The study of ancient, especially Greek, economics has reached a turning point. After New Institutional Economics (NIE) in its neoliberal interpretation dominated the theoretical aspects of performance, transaction costs and market orientation in recent years, a more cultural approach has recently prevailed, which enables a cross-epochal and global comparison of the Greek economy. The edited collection under review also stands for this cultural turn in ancient economic history.
The volume is based on the concept of the interdisciplinary research group ‘Economy/Oikonomia’ of the former Excellence Cluster ‘TOPOI’ in Berlin: the fundamental question was the influence of ancient thought on the conceptualisation of modern economics. Starting from the meaning of the word oikonomia, the oikos as the basic socio-economic unit of society inevitably plays a key role. Based on the value-loaded distinction made by Aristotle, the volume takes up this normative discourse and makes a distinction between oikonomia, understood as household management aimed at satisfying needs, and chremastike, as the unnatural and limitless pursuit of profit for its own sake. The volume is logically structured and, in addition to an introduction, comprises four thematic sections: ‘Zur Forschungslage’, ‘Antike Theorie’, ‘Antike Praxis’ and ‘Aspekte der Transformation’. Of the eight thematic contributions, all but two are in German.
First, the two editors each give a very brief introduction. In 3.5 pages Därmann outlines the problem: the dominance of modern economics could not be explained by itself, i.e. by modern economic developments such as the money and credit economy or markets, but is the result of an ancient heritage: through ancient reception, not least in the Old and New Testament and the translation of ancient oikonomia literature in the Middle Ages, ancient ideas were adapted and reinterpreted culturally, politically, religiously and literarily. Therefore, the transformation of oikonomia and chremastike can also be traced in non-economic spheres. This sets the basic tenor of the volume: it is not only about economic issues, but also about literary reception and transformation in modern economic thinking.
The second editor, Winterling, sets out in 1.5 pages the questions and aims of the volume: it is about the knowledge and structures of the economy in antiquity and the history of its reception and transformation in the late Middle Ages and early modern period. According to Winterling, two basic distinctions are relevant: first, how economics was perceived by ancient, medieval or early modern contemporaries and how these perceptions shape our understanding of economics today; second, a discrepancy between ancient oikonomia and modern economics exists. The post-ancient reception and reinterpretation of the ancient concept provides information about how the economy was seen in the respective time periods. These reinterpretations and appropriations of the concept of economy have a decisive influence on our understanding of the economy today, which in turn affects our perception of the ancient economy.
After these brief problematisations N. Morley gives an overview of current questions, theories and conceptions of economic research. This chapter certainly suffers most from its late publication, as Morley notes in an afterword: the chapter was completed in March 2015; so crucial theoretical and methodological interpretations and approaches to ancient economics could not be considered (without writing a completely new contribution). Morley's critique turns against New Institutional Economics that until recently dominated research on ancient economics. Since the publication of The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, edited by W. Scheidel, I. Morris and R. Saller in 2007, a number of works have appeared, especially in the field of Roman economic history, which have dealt primarily with the performance of ancient economies using a quantitative approach. In contrast, Morley identifies three possible research approaches that are being pursued more intensively today: comparative studies, the incorporation of social scientific approaches and greater consideration of environmental and climate factors. In this context one could add a cultural approach, as it is also applied in the volume under review with its strong discursive perspective.
These remarks on the state of research on the ancient economy are followed by the section ‘Antike Theorie’. First, P. Spahn compares Hesiod's economic advice in the Erga with Xenophon's Oikonomikos in order to work out continuities and changes in economic thought in archaic and classical times. It is striking to see how both authors give economic considerations a moral underpinning. The differences are that Hesiod deals with the self-employed peasant, whereas Xenophon focuses on the urban landowner. The role of women also differs: while Hesiod's portrayal is marked by misogyny, Xenophon concedes women an important role in the preservation of the oikos in economic terms.
Second, D.T. Engen examines the relationship of philosophical considerations to economic practice. Plato, Aristotle and Xenophon present their ideas in conformity with traditional values and norms, as expressed in their high regard for agriculture. In contrast, the economy of Athens had diversified: trade, crafts, banking and investment offered income opportunities especially for the non-elite population. These economic changes were perceived by the three authors, but judged negatively and evaluated as the decline of an idealised past.
The next two articles turn to economic practices. A. Eich begins with a clear rejection of NIE, in agreement with Morley. He is concerned with how an economic-social system was constituted through monetary exchange. War, which was increasingly monetised, played a decisive role in this. On the one hand, this meant that the sums of money spent on it (e.g. for the construction of triremes or for military service) ended up in the hands of non-elite consumers. On the other hand, the war-financing elite had to make profits to enable the polis to wage war, which in turn meant that the polis built triremes or paid wages for military services and so on. The basis for this cycle was a scarcity of money, i.e., the amounts distributed to non-elite consumers (e.g. in the form of misthoi) were so small that they supported subsistence but did not remove the compulsion to work.
This is followed by a contribution by M. Hinsch, who summarises his dissertation in about 40 pages. His subject is the oikos and its economic strategies in classical times. He points out that the oikos did not aim for self-sufficiency or subsistence. Its gender- and age-specific structure made it flexible enough to adapt to and successfully participate in the monetarised economy. The goal was to secure or even increase the continuity of the household. In doing so, the (elite) household was caught between two conflicting demands: on the one hand, the householder had to protect the oikos from financial ruin, but on the other hand, he had to behave generously and to support the community through liturgies. Hinsch's assumption that the oikos-based economy, in contrast to the Middle Ages, prevented the development of non-domestic forms of economic organisation such as guilds is not entirely convincing. In doing so, he underestimates the corresponding organisations at Athens and overlooks the fact that the household is still the primary economic unit today – without usually being integrated into companies.
The last section unites three contributions under the heading ‘Aspekte der Transformation’. W.R. Keller deals with Geoffrey Chaucer's House of Fame. In the medieval poem in the form of a dream vision the poet uses economic vocabulary to describe the commercialisation of poetry. H. Pfeiffer analyses Leon Battista Alberti's Della famiglia, a work that was strongly influenced by Xenophon's Oikonomikos, which had become known in Italy shortly before this work's composition. In the last contribution B.P. Priddat expands his thoughts on the reception and transformation of the oikos model. He understands the oikos-economy according to Aristotle as a relationship in which the head of the household ruled over the family and slaves, while the polis-model according to him is characterised as a relationship of equal citizens. Here, the (early) modern economy functioning via the free market is associated with the polis-model, as the market as a virtual polis is associated with self-rule of the citizens involved, whereas the oikos-model stands for companies in which capital owners exercise power over the people involved in the production of goods.
These three case studies are undoubtedly interesting in their own right, but they lack introductory or concluding remarks that demonstrate the relevance of these analyses. For an ancient historian it is not clear why, for example, the economic imaginaire of Chaucer is relevant to the question of the transformation of the ancient economy. Here and throughout, explanations would have been helpful as to how far the case studies are representative and which continuities and disruptions are discernible in the reception of ancient thought. The same applies to the case studies from antiquity: if transformations are the focus of interest, why is the Roman field completely excluded? After all, one might assume, Columella was no less important for the reception of Xenophon and thus of Greek oikos-literature than Geoffrey Chaucer.
The quality of the contributions, as far as it can be judged by an ancient historian, is not questionable. For them have an impact on the study of antiquity – or on the scholarship included in the volume – it would have been desirable for the individual contributions to have been more strongly linked and contextualised. This observation does not make the individual contributions any less valuable, but the current structure of the volume does make the reception of the edited collection as a coherent book more difficult.
