Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Moonlapse

Plebes
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,229

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Moonlapse

  1. Invasive crawler?

    in Renuntiatio et Consilium Comitiorum

    Posted

    There is a setting for your profile to allow people to send you an email through the site (you can see it at the bottom left of anyone's profile, right under 'Send Message'). By default it's 'Private', but if you enable it, there will be a link to 'Send Email' under 'Send Message'. Basically, the Yahoo spider was indexing the Send Email form page for someone who had specifically enabled this option.

  5. UNRV roman archeological sites collection

    in Renuntiatio et Consilium Comitiorum

    Posted

    I'm sure all this can be done using Google Maps API, and it wouldn't be using unrv.com server resources. In fact, that's what I want to use eventually for interactive province maps (which would integrate with any other map stuff like archaeological locations, pictures, etc)

     

    If someone else knows how to do it and wants to do it, that's awesome. For me to do it, it would have to be queued and I really can't tell you when it would be done.

  7. First cocktail created in Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago

    in Archaeological News: The World

    Posted

    Ooohhh, my favorite subject.

     

    I have indeed had Midas Touch several times, I buy it whenever its available. Some people don't think it's all that, but I really enjoy it. It is similar to a fruit lambic in some ways, it doesn't really taste like beer and it definitely has a grapey meady taste. Different batches have slight differences in flavor, smell, etc. I like the mouthfeel as well, its not watery. I won't try to describe the flavor in detail, so you'll have to find it and see if it suits your tastes.

  16. I love capitalism

    in Hora Postilla Thermae

    Posted

    Ok, those are very vague and general.

     

    If a central government bank or a banking cartel has a monopoly on legal tender and the supply of it, is that considered 'capitalist'?

     

    If the government gives to certain people the type of special privileges that have been historically considered fraud, is that 'capitalist'?

     

    If a government uses its monopoly of the use of force to confiscate money and determine its distribution and its specific uses, is that considered 'capitalist'?

     

    If the government is considered to have the duty and power to control the economy in such a way that ensures prosperity, is that considered 'capitalist'?

     

    In my opinion we haven't had capitalism, except perhaps something close to it around the turn of the 19th century in America. After that, we had turned towards mercantilism, which has been increasingly incorporated with aspects of both fascism and socialism over the past century. If you define capitalism in the context of fascist/socialist-mercantilism, then you end up with endless definitions of what capitalism actually is. The word can describe almost anything to anyone and be used for any purpose.

  19. Strange Use of a Sponge??

    in Academia

    Posted

    Good question. I would tend to think that it's not unlikely. I mean, the legionaries were serving as executioners, there's no reason to think that they were in the practice of fetching nice clean sponges in order to give dying criminals a drink. One of the common causes of death during crucifixion was dehydration, so requests for something to drink must have been quite frequent.

  23. How much money did the Economy of Rome have ?

    in Imperium Romanorum

    Posted

    OK, take it as an example. What was the "price of gold" (where? Alexandria? Athens? in what units? in silver?) before Alexander found the treasury and what was the price afterwards?

    I would have thought that in ancient times and up to the point when modern governments abandoned the gold standard, the 'price of gold/silver' was impossible to asses. That would be like saying 'What is the price of a dollar? the answer - a dollar'. Maybe there is documentary source which gives an idea of prices in the pre hellenistic and hellenistic periods, then a more definitive statement can be made.

    Exactly. That's why I said that its not the money that matters but the real wealth that the money servers as a medium of exchange for. The 'price' or value of money is the value of the goods that it can purchase. Historical changes in the value of gold, such as one involving Alexander or the Spanish discovery of American gold, are the result of the increase in the supply of money (gold) relative to the real wealth (goods) that it served as a medium of exchange for. Prices are just a ratio between the medium of exchange and real wealth.

     

    Converting historical economic values into modern ones does not take into account the increases in real wealth brought about by technological progress and the results are therefore arbitrary for the most part. The concept of value in itself is subjective and relative, and at some point in the calculation there will be the assumption of 'all other things being equal' when in fact they are not.

  24. How much money did the Economy of Rome have ?

    in Imperium Romanorum

    Posted

    Nominal prices are entirely relative measurements and can be very misleading. The only real way to understand how much 'money' they had is to look at what they used as money (gold, silver, copper, etc), estimate the total quantity and fineness of the money, the total quantity and quality of the goods it could purchase and compare it to the total supply of those materials throughout the world at the time.

     

    If you try to convert it into modern money, the point is missed. Its not the money that matters but the real wealth that the money servers as a medium of exchange for. A Roman could have had a billion US dollars worth of gold, but he could never possess anything like a jet airplane or a factory that produces microprocessors. The gold and silver that was used as money was valuable precisely because of its suitability as a universal medium of exchange, as determined over the course of thousands of years by innumerable different economic participants.

     

    Kosmo:

    I would say that the recent fluctuation in the nominal price of commodities has far more to do with the value of the fiat paper currency that the prices are measured in, than with the intrinsic value of of the commodities. If you price commodities in terms of other commodities, the prices tend to be very flat over time.

     

    Even though banking is an institution that has spontaneously evolved over time, complex banking certainly existed in the Roman empire. The following is quoted from Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles by Jesus Huerta de Soto where he discusses legal principles pertaining to banking in ancient Rome.

     

    Also see Chapter 2, Section 2 of the book, "Banking in Greece and Rome." Its a little too long to post here.

     

    THE IRREGULAR DEPOSIT CONTRACT UNDER ROMAN LAW

     

    The deposit contract in general is covered in section 3 of book 16 of the Digest, entitled “On Depositing and Withdrawing” (Depositi vel contra). Ulpian begins with the following definition:

     

    A deposit is something given another for safekeeping. It is so called because a good is posited [or placed]. The preposition de intensifies the meaning, which reflects that all obligations corresponding to the custody of the good belong to that person.
    33

     

    A deposit can be either regular, in the case of a specific good; or irregular, in the case of a fungible good.34 In fact, in number 31, title 2, book 19 of the Digest, Paul explains the difference between the loan contract or mutuum and the deposit contract of a fungible good, arriving at the conclusion that

     

    if a person deposits a certain amount of loose money, which he counts and does not hand over sealed or enclosed in something, then the only duty of the person receiving it is to return the same amount.
    35

     

    In other words, Paul clearly indicates that in the monetary irregular deposit the depositary’s only obligation is to return the tantundem: the equivalent in quantity and quality of the original deposit. Moreover, whenever anyone made an irregular deposit of money, he received a written certificate or deposit slip. We know this because Papinian, in paragraph 24, title 3, book 16 of the Digest, says in reference to a monetary irregular deposit,

     

    I write this letter by hand to inform you, so that you will know, that the one hundred coins you have entrusted to me today through Sticho, the slave and administrator, are in my possession and I will return them to you immediately, whenever and wherever you wish.

     

    This passage reveals the immediate availability of the money to the depositor and the custom of giving him a deposit slip or receipt certifying a monetary irregular deposit, which not only established ownership, but also had to be presented upon withdrawal.36

     

    The essential obligation of depositaries is to maintain the tantundem constantly available to depositors. If for some reason the depositary goes bankrupt, the depositors have absolute privilege over any other claimants, as Ulpian skillfully explains (paragraph 2, number 7, title 3, book 16 of the Digest):

     

    Whenever bankers are declared bankrupt, usually addressed first are the concerns of the depositors; that is, those with money on deposit, not those earning interest on money left with the bankers. So, once the goods have been sold, the depositors have priority over those with privileges, and those who received interest are not taken into account— it is as if they had relinquished the deposit.
    37

     

    Here Ulpian indicates as well that interest was considered incompatible with the monetary irregular deposit and that when bankers paid interest, it was in connection with a totally different contract (in this case, a mutuum contract or loan to a banker, which is better known today as a time “deposit” contract).

     

    As for the depositary’s obligations, it is expressly stated in the Digest (book 47, title 2, number 78) that he who receives a good on deposit and uses it for a purpose other than that for which it was received is guilty of theft. Celsus also tells us in the same title (book 47, title 2, number 67) that taking a deposit with an intent to deceive constitutes theft. Paul defines theft as “the fraudulent appropriation of a good to gain a profit, either from the good itself or from its use or possession; this is forbidden by natural law.”38 As we see, what is today called the crime of misappropriation was included under the definition of theft in Roman law. Ulpian, in reference to Julianus, also concluded:

     

    if someone receives money from me to pay a creditor of mine, and, himself owing the same amount to the creditor, pays him in his own name, he commits theft.
    (Digest, book 47, title 2, number 52, paragraph 16)39

     

    In number 3, title 34 (on “the act of deposit”), book 4 of the Codex Constitutionum of the Corpus Juris Civilis, which includes the constitution established under the consulship of Gordianus and Aviola in the year 239, the obligation to maintain the total availability of the tantundem is even clearer, as is the commission of theft when the tantundem is not kept available.

     

    In this constitution, the emperor Gordianus indicates to Austerus,

     

    if you make a deposit, you will with reason ask to be paid interest, since the depositary should thank you for not holding him responsible for theft, because he who knowingly and willingly uses a deposited good for his own benefit, against the will of the owner, also commits the crime of theft.
    40

     

    Section 8 of the same source deals expressly with depositaries who loan money received on deposit, thus using it for their own benefit. It is emphasized that such an action violates the principle of safekeeping, obligates depositaries to pay interest, and makes them guilty of theft, as we have just seen in the constitution of Gordianus. In this section we read:

     

    If a person who has received money from you on deposit loans it in his own name, or in the name of any other person, he and his successors are most certainly obliged to carry out the task accepted and to fulfill the trust placed in them.
    41

     

    It is recognized, in short, that those who receive money on deposit are often tempted to use it for themselves. This is explicitly acknowledged elsewhere in the Corpus Juris Civilis (Novellae, Constitution LXXXVIII, at the end of chapter 1), along with the importance of properly penalizing these actions, not only by charging the depositary with theft, but also by holding him responsible for payment of interest on arrears “so that, in fear of these penalties, men will cease to make evil, foolish and perverse use of deposits.”42

     

    Roman jurists established that when a depositary failed to comply with the obligation to immediately return the tantundem upon request, not only was he clearly guilty of the prior crime of theft, but he was also liable for payment of interest on arrears. Accordingly, Papinian states:

     

    He who receives the deposit of an unsealed package of money and agrees to return the same amount, yet uses this money for his own profit, must pay interest for the delay in returning the deposit.
    43

     

    This perfectly just principle is behind the so-called depositum confessatum, which we will consider in greater detail in the next chapter and refers to the evasion of the canonical prohibition on interest by disguising actual loan or mutuum contracts as irregular deposits and then deliberately delaying repayment, thus authorizing the charging of interest. If these contracts had from the beginning been openly regarded as loan or mutuum contracts they would not have been permitted by canon law.

     

    Finally, we find evidence in the following extracts (among others) that Roman jurists understood the essential difference between the loan or mutuum contract and the monetary irregular-deposit contract: number 26, title 3, book 16 (passage by Paul); number 9, point 9, title 1, book 12 of the Digest (excerpts by Ulpian); and number 10 of the same title and book. However, the clearest and most specific statements to this effect were made by Ulpian in section 2, number 24, title 5, book 17 of the Digest, in which he expressly concludes that “To loan is one thing and to deposit is another,” and establishes that

     

    once a banker’s goods have been sold and the concerns of the privileged attended to, preference should be given people who, according to attested documents, deposited money in the bank. Nevertheless, those who have received interest from the bankers on money deposited will not be dealt with separately from the rest of the creditors; and with good reason, since to loan is one thing and to deposit is another.
    44

     

    It is therefore clear from Ulpian’s writings in this section that bankers carried out two different types of operations. On one hand, they accepted deposits, which involved no right to interest and obliged the depositary to maintain the full, continuous availability of the tantundem in favor of the depositors, who had absolute privilege in the case of bankruptcy. And, on the other hand, they received loans (mutuum contracts), which did obligate the banker to pay interest to the lenders, who lacked all privileges in the case of bankrupcy.Ulpian could show no greater clarity in his distinction between the two contracts nor greater fairness in his solutions.

     

    Roman classical jurists discovered and analyzed the universal legal principles governing the monetary irregular-deposit contract, and this analysis coincided naturally with the development of a significant business and trade economy, in which bankers had come to play a very important role. In addition, these principles later appeared in the medieval legal codes of various European countries, including Spain, despite the serious economic and business recession resulting from the fall of the Roman Empire and the advent of the Middle Ages. In Las Partidas (law 2, title 3, item 5) it is established that a person who agrees to hold the commodities of another takes part in an irregular deposit in which control over the goods is transferred to him. Nevertheless, he is obliged, depending upon agreements in the corresponding document, to return the goods or the value indicated in the contract for each good removed from the deposit, either because it is sold with the authorization of the original owner, or is removed for other, unexpected reasons.45 Moreover, in the Fuero Real (law 5, title 15, book 3) the distinction is made between the deposit “of some counted money or raw silver or gold,” received from “another, by weight,” in which case “the goods may be used and goods of the same quantity and quality as those received may be returned;” and the deposit “which is sealed and not counted or measured by weight,” in which case “it is not to be used, but if it is used, it must be paid back double.”46 These medieval codes contain a clear distinction between the regular deposit of a specific good and the irregular deposit of money, and they indicate that in the latter case ownership is transferred. However, the codes do not include the important clarifications made in the Corpus Juris Civilis to the effect that, though ownership is “transferred,” the safekeeping obligation remains, along with the responsibility to keep continually available to the depositor the equivalent in quantity and quality (tantundem) of the original deposit. Perhaps the reason for this omission lies in the increasing prevalence of the depositum confessatum.

     

    33 Ulpian, a native of Tyre (Phoenicia), was advisor to another great jurist, Papinian, and together with Paul, he was an advising member of the concilium principis and praefectus praetorio under Alexander Severus. He was murdered in the year 228 by the Praetorians. He was a very prolific

    writer who was better known for his knowledge of juridical literature than for his creative work. He wrote clearly and was a good compiler and his writings are regarded with special favor in Justinian’s Digest, where they comprise the main part. On this topic see Iglesias, Derecho romano: Instituciones de derecho privado, p. 58. The passage cited in the text is as follows in Latin:

     

    Depositum est, quod custodiendum alicui datum est, dictum ex eo, quod ponitur, praepositio enim de auget depositum, ut ostendat totum fidei eius commissum, quod ad custodiam rei pertinet.

     

    34 However, as Pasquale Coppa-Zuccari astutely points out, the expression depositum irregolare did not appear until it was first used by Jason

    de Maino, a fifteenth century annotator of earlier works, whose writings were published in Venice in the year 1513. See Coppa-Zuccari, Il deposito irregolare, p. 41. Also, the entire first chapter of this important work deals with the treatment under Roman law of the irregular deposit, pp. 2–32. For an excellent, current treatment in Spanish of bibliographic sources on the irregular deposit in Rome, see Mercedes L

×
×
  • Create New...