278 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



the thirteenth centuries the country was divided between the Southern 

 Sung and the Golden Dynasty of Niichen Tartars, and both ran a mad 

 race in the issue of assignats." He then quotes from Klaproth certain 

 details concerning an emission in 1131 A.D. for the purpose of furnish- 

 ing money to the soldiers, which was evidently a fiat-currency. Con- 

 cerning the details of these emissions and the description of the notes 

 emitted there is some fragmentary information, but not enough for a 

 continuous, intelligent narrative. 



From 1260 to 1329, inclusive, Chaudoir gives a table of the emis- 

 sions. The table, however, does not furnish details as to the reduction 

 in the amount in circulation during the same period through redemp- 

 tion. The statement is made that the last emission of notes during 

 this long protracted period of the use of paper money was made in 

 1455, but if so the notes then emitted must have remained in circu- 

 lation for years after this date, as we find provision made for their 

 reception in payments to the government as late as 1489. 



Saburo gives some details concerning an experiment made by the 

 Manchus in 1651 in the way of emitting notes, which was continued 

 for ten years and then abandoned. So far as it goes this seems to 

 corroborate the idea that by that time paper money had actually 

 become forgotten so that the attempt at its revival by the invaders 

 proved to be ineffectual. 



Following the slender narrative of events during these centuries it is 

 clear that from time to time reckless rulers acting under bad advice 

 sought to provide for temporary financial emergencies by such over- 

 whelming emissions of government notes that they were brought into 

 disrepute and in some instances were depreciated to such an extent 

 as to become almost valueless. From these pitfalls the government 

 was occasionally released by the conservatism of some intelligent 

 emperor who listened to those advisers who insisted that the trouble 

 lay with the government and not with the people and that a reduction 

 of the amount of notes in circulation would relieve the situation. Ma- 

 twan-lin, the old Chinese author already referred to, occasionally in- 

 dulged in moralizing upon the situation. Vissering was struck with 

 the value of his observations and what Benadakis said of him : " He 

 knows the true theory of money and of paper and what he has written 

 on the subject is striking in its precision and good sense," has already 

 been quoted, but is worthy of repetition. 



Chinese historians apparently relied for their facts upon documents 

 filed in the archives, and these records were made up very largely 

 of discussions carried on by the advisers of the throne — cabinet 



