290 Motives of debtors and creditors 



the capital value of their land in the market exceeded the amount of 

 their mortgage debts. Otherwise, who would have lent them the money 

 on that security? We can hardly avoid the suspicion that the frequent 

 use of land as a pledge may have had something to do with that un- 

 satisfactory condition of agriculture on which the evidence of Latin 

 writers has driven us to dwell. The mortgagor, once he had got the 

 money advanced, had less interest in the landed security : the mortgagee, 

 so long as he got his good return on the money lent, was unconcerned 

 to see that his debtor's income was maintained ; and that, in taking a 

 mortgage, he had insisted on a large margin of security for his capital, 

 is not to be doubted. For what purpose these loans were generally 

 contracted, we are not told. Those who borrowed money to waste it 

 in extravagance would surely have found it more business-like to sell 

 their land outright. The number of those who preferred to keep it, 

 though encumbered on onerous terms, simply from social pride, cannot 

 have been really large ; but they would hardly make wise landlords. 

 Probably some men raised money to employ it in speculations 1 that 

 seemed to offer rich returns. So long as the empire stood strong, mer- 

 cantile speculation was far-reaching and vigorous. But those engaged 

 in this line of business would seldom be able to find large sums in 

 ready cash at short notice. Hence to them, as to spendthrifts, the 

 sudden calling in of mortgages was a grave inconvenience. 



The picture of the wily capitalists, hoarding their money till the 

 'slump' in land-values had fully developed,is one of all 'civilized' peoples 

 and ages. What is notable on this particular occasion is the sequel 

 according to Tacitus. Once their design of profiting by their neighbours' 

 necessities was checked by the intervention of Tiberius, the investment 

 in real estate was no longer attractive. The Senate's order was not en- 

 forced and the money-lenders could, and did, reserve their ready cash for 

 use in some more remunerative form of investment. The slackness of the 

 Senate may have been partly due to careless neglect, as the words seem to 

 suggest. But it may be suspected that some members of that body had 

 private reasons for wishing the Order of the House not to be seriously 

 enforced. Tacitus remarks that, on the matter being laid before the 

 Fathers, they were thrown into a flutter, since there was hardly one 

 among them 2 that had not broken the law. This surely refers to the 

 time-honoured trick of Roman senators, who, forbidden to engage in 

 commerce (and money-lending was closely connected with commerce), 

 evaded the restriction in various ways, such as holding shares in com- 

 panies or lending through their freedmen as agents. So now, seeking 



1 See the case of Sittius in Cic pro Sulla 56-9. Such financial opportunities were evi- 

 dently few in the later Empire. 



2 trepidique patres (neqtie enitn quisquam tali culpa vacuus)...etc. 



