Speculators in Ancient Rome and Deceitful appearances

The Roman Emperor Diocletian issued  the edict known as Diocletian’s Price Edict  (Edictum de Pretiis) in 301 AD to keep prices down, and asserting that they were strongly affected by speculative pressures.

No ancient, modern, medieval and contemporary economist believed him.

The reason why no one believe a word of what he said  was grounded  in the fact that, according to many of them,  it was impossible that price increase was due to speculation, because at that time field crops were plentiful, and  the market abounded with all products. For these reasons, the Emperor Diocletian was considered to be a liar.

By from all accounts, the obvious reason of the price increase was due to the depreciation of the currency, which was begun under Emperor Nero, and persisted for a long time under Septimius Severus and Caracalla. The denarius argenteus (silver coin), which before the time of Nero had contained 980 thousandths fine, it contained barely only half of pure silver under Emperor Caracalla, while the percentage of lead increased at about  9%.

All These facts accelerated the depreciation of the denarius argenteus and the rise in prices, in part because of this phenomenon was accompanied by counterfeit coins produced by private individuals in many Provinces of the Roman Empire such as France, England, and Austria. However, we have irrefutable evidence that counterfeit coins were minted in some factories found in the Roman Provinces mentioned above by several Provincial Governors to provide funds for challenging military expeditions.

 

Therefore, according to all economists, the most important cause of rising prices was the depreciation of the denarius argenteus. But Emperor Diocletian insisted that speculators were the real cause, because, despite the abundance of products (copia rerum),  severe famine occurred in the Roman Empire.

Repeated Diocletian’s observations convinced several economists that maybe there was some truth in his words, because it is difficult, if not impossible, that he invented so implausible excuses, losing both prestige and credibility among the Roman citizens. So starting from the irrefutable fact that Diocletian around 290 AD also coined a new denarius argenteus, going back to the time of Nero, Professor G. Arias reconsidered the words of Diocletian on a new basis.

Diocletian’s assertion seemed completely unfounded, but G. Arias considered the fact that the demand for different products continually increased under Diocletian, due to impressive troop movements over large areas of the vast Roman Empire. It is at this point that speculation began to manifest itself in the Roman Empire. Hoarding goods, many bulk buyers sold them to the Roman army in a monopoly system. Therefore, the Emperor Diocletian cannot be blamed if speculators were continuously accused by him of being the primary cause of inflation, trying to curb it with the famous edict of 301 AD.

Despite the edict, Diocletian’s attempt to freeze prices and speculation failed.  It is because speculative interests and pressures were very strong in Roman society, which, according to Diocletian, was driven by the immoderate desire of wealth and profit (effrenata libido).  Times change, and the Roman Empire existed two millennia ago, but unhealthy speculation is still very much alive in our contemporary world, because of the “insatiability of the human wants, ” Regenia Gagnier wrote.

 

Sources:

625. Arias, “Principi di economia commerciale (L’Editto di Diocleziano)”, in Economia e Storia, ottobre-dicembre 1975, 4, pp. 621-625. In Latin: Edictum Diocletiani et Collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium.

Regenia Gagnier, “Is Market Society the ‘Fin’ of History?”, in  The Insatiability of Human Wants: Economics and Aesthetics in Market Society, Chicago & London, The University of Chicago Press, 2000.