Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

under discussion are eternally and alternately D and u, the resistance to the reproduction of the article, or the power in use of that article. Finally, it has been shown why these should be termed the affirmative and negative values of the article; and from the moment when either value takes effect, (ceases to be latent, and becomes operative upon the market,) should be termed severally affirmative and negative price.14

SECTION IV. - ON THE TWO MODES OF EXCHANGE VAL-
UE, AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE.

THE business of this present section is chiefly to illustrate by cases the two possible modes of exchange value; viz. the alternate modes as founded on a negative principle, and as founded on an affirmative principle. Any reader, therefore, who is already satisfied with this distinction and its grounds, may pass on (without disturbing the nexus or logical dependency of the parts) to Section V.

That general principle which governs the transition under the appropriate circumstances from negative to affirmative value, might be brought forcibly before the reader by a political case drawn from the civil administration of ancient Rome. Any foreigner coming to Rome before the democratic basis of that republic had given way, would have found some difficulty (when reviewing history of Rome) in accounting for the principle which

the

say,

66

Frad governed the award of triumphs. "I am at a loss," alpears to have prevailed witesti

phrwould against

at

to reconcile the rule which in some instan

ed at others. In orín

that which must have case I see a rich province

overrun, and no triumph granted to the conqueror; in another, I see a very beggarly (perhaps even a muti

[ocr errors]

-

no source of strength,

[ocr errors]

Rome, - -made the oc

No

nous and unmanageable) province, but rather of continual anxiety to casion of a most brilliant triumph, and even of a family title, such as 'Macedonicus' or 'Isauricus,' the most gratifying personal distinction which Rome had to confer." Here would seem a contradiction; but the answer could dispel it. "We regard," it would be said on behalf of Rome, "two separate and alternate considerations. province, whether poor or rich, has ever been annexed to our republic which had not this primary condition of value, that it tended to complete our arch of empire. By mere locality, as one link in a chain, it has tended to the arrondissement of our dominions, the orb within which our power circulates." So far any province whatsoever added within the proper Mediterranean circuit, had always а claim upon the republic for some trophy of honor. But to raise this general claim to a level with triumphal honors, we Romans required 15 that one or other of these two extra merits should be pleaded:—either, first, that the province, though not rich, had been won by peculiarly hard fighting; or, secondly, that, though won with very slight efforts, the province was peculiarly rich. The primary, the indispensable value, as a link in the Roman chain, every province must realize, that tended to complete the zone drawn round the Mediterranean. Even a wilderness of rocks would have that value. But this being presumed, of course, as an advantage given by position without merit in the winner, we required, as the crest of the achievement towards justifying a triumph, either the affirmative value of great capacities for taxation, or the negative value of great difficulties overcome in the conquest. Cilicia, for example, returned little in

[ocr errors]

the shape of revenue to Rome; for the population was scanty, and, from the condition of society, wealth was impossible. But the Isaurian guerillas, and the Cilician buccaneers, occupying for many centuries caves and mountain fortresses, that without gunpowder were almost impregnable, gave a sanguinary interest to the conflict, which compensated the small money value. For eight centuries Cilicia was the scourge of the Levant. Palestine again presented even a bloodier contest, though less durable, in a far narrower compass. But Egypt-poor, effeminate Egypt! always "a servant of servants offered, amidst all her civilization, no shadow of resistance. As a test of military merits, she could not found a claim for any man; for six hundred miles she sank on her knees at the bidding of the Roman centurion. So far, the triumph was nothing. On the other hand, Egypt was by wealth the first of all provinces. She was the greatest of coeval granaries.1o The province technically called Africa, and the island of Sicily, were bagatelles by comparison; and what, therefore, she wanted is the negative criterion of merit, having so much wealth, she possessed redundantly in the affirmative criterion. Transalpine Gaul, again, was a fine province under both criteria. She took much beating. In the half-forgotten language of the fancy, she was 66 a glutton"; and, secondly, on the affirmative side, she was also rich. Thus might an ancient Roman have explained and reconciled the apparently conflicting principles upon which triumphs had been awarded. Where a stranger had fancied a want of equitable consistency, because two provinces had been equally bloodless acquisitions, and yet had not equally secured a triumph, he would now be disabused of his error by the sudden explanation, that the one promised great wealth, the other little. And where, again, between two provinces equally

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

worthless as regarded positive returns of use, he had failed to understand why one should bring vast honor to the winner, the other none at all, his embarrassment would be relieved at once by showing him that the unhonored conquest had fallen at the first summons, possibly as a mere effect of reaction from adjacent victories; whilst the other conquest had placed on the record a brilliant success, surmounting a resistance that had baffled a series of commanders, and so far flattering to the Roman pride; but in another sense transcendently important, as getting rid of an ominous exposure which proclaimed to the world a possibility of hopeful opposition to Rome.

[ocr errors]

Now exactly the same principle, transferred to the theory of value in exchange, will explain the two poles on which it revolves. Sometimes you pay for an article on the scale of its use, - its use with regard to your individual purposes. On this principle, you pay for A suppose twice as much as you would consent to pay for B. The point at which you pause, and would choose to go without B rather than pay more for it, does not rise more than one half so high on the scale as the corresponding ne plus ultra for A. This is affirmative price. On the other hand, sometimes you pay for an article on the scale of its costliness; i. e. of its resistance to the act of reproduction. This principle is not a direct natural expression of any intrinsic usefulness; it is an indirect, and properly an exponential, expression of value, by an alien accident perfectly impertinent to any interest of yours,not what good it will do to yourself, but what harm it has done to some other man, (viz. what quantity of trouble it has imposed upon him,) that is the immediate question which this second principle answers. But unnatural (that is, artificial) as such a principle seems, still, in all civilized countries, this is the principle which takes effect by way

of governing force upon price full twenty times for once that the other and natural principle takes effect.

66

Now, having explained the two principles, I find it my next duty to exemplify them both by appropriate cases. These, if judiciously selected, will both prove and illustrate. In the reign of Charles II. occurred the first sale in England of a RHINOCEROS. The more interesting wild beasts those distinguished by ferocity, by cruelty, and agility had long been imported from the Mediterranean; and, as some of them were 'good fellows and would strike," (though, generally speaking, both the lion and the tiger are the merest curs in nature,) they bore tolerable prices, even in the time of Shakespeare. But a rhinoceros had not been yet imported; and, in fact, that brute is a dangerous connection to form. As a great lady from Germany replied some seventy years ago to an Englishman who had offered her an elephant, "Mit nichten, by no means; him eat too mauch." In spite, however, of a similar infirmity, the rhinoceros fetched, under Charles II., more than £2,000. But why? on what principle? Was it his computed negative value? Not at all. A granite obelisk from Thebes, or a Cleopatra's needle, though as heavy as a pulk of rhinoceroses, would not have cost so much to sling and transport from the Niger to the Thames. But in such a case there are two reasons why the purchaser is not anxious to inquire about the costs. In buying a loaf, that is an important question, because a loaf will be bought every day, and there is a great use in knowing the cost, or negative value, as that which will assuredly gov

an article of daily reproduction. But in buying a rhinoceros, which it is to be hoped that no man will be so ill-fated as to do twice in one world, it is scarcely to be hoped that the importer will tell any truth at all, nor is it of much consequence that he should; for the buyer cares

« VorigeDoorgaan »