Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-29T05:15:48.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Edict of Diocletian: A Study of Price Fixing in the Roman Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

H. Michell
H. Michell*
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Get access

Extract

In 301 A.D. the Emperor Diocletian, with whom were associated his three co-rulers, promulgated an edict which fixed for the whole Roman Empire maximum prices for commodities, freight rates, and wages. According to the evidence available, and it is certain that the whole edict has not been recovered, price “ceilings” for over 900 commodities, 130 different grades of labour, and a considerable number of freight rates, were fixed and severe punishment promised to all “black market” operators who dared to buy or sell above the maximum. So elaborate a scheme of price control was not tried again until 1,600 years had passed. The reasons that led to this drastic interference in the economic life of the Empire and the success it attained, or rather did not attain, in regulating prices, provide a study for the historian which is well worth while.

The Chaos of the Third Century. In order to understand the circumstances that led to the issuing of this edict, it is necessary to envisage the appalling state of affairs which marked the third century of the Christian era. Utter anarchy engulfed the Roman world; emperors and pretenders to the imperial throne struggled for the great prizes of power. Armies marched and remarched over every province, plundering the wretched inhabitants. In 193 the Empire was put up for sale by auction by the Praetorians, the imperial guards, and bought by Didius Julianus. It is interesting to note that he enjoyed his bargain for exactly sixty-six days. Such cynical disregard for the glory of the imperial purple was too much even for those days and he was murdered. As each claimant reached the goal of his ambition, the first thing he had to do was to pay the soldiery that backed him. The imperial treasury was looted and empty, and the enormous sums necessary to satisfy the army could only be met by piling tax on tax, by confiscating the wealth of opponents and, worst of all, by debasing a currency that already was fast approaching the point when it was next to worthless. In 260, there came the last and most shocking degradation when the Emperor Valerian, who was trying to defend the eastern frontier, was captured by the Persians and held for six years in captivity until his death. The Empire was clearly breaking up in misery and confusion, bankruptcy and anarchy.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , February 1947 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mommsen, T., Das Edict Diokletians de pretiis rerum venalium (Leipzig, 1851)Google Scholar; Bluemner, H., Dar Maximaltarif des Diocletian (Berlin, 1893)Google Scholar; Elsa, R. Graser, “The Edict of Diocletian on Maximum Prices” (in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, ed. Frank, Tenney, vol. V, Baltimore, 1940).Google Scholar Graser, Elsa R., “The Significance of Two New Fragments of the Edict of Diocletian” (Transactions of the American Philological Association, vol. LXXI, 1940, p. 157).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Miss Graser's admirable edition of the edict supersedes the older versions of Mommsen, and Bluemner, . West, L. C., “Notes on Diocletian's Edict” (Classical Philosophy, vol. XXXIV, 1939, p. 242).Google Scholar

2 Frank, , (ed.), An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, p. 303.Google Scholar

3 The literature on the coins of the Roman Republic and Empire is very large and, except for the expert, often highly confusing and controversial. For the English reader the best is Mattingly, H., Roman Coins (London, 1928)Google Scholar; Webb, P. H., Roman Imperial Coins (ed. Mattingly, H. and Sydenham, E. S., London, 1927), vol. V, p. 1.Google Scholar Oman, C., “Decline and Fall of the Denarius” (Numismatic Chronicle, 1916, p. 37).Google Scholar

4 Hammer, T., “Der Feingehalt der griechischen u. römischen Münzen” (Zeitschrift für Numismatik, vol. XXVI, 1907, p. 97).Google Scholar

5 Rostovtzeff, M., History of the Ancient World (Oxford, 1927), vol. II, pp. 363 ff.Google Scholar Rostovtzeff, M., Social and Economic History of Rome (Oxford, 1926), pp. 478 ff.Google Scholar Rostovtzeff ignores the factor of the failure of the precious metals to support the price structure.

6 For the latest treatment of this period vide Parker, H. M. D., History of the Roman Empire 138-337 (London, 1935), part V, chap. V.Google Scholar Cambridge Ancient History, vol. XII, chap. VII, “Economic Life of the Empire” by F. Oertel.

7 The literature on this subject is very extensive and the theories advanced widely divergent. The conclusions arrived at here follow largely those of Seeck, Otto, “Münzpolitik Diokletians und seiner Nachfolger” (Zeitschrift für Numismatik, vol. XVII, 1890, pp. 63 ff).Google Scholar An important article is by Mickwitz, G., “Geld und Wirtschaft im römischen Reiche des vierten Jahrhunderts nach Chr” in the Finnish learned journal Soc. Scient. Fennica, Comment. Hum. Lit. 6. Helsingfors, 1934 Google Scholar; also Voetter, K., “Die Kupferprägungen der Diokletianischen Tetrarchie” (Numismatische Zeitschrift, 1899, p. 1).Google Scholar

8 Roberts, C. H., and Mattingly, H. (Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress, 1936, London, 1938, p. 246).Google Scholar

9 Graser, E. R., “The Significance of Two New Fragments of the Edict of Diocletian” (Transactions of the American Philological Association, vol. LXXI, 1940, p. 157).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

l0 Castrensis modius. It is not certain what this measure was. Mommsen, T., Berichte d. Sachs. Gesell, d. Wiss, 1851, p. 58 Google Scholar, holds that it was double the ordinary modius, which would make it about half a bushel, modern weight. Vide also Hueltsch, F., Griech u. Röm Metrologie (Berlin, 1862), p. 94.Google Scholar

11 It designates, possibly but far from certainly, ports on the Orontes River in Asia Minor, of which Seleuceia Pieria is the most likely, as being the terminus of caravan routes. Seleuceia did a big transit trade.

12 Bücher, Karl, “Die Diokletianische Taxordnung vom Jahre 301” (Beitrage zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Tübingen, 1922, p. 179).Google Scholar An admirable treatment.

13 This speech “against the grain dealers,” is well worth studying. A ring of wheat importers had cornered the market in Athens and were holding up prices contrary to public policy. It may conveniently be read in the translation of the speeches of Lysias in the Loeb Library edition.

14 Malalas, Joannes, Chronographia, xii, 407 Google Scholar E. (in Corpus Script. Hist. Byzant., ed. Dindorf, E., Bonn, 1831, vol. XIV, p. 307).Google Scholar

15 Ibid., p. 299.

16 De Mortibus Persecutorum, p. 7. English translation, The Works of Lactantius, by Fletcher, W. (Edinburgh, 1871), vol. II, p. 164.Google Scholar

17 Seeck, O., “Die Münzpolitik Diocletians und seiner Nachfolger” (Zeitschrift für Numismatik, vol. XVII, 1890, pp. 36 ff. especially pp. 52 ff. and 63).Google Scholar

18 Mattingly, , Rottum Coins, pp. 224 ff.Google Scholar These figures are all doubtful. For another treatment of the subject vide Mickwitz, G., “Ueber die Küpfergeldinflationen in den Jahren der Thronkämpfe nach Diokletians Abdankung” (Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress, 1936, London, 1938), pp. 219 ff.Google Scholar Mickwitz puts the figure for the depreciation of the denarius much higher. It seems impossible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. But all agree that uncontrollable inflation was present.

19 Ad Demetrianum, p. 3. This letter may be conveniently read in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh, 1868), vol. VIII, p. 423.Google Scholar Cyprian is naturally protesting against the persecution of the Christians; but his shrewd comments on the political and economic troubles of the time are worth reading.

20 For instance in the Codex Theodosianus, x, 19 Google Scholar, 3, and 5. In Corpus Juris Ante-Justinianum (ed. Haenel, G. F., Bonn, 1837).Google Scholar Cf. also Ammianus Marcellinus, xxxi, 6.6: Victor, S. Aurelius, De Caesaribus, xxxix, 44–5.Google Scholar

21 Davies, O., Roman Mines in Europe (Oxford, 1935), p. 2.Google Scholar