these last were known under the name of collectarii mensularii. In countries of Greek origin there was a kind of state bank as at Tenos, at Ilium, and at Temnos in Aeolide; they were also in Egypt: in every Nome was found a beneath the direction of a royal employee, and through him as intermediary it was customary to make certain contracts and payments. Among the Romans, on the contrary, it was only in the most extraordinary circumstances that public banks were organized under the direction of state functionaries (mensa publica); thus amongst others, in 402-352 (B.C.) under the direction of quinqui viri mensarii, in order to facilitate the liquidation of debts, by advances made against guarantees, with state funds, and during the period 538 to 543-216 to 211 B.C. for different reasons, and finally to carry out the collection of funds loaned free to the state.

  It was about that time that the tabernae argentariae were established of which the first indications are in 443-399 B.C.; often occurring later on.

  It is through the intermediary of the argentarii that most payments were made, as also they were entrusted with the collection of moneys due, the placing of capitals at interest, the sale of merchandise, and particularly the liquidation of estates by way of auction sales and finally investments of all kinds; exchange transactions, notably the changing of foreign moneys and the sale of Roman money appear originally to have been reserved to the nummularii.

  Under this heading we must first of all take a look at the dealers in exchange, who had to check the qualifications of new money; as such they seem to have had a mensa from which they put new money into circulation, taking in the course of their business old money as well as foreign money, and it was their custom to set the rates of exchange; outside of Rome the publicae mensae nummulariorum appeared to have existed. In second place this description applied to private persons whose business was dealing in the precious metals. Concurrently with the argentarii, they conducted all the activities that go with banking business; they accepted capitals for deposit, they made payments for the account of other people, they placed capitals at interest and for exchange transactions they levied a charge or bonus. these bankers, the argentarii, the same as the nummularii, were placed under the surveillance of state functionaries, praefectus urbi, at Rome during the empire, and in the provinces under the surveillance of the governor. They were probably the subject of the granting of a franchise, or investiture, that was only accorded to a very limited number of people; in the case of dispute they were obliged to produce their books (rationes edere), which were evidence of payments made and transactions entered into. For their franchise they were subjected to legal regimentation.

  These books were of three kinds: in the first place was a cash book, codex accepti et expensi in which in order of date were recorded the deposits and withdrawals of the argentarius with mention of the nature of the business and the names of the persons interested. In second place, a running account (rationes, liber rationum) in which the banking operations of the argentarius with every person involved were kept by debit and credit; thanks to which, it could be known at a moments notice how much the merchant was owed by every one of his clients, and how much he had to pay out to him.

  In third place a book was kept, adversaria, in which was preserved record of the transactions under way, and even having their designation in code. Amongst these books, that which is peculiar to the argentarii, is the running account book, rendered necessary by the great number of transactions; the cash book, on the contrary, in which were entered by order of date the deposits and withdrawals, expensum ferre, acceptum referre, was kept by every head of a family until
the IIIrd century A.D., in which period this custom fell into disuse.

  mensae scripturae: The mensae scripturae served in that which touched the activities of banking, as much to establish contract, as to furnish proof, and the greater part of payments were effected by transcriptions and endorsements recorded in the account books of the argentarii; direct payment (domo ex arca sua) was rarely made, but it was very often made through the intermediary of bankers (de mensa scriptura),whether moneys had been deposited with them for which they were obliged to give account (rationem reddere), or whether it had been possible to open a credit with them out of which they made payment following an assignment.”

  The above excerpt from the works of two scholars of vast learning, is revealing. No doubt will be left with the reader who understands modern day banking practices, that just as in today 95% of all money in circulation, is cheques and assignments in transit, often written against credits granted by bankers where no actual funds previously existed, but however without which the drive and turmoil of this civilization could not have come to be, so it was in Rome and in Greece. Indeed, for all those movements of vast armies, and for all those movements of peoples through the consequent sale and transfer of slaves, and for the erection of all those great works in stone, many of which still stand, from the pillars of Hercules to Parthia and Arabia, the instigative factor was the same as the instigative factor behind all the mighty works and mysteries of today. It was none other than the driving force of that abstract money that none can see, but that functions just the same as that which can be seen, the mysterious “Credit” of the banker; force that once had been the will of a benevolent god, but now was an instrument towards the wilful redesign and enslavement of mankind. In the late Roman Commonwealth and the early Empire, the assignments and cheques in transit may not have equalled 95% of all money in circulation, and it is by no means impossible that they were even more, taking into account the fact that today’s high speed printing presses and coining machines, the fount of the 5% of the circulation that can be seen, can create these visible units on which the inverted pyramid of the invisible units is erected, at a hundred thousand or more times the speed of slaves striking and finishing metal units of money by hand.[409]

  In Harpers Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, Roman banking is dealt with as follows, in close agreement with Mommsen and Marquardt:. “The Argentarius thus did almost the same sort of business as a modern banker. Many persons entrusted all their capital to them (Cicero: Pro. Caec. 6.16) and instances in which the argentarii made payments in the name of those whose money they had in hand, are mentioned very frequently. A payment made through a banker was called per mensam, de mensa or per mensae scripturam, while a payment made by the debtor in person was a payment ex arca or de domo. An argentarius never paid away any person’s money without receiving a cheque (perscriptio), and the payment was then made either in cash, or, if the person who was to receive it kept an account with the same banker, he had it added in the banker’s book, to his deposit. This was likewise called perscribere or simply scribere. we also find that argentarii made payments for persons who had not deposited any money with them: this was equivalent to lending money; which in fact they often did for a certain percentage of interest.”[410]

  Thus banking was carried on in almost the same manner in the Roman world as in our world of today, and to those who understand the significance of the practices of modern day banking, nothing could be clearer. Even the ostentatious display of a metal safety deposit vault is recorded by the antiquarian, Lanciana,[411] of the time of Hadrian; doubtless to encourage people to leave their valuables with the bank and so strengthen their “confidence.”

  In the earlier days when the senate was truly government in the saddle, that is until the end of the integrity of the numerical currency, with the resumption of the striking of silver money and therefore reentry into the orbit of the silver bullion brokers, mining of the precious metals had been forbidden in Italy,[412] and copper mining had been state monopoly, clearly indicating the futility of any discussion of whether the striking of coinage had been free or otherwise. Where the policy of the state had been to maintain an overvaluation of its bronze coinage relative to bullion prices,[413] it is quite clear that it could in no way permit private individuals the privilege of the mints, free or otherwise. To do so would be to concede them the right and the power to manipulate price levels, and so, confounding the economy, dismay the rulers. Thus it was not until the time of Cicero that evidence appears of private persons bringing bullion to the mints,[414] significantly coincidental with the general collapse of the ancient manners, and the essential forces that had guided Rome, as is described by Sallust.

  Such matters of state finance seem to have been well understood during the middle commonwealth. However, as a result of the second Punic war and Trasimeno and Cannae[415] and the desperate need to rearm quickly that followed these unfortunate battles, Rome clearly had been obliged to allow the whole currency system to become based on the international valuation of silver as common denominator of values. She also had been obliged to permit the reduction of the value of the aes coinage to the value of its weight as bronze bullion relative to the arbitrary value internationally of silver bullion.

  It follows that it was only after Rome had thus surrendered much of her sovereign prerogative in money matters to the international silver bullion brokers, reluctantly, as was shown by subsequent events, that growth of liberalism, and consequent undermining of the morale of the people and their government, finally gave rise to the warlords known as the Triumvirate and the beginning of rule which might best be described as complete negation of that which had been government by decree of the senate.

  With the reckless abuse of the powers of their Imperium through those bankers who supported them, particularly in relation to their right to strike money in the field, the warlords derived virtual independence from the auctoritas of an already corrupted senate and when, in 23 B.C., the aes coinage which had been the backbone of the Republic, was returned to the senate with S.C. Senatus Consulto (by decree of the senate)[416] stamped thereon, it was more in the nature of a concession to a dignity and authority that once had been the reality guiding Roman political life, but now had become a meaningless front, a shadow.

  Thus with the rise of the warlords, who were in effect, would-be tyrants under arms, each with his own Money Power, was the triumph of the empire concept. In the case of Caesar, his supporting bankers appear to have been the L. Cornelius Balba for whom the A. Hirtius of Caesar’s aes coinage as issued in the country of the Treveri in Gaul, seems to have been agent with H. Clovius, emittor in Cisalpine Gaul of Caesar’s orichalcum (brass) issues. Also C. Vibius Pansa and Q. Sulpicius Rufus, all of whom are described by Michael Grant as “eminent financiers.”[417] Of this period An Encyclopaedia of World History says: “If the crossing of the Rubicon marked the final fall of the Republic, the battle of Actium signalized the final triumph of the Empire. The last century of the republic was characterised by the collapse of popular government, because of the wide extension of the citizenship, the considerable adulteration of the citizen body at Rome by the introduction of un-Romanized orientals, chiefly through the manumission of slaves, the growth in Rome of an unemployed proletariat, the rise of demagogues, and the complexity of the problems of government. The increasingly corrupt senate had lost control of the assemblies, the armies and the generals. The financiers as well as the governors, saw in the provinces only a field for exploitation.”[418]

  Clearly moneyers and bankers reigned supreme as far as it was possible behind some powerful military figure such as had been Caesar or Anthony or Octavian, or in some measure of direct authority as seems to have been the case with Sosius, moneyer and financial organizer to Anthony, who also came from a banking family. The same Sosius when quaestor and governor of Syria and Cilicia, dethroned Antigonus, the last of the Hasmonean kings of Jerusalem in 37 B.C. after six months siege, replacing him with
Herod, later known as “The Great,” first of the Idumean line in that city.[419]

  Considering how extensive a part the coinage of Sosius had played in the fortune (or lack of fortune) of Anthony, Sosius was lucky to have been spared by Octavian.[420] The absence of Herod from the deciding battle of the civil wars, the battle of Actium (31 B.C.) under the excuse that he was detained more urgently in Arabia fighting the King of Arabia on Anthony’s behalf,[421] may be the answer here. No doubt Sosius, in the same way as any good banker in ancient or in modern times, knew how to keep a foot in each camp; equally wise was also his friend Herod. Q. Oppius who emitted the orichalcum coinage inaugurated by Anthony, also appears to have belonged to a well known family of bankers.[422]

  The name of the bankers behind Augustus does not appear to be known, but the extent of their massive operations is revealed by the widespread circulation of their heavy weight aes coinage from their mint at Nemausen, right across the Empire; from Britain, to Portugal, to Pannonia.[423] It may safely be concluded that their coinage circulated without discount and at par value with all other aes coinage previous or present, state issued, or otherwise, or by imperium or auctoritas.

  The question would be: was this excellent and adequate coinage which so well met the needs of great military and civil day to day expenditures, and which undoubtedly was the origin of the sure accession to power of Augustus, emitted by an organization of similar character to the Bank of England of recent world power, or more recently again, the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States of America? Both of which, though apparently state departments, in reality were private international organizations set up by the international circle of bullion traders, or, as they are now generally known, the International Bankers.

  That which seems to be clear out of the fragments of information existing, is that there was no such thing as a permanent interest bearing state indebtedness until the period which may mark the beginning of the decline of imperial Rome; the significance of which is that no Roman Government ever entirely lost control of that power so essential to the maintenance of its sovereignty, the power to directly inject the unit of exchange into circulation as according to its own needs.