Love J. Antiquity and Capitalism. Max Weber and the Sociological Foundations of Roman...

AdministratorFile Attachment200029c8coverv05b.jpg

Antiquity and Capitalism

Antiquity and Capitalism Max Weber and the sociological foundations of Roman

civilization

John R.Love

London and New York

First published 1991 by Routledge

11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.

To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge's collection of thousands of eBooks please go to

www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge

a division of Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc. 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001

1991 John R.Love

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,

mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information

storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Love, John R.

Antiquity and capitalism: Max Weber and the sociological foundations of Roman civilization.

1. Roman Empire. Economic conditions I. Title

330.937

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Love, John R

Antiquity and capitalism: Max Weber and the sociological foundations of Roman civilization/John R.Love.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. RomeEconomic conditions. 2. RomeSocial conditions. 3. Weber, Max, 18641920Contributions in Roman civilization.

I. Title. HC39. L68 1991

306.0937dc20 9038673 ISBN 0-203-98307-6 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-415-04750-1 (Print Edition)

for my mother Daisy Edna Love

and my father William Tylden Love

Contents

Acknowledgements viii

Introduction 1

Part I Antiquity and historical sociology

1 Max Weber and the theory of ancient capitalism 7 Part II Max Weber and modern scholarship

2 On the economic character of the ancient agricultural estate: Oikos or enterprise? 433 lndustrial production and the economic use of slave labour 814 The economic significance of ancient trade 1135 The role of state contracting and the societates publicanorum 128

Part III Capitalism and the fate of Roman civilization

6 The nature of the market and the significance of capitalism in Roman antiquity 1567 Why rational capitalism was not established in antiquity 182

Notes 205 Bibliography 245 Index 259

Acknowledgements

The following work grew out of studies undertaken for a doctoral degree at theUniversity of Melbourne. I wish to thank David Tucker for his invaluable assistance assupervisor, and Gianfranco Poggi for his interest and guidance. I am especially indebtedto Harry Redner who has been a friend, support and inspiration to me over many years. Iwould finally like to thank Jennifer Cook and Steve McCaulay for their effort and care intyping the manuscript.

Introduction

If any object can be found to which this term [the spirit of capitalism] can be applied with any understandable meaning, it can only be an historical individual, i.e., a complex of elements associated in historical reality which we unite into a conceptual whole from the standpoint of their cultural significance. Such an historical concept, however, since it refers in its content to a phenomenon significant for its unique individuality, cannot be defined according to the formula gens proximum, differentia specifica, but it must be gradually put together out of the individual parts which are taken from historical reality to make it up. Thus the final and definitive concept cannot stand at the beginning, but must come at the end.

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

The work which follows is basically concerned to explore a single historical question: wewish to enquire whether capitalism existed in ancient society, and, if so, in what form(s)and to what extent. In a nutshell, we want to know whether the economy of the mostadvanced regions of antiquity, those of the Roman world in particular, was affected tosignificant degrees by the presence of capitalistic or quasi-capitalistic economic pursuits and what bearing this may have had on the course of social development generally. Ofcourse, it goes without saying that such questions mean we must also address thequestion of the nature of capitalism as such; we shall necessarily have to touch on thewhole problem of the relation of antiquity to the modern era where clearly a certain kindof capitalism has been, and still is, of overwhelming importance.

The present work is thus a somewhat ambitious study which, by surveying the course of Roman history from the early Republican origins to the era of Romes demise, seeks to contribute to the general understanding of the socio-economic structure of ancient civilization. To achieve this we have set as our main task the construction of a complexsociological modelor what we term, following Max Weber, an ideal typeand our efforts will be directed to describing the intricate workings of this model and showinghow the constructs produced are adequate to the purpose at hand. Our approach istherefore unashamedly sociological in orientation, though, in the best traditions of thediscipline, we have made every effort to be thoroughly cognizant of the relevanthistorical materials. The questions we shall ask are not those typical of conventionalhistoriography, which usually seeks to uncover novel historical facts or analyses specificcausal conjunctions, but rather those of the historical sociologist who, in asking questionsof an analytical nature, recognizes the necessity of more theoretically orienteddeliberations, even if the concepts and models thereby constructed ultimately depend onmaterials provided in the first instance by ordinary historical scholarship. The historian of

antiquity will thus find no new facts disclosed below, but should recognize familiarmaterials selected, arranged and related in different, and hopefully illuminating, ways.Above all, an effort has been made to produce a clear and consistently formed set ofconcepts in order to improve the overall coherence of specialist studies dealing with thevarious facets of ancient society, so avoiding some of the ambiguity and confusion thatall too often is a feature of the general literature in the field.

From what has already been said, it will not come as much of a surprise, at least to sociologists, to learn that our study engages to a considerable extent with the work ofMax Weber. But despite the fact that sociologists and ancient historians will knowsomething of Weber the sociologist of modern society, they are probably alike in theirlack of familiarity with his direct contribution to ancient studies. Curiously, it is not at allwell known that Weber wrote two major books dealing exclusively with antiquity, andmany of his other writings are profoundly concerned with it as well. 1 Thus, it will be a first intention of the present study to revive the scholarly interest in Webers historical writings dealing expressly with antiquity. But, important though this may be for thehistory of ideas and as a contribution to the interpretation of Webers work as a whole, in the context of the work to follow these concerns are largely preliminary to the stated taskof producing a more adequate account of the socio-economic structure of the ancient world. 2

In our view Webers work on antiquity is seminal for two main reasons: First, Weber wrote at a time when a number of the great achievements of modern Germanhistoriography were already in place, was well situated to take advantage of these, anddid so. Here we shall refer in passing to the contributions of ancient historians likeBarthold Niebuhr, Jacob Burckhardt, Theodor Mommsen, Eduard Meyer, AugustMeitzen, Robert Phlmann and Georg von Below and to those of historical economistssuch as Gustav von Schmoller, Karl Bcher, Wilhelm Roscher and Karl Rodbertusof course, there are many others that could be listed. But, secondly, Webers work is crucial because he is one of the very few historians of high calibre to have written and researchedon an almost global range of human cultureshe studied and wrote in detail about theeconomic, political, religious and cultural life of both eastern and western societies, anddid so covering the full panoply of ancient, mediaeval and modern phenomena. In otherwords, he developed his theories from what is often termed the perspective of universalhistory, and, with the benefit of the most advanced epistemology of the day, was able todo so in a methodologically sophisticated fashion.

Of course, it might be said much of this is true also of a figure like Karl Marx, withwhom we shall have occasion to make comparisons on a number of points. But whereasWebers scholarship has to a remarkable extent weathered the test of time and, in ourview, even now stands with the best historical work since produced, 3 the same cannot be said of Marxs work, much of which is now dated and obsolete. I say this advisedlyknowing full well that numerous followers of Marx have made, and are still continuing tomake, efforts to update the masters contribution in the light of recent advances in the field. But these efforts are, with a few notable exceptions, of limited value. Hence, in thebody of the present work we shall not attempt a full-scale comparison of Marx and Weber on antiquity; the sketchy nature of Marxs empirical knowledge of antiquity and the unsystematic character of his writings on it would make such a project unbalanced

Antiquity and capitalism 2

and somewhat artificial. Nonetheless, as the topic is not without interest and has someworthwhile dimensions, we have often included allusions to Marxs views in passing.

Thus, we readily concede that what we shall present on the question of capitalism in antiquity relies heavily, though not exclusively, on the work of Weber. From a conceptualand methodological point of view this dependence is especially significant as regards Webers key concepts of rational capitalism and political capitalism. Of course, as with all Weberian concepts, these are much more than categoric definitions, for, properlyunderstood, such terms refer to complex ideal types which theoretically encompass largesets of empirical materials organized for analytic purposes. Our modus operandi in what follows will be to explore the heuristic value of these and certain other key ideal types forthe interpretation of the socio-economic life of antiquity. But whereas Weber developedthe ideal type of rational capitalism to a high degree (this was a major part of theachievement of his great work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) unfortunately the same cannot be said of his concept of political capitalism. Weberhimself provided only a rough outline of the latter concept, though in our view hisconceptual elaboration is basically sound and includes many of the essential elements.Thus, it would be fair to say we are seeking to complement Webers work on rational capitalism with a corresponding effort focusing on political capitalism. Just as Weber sawhis task in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as being in significant measure a theoretical oneto develop the concept of rational, or bourgeois, capitalism initselfcorrespondingly we shall attempt to explicate the concept of political capitalism.

Our discussion below is organized into three parts which can loosely be termedanalytic, descriptive and synthetic. The first, analytic section is made up of a singlechapter on the work of Weber. In this we review his contributions to the study ofantiquity and expound his main theoretical constructs, showing as far as is possible at thisstage their relevance to the questions we wish to address.

For Weber the most central question is undoubtedly that of the uniqueness of the modern West, but his solution to this issue differs significantly from Marxs in that his schematization of comparative socio-economic structures did not preclude the possibility of forms of capitalism preceding the bourgeois form that emerged after the Renaissance.This is where Webers distinction between rational or market capitalism and politicallyoriented capitalism becomes crucial. Whereas politically oriented capitalism is defined asthe exploitation of the opportunities for profit arising from the exerciSe of political power(ultimately, violence), market capitalism is more economically rational and focuses onthe formally peaceful opportunities of the market. Hence, at the very least we may beable to designate the socio-economic structure of antiquity capitalist in the sense of political capitalismthough, as we shall see, aspects of market capitalism may also be relevant.

At this point we must sound a warning in anticipation of some possiblemisunderstandings our conceptual approach may invite. Throughout our deliberations weshall be especially vigilant concerning the precise referents of key terms like capitalism,in order to avoid the the twin dangers of anachronistically projecting modern forms backonto the past or, alternatively, of overstating the uniqueness of the present. Both mistakesabound in the literature on antiquity, and we shall be especially preoccupied with them inthe discussions to follow.

Introduction 3

The second section, the descriptive part, comprises four chapters which cover fourgeneral areas of economic life: agriculture, industry, trade and state contracting. In thesechapters we shall survey the literature on our topic that has been produced since Webers day, and make whatever additions and corrections seem necessary. But more importantly,we shall also attempt the reverse, namely, to interrogate the materials that have beenproduced by modern historiography in the light of Webers sociology. We shall try in particular to determine to what extent various quasi- and proto-capitalist formations appeared in the ancient world. For example, in agriculture we shall focus on the largeestates and ask whether these ever became genuine capitalist enterprises; or, did theyremain in essence autarkic and traditional owing to the predominance of the oikos? In so-called industry the main issue concerns the scale and economic sophistication of theslave-based workshop. Was this at any stage a proto-typical factory with a rational division of labour and was it oriented to profit making? As regards the realm of trade ourkey concern will be the question of whether certain forms of capitalistic trade, especiallythose associated with the sea loan, played an important part in the economic life ofancient cities. Finally, we shall consider the significance of state contracting for the fateof capitalism in ancient Rome. Here the role of the state contractors or publicani is the decisive question because of their extraordinary wealth and the nature of the businessmethods they employed.

In In our final, concluding section we shall try to synthesize the great mass of material surveyed in the two previous sections. The intention will be to gain an interpretativegrasp of the overall socioeconomic situation in antiquity. We shall focus on two mainquestions. First, what was the extent of the market in ancient Roman society? And, second, what was the institutional basis of political capitalism? Associated with theseproblems are a number of subordinate issues, such as why there were limits to thedevelopment of a market system and what were the long-term effects of the dominance of political capitalism. To complete our discussion we shall explore in a systematic fashionwhy rational capitalism failed to develop beyond what was merely an embryonic stage.


Part I Antiquity and historical

sociology

1 Max Weber and the theory of ancient

capitalism

Well this is really a question of terminology. I need hardly point out that no historian of ancien regime societies, a fortiori of ancient civilizations, would ever, when using the word capitalism, have in mind the definition Alexander Gerschenron calmly gives us: Capitalism, that is the modern industrial system. I haveindicated that capitalism in the past (as distinct from capitalism today) only occupied a narrow platform of economic life. How could one possibly take it to mean a system extending over the whole of society? It was nevertheless a world apart, different from and indeed foreign to the social and economic context surrounding it. And it is in relation to this context that it is defined as capitalism, not merely in relation to capitalist forms which were to emerge later in time. In fact capitalism was what it was in relation to a non-capitalism of immense proportions. And to refuse to admit this dichotomy within the economy of the past, on the pretext that the time of capitalism dates only from the nineteenth century, means abandoning the effort to understand the significancecrucial to the analysis of the economy-of what might be termed the former topography of capitalism. If there were certain areas where it elected residenceby no means inadvertentlythat is because these were the only areas which favoured the reproduction of capital.

Fernand Braudel, The Wheels of Commerce

In the now quite voluminous literature dealing with the work of Max Weber, it issurprising how few commentators have addressed his writings on antiquity. 1 We say surprising because, as already noted above, Weber produced two major books concernedwith antiquity, and many of his other writings were concerned with it as well. Thus, it is of more than just passing interest, both for the history of antiquity and also as regards anunderstanding of Webers later work, to look once again at the early phase of his careerand to trace the lines of development issuing from it.

It is of considerable importance from the point of view we shall advance here that one of the main conceptual concerns of Weber in his early works, indeed the key, unifyingtheme in them, is the issue of the existence and nature of ancient capitalism. 2 It is not well known that Weber took very seriously the idea that capitalism played an important,even decisive role in the life of earlier societies. As we shall see shortly, Webers precise

view of the role of capitalism in antiquity is rather complex, and involves certain changesof viewpoint on his part over the course of his career. But, it is most instructive to tracethe course of Webers thinking in these early writings on ancient economics, and not onlyfor the student of ancient society; their close scrutiny informs us among other things as tothe nature of the problematic underlying his later, more well-recognized contributions to the analysis of the all-important modern capitalism. Thus, without prejudicing the issueof what is precisely implied by the notion, we can say that the idea of ancient capitalismis not merely of antiquarian interest but has wider implications; in particular, it provides acontrasting perspective which is most useful in constructing a theory of moderncapitalism as well as of the course of western historical development generally.

In Webers oeuvre there are a number of works devoted solely or in significant part tothe study of antiquity. They are the following:

1 Die rmische Agrargeschichte in ihrer Bedeutung fr das Staatsund Privatrecht (1891);

2 The essay The social causes of the decay of ancient civilization (1896); 3 The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations (first edition 1897 and second edition

1909); 4 The essay The city, written between 1911 and 1913, but first published

(posthumously) in the Archiv fr Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, no. 48 in 1921. This is now included in Economy and Society as Chapter XVI;

5 General Economic History (191929), which is not a text actually written by Weber, but the written version of a series of public lectures given by him under the title Outlines of Universal Social and Economic History. The contents of the lectures were reconstructed from Webers own brief notes and those of students who attended the lectures and published (posthumously) in 1923;

6 Finally, in addition to these works, we note that Webers magnum opus Economy and Society and Webers numerous writings on religion contain a wealth of references to various aspects of antiquity.

In the chapter which follows, we shall discuss the first three works listed above in somedetail, as antiquity is their central focus; the remaining writings will be utilized whereappropriate. We shall argue that Weber begins his work on the economic history ofantiquity with an essentially unclarified conception of capitalism, a usage more or lesstaken over from Theodor Mommsen whose great History of Rome was very clearly an important influence on Weber. The impact of Mommsen is most obvious in Webers Die rmische Agrargeschichte, a work composed at a time when Weber was closelyassociated with Mommsen both via social connections and through a series of intellectualexchanges. But a close reading of Mommsen shows that, under the influence ofcontemporary liberal ideas, he had simply taken over the conventional wisdomconcerning the nature of modern capitalism and anachronistically projected its formsback onto the conditions of ancient societyand Weber all too uncritically followed himin this.

By the time of his next published contribution, the essay The social causes of the decay of ancient civilization, Weber has evidently reflected upon and revised his previous view, and seeks to modify his original assessment of the significance of


capitalism. Indeed, he now wants to restrict the scope and relevance of capitalism to asomewhat marginal role, and, under the influence of Rodbertus, he develops a contrastingperspective in which special significance is placed on the economic function of the oikos. At this stage, however, Weber lacks a full appreciation of the nature and use of the idealtype, and does not have the advantage of a developed sociological typology.

But all this begins to change in the next few years (1897 onwards) with the publicationof The Agrarian Sociology. In the opening introductory section of that work Weberembarks on a detailed study of the problems of concept formation in relation to ancientstudies: he recognizes the dangers of anachronization, begins to distinguish differenttypes of capitalistic activity, and becomes conscious of the need to fashion ideal-type concepts for heuristic purposes. It is worth bearing in mind that it was between the firstand the second versions of The Agrarian Sociology (18971909) that Weber also produced The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and wrote a number of key methodological essays (most notably Objectivity in social science and social policy, in which the epistemology of the ideal type is developed at some length). In the light ofthis, we shall argue, Weber had begun to recognize that the problem of understanding thenature of capitalism, both ancient and modern, was much more complex and difficultthan he had initially thought, and, furthermore, that the issues were incapable ofresolution without engaging with another issue altogether, namely, the problem ofrationality. In consequence, he proceeds to develop a new and more sophisticated idealtype of modern capitalism around a set of conceptually clarified notions which includedthose of rational economic action, rational calculation, rational division of labour, andrational technology. Then, against this more refined formulation of rational capitalism he contrasts the idea of irrational capitalism which he argues appeared in various guisesthe capitalism of military adventurers, pirates, booty hunters, slave traders, tax farmers, speculators, money dealers and others.

But Weber is by no means so naive as to argue along Hegelian or teleological lines thatrational progress, however defined, is an inevitable consequence of the movement ofhistory. Rather, he argues that certain types of rationalization, and only these, have beenthe peculiar fate of western societies as a result of unique causal conditions. This means,contrary to an all too common misunderstanding of Weber, that rationalization is not tobe understood as the all-embracing characteristic of western historical development such that irrational forms of social life cease to be of any contemporary significance. For itneeds to be recognized that, despite the increasing dominance of rational capitalism,irrational forms also persist, even in the most advanced societieswe need only consider the large-scale cocaine enterprises of the Colombian drug barons, the world-wide traffic arms and munitions, or the political manipulation of domestic weapons manufacturers tosee examples of what Weber calls irrational capitalism prospering today. It wouldtherefore be the greatest misinterpretation of Webers view to see the process of rationalization through the filter of an Hegelian Reason, so that the course of historicalevolution from, say, primitive to modern is regarded as coinciding in some simplefashion with a general movement from irrational to rational social forms. For, in Webers view, premodern societies have also undergone rationalizations, but in differentdirections and in different spheres to those of the modern west. So we must emphasize here at the outset that in our attempt to work up a Weberian perspective on the economic

Max weber and the theory of ancient capitalism 9

character of antiquity it is not at all a question of explaining the nature of adevelopmental transition from, say, the irrational capitalism of premodern societies to therational capitalism of modern society. Rather, it is a question of understanding thepeculiar character of different societieswhich includes understanding the peculiardirections of their individual rationalization processes, though this does not preclude thepossibility of acknowledging lines of development between past and present formsprovided these can be properly demonstrated. We must insist, however, that the issue ofwhether progress has taken place along paths that can be interpreted in rational terms isultimately an empirical question, and does not depend on a philosophical anthropology orhistorical Weltanschauung of some kind.

WEBERS DIE RMISCHE AGRARGESCHICHTE: FROM COMMUNISM TO CAPITALISM IN EARLY ROME

The full title of Webers first work on antiquity indicates it is a study of Roman agrarian history in its relations with state and private law. 3 This was his second major scholarly contribution, his Promotionsschrift (which followed his dissertation), and is perhaps the most conventionally historical piece of writing he ever produced.

In the work Weber focuses on the emergence in ancient Rome of the system of plantation agriculture, and seeks to demonstrate how our knowledge of ancient economicdevelopments can be illuminated by a consideration of constitutional and civil law. In thefirst part he analyses the forms of land surveying practised at different periods and tries tomake connections with various aspects of law. In the second part he offers aninterpretation of the significance of various agricultural developments for Romaneconomic history generally. He looks in detail at the economic character of the latifundia(i.e., the large agricultural estates) of the classical era, and discusses the Romanagricultural authors Cato, Varro and Columella. Among other topics covered is the issueof the origins of the Roman colonate of the early imperial era.

Webers specific investigative strategy is to attempt to deduce an idea of the early state of agriculture at Rome from an analysis of the practical meaning of various legal formsdating from later times for which the evidence is sounder. He argues that the way that theland was surveyed was connected with the legal arrangements arising from public involvement in newly acquired territories, and this had implications for civil relations. Ina fashion which reflects the influence of the work of August Meitzen, Weber sets out toshow how the different ways in which the official surveyors divided the landcorresponded to different forms of landholding. 4 Centuration, a form of measurement and division into square lots, was typical of colonial land which was not subject totaxation; whereas an alternative, more exact measuring system which gave rise torectangular blocks (per strigas et scamna: furrows and ridges) had been subject to taxation. Weber argues that the first-mentioned kind of mapping (centuration) wasconnected with the tradition of land division into two iugera parcels (half a hectare), and because these were too small to support the owners and their families, the system musthave entailed common land as well. A more individualistic form of land usage, on theother hand, is implied by the practice of subdivision into rectangular lots, because this


land, ager publicus, was leased for a fee to those who could afford it, and the name of thelessor was recorded. Most importantly, according to Weber, the latter form of land usemeant that the richer citizens were thereby able to increase their holdings very greatly, inpart at the expense of the conquered peoples, but also in part at the expense of theirpoorer countrymen.

The focus of Webers argument is the period of the development of Rome as a continental power. He claims the expansion of Roman territory meant an ever-expanding area of land had become subject not just to political control but was increasingly openedup to direct economic exploitation. This was true especially of the land known as ager publicus, so-called because it was, in theory, property under the control of the Roman state (i.e., in the realm of res publica) owing to the fact that it had been acquired from theterritory of conquered powers. According to Weber, there were two main consequenceswhich are closely interrelated: first, major social struggles over land took placeperiodically as Rome expanded; and, second, Roman political developments were veryclosely connected with this class conflict. Weber explains how opportunities to makehuge profits from landholding were for a long time the main source of political strife atRome. In particular, there arose the so-called struggle of the orders, where the actual object of the struggle of the parties was the ager publicus. 5 He goes on to tell us how never before in a large-scale political system was political power so directly connected with money. That it was like that ages ago is due to the peculiar position of the ager publicus with respect to its economic and legal significance.

The origins of private property

The more technical, legal side of Webers study attempts to explain how the ager publicus came to be so accessible to exploitation by what were in effect private capitalistinterests. This was an extraordinary outcome for a society which until then had beenessentially communal. In particular, Weber is interested to discover precisely how ancientlegal institutions came to recognize a conception of property remarkably close to ourown.

In agrarian communism, which like his teacher Mommsen (and like Marx also) Weber assumes as the original state of affairs at Rome, an individual could neither cede land norclaim it; for at this stage land was not divided into separate lots. Insofar as it is possible tospeak of a right to hold land, this is evidenced only by the individuals membership of the agrarian community, not by ownership. In fact the arable sections of land are reallyowned by the clans (gentes). The clansman cannot dispose of an individual house andgarden (hortus) even though its use may have been enjoyed more or less permanently (as his heredium). Free rights of alienation exist only for those things which an individualholds in his hand (in manu); that is, excepting his wife and children, it is solelymovables such as slaves (manicipia) and cattle (pecunia) that are classed as objects of individual ownership, or res manicipiimmovable property such as land is classed as res nec manicipi (things not capable of mancipation).

In the earliest times when disputes arose as to an individuals use and enjoyment of a particular farm (fundus), an action in law ex delicto was not possible because there wereno contracts from which torts as such could arise. Problems of this kind could only be


resolved by determining whether a person was properly a member of a particularhousehold or kinship group; for on this rested all claims for a share of the groups land. Before a political association existed, and with it the beginnings of formally rational law,legal contests between claimants probably did not occur, because the norms of theloyalty-bound kinship relationship forbade that a man should summon into court or bear witness against a fellow kinsman.

As individual appropriation of the land became more common, however, and as the oldclan structure with its system of patriarchal domination was modified under the impact ofmilitary and political changes, elementary forms of litigation were found necessary. Butat first these were primarily to settle questions of status. It was simply not an issue thatone could steal a fundus (not just because of natural obstacles but because no one couldsteal anothers membership of a group). But one could dispute whether an individual properly belonged to the group, and so there developed a bilateral action, the vindicatio,through which rival claims to membership status could be arbitrated. Under theprocedures of this action both parties formally laid claim to the object in dispute, wererequired to stake a certain amount in copper money to indicate their seriousness, and hadto agree to submit to the decision of a third party (the role of arbiter being taken by thepraetor). But even here we still cannot speak of a free transfer of real property, owing to the continuing preponderance of the community in the shape of the clans.

According to Weber, despite the communism of early times, the individual would haveenjoyed the use of a particular plot of land, and naturally developed an attachment to itthat was reinforced by custom. And with the subsequent dividing of communal lands, theold shared basis of possession was gradually displaced by the right to possess a particularfundus, by which was meant a specific piece of real estate. The new principle of ownership came about by recognizing that those who had occupied a particular tract ofland for a long period possessed a corresponding individual right. Such rights did notemerge into their full proprietorial form, however, without passing through varioustransitional arrangements. These can best be illuminated by again considering the issue ofalienation.

Originally, in the very early commune, as we have just seen, there was no questionwhatsoever of an individual selling his land; he merely had usage rights throughmembership. Then, at a later stage, alienation became possible, but at first only insofar asthe commune could be prevailed upon to accept the arrangements entered into. Here thelegal form of sale was still the archaic mancipatio, now broadened in scope and applied to land as well as movables. Mancipation was a most unwieldy means of propertytransfer, however, and thus it did not have the immediate effect of promoting exchange-type dealings on a large scale. Strictly speaking, the mancipatio was a solemn sale per aes et libram. This involved a ritualistic weighing of the agreed amount of money by a special official (the libripens), and the taking in hand grasp of the object by the purchaser in the presence of five witnesses. 6 In addition to these rigid formalities there were other stipulations: the sale was in principle only for ready money, the ritual was only valid for a single economic purpose, and the object for sale and the partiesthemselves had all to be present. Of course, by later standards all this was rather limiting.If more objects than could be literally held in the hand at any one time requiredmancipation, the whole ceremony had to be repeated. What is more, special additional


conditions that a more commercial form of deal might seek to include could not bespecified along with the sale, such was the narrowness of focus of the mancipatio. Worse still from an economic point of view was the requirement that the vendor had toguarantee his title to the property against any third parties who might decide to challengethe purchase. Finally, this kind of acquisition was exclusively for use by full Romancitizens (dominum ex iure Quiritium); thus foreigners (peregrini) were unable to take part in such transactions.

A fuller development of private property involving a more complete sense ofindividual entitlement did not come until the emergence of the legal formula of exchangeknown as the traditio. Whereas with the intermediate mancipatio it was still a question of a certain degree of communal participation, with the traditio the individual citizen was able to sell specific lots of land entirely at his own pleasure. The traditio was a much less formal mode of conveyance; basically, all that was required in law, apart from the actualtransfer of possession, was some indication of an actual intention to pass over ownership. The importance of this motivational factor was that immediate physicalcontrol of the object (i.e., detention) was no longer seen as being alone adequate; rather,it was now juristic possession that was decisive. The latter was marked not by corporeal delivery, but, often as not, by simple declaration, and was typically expressed in thecausa traditionis, a juristic act which occurred along with the traditio itself, and which could be a contract of sale or a promise. But the contract itself was not the traditio; this still required delivery of the thing exchanged and in addition a price had actually to bepaid. The importance of all this in the context of the present discussion is that itrepresents a trend toward less formal means of exchange. The traditio was undoubtedly well adapted to meet the requirements of traffic in movable goods, and it clearlyfacilitated a more commercial kind of conveyance. Interestingly, the traditio was a product not of the old ius civile (which had made the Roman citizens farm a res mancipinot capable of traditio) but of ius gentium (i.e., law conceived on the basis of reason or nature and not constructed positivistically; thus a body of law made with the object of legally regulating relations between different nations or cultures).

Weber is thus arguing that the replacement of mancipatio by traditio only makes sense, given the simplicity of the former, if different contractual arrangements becamenecessary in order to facilitate a new, more individualized form of land usage; exchange-type dealings in specific land allotments must therefore have been on the increase. Thedevelopment of these new forms of legal entitlement (involving determinate pieces ofreal estate) probably came about, he surmises, in proportion to the extent of newoccupations of land arising from Roman territorial expansion. The transition fromcommunal to private property in all likelihood took place quite gradually between theearly period of the founding of the city, when the communal structures of the tribes andgens were still very important, and the period of the Decemvirs and the Twelve Tables,where private property was already assumed. Weber points out that the Servian reforms,which established a land register (census) as the basis of military service, must also have had a considerable effect on this process.


The emergence of agrarian capitalism

But the highest stage of private property only came with the full development of Romanimperialism and the economic opportunities it opened up via the massive expansion ofthe so-called ager publicus. The temporary occupation and use of ager publicus by individual citizens had been a normal arrangement from quite early times, the practiceprobably dating from when Rome first became a minor colonial power. The conqueredland was usually leased as a means of raising state revenue, being let out to ordinarycitizens at fixed rates of payment (one-tenth for ploughed land and one-fifth for treed land; cleared land in the common Mark was free). But arrangements were changed whenthe extent of the ager publicus was vastly increased because of the defeat of Carthage and the occupation of her territories. In the first place, the original common Mark (ager compascua) was subsumed under the category of ager publicus, with some concessions being made to previous conditions in the form of assignments of rights for grazing on thecommon Mark to certain single fundi. Given the general fate of the ager publicus, this worked against the independent peasant proprietors and in favour of the larger patricianowners (i.e., the latifundists). Another development of importance was the increasingtendency for the more powerful patricians to avoid their rent obligations, which was made possible by the gradual displacement of the tax burden onto the tribute-paying subject colonies. As Weber puts it, probably the duty to make payments did not fall into oblivion, but the patricians did not accept it for themselves and [they remained immunefrom prosecution because] they aligned themselves with the political power struggle ofthe day. 7

Highly significant at this stage was the need which was soon felt to find a legal meansof resolving the many contending claims to the possession of land which arose because ofthe increased scope for individual ownership. This, according to Weber, was the purposeof the lex agraria (111 BC), which attempted to transform precarious and new properties into private property by establishing legal titles and preventing the emergence ofprecarious properties. 8 However, in the long term, such legal arrangements produced consequences that were far reaching indeed. For whereas the early possessions ofconquered lands had been relatively insecurebecause they suffered from the absence ofcensus, had limited legal protection and lacked transfer rightsthe effect of the lex agraria was to remove all difficulties from the private possession of ager publicus and thus from its conversion into ager privatus (titled-land). As a result, a great proportion of Roman territory was made amenable to appropriation and ready exchange.

Landed property in general could now be treated as an object of speculative economic interest and, in Webers view, was increasingly so treated by what was an emergingcapitalist stratum. 9 The full effect of all this was to allow a kind of agrarian capitalismtremendous scope for development; once unleashed, capitalist interests quickly came todominate economic life and social affairs generally:

Probably a formal equality of rights for all citizens of unlimited access to free grazing and free occupation was established, though an attempt to conceal the incredible facilitation thus given to the sway of capital was made by imposing some payments in theory. For this free competition was only an advantage for


the larger capitalists [Grosskapitalist], patrician and plebeian, and not the poor peasants. Indeed, it represents the most unrestrained expansion of capitalism in the agrarian field known in history. The economic and social interests [of the capitalist stratum] are clearly revealed with all their consequences for Roman history. 10

Webers view of ancient economic conditions in Die rmische Agrargeschichte warrantscomparison with the corresponding views of Mommsen as well as Marx. First, as regardsMommsen, it is clear that Weber borrows a great deal from his former teacher; indeed, onmost of the main points at issue the two are in complete accord. 11 Weber agrees that inthe earliest period of Roman history the practice of farming and the use of land wereorganized in a basically communal fashion. And they share a view as to the decisiveimportance of the emergence of private property, with its dissolving effects upon theoriginal communal forms. Finally, their characterizations of ancient capitalism are verysimilar. Admittedly, Weber is more concerned to describe and analyse the specificallyagrarian dimensions of this early form of capitalism, whereas in his History of RomeMommsen had stressed the combination of large-scale land ownership with domain-leasing and state contracting. 12 But there is no doubt that Mommsen and Weber are ingeneral agreement that the latifundists, and the Roman patriciate as a whole, werecapitalists in an adequate sense of the term. Both not only unhesitatingly make use of theterm capitalist, they also speak of capitalist methods, a capitalist ethos, and even,occasionally, a capitalist economy.

One of the weaknesses of such an approach, however, is that the socio-economicstructure of antiquity is not adequately distinguished from that of the modern west. In thisregard it has to be said that Weber is far too uncritical in accepting Mommsensunclarified conceptual usage here, as Marxs criticism of Mommsen shows. In CapitalMarx takes Mommsen (and others like him) to task for finding that in the ancient worldcapital was fully developed, except for the absence of the free worker and a system ofcredit 13 Marxs objection to the idea of capitalism in relation to ancient societystems from his conviction that true capitalism must mean the industrial system ofproduction, a unique historical structure known only in modern times. Capitalisminvolves the social division of the mass of the population into bourgeois and proletarianclasses, and the corresponding economic relation of capital with labour. It exists as thegeneralized form of economic life only because the system of production is organizedaround the exploitation of living labour in such a way as to enable these two essential,though ultimately contradictory, features to emerge: the capitalist division of labour, andthe substitution of machinery for labour. It is thus only as a mode of production that oneshould speak of capitalism; for only then does capital become the decisive integratingforce of society. Clearly, on these grounds antiquity does not qualify as capitalistthis isthe case no matter how much the economy was monetarized; no matter how acquisitive,exploitative, and actually wealthy the latifundists; regardless of the pervasiveness of theethos of greed; and so on.

In the light of this, Weber (at least in these early writings now under discussion) andMommsen are perhaps naive to register the existence of a capitalist society merelybecause they find money-making and private acquisitiveness having apparently reached


an advanced stage. They are not as concerned as is Marx with the precise economicfeatures of capitalism that justify the use of the term, even though their empiricaldescription of the ancient economys activities is much more detailed and accurate thanMarxs.

This said, it should also be remarked that Mommsen and Weber are not quite so naive as Marx would have us believe. For Mommsen and Weber understand perfectly well thatthe ancient economy was not based on anything closely resembling the factory system,that its form of capitalism was distinctive, being somewhat superficial and for that reasonrather precarious. Mommsen and Webers shortcoming is not so much that they think thatancient society was capitalist in the modern sense (which is the tendency of Marxs criticism) but rather that in describing ancient economic and cultural phenomena ascapitalist their characterization is too vague and thus potentially confusing. For, in asmuch as we can find analogues of the putatively capitalist phenomena of antiquity in thecorresponding forms of modern capitalism, there equally are important contrasts whichneed bringing out.

Comparison between Marxs and Webers views of the early Roman socio-economic system is also of interest. In his Grundrisse, especially in the section on Precapitalist economic formations, Marx also describes the earliest forms of the city-state as possessing the essential features of a commune. He wishes to emphasize the communalityof key economic and social arrangements, that is, the collective nature of the variousundertakings in which the citizens are engaged. Thus, land is owned jointly, the citizenswork as a group, distribution is collectively controlled, and military activities areconducted on an equal basis. Even where individualistic elements begin to emerge, suchas where there is private property, the commune persists in the form of a unified politico-military body in which all citizens participate jointly. It is clear that Marx sees a range ofdesirable features in this form of societyvalues such as brotherhood, equality, directdemocracy, co-operative labour, harmony with nature. While he would not consider thecommune a utopia, he nevertheless refers to it on more than one occasion as the better period of antiquity which implies its ethical superiority vis--vis later periods.

On some of this Weber may have agreed with Marx. Like Marx he emphasizes thecollective nature of land ownership and speaks at length about communal participation.This is also a period whenin terms of his later formal sociological terminology,elaborated partly under the influence of Tnnies and SimmelWeber believes communal, as against associative, relationships prevailed (that is, relationshipsbetween household and clan members were based on subjective feelings of apredominantly traditional or affectual nature rather than being rationally motivated andformally institutionalized). However, unlike Marx, Weber in no way idealizes these earlysocial arrangements. Indeed, he sees this period as affected to a significant degree byfeudal-type obligations, and notes how already at this stage there was considerableinternal social differentiation entailing conflict and domination: patricians versusplebeians, slavery, clientage, etc. 14 In particular, within the clan household (oikos), there existed a patriarchal domination in which the position of the Roman paterfamilias was all-powerful (witness his power of life and death over children and slaves). Perhaps from certain viewpoints this early period was preferable to that which later emerged when thepowerful class of capitalists held sway, but in Weber there is no romantic nostalgia for


these origins.

THE MATERIALIST THESIS OF THE ESSAY THE SOCIAL CAUSES OF THE DECAY OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATION

The second contribution of Weber, a lecture subsequently transformed into an essay, isundoubtedly his most accessible piece dealing with antiquity, and forms a naturalcomplement to the previous work on early Roman conditions because the focus is theimperial period and the decline of antiquity. 15

The essay is of interest for a number of reasons. First, although Weber focuses on a single issue, the great question of the causes of decline, in doing this he advances apanoramic overview of the social and economic structure of antiquity as a whole. What ismore, in addressing fundamental questions concerning the basis of ancient civilization,Weber again broaches the issue of capitalism. Methodologically, the essay is notablebecause, at least on a superficial reading, the approach is remarkably close to that of marxism, particularly insofar as Weber attributes decisive causal significance to theeconomic infrastructurea clear contrast to his later approach where the orientation isdecidedly multi-factoral (where ideal elements are generally deemed equally important).

Weber begins his analysis by insisting that the general issue of the decline of theancient civilization must not be confused with the specific problem of the immediatecause of the final collapse of the political entity known as the Roman Empire. This isbecause, contrary to popular assumptions, the former phenomenon antedated the latterevent by at least a century and a half. In other words, according to Weber, the barbarian invasions and eventual military collapse of Rome were by no means the singular eventthey seem, but were the culmination of a process of inner barbarization which had long been at work. Besides, when the barbarians finally took over, they continued essentiallyRoman patterns of administration and economy which were already degenerate whenthey inherited them. The question of the cause of the final military and political collapseof Rome is, then, a question of secondary importancethough any serious attempt to explain this event as such should of course go back to the earlier predisposing factors aswell.

To explain how ancient civilization eventually reached the point of internal degeneration which led to ultimate crisis and decline, Weber first describes Romansociety during the so-called Golden Age, analysing its strengths and inner rationale as a preliminary to his diagnosis of what went wrong. He takes up the story of Rome with the victory of the plebs against the early kings. At this time Rome was a state of peasantswho, though living as townsmen, still cultivated the land themselves. Because of landshortages and population growth, however, the larger proportion of the sons of thesepeasants were obliged to devote themselves increasingly to military adventures; that is,they entered the army and in effect fought for their own estates through conquest andcolonization. In Webers estimation this was the secret of Romes expansive strength, at least initially.

But circumstances were fundamentally altered once Rome began to conquer majoroverseas powers and annex territory on a large scale. Now the interests of an emerging


aristocracy in exploiting the newly acquired provinces, not those of the peasantry,became the decisive force. The supremacy of the former was in large part the result of thedecimation of the latter in the Second Punic War. Up to this time free and unfree labourhad existed side by side, the stage of traditional, subsistence economy not having been transcended. But the political struggles of the Gracchan period represent a turning point;for they are the culmination of a series of social and economic processes which ensuredthe ascendency of slavery over free labourthus, in this regard the economy as a whole must have undergone a radical transformation. From this period onwards wars tended tohave the appearance of slave raids, and it was the farmer of state lands and the tax farmerwho basically determined the general direction of economic development.

The civilization which the Romans went on to develop was influenced to a high degree by its urban character. The early cities were close to the theoretical model ofautarky (autarkia), manifesting many of the features of Aristotles ideal of urban self-sufficiency. This meant that a market economy was only minimally developed: theproducts of urban artisans were exchanged for those of the immediate ruralneighbourhood, but there was virtually no division of labour to speak of within industry.There was some international trade; but from an economic point of view, this wasrelatively insignificant being restricted to luxury goods for the patrician elite. Even so,the level of trade was sufficient to cause most ancient cities to be located on the coast totake advantage of the opportunities of traffic by sea. Weber contrasts all this with thesituation of the barbarian hinterland which remained a completely natural economy, either tribal-communal or feudal-patriarchal in character. Significantly, however, noancient economy was able to create a fully-fledged mass market for consumer goods. The nearest thing to such a market was the provisioning of grain and other goods for the plebsat Rome; but, characteristically, this was a communal responsibility often organizedmonopolistically by the state, so consequently it did not have the effect of fosteringprivate enterprise. But why was there virtually no economic progress beyond this stage ofurban autarky?

The economic impact of slavery

Webers attack on this issue, like Marxs, centres on the effects of slavery. According toWeber, slavery in Roman society came to predominate because enterprises using unfreelabour were comparatively the most progressive element in the economy of the day. Basing his analysis on the assumption that in general economic progress is achieved by increased division of labour 16 (in a fashion, what is more, reminiscent of Marxs approach in The German Ideology), Weber reasons along the following lines. There arebasically two courses along which economic development can proceed: first, free labourcan be the basis of economic growth, in which case progress demands the expansion ofthe market (extensively by drawing new geographical areas into the sphere of exchange,and intensively by developing the consumption needs of the people); or, second, unfreelabour can be used, in which case economic progress requires the accumulation of unfreeworkers who are organized for a greater specialization of unfree occupations. The twoprocesses are such, however, that they more or less exclude one another. In antiquity itwas the second form of economic progress, that based on the exploitation of slave labour,


that won out. Weber explains this by comparing ancient developments with those of themediaeval period:

In Antiquityit was the economic importance of unfree labour in autarkic households which increased steadily. Only slaveowners could develop production based on a division of labour, and only they could improve their standard of living. More and more it was slave enterprises which could produce for the market after meeting their own needs. In mediaeval society, free division of labour developed its market intensively within the economic territory of the city on the basis of production for both the individual orders of customers and the local market. Then as trade with non-local markets increased there was a division of production between local centres [and] new forms of production designed to supply external markets [arose] employing free labour[and this was] inextricably connected with the tendency for the masses to satisfy their needs more and more through interlocal and then international trade. In Antiquity, on the contrary, the development of international trade was connected with the consolidation of unfree labour in large slave households. 17

It is difficult to decide how necessary or absolute the limits to economic progress were inantiquity. Webers argument seems to be that slave enterprises prospered because theywere relatively more progressive, yet this form of economic development precluded themore advanced forms of economic growth that were to emerge in the modern era. Thus,only a very limited kind of economic integration of the territory under Roman controlwas ever achieved. Eventually, looking at the long-term consequences of all this, Weber tells us that the inclusion of large inland areas into the Empire shifted the centre of gravity of Roman civilization away from the urban centres on the Mediterranean coast,and this intensified the position of an increasingly self-sufficient landed aristocracy. Even wealth that was speculatively employed in profit-making activities, like that gained in taxfarming, remained associated with land ownership and all that this implied (this waspartly because the state demanded land as security when contracts were let, an issue towhich we shall return).

Even where there seemed a real possibility of capitalist enterprise on a large scale, for example with the latifundia, Weber claims circumstances conspired to forestall such adevelopment. For one thing, the attitude of estate owners was seldom entrepreneurial.Typically, the absentee landlord placed his estate in the hands of an unfree bailiff in orderto devote his own time more fully to political activity. And, as already explained, thegrain markets of large cities like Rome were closed to private producers because of thesystem of public distributions; potential demand was thus strictly limited. Anotherinhibiting factor concerns the nature of grain production: owing to the intensive nature ofthis kind of cultivation, highly motivated workers are required, and this meant that slavescould not be employed. So the more traditional methods characteristic of unorganizedfree labour were the only way that staple goods like this, potential items of massconsumption, could be produced in any quantity. The upshot, then, was that grainproduction was left mainly to coloni (semi-dependent yet self-responsible peasants), who were gradually pushed out to the less fertile lands. By contrast, the larger estates under


direct management and using slave labour produced only high-priced goodssuch as olive oil, wine, vegetables, cattle, poultry and luxuriesfor a narrow, elite market. There were also severe difficulties in developing mass markets and a broader exchange networkowing to the technical backwardness, and thus prohibitive cost, of land transport.

Hence, a system of production of staples for mass consumption in which the marketplayed a crucial role never emerged. In a most inventive borrowing of Marxs base/superstructure opposition, Weber sets out the general dynamics as follows:

Therefore the exchange economy was a sort of superstructure; beneath it was a constantly expanding infrastructure of natural economy in which needs were met without exchange, the economy of the slave establishments which perpetually absorbed human material and satisfied their consumption needs mainly out of their own production rather than from the market. Thus trade in Antiquity more and more became a thin net over a large natural economy, and as time passed the meshes of this net became finer and its threads more tenuous[In summary] international trade increased the growth of the oikoi, autarkic establishments based on unfree labour, and the oikoi decreased the basis of the local exchange economies. 18

The causes of the decline of Roman civilization

Up until this point, the slaveowner had been the dominant figure in the economy ofAntiquity, and a slave-labour systemthe indispensable foundation of Roman society.19 But the transition to the Empire brought decisive changes. Specifically, it led to theadoption of a largely defensive military posture, which caused the supply of cheap slaves(namely, the opportunities for their recruitment in wars and raids) to dry up. Slavenumbers could not be maintained by breeding owing to the nature of the barrack systemof keeping them in large numbers; nor could shortages be compensated for by usingbetter techniques or labour-saving machines, as there were no precedents for innovativelyapplying the fruits of scientific knowledge along such lines. The long-term outcome, Weber tells us, was the separation of the slave from the oikos and his transformation into an hereditary serf of the lord. This had the advantage of more effectively reproducingthe labour supply because serfs could marry and live as families. There was also theadvantage, from the landowners point of view, that the costs of maintaining workers, and thus the responsibility for the reproduction of the workforce, were shifted to the labourersthemselves. Hence, a gigantic change in the situation of the lower orders of society hadtaken place. By becoming a serf the slave improved his status upwards: but at the sametime the colonus slid down the scale becoming a serf as well. The colonus lost his freedom because the shortage of slave labour made the lord needful of the peasants, andsuch individuals were not in a position to maintain their previous status, as we shall see ina moment.

There were corresponding changes in the administrative structure of Roman society. As estates increased their economic self-sufficiency, they sought independence from the city administrative district (municipium) and became partly responsible for taxation and military recruitment. This put further pressure on the coloni giving rise to their flight


from the land. Eventually, not only agricultural labourers but city councillors(decuriones) and craftsmen of the various occupational groupings became victims of the ever-increasing tax requirements of the state. At this stage legal restraints were introduced to fetter the various statuses to specific tasks and duties giving rise to a caste-like ordering of society.

Between the state and the colonus was now interposed an intermediate authority, the landownerthe old simple distinction between free and unfree had been replaced by a division of society into orders. A series of changes, each in itself quite gradual, together constituted a development towards this new social structure, which economic conditions had made inevitable. Feudal society had already started to emerge in the Later Roman Empire. 20

Whereas previously there had been merely a series of restraints of various kinds onmarket production, under the new conditions it became virtually impossible to producefor the market at all. The wheel of history had all but completed a cycle, and estatesbecame again almost totally self-sufficient. Thus, the veneer of the exchange economy allbut disappeared as the oikos withdrew from the urban economy. Weber describes how the emperors attempted to forestall some of these developments which they knew representeda decline in the available material resources at their disposal. But their palliatives merelyexacerbated the situation. Their fiscal policies, far from acting as a stimulus to economicgrowth, instead transformed the state itself into a kind of gigantic self-sufficient oikos. The more all-encompassing this structure became, the greater the inhibitory effect on private capital formation. The state abolished private tax-farming and increasingly used salaried officials to carry out its tasks. Many of the states needs (army and bureaucracy) were supplied by forcing craftsmen to deliver goods in kind, though without modernbureaucratic methods there were very severe limits on the extent to which a large-scale planned administration could supply itself socialistically. Eventually, the ever-growing public expenditure proved too much for what was now little more than a naturaleconomy. As the crisis ensued a struggle developed between those in political control ofthe Empire and the landed magnates (possessores) over rights to the remaining sources oflabour.

For the state the immediate problem was how to equip and maintain the vast armies required to stem the barbarian onslaught. To cut costs the attempt was made to reproducethe army by tying the sons of soldiers to military service, and thus it too was partlytransformed into an hereditary, caste-like order. Or, alternatively, recruits were drawn from the enemy, the barbarians, in the partially civilized border zones, in order topreserve the labour force of the larger estates. Another measure resorted to was theexchange of land in return for military service on the frontier. This was the forerunner ofthe fief, but its employment stopped short of a full feudalization of the army; had it gone further it would have brought forward the beginning of the Middle Ages and theadvent of the feudal system.

By this stage, according to Weber, the army controlling the Empire had become littlemore than an undisciplined horde maintaining only very weak ties with Rome. Theprocess of inner barbarization was already so advanced that for many provincial


inhabitants the invasions constituted little more than a change in the personnel of theforce being billeted on them; in parts of Gaul the barbarians were apparently welcomedas liberators, so onerous had the burden of Roman administration become.

In order to finance a largely mercenary army, the principal preoccupation of the administration had become raising revenue. But this was self-defeating as long as the pressure of taxation fostered a generalized retreat to a natural economy because thismeant a lower taxable surplus. On the other hand, a transition to a system where themilitary structure was completely consistent with a natural economy would havecontradicted the interests of those supporting the Empire; a feudal army could not havemaintained a unified command over the huge area under Roman suzerainty. So, in orderto retain the existing system of military defence, Diocletian attempted to reform publicfinances on the basis of uniform money-taxes keeping the city as the lowest unit of stateadministration. But the economic basis of the cities was weakening all the time. Of thefinal outcome Weber writes:

It is clear, therefore, that the disintegration of the Roman Empire was the inevitable political consequence of a basic economic development: the gradual disappearance of commerce and the expansion of a barter economy. Essentially the disintegration simply meant that the monetarized administrative system and political superstructure of the Empire disappeared, for they were no longer adapted to the infrastructure of a natural economy. It was on the basis of institutions which were adapted to a natural economy that the political unity of the West was re-established. This was accomplished by Charlemagne, who carried out Diocletians will half a millennium later. The natural economy basis of his system is apparent. In a word, then: the civilization of Western Europe has become completely rural. 21

The limits of a political economy of antiquity

Perhaps the most noteworthy feature of this account of the rise and fall of Romancivilization is the stress placed on economic structures and causes. Throughout his essayWeber is adamant that the key to the historical fate of Rome lies in the inner logic of theeconomy. Indeed, the special interest the story of Rome has for the student of history isprecisely that it describes the internal [i.e., economic] disintegration of an ancient civilization. 22 Or, as he puts it at the end of the essay: a great civilization apparently approaches the height of perfection, then loses its economic basis and crumbles away. 23The resemblance of such remarks to certain theses of Marxsay, those of the famous 1959 Prefaceis striking, to say the least. It is thus difficult to avoid the conclusion thatin this essay Webers mode of explanation is all but indistinguishable from that of so-called historical materialism. From the exegesis above it is clear Weber placestremendous importance on a single material factor: namely, an adequate supply of cheapslaves as the basis of ancient civilization. All the other elements in the picturethe increasing ineffectiveness of the army, the bureaucratization of the late imperial state, theshift of cultural life from the cities to the countrysideseem to gain their specific gravity from their connection with the factor of slavery.


But, on the detailed question of slave numbers and the causes of their fluctuation,Webers arguments when scrutinized are actually rather weak. 24 He claims to have established that slaves came to be in short supply as early as the time of the Principate byreferring to the fact that inspections of the ergastula of large estates took place; apparently, the large landowners had resorted to kidnapping labourers to work desertedlands. But the precise extent of these practices is not as established as Weber would haveus believe. And, besides, this is all Weber provides in the form of evidence concerningthis crucial issue. Webers argument about the role of slavery is in part based on theassumption that slave numbers could only be maintained by conquest or other directmeans such as raiding, piracy etc. He dismisses the feasibility of breeding because thebarrack system precluded the rearing of children on a sufficient scale to reproduce theslave population. But all this is rather simplistic, and, besides, more recent studiessuggest a different picture.

William Harris, for example, has shown that in rural settings it was quite normal forfemale slaves to bear children; he points out how this was specifically encouraged byVarro and Columella, the latter giving time off work for a slave mother of three and evenfreedom for one bearing four. 25 This does not prove the slave population did in fact reproduce itself once imperial expansion ceased, but breeding must have made animportant contribution to slave numbersanyway, the example of the United States shows that a slave population can even increase by such means (after importation becameillegal in 1808, numbers virtually doubled by 1860). 26

Harris argues we must distinguish at least three kinds of slaves: expensive empticii,highly valued because of skill or sexual attraction; vernae, less expensive to obtain but still requiring substantial investment; and the cheaper empticii, usually not very polished or skilled but adequate for most slave tasks. 27 Obviously some of the more scarce slavescould only have been obtained in the market, but others might easily have come frombreeding. Weber does not really consider these possibilities, so his argument loses a gooddeal of force.

Perhaps more important than these criticisms is whether we are right to see in Webers summary remarks and in the arguments of the essay itself the adoption of a materialistposition pure and simple. It is true that up to a point everything seems to hang on thefactor of slaveryas long as the supply of cheap slaves is maintained, Roman civilization flourishes, as soon as numbers fall, the economy goes into decline and the state begins tototter. And the success of slavery is connectedadmittedly in a rather casual mannerwith the idea of economic progress conceived as a simple function of increasing divisionof labour. But in all this we must say it would be misleading to think Weber believedthese elements of economic progress were motive forces of history in a general sense, asin the traditional marxist view for example. For one thing, Weber describes the course ofancient history in the non-evolutionary, non-marxist terms of rise and fall. Furthermore, he is clearly not concerned with the broader issue of the relation of antiquity to thehistory of western society in generalas is historical materialism in its attempt to construct a grand theory of historical development all the way from our primitive originsdown to the present and with implications beyond.

But perhaps most worthy of note is the fact that, despite its superficial resemblance toeconomic determinism, Weber utilizes perspectives which in effect go beyond a mono-


causal approach. For on close scrutiny it can be seen he provides a quite different modelof the socio-economic base of ancient society than that of Marx. Despite the tendency of some of his remarks, Webers approach does not focus exclusively on economics. He actually analyses a wide range of phenomena, such as the military and politicalpreconditions of slavery, the structure of urban life, the struggles of rich and poor overlandownership, the nature of the oikos and the forms of the family, the formation of amarket sector at the intersection of the urban and rural spheres, luxury-based international trade, and other features as well. Indeed, what is impressive about Webers essay, what stands out despite its reductionist tendencies, is the rich and varied series of ideal typesurban economy, oikos economy, mediaeval town economy, the feudal army, the city-state, the coastal trading city, plantation economy, natural economy and so onand the skilful way the many causal connections, transitions, and mergings are explained. Thus,to the extent that his models and theories in fact involve explanations and descriptions interms of diverse social and political data in addition to those of an economic nature, thenWebers practice belies his meta-historical claim to have demonstrated the economiccause of the collapse of ancient civilization.

A final point to observe about Webers essay is the surprising lack of any directreference to the issue of capitalism. Whilst it is clear that one of his foci is the quasi-commercial use of slaves on the latifundiahe refers to the barrack system of keeping working slaves, the production of goods for market sale, slave markets and the squeezingout of free labour, and so forthand not their use for purely domestic purposes under patriarchal conditions. Weber at no point speaks of capitalism as such. Indeed, the thrustof many of his remarks, especially those concerned to show the imperfect state of themarket, the underdevelopment of industry etc., is precisely intended to indicate that thecourse and tempo of development was not at all in the direction of capitalism. Of course,Webers general argument is concerned with the causes of stagnation and decline, so itmakes sense that he emphasizes, and perhaps exaggerates, the non-capitalistic, non-progressive side. However, it must be said that the perspective of the essay seems somewhat at odds with that of the earlier work discussed above. It is not the emergenceof private property and a burgeoning capitalism that is registered and discussed; rather,the central institution remains the oikos, and a natural economy is deemed to persistdespite superficial indications of more advanced forms.

There are three senses in which Weber regards the oikos as having played a central role. First, the economic development of the slave-worked estate is understood to have taken place within the constraints of the autarkic household. Hence, division of labouralways remained elementary, and the scale of production for market resale wascorrespondingly limited. Second, in the early classical era the independent city-state itself functioned somewhat like an oikos, because it remained autarkic to a high degree,providing many of its needs not through trade but directly from the immediate hinterlandand by state requisitioning. Finally, the oikos featured in the later development of the imperial state, especially after Diocletian refashioned the entire social matrix to create theform of a gigantic oikos; within such a structure exchange was reduced to a minimum,many needs being provided in kind by state-controlled workers.

There are several possible reasons for this change of perspective on Webers part. For one thing, it has to be remembered that the ostensible purpose of the first work is


different to the second, and the format of presentation is also different in each case (oneis an academic thesis, the other a popular lecture). But perhaps a more significant factorhere concerns the impact on Weber of two scholars who produced importantcontributions between the publications of the two works at present under consideration. I am referring to the economic historian Karl Bcher and the eminent historian of antiquityEduard Meyer; Bchers influential Die Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft had appeared in 1893, while Meyer had delivered an important address to the third meeting of Germanhistorians in 1895 entitled Die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung des Altertums. There can be no doubt that Weber was familiar with both, so his efforts in 1896 can be reasonablyassumed to be a response to the combined challenge they represented.

Bcher, following the ancient historian Rodbertus, had argued that the economic life of antiquity never reached the scale or complexity typical of a modern territorial economy; indeed, the Greeks, Romans and Carthaginians never even advanced beyond the stage ofwhat he called a closed domestic economy. In the latter, production is primarily oriented to the satisfaction of immediate wants, there being no exchange to speak ofin its pure form Bcher called this oikos economy. But, in refusing to acknowledge the possibility of a significant level of exchange at this stage, even between household units,Bcher provoked a reaction on the part of those who believed the slave economies ofantiquity clearly testified to the existence of the market and an extensive trade, that aneconomic system involving profit making and the widespread use of money was welldeveloped. It was Meyer who led this reaction.

Meyer insisted that the idea of autarchy and an economy centred on the oikos was quite misleading as a general characterization of ancient economic life because many of theattributes of the modern-type economy were also to be found there, at least in theclassical period: international exchange was routine and a transport systeminterconnecting the known world was already established; the use of money and forms ofindustrial production for mass consumption existed; there was a businesslike orientationin economic transactions; and there was even commercial accounting. The existence ofthese and other related phenomena therefore means that analysis of the economy ofantiquity can be made using utterly modern categories without distortion; indeed, the useof such concepts is essential.

Weber responded to the contradiction between these two views by working up asolution which was consistent with both positions to a degree. On the one hand, he agreedwith Bcher (against Meyer) that the concept of the oikos was important, and that the predisposition towards autarchy was a very real impediment to the transition to capitalistenterprise proper. But, on the other hand, he also concurred with Meyer in his insistenceon the presence of trade and profit making, and he accepted the latters criticism of Bcher for underestimating their importance. Importantly, however, Weber did notfollow Meyer in advocating a complete modern parallel. Webers hesitancy to use the term capitalism in this 1896 essay was probably a consequence of his growing awarenessof the need to be much more cautious in dealing with the quasi-commercial phenomena found in antiquity; besides, under the influence of German historicism, Weber adoptedthe ideographic stance that views any historical period as an utterly unique historicalstructure which has to be understood in part at least on its own terms. Whilst Bcher had erred on the side of downplaying the extent of trade, profit making, and the use of money,


Meyer had clearly gone too far in his opposite, modernizing interpretationantiquity could only be designated partially capitalistic, if indeed it could be described ascapitalistic at all. At any rate, these were views which Webers next main work was expressly designed to explore in more detail.

WEBERS AGRARIAN SOCIOLOGY OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS AND THE PROBLEM OF THE PECULIARITY OF ANCIENT

CAPITALISM

Webers book-length essay The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations (originally written in 18967) might fairly be said to complete his coverage of Roman history, even though it focuses on antiquity in the broader sense and includes sections on Israel,Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Greece. 28 Whilst, as we have seen, Die rmische Agrargeschichte was primarily devoted to early Republican history and the question oforigins, and the essay of 1896 was concerned with the later period including the declineof Rome, The Agrarian Sociology, at least its Introduction and the sections on Rome,looks at the time between and focuses on the high civilization of the classical era (thoughthe issues of origin and decline are also briefly tackled again).

In the context of the present work, this later book by Weber is of particular interest because it marks his first serious excursion into the new discipline of sociology; despitetheir originality, his earlier pieces had essentially remained within the framework ofconventional historical analysis. The Agrarian Sociology is noteworthy for the extended theoretical discussion of the economic character of antiquity with which it opens. Thus,in what follows we shall be primarily concerned with the longish Introduction to the workwhere this is chiefly contained.

The theoretical problem of capitalism in premodern societies

Weber opens his analysis asking a question basically the same as that with which weourselves began: Did a capitalist economy exist in antiquity to a degree significant for cultural history? This question is Webers response to the common knowledge that in antiquity there were periods marked by dramatic increases in wealth and these were oftenfollowed by decline; the issue, therefore, is whether the existence of periods of apparenteconomic prosperity and expansion can be taken as evidence of a capitalist economicstructure.

But first Weber thinks it is necessary to offer a definition of capitalism: he provisionally suggests the term ought to mean the use of wealth to gain profit incommerce, and that therefore a capitalist economy must entail the production of goods, in part at least, for the purpose of trade. In addition, for capitalism to exist, the means ofproduction as well must be objects for exchange. Taking these purely economic criteriaas his yardstick, then, Weber proposes the following general definition: Where we find that property is an object of trade and is used by individuals for profit-making in a market economy, there we have capitalism. 29

On the basis of this definition, Webers view as to the presence/ significance of


capitalism in antiquity seems at first sight quite unequivocal: following his definition, hegoes on to claim that whole periods of Antiquity were shaped by capitalism, and indeed precisely those periods we call golden ages. 30 Of the various economic activities, Weber singles out slave-based agriculture as capitalist in the above sensefrom the economic point of view, as he puts itbecause both slaves and land were normal objectsof exchange and were acquired in the open market. On the other hand, large-scale capitalist enterprises based on free labour and similar to modern capitalist enterpriseswere not a regular feature of private economic activity, neither in agriculture norelsewhere. When large enterprises employing only free labour on a regular basis didarise, these were always state concerns. Speaking generally, Weber appears to concludethat a type of market economy existed which, while not corresponding exactly with themodern variant, was nonetheless capitalist in an adequate sense of the term. For ancientcapitalism differed from modern capitalism only as regards the mode of appearance of its defining properties. In a fashion reminiscent of Marxs discussion of the role of interest-bearing capital in the slave system, 31 Weber claims that the main differences concernthe forms of valorization involved owing to the types of capital goods employed (for example, in antiquity slaves and not machines constituted the fixed capital of theenterprise).

But what precise significance did this type of capitalism have? What was its part in theoverall economic life of ancient society? Webers initial response to these problems is indicated in the following passage where he offers a general characterization of theancient economy:

the economic surplus of the ancient cityalways had its original basis in the rents which the landed princes and noble clans derived from their estates and from levies on their dependents. This was true to a degree unknown todaythe significance of this source of wealth, and with it the specific political conditions of the economic flowering of the citiesand hence too their declineremained very important throughout all Antiquity. The ancient cities were always much more centres of consumption than production. 32

Here the general idea of Webers essay of 1896 is more or less repeated: namely, that themarket economy was a relatively superficial structure superimposed on a basicallyprimitive, natural economy. So it would appear that Weber believes capitalism played animportant role only during a few key periods, always having a limited and fragileexistence against the backdrop of a natural economy.

But Weber

Love J. Antiquity and Capitalism. Max Weber and the Sociological Foundations of Roman...

Documents

Transcript of Love J. Antiquity and Capitalism. Max Weber and the Sociological Foundations of Roman...