ECONOMIC THEORY AND ANCIENT ROME

Abstract

E.’s monograph is an important contribution to both the monetary history of the Roman Empire and the long-running methodological debate over the study of the ancient economy. Like others in recent years, E. has concerns about the primacy of New Institutional Economics in the study of the ancient economy; but what sets his work apart is that it proposes a philosophically grounded methodology that moves beyond the old battle lines. Chapter 1 offers a quick survey of developments in the study of the Roman economy, beginning in the late nineteenth century. E. covers all the essential figures, from Karl Bücher to Walter Scheidel. It is a useful summary for those new to the topic and brisk enough that it will not try the patience of those who are all too familiar with the story so far. The second chapter, ‘Embedding Contexts of Roman Money’, considers the monetary system of the Principate, arguing that it was ‘a complex, dynamic and ultimately embedded network of values’ (p. 20). E. acknowledges that ‘limited surviving evidence makes it difficult for historians to identify the specific cultural practices and values which shaped Roman monetary developments’ (p. 30), but suggests that political, economic, social and cultural ‘embedding contexts’ made the monetary system dualistic and in some respects internally inconsistent. These factors, he rightly notes, make it difficult to apply modern economic theory to the Roman economy. In Chapter 3, ‘Evidence and Theory’, E. argues that methodological dualism ‘offers historians a foundational framework for redirecting the use of economic theory toward understanding Roman monetary history’ (p. 70). He begins by discussing the work of R. Duncan-Jones, C. Katsari, K. Harl and C. Howgego in order to highlight the shortcomings of inductive empiricism. However, deductive empiricism – here mainly represented by the work of P. Temin – also poses problems. Methodological dualism, a perspective developed by W. Dilthey, is necessary since we cannot approach natural and social sciences in the same manner. While natural scientists can model and predict natural phenomena, social scientists must employ Verstehen (‘understanding’) to interpret the more complex and variable behaviour of human beings. Methodological dualism, E. suggests, might make it ‘possible to break away from the imperialistic and circular reasoning of a posteriori cliometrics and truly understand the thinking of those who participated in the Roman monetary economy’ (p. 73). Chapter 4, ‘Rationality, Purposefulness and Action’, continues the development of a new methodology for Roman economic history. E. argues that ‘to understand the meaning of economic action in history . . . historians must consider the motives and choices of individuals as well as the embedding contexts that shaped those choices’ (p. 89). He uses the financial crisis of 33 CE to illustrate the roles of purposeful action and methodological individualism in this approach. E. then develops ‘processes for using economic theory to understand economic history’ (p. 99). This involves comparing historical events with bounded counterfactual ideal-types and ‘unchosen possibilities’ (p. 107, fig. 4.5). Chapter 5, ‘Money Quantity and Quality’, provides a fuller illustration of E.’s approach by examining the monetary expansion that Octavian caused when, in 29 BCE, he brought back to Rome the spoils of his conquest of Egypt and distributed massive amounts of money. This is an important discussion of the limitations of quantity theory and the role it can nonetheless play in Roman economic history. The introduction of the concept of THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 148