gives no juristic consideration to the form of the pieces. The quantity of the material is measured in a merely physical manner; in the case of a metal, by weighing. The exchange-commodity is always weighed out to the creditor.
There is no difficulty in conceiving autometallism; the only difficulty is with those means of payment witch are no longer autometallistic (e. g. money). Weshall therefore use autometallism in order to show what is the distinguishing characteristic of the concept “means of payment.” Let us put ourselves in the place of the creditor. A man receiving a pound of silver (or copper or gold) in exchange for commodities, which are not means of payment, can use it in two ways. Hither he can use the silver in some craft to make vessels such as goblets or plates, or perhaps even rings and chains for ornament, or else he can use it as a means of exchange, and obtain with it other commodities as he needs them. The holder can make use of his property in one of these two ways, but not in both at once. He can either use it in some craft, thus obtaining “real” satisfaction, or else obtain other commodities with it, when his satisfaction is derived from its value in exchange.
The possibility of “real” satisfaction is undoubtedly a necessary condition for any commodity becoming a socially recognised exchange-commodity. If metals had not been indispensable in handicrafts, autometallism would never have arisen. But there
