The same course of things is to be observed in ancient times. In _Solon's_ time, and again in that of _Lysias_, it was 18 per cent. (_Böckh_, Staatshaushalt der Athener, I, 143 ff.) I am of opinion that the rate of interest declined during this long interval, but rose again in consequence of the Peloponnesian war. Among friends, in the time of _Demosthenes_, 10 per cent. (adv. Onetor., I, 386.) _Aristotle_, Rhet., III, 10, mentions 12 per cent., which _Aeschines_, adv. Ctes., 104, and _Demosthenes_, adv. Aph., I, 820, 824, call low. The rate of commercial interest in Egypt (146 before Christ) seems to have been 12 per cent. per annum. (_Letronne_, Recompense promise à celui, etc., 1833, 7.) Contemporaneously in Rome, a similar rate of interest must have been considered usurious. (_Cicero_, ad. Att., I, 12.) Under the emperor _Claudius_, 6 per cent. (_Columella_, De Re rust., III, 3.) _Justinian_ allowed _to personae illustres_ 4 per cent. per annum. (L. 26 Cod., IV, 32.)] [Footnote 185-3: A Huron with his bow and arrow kills 12 pieces of game; the European, with a much better capital, his rifle, only 5. Compare _v. Schözer_, Anfangsgründe, I, 28. _Mallthus_, Principles, ch. 5. According to _Ricardo_, ch. 6, the decline of the rate of interest because of the necessity of carrying on agriculture under harder conditions, must make all capital of which raw material forms a part more valuable; while the possessors of money-capital particularly find no indemnification. _Wakefield_, England and America, 1853, accounts for it by saying that production, besides the coöperation of capital and labor, needs "a field of employment;" and _Bastiat_, Harmonies, ch. 5, 13, by saying that with the advance of civilization, the results of former services lose in value as compared with later ones, because performed under less favorable circumstances.] [Footnote 185-4: _D. Hume_, Discourses No. 4 On Interest. Per contra, see _Locke_, Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest; _Law_, sur l'Usage des Monaies, 1697 (Daire); and _Montesquieu_, Esprit des Lois XXII, 6. _Cantillon_ draws a very nice distinction: If the increased amount _of_ money in a state comes into the hands of loaners, it will decrease the current rate by increasing the number of loaners; but if it comes into the hands of consumers, the rate rises, because now the demand _for_ commodities is so much greater. (Nature du Commerce, 284.)]