Chapter 49: , labelled Βάρωνος, asserts the necessity of keeping such (1)

artisans as smiths carpenters and potters on the farm or near at hand. The tools have to be kept in good order, and visits to the town waste time. That this precept comes from Varro I 16 §§ 3, 4, seems more than doubtful: reference will shew that the passages differ considerably.

I would add that the argument prefixed to book III, a farmer’s calendar, at least in Beckh’s text, gives a list of the months from January to December, attaching to each Roman name the corresponding Egyptian one. The editor apparently accepts this double list as genuine. If it be so, has the fact any bearing on the relations between Constantinople and Egypt referred to above?

B. THE FARMER’S LAW.

The so-called ‘=Farmer’s Law=,’ νόμος γεωργικός, is now assigned by the critics to the time of the Iconoclast emperors, say about 740 AD. It is an official document of limited scope, not a general regulative code governing agricultural conditions in all parts of the eastern empire. Its text origin arrangement and the bearing of its evidence have been much discussed, and it will suffice here to refer to the articles of Mr Ashburner[1826] on the subject. What concerns me is the position of farmers under the Byzantine empire in the eighth century as compared with that of the fourth or fifth century _coloni_, and the different lines of development followed by country life in East and West. Therefore it is only necessary to consider some of the main features of the picture revealed to us by various details of the Farmer’s Law.

The first point that strikes a reader is that the serf[1827] _colonus_ has apparently disappeared. Land is held by free owners, who either themselves provide for its cultivation or let it to tenants who take over that duty. The normal organization is in districts (χωρία) each of which contains a number of landowners, who either farm their own land or, if short of means (ἄποροι), let it to other better-equipped farmers of the same district. Thus the transactions are locally limited, and the chief object of the law is to prevent misdeeds that might prejudicially affect the prosperity of the local farmers. These are in a sense partners or commoners (κοινωνοί), the ‘commonalty’ (κοινότης) of the district, which is a taxation-unit with its members jointly liable. The district seems to be regarded as originally common and then divided into members’ lots, with a part reserved perhaps as common pasture. Redivision is contemplated, and the lots seem to belong rather to the family than to the individual. To judge from the tone of the rules, it seems certain that the farmers and their families are a class working with their own hands. But there are also wage-earning labourers, and slaves owned or hired for farm work. Tenancy on shares, like the partiary system in Roman Law, appears as an established practice, and in one passage (clause 16) Mr Ashburner detects a farmer employed at a salary, in short a _mercennarius_.

Thus we find existing what are a kind of village communities, the landowning farmers in which are free to let land to each other and also to exchange farms if they see fit to do so. How far they are free to flit from one commune to another remains doubtful. And there is no indication that they are at liberty to dispose of their own land-rights to outsiders. There appears however side by side with these communal units another system of tenancies in which individual farmers hire land from great landlords. Naturally the position of such tenants is different from that of tenants under communal owners: the matter is treated at some length by Mr Ashburner. What proportion the corn crop generally bore to other produce in the agriculture of the Byzantine empire contemplated by these regulations, the document does not enable us to judge. Vineyards and figyards were clearly an important department, and also gardens for vegetables and fruit. Live stock, and damage done to them and by them, are the subject of many clauses, nor is woodland forgotten. But the olive does not appear. So far as one may guess, the farming was probably of a mixed character. The penalties assigned for offences are often barbarous, including not only death by hanging or burning but blinding and other mutilations of oriental use. At the same time the ecclesiastical spirit of the Eastern empire finds expression in the bestowal of a curse on one guilty of cheating, referring I suppose primarily to undiscovered fraud.

The state of things inferred from the provisions of the ‘Farmer’s Law’ is so remarkable in itself, and so different from the course of rustic development in the West, that we are driven to seek an explanation of some kind. Many influences may have contributed to produce so striking a differentiation. But one can hardly help suspecting that there was some one great influence at work in the eastern empire, to which the surprising change noted above was mainly due. In his _History of the later Roman Empire_[1828] Professor Bury has offered a conjectural solution of the problem. It is to be sought in the changes brought about in the national character and the external history of the Empire. Since the middle of the sixth century north-west Asia Minor and the Balkan country had been filled with Slavonic settlers, and other parts with other new colonists. Now the new settlers, particularly the Slavs, were not used to the colonate system or the rigid bond of hereditary occupations, and emperors busied in imperial defence on the North and East knew better than to force upon them an unwelcome system. Invasions had reduced the populations of frontier provinces and shattered the old state of serfdom. Resettlement on a large scale had to be carried out within the empire, and under new conditions to suit the changed character of the population. Among the new elements that produced this change the most important was the coming of the Slavs.

For the Slavs had themselves no institution corresponding to the German _laeti_. Slaves indeed they had, but not free cultivators attached to the soil. Therefore they could not, like the Germans in the West, adapt themselves to the Roman colonate; accordingly their intrusion led to its abolition. In support of this view the well-known Slavonic peasant communities are cited as evidence. Nor can it be denied that this consideration has some weight. But, while we may provisionally accept the conclusion that Slavonic influences had something, perhaps much, to do with the new turn given to the conditions of rustic life in the East, we must not press it so far as to infer that the colonate-system was extinct there. In no case could the ‘Farmer’s Law’ fairly be used to prove the negative: and moreover it is apparently the case according to Mr Ashburner that the document is not a complete agricultural code for all agricultural classes within the empire. If it is ‘concerned exclusively with a village community, composed of farmers who cultivate their own lands,’ it cannot prove the non-existence of other rustic conditions different in kind. Colonate seems to have disappeared, while slavery has not. But that is the utmost we can say. The slave at least is still there. As to the important question, whether the farmers contemplated in the Law enjoy a real freedom of movement, as has been thought, it is best to refer a reader to the cautious reserve of Mr Ashburner.

The one general inference that I venture to draw from these two authorities is that, however much or little the conditions of agriculture may have changed in the surviving Eastern part of the Roman empire, the employment of slave labour still remained.

C. EXTRACTS FROM MODERN BOOKS.

(1) =Hume=, Essay XI, _Of the populousness of antient nations_.

We must now consider what disadvantages the antients lay under with regard to populousness, and what checks they received from their political maxims and institutions. There are commonly compensations in every human condition; and tho’ these compensations be not always perfectly equal, yet they serve, at least, to restrain the prevailing principle. To compare them and estimate their influence, is indeed very difficult, even where they take place in the same age, and in neighbouring countries: But where several ages have intervened, and only scattered lights are afforded us by antient authors; what can we do but amuse ourselves by talking, _pro_ and _con_, on an interesting subject, and thereby correcting all hasty and violent determinations?

MODERN ITALIAN CONDITIONS.

(2) =Bolton King and Thomas Okey=, _Italy today_.

In _Italy today_, Messrs =Bolton King and Thomas Okey= furnish a most interesting collection of facts relative to Italian rural conditions. The extent to which the phenomena of antiquity reappear in the details of this careful treatise is most striking. Italy being the central land of my inquiry, and convinced as I am that the great variety of local conditions is even now not sufficiently recognized in Roman Histories, this excellent book is of peculiar value. In the course of (say) fifteen centuries Italy and her people have passed through strange vicissitudes, not merely political: a great change has taken place in the range of agricultural products: yet old phenomena of rural life meet the inquirer at every turn. Surely this cannot be dismissed lightly as a casual coincidence. I cannot find room to set out the resemblances in detail, so I append a short table of reference to passages in the book that have impressed me most. Supplementary to this, as a vivid illustration of conditions in a mountain district, the first three chapters of _In the Abruzzi_, by =Anne Macdonell=, are decidedly helpful. For instance, it appears that the old migratory pasturage still existed in full force down to quite recent times, but the late conversion of much Apulian lowland from pasture to tillage has seriously affected the position of the highland shepherds by reducing the area available for winter grazing. The chapter on brigandage has also some instructive passages.

REFERENCES TO _Italy today_.

Peasant contrasted with wage-earner, pp 64-6, 72, 74, 126, 166-8, 171-2, 175-6, 200, 312, and Index under _mezzaiuoli_ and _peasants_. Agricultural classes, pp 164-6. Partiaries, pp 168, 173. Emphyteusis, p 173. Improvements, p 173. Farming through steward, pp 174-5. Tenancies, pp 168-74, and Index under _peasants_. Rents in kind, p 171. Debt of various classes, pp 182-4, 366, 376. Taxes, p 140. Gangs of labourers, pp 166, 376. Wages, pp 126, 128, 168, 174, 366, 369-71. Food in wage, p 370. Emigration, pp 371, 396. Self-help in rural districts, pp 184-6, 376. Charities, pp 220 foll, 379 foll. Socialists and Peasantry, pp 64-6, 170, 172, cf 71-2.

(3) =R E Prothero=, _The pleasant land of France_. London 1908.

Chapters (essays) II and III, _French farming_ and _Tenant-right and agrarian outrage in France_, contain much of interest.

pp 91-2 Social advantages of the system of peasant proprietors. A training[1829] to the rural population. Element of stability. The answer to agitators ‘Cela est bien, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin.’ Difficulties which beset its artificial creation. _Métayage_ (under present conditions) has proved the best shelter for tenant-farmers against the agricultural storm. Need of implicit confidence between landlord and working partner.

pp 98-9 Tenant-right in Santerre (Picardy). Tenant considers himself a co-proprietor of the land. Former payment of rent in kind taken to be a sign of joint ownership. Now in money, but calculated upon market price of corn. Landlord’s loss of control. High money value of _droit de marché_.

p 104 Traces of Roman occupation. Roman soldier followed by farmer. ‘Under the empire the _colonus_ was not a slave, but the owner of slaves: he held his land in perpetuity; he could not leave it. He paid a fixed rent in kind, which could not be raised. Tenant-right therefore is explained as the recognition by the Frankish conquerors of this hereditary claim to the perpetual occupation of the soil.’ [One of the various explanations offered.]

p 119 Severe legislation failed to get rid of tenant-right, but since 1791 it has been recognized, and so its importance decreased. Under the _ancien régime_ leases were short—9 years—and precarious. They were governed by the Roman law maxim _emptori fundi necesse non est stare colonum_. That is, if property changed hands during the continuance of the lease, the new owner might evict the tenant. The _Code Civil_ confirms law of 1791—dispossession only if provision has been made (in lease) for it.

In general, land-tenures vary very greatly in the various provinces.

(4) =G G Coulton=, _Social life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation_. Cambridge 1918.

In Section VI _Manor and Cottage_ are a number of extracts throwing light on the rustic conditions of their times.

1. _A model Manor_ pp 301-6, describing the organization
of an estate, with the duties of the several officials and
departmental servants. Watchful diligence and economy, strict
accountability and honesty are insisted on, that the rights of
the Lord may not be impaired.

2. _The Manorial court_, pp 306-8.

3. _The peasant’s fare_, p 308.

4. _Incidents of the countryside_, p 309.

7. _Decay of yeomanry_, pp 310-12. (Latimer.)

8. _Decay of husbandry_, pp 312-14. (Sir T More.)

All these passages are of great interest as shewing how a number of phenomena observable in the case of ancient estates are repeated under medieval conditions. The typical Manor with its elaborate hierarchy and rules, the struggles of the small yeoman, the encroachments of big landlords, the special difficulties of small-scale tillage caused by growth of large-scale pasturage, the increase of wastrels and sturdy beggars, are all notable points, worthy the attention of a student of ancient farm life and labour.

THE BIG MAN AND THE SMALL FARMER.

(5) =Clifton Johnson=, _From the St Lawrence to Virginia_. New York 1913, p 21. Chapter on the Adirondack winter.

(_Conversation in an up-country store._)

‘I worked for Rockefeller most of that season. You know he has a big estate down below here a ways. There used to be farmhouses—yes and villages on it, but he bought the owners all out, or froze ’em out. One feller was determined not to sell, and as a sample of how things was made uncomfortable for him I heard tell that two men came to his house once and made him a present of some venison. They had hardly gone when the game warden dropped in and arrested him for havin’ venison in his house. All such tricks was worked on him, and he spent every cent he was worth fighting lawsuits. People wa’n’t allowed to fish on the property, and the women wa’n’t allowed to pick berries on it. A good deal of hard feeling was stirred up, and Rockefeller would scoot from the train to his house, and pull the curtains down, ’fraid they’d shoot him. Oh! he was awful scairt.’

EASTERN EUROPE.

(6) =Marion L Newbigin DSc=, _Geographical aspects of Balkan problems_. London 1915.

_Turks_—‘not all their virtues, not all their military strength, have saved them from the slow sapping of vitality due to their divorce alike from the actual tilling of the land and from trade and commerce.... He has been within the (Balkan) peninsula a parasite, chiefly upon the ploughing peasant, and the effect has been to implant in the mind of that peasant a passion for agriculture, for the undisturbed possession of a patch of freehold, which is probably as strong here as it has ever been in the world.’ p 137.

_Thessaly_—‘the landowners are almost always absentees, appearing only at the time of harvest’ (originally Turks, now mostly Greeks) ‘who have taken little personal interest in the land’ (no great improvement in condition of cultivator). (So in Bosnia—better in Serbia and Bulgaria) ‘lands mostly worked by the peasants on the half-shares system.’ p 175.

_Albania_—(poverty extreme—temporary emigration of the males, frequent in poor regions) ‘young Albˢ often leave their country during the winter, going to work in Greece or elsewhere as field labourers, and returning to their mountains in the spring.’ pp 183-4.

Generally—small holdings mostly in the Balkan states.

D. LIST OF SOME BOOKS USED.

This list does not pretend to be complete. Many other works are referred to here and there in the notes on the text. But I feel bound to mention the names of some, particularly those dealing with conditions that did or still do exist in the modern world. Miscellaneous reading of this kind has been to me a great help in the endeavour to understand the full bearing of ancient evidence, and (I hope) to judge it fairly. It is on the presentation and criticism of that evidence that I depend: for the great handbooks of Antiquities do not help me much. The practice of making a statement and giving in support of it a reference or references is on the face of it sound. But, when the witnesses cited are authors writing under widely various conditions of time and place and personal circumstances, it is necessary whenever possible to appraise each one separately. And when the aim is, not to write a technical treatise on ‘scientific’ lines, but to describe what is a highly important background of a great civilization, a separate treatment of witnesses needs no apology. I cannot cite in detail the references to conditions in a number of countries, for instance India and China, but I have given them by page or chapter so as to be consulted with ease.

(1) AGRICULTURE AND RUSTIC LIFE AND LABOUR.

M Weber, _Die Römische Agrargeschichte_, Stuttgart 1891.

C Daubeny, _Lectures on Roman husbandry_, Oxford 1857.

Ll Storr-Best, _Varro on farming_, translated with Introduction
commentary and excursus, London 1912.

E de Laveleye, _Primitive Property_, English translation 1878.

H Blümner, article ‘Landwirtschaft’ in I Müller’s _Handbuch_ VI
ii 2, ed 3 pp 533 foll.

A E Zimmern, _The Greek Commonwealth_, Oxford 1911.

Büchsenschütz, _Besitz und Erwerb_, Halle 1869.

_Columella of Husbandry_, translation (anonymous), London 1745.

(2) ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL MATTERS.

Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_, _passim_.

H Nissen, _Italische Landeskunde_, Berlin 1883-1902.

K W Nitzsch, _Geschichte der Römischen Republik_, vol II,
Leipzig 1885.

L Bloch, _Soziale Kämpfe im alten Röm_, ed III Berlin 1913.

David Hume, _Essays_, ed 1760 (Essay XI of the populousness of
antient nations).

J Beloch, _Die Bevölkerung der Griechisch-Römischen Welt_,
Leipzig 1886.

H Francotte, _L’Industrie dans la Grèce ancienne_, Bruxelles
1900-1.

O Seeck, _Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt_, Berlin
1897-1913.

O Seeck, ‘Die Schatzungsordnung Diocletians,’ in _Zeitschrift
für Social- und Wirthschaftsgeschichte_, Weimar 1896.

H Schiller, _Geschichte der Römischen Kaiserzeit_, Gotha 1883-7.

S Dill, _Roman society in the last century of the Western
Empire_, London 1898.

G Gilbert, _Handbuch der Griechischen Staatsalterthümer_, vol
II, Leipzig 1885.

(3) LAW AND THE LATER COLONATE.

Several of the books named under other heads deal with legal points, for instance Beauchet, Lipsius, Meier and Schömann, Calderini, M Clerc.

The Digest and Codex Justinianus have been used in the text of Mommsen and P Krüger.

_The Codex Theodosianus_ in text of Mommsen and P M Meyer,
Berlin 1905 and in Ritter’s edition of Godefroi, Leipzig
1736-45.

P Girard, _Textes de droit Romain_, ed 4 Paris 1913.

F Zulueta, ‘De Patrociniis vicorum,’ in Vinogradoff’s _Oxford
Studies_, Oxford 1909.

M Rostowzew, _Studien zur Geschichte des Römischen Colonates_,
Leipzig and Berlin 1910.

B Heisterbergk, _Die Entstehung des Colonats_, Leipzig 1876.

A Esmein, _Mélanges d’histoire du Droit_, Paris 1886.

Fustel de Coulanges, ‘Le Colonat Romain,’ in his _Recherches
sur quelques problèmes d’histoire_, Paris 1885.

H F Pelham, _Essays_ (No XIII), Oxford 1911.

I am sorry that inability to procure copies has prevented me from consulting the following works:

Beaudouin, _Les grands domaines dans l’empire Romain_, Paris
1899.

Bolkestein, _de colonatu Romano eiusque origine_, Amsterdam
1906.

(4) MANUMISSION AND KINDRED TOPICS.

A Calderini, _La manomissione e la condizione dei liberti in
Grecia_, Milan 1908.

M Clerc, _Les métèques Athéniens_, Paris 1893.

L Beauchet, _Droit privé de la République Athénienne_, Paris
1897.

J H Lipsius, _Das Attische Recht etc._, Leipzig 1905.

Meier und Schömann, _Der Attische Process_, Berlin 1883-7.

Mommsen, _Römisches Staatsrecht_.

G Haenel, _Corpus legum_, Leipzig 1857.

C G Bruns, _Fontes Iuris Romani antiqui_.

Dareste, Haussoullier, Th Reinach, _Recueil des inscriptions
juridiques Grecques_, Paris 1904. (Laws of Gortyn.)

Wescher et Foucart, _Inscriptions de Delphes_, Paris 1863.

Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, ‘Demotika der Metöken,’ in _Hermes_ 1887.

(5) SLAVERY AND SLAVE TRADE.

H Wallon, _Histoire de l’esclavage dans l’antiquité_, ed 2
Paris 1879.

J K Ingram, _A history of slavery and serfdom_, London 1895.

E H Minns, _Scythians and Greeks_, Cambridge 1913 (pages 438,
440, 461, 465, 471, 567).

V A Smith, _The early history of India_, Oxford 1914 (pages
100-1, 177-8, 441).

M S Evans, _Black and White in the Southern States_, London
1915.

” _Black and White in South-east Africa_, ed 2 London 1916.

J E Cairnes, _The Slave Power_, ed 2 London and Cambridge 1863.

W W Buckland, _The Roman Law of Slavery_, Cambridge 1908.

W E Hardenburg, _The Putumayo, the Devil’s Paradise_, with
extracts from Sir R Casement’s report, London and Leipzig 1912.

H W Nevinson, _A modern Slavery_, London and New York 1906.

Sidney Low, _Egypt in transition_ (see under _Medieval and
Modern conditions_).

Mrs M A Handley, _Roughing it in Southern India_, London 1911
(pages 193-4).

(6) MEDIEVAL AND MODERN CONDITIONS.

_Books illustrating matters of rustic life, peasant proprietorship, agricultural wage-labour, etc._

Bolton King and Thomas Okey, _Italy today_, new ed London 1909.

R E Prothero, _The pleasant land of France_, London 1908
(Essays II and III).

Anne Macdonell, _In the Abruzzi_, London 1908 (chapters 1-3).

G Renwick, _Finland today_, London 1911 (pages 59, 60).

Sir J D Rees, _The real India_, London 1908.

Marion L Newbigin, _Geographical aspects of Balkan problems_,
London 1915.

Ralph Butler, _The new eastern Europe_, London 1919 (chapter
VII).

John Spargo, _Bolshevism, the enemy of political and industrial
democracy_, London 1919 (pages 69, 156, 275, 278).

W H Dawson, _The evolution of modern Germany_, London 1908
(chapters XIII, XIV).

P Vinogradoff, _The growth of the Manor_, ed 2 London 1911.

G G Coulton, _Social life in Britain from the Conquest to the
Reformation_, Cambridge 1918 (Section VI).

Mary Bateson, _Medieval England_ 1066-1350, London 1903.

Sidney Low, _Egypt in transition_, London 1914 (pages 60-2,
240-1).

Sidney Low, _A vision of India_, ed 2 London 1907 (chapter
XXIII).

Sir A Fraser, _Among Indian Rajahs and Ryots_, ed 3 London 1912
(pages 185, 191-210).

J Macgowan, _Men and Manners in modern China_, London 1912
(pages 17 foll, 189-96, 275-7).

M Augé-Laribé, _L’évolution de la France agricole_, Paris 1912.

(7) SPECIAL AMERICAN SECTION.

H Baerlein, _Mexico, the land of unrest_, London 1914 (chapters
VIII, XI).

F L Olmsted, _A journey in the seaboard slave States_ (1853-4),
ed 2 New York 1904 (pages 240, 282, vol II pages 155, 198, 237).

H R Helper, _The impending crisis of the South (economic)_, New
York 1857.

B B Munford, _Virginia’s attitude towards Slavery and
Secession_, ed 2 London 1910 (pages 133-4 etc).

W Archer, _Through Afro-America, an English reading of the
Race-problem_, London 1910.

A H Stone, _Studies in the American Race-problem_, London 1908
printed in New York.

F F Browne, _The everyday life of Abraham Lincoln_, London 1914
(pages 348-9).

G P Fisher, _The colonial era in America_, London 1892 (pages
254, 259).

J Rodway, _Guiana_, London 1912 (of Indians, pages 224-5).

J Creelman, _Diaz, Master of Mexico_, New York 1911 (pages
401-5).

E R Turner, _The Negro in Pennsylvania 1639-1861_, Washington
1911.

_Social and economic forces in American history_, New York and
London 1913 (by several authors).

J F Rhodes, _History of the United States from 1850_, London
1893-1906.

C R Enock, _The Republics of Central and South America_, London
and New York 1913.

FOOTNOTES

[1] A good specimen of such work at a late date may be found in Statius _Silvae_ IV 3 on the _via Domitiana_ lines 40-66.

[2] For instance Diodorus V 38 § 1, Strabo XII 3 § 40 (p 562), Apuleius _met_ IX 12.

[3] Not artistic, of course.

[4] See especially Ed Meyer _Kleine Schriften_ pp 80-212.

[5] To this question I return in the concluding chapter.

[6] A good instance is Xen _anab_ IV 1 §§ 12-14.

[7] Veget I 3.

[8] Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία cap 16, with Sandys’ notes.

[9] _Catil 4 § 1 non fuit consilium ... neque vero agrum colundo aut venando servilibus officiis intentum aetatem agere._

[10] To this topic I return in the concluding chapter. See chapter on Aristotle.

[11] See chapter on Cato.

[12] For the existence of this system in Modern Italy see Bolton King and Okey _Italy today_ pp 174-5.

[13] Cic _in Catil_ II § 18. See the chapter on Cicero.

[14] Cf Valerius Maximus VII 5 § 2.

[15] For modern Italy see Appendix.

[16] Cf Caesar _B C_ I 34, 56, discussed in the chapter on Varro.

[17] _Oratio_ XV (1 pp 266-7 Dind).

[18] VI 315, XXIII 712, VII 221.

[19] XII 433-5, XXI 445, 451, X 304.

[20] XXI 444.

[21] XVIII 550.

[22] II 751.

[23] XVIII 542, 554, XI 67, XX 495-7, V 500, XIII 590.

[24] XXI 257-9.

[25] XI 68.

[26] XVIII 550-60.

[27] XXI 281-3.

[28] XXI 40-2, 78-80, 101-3, 453-4, XXII 45, XXIV 751-2.

[29] XVI 835-6, VI 463.

[30] VI 455, XVI 831, XX 193.

[31] XII 421-4.

[32] IV 245, XIV 3-4, 62-5, XVI 302-3, XVII 533. (_Iliad_ V 413, VI 366.)

[33] Selling XIV 297, XV 387, 428, 452-3, XX 382-3. Buying I 430, XIV 115, etc.

[34] XIX 488-90, XXII 173-7, 189-93, 440-5, 462-4, 465-77. (Cf XVIII 82-7.)

[35] IV 245 foll.

[36] IX 205-7, XI 430-2, XVI 14 foll, XIX 489, XXIII 227-8, etc.

[37] XIV 449-52.

[38] VII 224-5, XIX 526.

[39] IV 643-4, 652.

[40] In XIX 56-7 a τέκτων, Icmalius, is even mentioned by name.

[41] XVII 382-7, XIX 134-5.

[42] XIV 56-8.

[43] XVII 578.

[44] XVII 18-9, 226-8.

[45] XVIII 403.

[46] VII 112 foll, VIII 557-63.

[47] IX 109-11, 125 foll.

[48] XV 319 foll.

[49] XVIII 1-116.

[50] IX 191.

[51] II 22, IV 318, XIV 344, XVI 139-45.

[52] XIV 222-3.

[53] XIII 31-4.

[54] XVIII 357-64.

[55] XI 489-91.

[56] IV 644.

[57] IV 735-7.

[58] XXIV 208-10.

[59] XXIV 222-55.

[60] XXIV 257.

[61] XV 412-92.

[62] XIV 271-2.

[63] XXI 213-6.

[64] XV 363-5.

[65] XIV 62-5.

[66] XVIII 366-75.

[67] 299-302, 394-5, 399-400, 403-4, 646-7.

[68] 289-90, 303-5, 308-13, 381-2, 410-3 (cf 498).

[69] 20-4.

[70] 37-41.

[71] 298-9, 397-8.

[72] 289-90.

[73] 303-5.

[74] 308-13.

[75] 410-3, 500-1, 554 foll, 576 foll.

[76] 391.

[77] 25-6.

[78] 493, 538, 544, 809.

[79] 686.

[80] 717-8.

[81] 394-400.

[82] 327-34.

[83] 341.

[84] 605.

[85] 602-3.

[86] 370.

[87] 459, 469-71, 502-3, 559-60, 573, 597-8, 607-8, 765-7.

[88] 406 is reasonably suspected.

[89] 405, 779, 800.

[90] 695-705.

[91] 32, 597, 606-7.

[92] _Solon the Athenian_, by Ivan M. Linforth of the University of California (1919) discusses in full the conditions of Solon’s time and his actual policy, with an edition of his poetic remains.

[93] The view of M Clerc _Les métèques Athéniens_ pp 340-5.

[94] ἄλλος γῆν τέμνων πολυδένδρεον εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν λατρεύει τοῖσιν καμπύλ’ ἄροτρα μέλει. Mr Linforth takes the last four words as defining ἄλλος, the plowman. I think they refer to the employers, spoken of as a class.

[95] Aristotle Ἀθ πολ 11, 12, 16.

[96] See the remarks of Dareste Haussoullier and Th Reinach in the _Recueil des inscriptions juridiques Grecques_ (Paris 1904) on the Gortyn Laws.

[97] See Livy X 4 § 9.

[98] See his references to the Spartan use of ξείνοι = βάρβαροι IX 11, 53, 55.

[99] VIII 68 γ.

[100] VIII 26, 105-6.

[101] II 164-7.

[102] Isocrates _Busiris_ §§ 15-20 pp 224-5 also allows for no special class of γεωργοὶ in Egypt.

[103] Plato _Timaeus_ p 24. Diodorus I 28, 73-4 (? from Hecataeus of Abdera, latter half of 3rd cent BC).

[104] II 141, 168. See Index under _Egypt_.

[105] The passage of Isocrates just cited seems to favour this view.

[106] VIII 137.

[107] VIII 26.

[108] VIII 51.

[109] VII 102.

[110] VI 137.

[111] IV 72.

[112] VIII 142.

[113] οἰκετέων here = members of the family, as often. Stein refers to VIII 4, 41, 44, 106. Compare the use of οἰκεὺς in the Iliad, and see Aesch _Agam_ 733, Eur _Suppl_ 870.

[114] _Pers_ 186-7, 255, 337, 391, 423, 434, 475, 798, 844.

[115] _Eum_ 186-90.

[116] _Prom_ 454-8, 708.

[117] Fragm 194, 198, Dind.

[118] _Suppl_ 612-4, _Eum_ 890-1.

[119] _Trach_ 52-3, 61-3, _O T_ 763-4, Fragm 518, 677, Dind.

[120] _Antig_ 338-40. The use of horses for ploughing is strange. Jebb thinks that mules are meant.

[121] _O T_ 1029.

[122] _Trach_ 31-3.

[123] _Electra_ 37-8, 375-6, _Phoenissae_ 405, fragm 143 and many more.

[124] The loyalty of slaves to kind masters is referred to very often.

[125] References in Euripides are too many to cite here.

[126] Cf the oft-quoted line from Eur Auge ἡ φύσις ἐβούλεθ’, ᾗ νόμων oὐδὲν μέλει.

[127] Cf Eur fragm 515, 828, Dind, etc.

[128] Cf Eur fragm 263, 1035, Dind, and the use of τὸ δοῦλον ‘the slave-quality’ in _Hecuba_ 332-3, _Ion_ 983, etc.

[129] See Cope’s note on Aristotle _rhet_ 1 13 § 2.

[130] _Herc Fur_ 1341-6.

[131] _Alcestis_ 2, 6. _Electra_ 203-4. _Cyclops_ 76 foll, cf 23-4.

[132] _Electra_ 252.

[133] _Electra_ 35-9.

[134] _ibid_ 73-4.

[135] _ibid_ 75-6.

[136] _ibid_ 78-81.

[137] The slaves in 360 and 394 are attendants of Orestes.

[138] _Suppl_ 420-2.

[139] _Orest_ 918-20. Cf fragm 188 Dind where the virtue of rustic life is sketched καὶ δόξεις φρονεῖν σκάπτων ἀρῶν γῆν ποιμνίοις ἐπιστατῶν.

[140] _Rhesus_ 74-5.

[141] _Rhesus_ 176.

[142] _Heracl_ 639, 788-9, 890, cf fragm 827 Dind.

[143] _Die pseudoxenophontische Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία ... von Ernst Kalinka_ (Teubner 1913). A great work.

[144] 1 § 3.

[145] 1 § 5 etc.

[146] This view reappears later in Isocrates.

[147] In his book _The Greek Commonwealth_.

[148] 1 §§ 10-12.

[149] Kalinka well points out that in 1 § 11 ἐλευθέρους ἀφιέναι is not technical = manumit.

[150] In 1 § 17 it is notable that among those who gain by concentration of business at Athens is εἴ τῳ ζεῦγός ἐστιν ἢ ἀνδράποδον μισθοφοροῦν. Country carts would now be plentiful in Athens.

[151] 1 § 19.

[152] 2 § 14.

[153] _Equites_ 792-4, _Pax_ 632-6, _Eccl_ 243.

[154] _Eccl_ 197-8.

[155] _Eccl_ 591-2.

[156] _Plut_ 510-626.

[157] Old Strepsiades still has his thoughts fixed on these, _Nubes_ 202-3.

[158] _Plut_ 903.

[159] _Plut_ 223-4.

[160] _Ach_ 180, 211, _Pax_ 570, 1185-6, _Eq_ 316-7, _Nub_ 43 foll.

[161] The gradual conversion is seen in _Ach_ 557 foll, 626 foll.

[162] _Ach_ 32-4.

[163] _Pax_ 551-70, 1127 foll; cf fragm 100, 107, 109, 294, 387, Kock.

[164] _Pax_ 509-11.

[165] _Pax_ 190.

[166] _Pax_ 551-70, 1318-24.

[167] _Lysistr_ 1173-4.

[168] _Ach_ 248-50, 259.

[169] _Ach_ 266.

[170] _Nub_ 43 foll, 138.

[171] _Vesp_ 442-52.

[172] _Pax_ 1140 foll.

[173] _Pax_ 1248-9.

[174] _Lys_ 1203-14.

[175] _Eccl_ 651.

[176] _Plut_ 26-7, 253.

[177] _Plut_ 517-20, 525-6.

[178] _Plut_ 510-626.

[179] _Aves_ 1152.

[180] _Aves_ 1431-2 (cf Vesp 959), fragm of Δαιταλεῖς 4 Dind, 221 Kock.

[181] _Vesp_ 712.

[182] _Ran_ 164-77.

[183] _Eccl_ 197-8, 591-2.

[184] _Nub_ 71-2. Cf φελλέα in Isaeus VIII § 42 p 73.

[185] _Pax_ 552, 1318.

[186] _Ach_ 1018-36.

[187] _Eccl_ 605, _Av_ 712.

[188] _Thucydides and the history of his age_ chapters III-VII.

[189] See Francotte _L’industrie dans la Grèce ancienne_ livre II cc 5-7.

[190] _Thucydides mythistoricus_ chapter II.

[191] II 14, 16. An earlier period is referred to in I 126 §§ 7, 8.

[192] II 65 § 2.

[193] I 141.

[194] _Die Bevölkerung der Griechisch-Röm. Welt_ p 150.

[195] I 143.

[196] Theopompus in Athenaeus 149 d.

[197] I 139 § 2.

[198] VI 91 § 7.

[199] VII 27 § 5.

[200] Trygaeus in Aristoph _Pax_ is a farmer from this district.

[201] III 73, VIII 40 § 2.

[202] III 88 § 3.

[203] II 62 § 3.

[204] _opus cit_ chapters IV, VII.

[205] For instance, in Euboea and Aegina.

[206] III 50. Herodes, whose murder was later the occasion of a speech of Antiphon, is thought to have been one of the cleruchs.

[207] Arnold’s note explains the situation well, and Beloch p 83 agrees.

[208] See the inscription relative to Brea, G F Hill _Sources_ III 317.

[209] See the hint in the speech of Pericles I 143 § 4.

[210] That there was normally much insecurity in rustic life in some parts of Greece, may be inferred from the dance-scene of the farmer and the robber, acted by men from north central Greece in _Anabasis_ VI 1 §§ 7, 8. Daubeny’s Lectures pp 17, 18.

[211] _Hellenica_ II 1 § 1.

[212] _Hellenica_ VI 2 § 37.

[213] Ar _Pol_ VII 6 § 8.

[214] _Anab_ III 2 § 26.

[215] _Anab_ VI 4 § 8.

[216] _Anab_ I 2 § 27, V 6 § 13, VII 3 § 48, 8 §§ 12-19.

[217] _Anab_ IV 1 §§ 12, 13.

[218] _Anab_ V 3 § 4.

[219] _Anab_ IV 8 § 4. It does not appear that the man rejoined his native tribe.

[220] _Anab_ VII 7 § 53.

[221] See the protest of Callicratidas, _Hellen_ I 6 § 14, with Breitenbach’s note.

[222] _Anab_ VII 1 § 36, 2 § 6, 3 § 3.

[223] _Memorab_ II 7.

[224] _Memor_ I 2 § 57, II 7 §§ 4-11, 8.

[225] _Memor_ III 13 § 4.

[226] _Memor_ I 1 § 16, IV 2 §§ 22-31.

[227] _Memor_ I 5 § 2.

[228] _Memor_ III 7 § 6, 9 §§ 11, 15.

[229] _Econ_ 20 §§ 22 foll.

[230] _Econ_ 12 § 3.

[231] _Econ_ 3 §§ 1-5, 5 §§ 15, 16, 12 § 19.

[232] _Econ_ 7-9, 12-14, 21.

[233] _Econ_ 13 § 9, cf 9 § 5.

[234] _Econ_ 12-15.

[235] _Econ_ 14 § 8.

[236] _Econ_ 14 § 9.

[237] _Econ_ 5 § 4, 14 § 2, 20 _passim_.

[238] _Econ_ 5 § 6.

[239] _Econ_ 1 § 4, 4 § 6.

[240] cf _Memor_ II 7 §§ 7-10.

[241] _Econ_ 11 §§ 9, 10.

[242] _Econ_ 20 _passim_.

[243] _Econ_ 21 § 10.

[244] _Econ_ 21 § 12.

[245] _Econ_ 21 § 9.

[246] _Memor_ II 8 especially § 3. For this suggestion that a free man should be steward of a rich man’s estate I can find no parallel. See the chapters on the Roman agricultural writers. The case of the shepherd in Juvenal I 107-8 is not parallel.

[247] _Memor_ II 5 § 2. See _Vect_ 4 § 22 for suggested employment of free citizens or aliens.

[248] _Vectigalia_ ch 4 _passim_.

[249] _Cyrop_ VII 5 § 67, VIII 3 §§ 36-41.

[250] _Cyrop_ IV 4 §§ 5-12, VII 5 §§ 36, 73.

[251] _Cyrop_ VIII 1 §§ 43-4.

[252] Cited from Kock’s edition 1880-8.

[253] _Menandrea_, ed Körte 1910, Teubner.

[254] Fragments 100-24. From other plays, 294, 387.

[255] Cratinus 81, Pherecrates 212.

[256] e.g. Antiphanes 265, Philemon 227, Menander 581, etc.

[257] Philemon 95.

[258] Philemon 213, Menander 68, 716, Hipparchus 2.

[259] Menander 14, Posidippus 23 with Kock’s note.

[260] Pherecrates 10, Crates 14.

[261] Nicophon 13, 14.

[262] Athenaeus VI pp 263, 267 _e_-270 _a_.

[263] Menandrea pp 159-61 (fragments of Γεωργός).

[264] Menandrea pp 157, 159.

[265] _opus cit_ and Menander 97 Kock. For ἄγροικος connoting simplicity cf 794 ἄγροικος εἶναι προσποιεῖ πονηρὸς ὤν.

[266] Menandrea p 155, 96 Kock.

[267] Menandrea p 15 (lines 26, 40).

[268] Menandrea p 13 (line 12, cf 111).

[269] Menandrea p 5.

[270] Menandrea p 25.

[271] Kock III p 473 (adespota 347).

[272] Lucian, Timon 7, 8. Kock adesp 1434, note.

[273] Menander 795.

[274] Menander 642.

[275] Menander 408.

[276] Menander 63, τὰ κακῶς τρέφοντα χωρί’ ἀνδρείους ποιεῖ.

[277] Stobaeus _flor_ LVI 16 preserves an utterance of Socrates on labour, especially agricultural labour, as the basis of wellbeing, in which he remarks that ἐν τῇ γεωργίᾳ πάντα ἔνεστιν ὦν χρείαν ἔχομεν.

[278] ἰδιωτῶν Aristotle _Pol_ II 7 § 1.

[279] Arist _Pol_ II 6 § 13, 12 § 10.

[280] Arist _Pol_ II 7 § 6 and Newman’s note.

[281] Arist _Pol_ II 7, 8.

[282] In _Thucydides and the history of his age_ chapters III-VII.

[283] _Politics_ III 13 § 2.

[284] See Newman on Ar _Pol_ II 7 § 7.

[285] Ar _Pol_ II 6 § 13.

[286] Ar _Pol_ II 12 § 10.

[287] Ar _Pol_ II 7 §§ 3-7.

[288] _Pol_ II 7 _passim_.

[289] _Pol_ II 7 §§ 14, 15.

[290] μυρίανδρον _Pol_ II 8 §§ 2, 3, with notes in Newman.

[291] ‘Artisan’ is not quite = τεχνίτης. All professional work is included.

[292] _Pol_ II 7 §§ 8, 9. The probable influence of Spartan precedents is pointed out in Mr Newman’s note.

[293] See the valuable discussion in Grundy _op cit_ chapter VIII.

[294] Cf Isocr _de pace_ § 69 p 173, §§ 129-131 p 185.

[295] Plato was evidently uneasy at the growing influence of metics, to judge from the jealous rule of _Laws_ p 850. This is in striking contrast with the view of Xenophon.

[296] _Laws_ 630 _b_, cf 697 _e_.

[297] See _Republic_ 565 _a_ on the indifference of the handworking δῆμος. Cf Isocr _de pace_ § 52 p 170.

[298] Cf Xenophon _hell_ VII 5 § 27 on the ἀκρισία καὶ ταραχὴ intensified after Mantinea, 362 BC.

[299] Even Isocrates, who hated Sparta, says of it τὴν μάλιστα τὰ παλαιὰ διασώζουσαν, _Helen_ § 63 ρ 218, and attributes the merits of the Spartan government to imitation of Egypt, _Busiris_ § 17 p 225. He notes the moral change in Sparta, _de pace_ §§ 95 foll pp 178-180.

[300] _Republic_ p 421 _e_, _Laws_ 936 _c_, 744 _e_.

[301] _Laws_ 736 _c_, cf _Rep_ 565 _a_, _b_.

[302] _Republic_ 421 _d_.

[303] _Republ_ 416 _d_, _e_, 417, 464 _c_, 543 _b_.

[304] _Republ_ 540 _e_-541 _a_.

[305] _Republ_ 469-471.

[306] _Republ_ 495 _d_, 590 _c_, 522 _b_. _Laws_ 741.

[307] _Republ_ 374 _c_, _d_.

[308] _Republ_ 433-4.

[309] _Republ_ 468 _a_.

[310] That the speculations of Greek political writers were influenced by the traditions of a primitive communism is the view of Emil de Laveleye _Primitive property_ ch 10.

[311] _Republ_ 463 _b_.

[312] _Republ_ 369 _b_-373 _c_.

[313] Cf Isocrates _Panath_ § 180 p 271.

[314] _Republ_ 547 _b_ foll.

[315] _Republ_ 550-2.

[316] _Laws_ 756. See _Rep_ 565 _a_ with Adam’s note.

[317] _Laws_ 754.

[318] See _Politicus_ 293-7, Grote’s _Plato_ III pp 309-10.

[319] _Laws_ 737 foll, 922 _a_-924 _a_, called γεωμόροι 919 _d_.

[320] _Laws_ 744 _d_, _e_.

[321] _Laws_ 745 _c_-_e_.

[322] _Laws_ 842 _c_-_e_.

[323] _Laws_ 742.

[324] _Laws_ 705.

[325] Rustic slaves, _Laws_ 760 _e_, 763 _a_.

[326] _Laws_ 832 _d_. The artisans are not citizens, 846 _d_-847 _b_.

[327] _Laws_ 806 _d_.

[328] _Laws_ 777 _c_.

[329] _Laws_ 777 _d_-778 _a_, cf 793 _e_.

[330] _Laws_ 838 _d_.

[331] _Laws_ 865 _c_, _d_, cf 936 _c_-_e_.

[332] _Laws_ 720. See _Rep_ 406 on medical treatment of δημιουργοί.

[333] Case of domestics, _Republ_ 578-9.

[334] _Laws_ 776-7.

[335] _Laws_ 690 _b_.

[336] _Politicus_ 262 _d_.

[337] _Politicus_ 289-90, _Republ_ 371, _Laws_ 742 _a_.

[338] _Republ_ 467 _a_, _Laws_ 720 _a_, _b_.

[339] _Laws_ 762 _e_.

[340] _Laws_ 823.

[341] _Republ_ 344 _b_.

[342] _Republ_ 435 _e_-436 _a_, _Laws_ 747 _c_.

[343] _Rep_ 423 _b_, 452 _c_, 544 _d_, _Laws_ 840 _e_.

[344] _Laws_ 886 _a_, 887 _e_.

[345] It is not easy to reach a firm opinion on this matter. The inscribed records are nearly all of a much later age. But even a more informal method of manumission would surely, if common, have left more clearly marked traces in literature. See Index, _Manumission_.

[346] The problem of the worn-out plantation slave was much discussed in the United States in slavery days. An interesting account of the difficulties arising from emancipation in British Guiana is given in J Rodway’s _Guiana_ (1912) pp 114 foll.

[347] _Laws_ 914-5, and an allusion in _Republ_ 495 _e_.

[348] _Laws_ 914 _a_, 932 _d_.

[349] See Lysias XXII, speech against the corn-dealers.

[350] See for instance Andocides _de reditu_ §§ 20-1 p 22 (Cyprus), Isocrates _Trapeziticus_ § 57 p 370 (Bosporus).

[351] Isocr _de bigis_ § 13 p 349.

[352] Isocr _Panegyricus_ § 28 p 46, cf Plato _Menex_ 237 _e_.

[353] Andoc _de myster_ §§ 92-3 p 12, Böckh-Fränkel _Staatsh_ I 372-7. For private letting of farm-lands see Lysias VII § 4-10 pp 108-9 (one tenant was a freedman), Isaeus XI § 42.

[354] Isaeus VI §§ 19-22, VIII § 35, XI §§ 41-4.

[355] Isocr _Areopagiticus_ § 52 p 150.

[356] Lysias I §§ 11, 13, p 92.

[357] Antiphon fragm 50 Blass.

[358] Isocr _Panath_ § 179 p 270.

[359] Isocr _Philippus_ §§ 48-9 pp 91-2.

[360] Isocr _de pace_ §§ 117-8 p 183.

[361] Isocr _Paneg_ §§ 34-7 pp 47-8, _de pace_ § 24 p 164, _Panathen_ §§ 13, 14, p 235, §§ 43-4 p 241, etc.

[362] Isocr _Paneg_ § 132 pp 67-8.

[363] Isocr _Areopag_ § 44 p 148.

[364] Isocr _de pace_ § 90 p 177, _Areopag_ §§ 54-5 pp 150-1, § 83 p 156.

[365] Isaeus VIII § 42 p 73, cf Aristophanes _Nub_ 71-2.

[366] Andocides _de pace_ § 15 p 25, § 36 p 28.

[367] Isocr _de pace_ § 92 p 177.

[368] Lysias VII especially §§ 4-11 pp 108-9.

[369] Lysias VII § 16 p 109.

[370] See especially the _Archidamus_ §§ 8, 28, 87, 88, 96, 97.

[371] Isaeus fragm 3 Scheibe.

[372] Isaeus VI § 33 σὺν τῷ αἰπόλῳ.

[373] See Isocrates _Plataicus_ § 48 p 306 (of Plataeans), and Isaeus V § 39 with Wyse’s note.

[374] I should mention that for simplicity sake I refer to the _Politics_ by the books in the old order. Also that I do not raise the question of the authorship of the first book of the so-called _Economics_, as the point does not affect the argument. In common with all students of the _Politics_ I am greatly indebted to the edition of Mr W L Newman.

[375] This χορηγία includes a population limited in number and of appropriate qualities. _Politics_ VII 4, and 8 §§ 7-9.

[376] _Pol_ VII 4 § 6.

[377] See the story of Peisistratus and the peasant in Ἀθην πολ c 16.

[378] _Economics_ I 5 § 1, 6 § 5, _Pol_ I 7 § 5, and see the chapter on Xenophon.

[379] _Pol_ VI 4 §§ 8-10.

[380] We have a modern analogue in the recent legislative measures in New Zealand and Australia, not to speak of movements nearer home.

[381] See note on Plato, p 75.

[382] Ἀθην πολ cc 11, 12.

[383] A most interesting treatment of this topic is to be found in Bryce’s _South America_ (1912) pp 330-1, 533, where we get it from the modern point of view, under representative systems.

[384] See the general remarks _Pol_ IV 6 § 2, VI 4 §§ 1, 2, 13, 14. For historical points Ἀθην πολ cc 16, 24.

[385] _Pol_ III 15 § 13.

[386] _Pol_ IV 4 §§ 15, 18, cf VII 9.

[387] _Pol_ VI 4 §§ 1, 2, 13.

[388] _Pol_ VI 4 § 11.

[389] Whether the πεπονημένη ἕξις (favourable to eugenic paternity) of _Pol_ VII 16 §§ 12, 13, may include this class, is not clear. In Roman opinion it certainly would.

[390] _Pol_ VII 6 § 8. Xenophon (see p 53) records cases of seamen ashore and in straits working for hire on farms.

[391] See Sandys on Ἀθην πολ c 4.

[392] _Pol_ II 7 § 12.

[393] _Pol_ II 7 § 7.

[394] Severely criticized in _Pol_ II 6 § 15, though adopted by himself. See below.

[395] See _Pol_ VI 5 §§ 8-10, on the measures that may be taken to secure lasting εὐπορία.

[396] Cf IV 15 § 6, etc.

[397] E Barker _The political thought of Plato and Aristotle_.

[398] _Ethics_ II 1 § 4.

[399] _Pol_ VII 16.

[400] _Pol_ VII 8, 9, etc.

[401] _Pol_ VII 10.

[402] This adoption of the split land-lots (see above p 91) is perhaps explained by the fact that the landowners are not αὐτουργοί, so the difficulty of dual residence does not arise.

[403] _Pol_ IV 8 § 5, 9 § 4, etc.

[404] _Pol_ II 6 § 17, 9 §§ 21-2, IV 9 §§ 7-9. The same view is found in Isocrates.

[405] _Pol_ VII 9 § 5.

[406] _Pol_ V 6 §§ 12, 13.

[407] _Pol_ VII 14, 15, VIII 4, cf II 9 § 34.

[408] _Economics_ I 5 § 3 δούλῳ δὲ μισθὸς τροφή. Cf the saying about the ass, _Ethics_ X 5 § 8.

[409] Deinarchus refers (_in Dem_ § 69 p 99) to Demosthenes’ ownership of a house in Peiraeus, and goes on to denounce him as heaping up money and not holding real property, thus escaping taxation. Yet the laws enjoin that a man who is a political leader ought γῆν ἐντὸς ορων κεκτῆσθαι. This wild abuse at least is a sign of existent feelings.

[410] We may at least add slaves.

[411] _Pol_ VII 4 § 6.

[412] Aristotle, like most of the philosophers at Athens, was a metic. See Bernays’ _Phokion_ note 8, in which the notable passage _Pol_ VII 2 §§ 3-7 is discussed.

[413] The author of _Revenues_ (πόροι).

[414] _Pol_ II 3 § 4, 5 § 8.

[415] _Pol_ I 7.

[416] Pol VII 10 § 14, _Econ_ I 5 § 5.

[417] But perhaps to some extent by the author of _Econ_ I 6 § 9.

[418] See _Econ_ I 5 §§ 1, 2, 6 § 5.

[419] _Pol_ II 3 § 4, 5 § 4.

[420] He only once (III 5 § 2) in the _Politics_ mentions ἀπελεύθεροι and once in the _Rhetoric_ (III 8 § 1).

[421] Too often asserted to need references. But _Pol_ III 5 §§ 4-6 is notable as pointing out that τεχνῖται were generally well-to-do, but θῆτες poor.

[422] _Pol_ VII 6 §§ 3-8.

[423] _Pol_ I 8 §§ 3 foll.

[424] _Pol_ I 9.

[425] _Pol_ I 10, 11.

[426] _Pol_ I 11 § 1, and Mr Newman’s note.

[427] _Pol_ I 11 §§ 3-5.

[428] _Rhetoric_ I 9 § 27 πρὸς ἄλλον ζῆν, and Cope’s note.

[429] _Pol_ VI 8 § 3, VII 6 §§ 1-5.

[430] _Pol_ I 2 § 5, 5 §§ 8, 9, cf _Ethics_ VIII 11 § 6.

[431] _Pol_ I 13 § 13, cf II 5 § 28.

[432] _Pol_ I 5, 6.

[433] _Pol_ VII 6 §§ 7, 8.

[434] _Pol_ VII 15 §§ 1-6, VIII 4 §§ 1-5, and a number of passages in the _Ethics_.

[435] Indeed in _Pol_ VII 15 §§ 2-3 he practically says so.

[436] _Pol_ VIII 3 § 7.

[437] _Pol_ VIII 4.

[438] _Pol_ II 5 § 19.

[439] _Pol_ II 10 § 16.

[440] _Pol_ VI 2 § 3, cf 4 § 20, and _Ethics_ X 10 § 13.

[441] _Pol_ VII 12 §§ 3-6.

[442] _Pol_ VII 8 § 7.

[443] II 6 § 6 ἀργοί (in his criticism of Plato’s _Laws_).

[444] _Rhet_ I 12 § 25, cf Plato _Rep_ 565 α αὐτουργοί τε καὶ ἀπράγμονες.

[445] _Rhet_ II 4 § 9, cf Euripides _Orestes_ 918-20.

[446] _de mundo_ 6 §§ 4, 7, 13.

[447] Even after the ruin of Phocis and the peace of 346 BC the old man wrote in the same strain. But it was to Philip, in whom he recognised the real master of Greece, that he now appealed.

[448] References are too numerous to be given here. A _locus classicus_ is Dem _Lept_ §§ 30-3 pp 466-7, on the case of Leucon the ruler of Bosporus. We hear also of corn imported from Sicily and Egypt, and even (Lycurg § 26 p 151) from Epirus to Corinth.

[449] Demosthenes _Olynth_ I § 27 p 17.

[450] (Dem) _c Polycl_ §§ 5, 6 pp 1207-8.

[451] A good case of such investment by guardians is Dem _Nausim_ § 7 p 986.

[452] Dem _F Leg_ § 314 p 442, εἶτα γεωργεῖς ἐκ τούτων καὶ σεμνὸς γέγονας.

[453] See cases in Aeschines _Timarch_ § 97 p 13, Dem _pro Phorm_ §§ 4, 5 p 945. The inheritance of Demosthenes himself included no landed property, _c Aphob_ I §§ 9-11 p 816.

[454] Dem _F Leg_ § 146 p 386, cf § 114 p 376, § 265 p 426, _de cor_ § 41 p 239.

[455] [Dem] _c Phaenipp_ §§ 5-7 pp 1040-1.

[456] Aeschines mentions two ἐσχατιαὶ in the estate of Timarchus.

[457] The lack of ξύλα in Attica made timber, like wheat, a leading article of commerce, and dealing in it was a sign of a wealthy capitalist. Cf Dem _F Leg_ § 114 p 376, _Mid_ § 167 p 568.

[458] I suspect this is an exaggeration.

[459] [Dem] _Lacrit_ §§ 31-3 p 933.

[460] Dem _Androt_ § 65 p 613, repeated in _Timocr_ § 172 p 753.

[461] Dem _Aristocr_ § 146 p 668.

[462] Dem _c Callicl_ _passim_.

[463] ἀστικοῦ, Dem _Callicl_ § 11 p 1274.

[464] [Dem] _Nicostr_ _passim_.

[465] [Dem] _Nicostr_ § 21 p 1253.

[466] Dem _Pantaen_ § 45 p 979.

[467] Dem _Eubulid_ § 65 p 1319.

[468] Aeschin _Timarch_ § 99 p 14.

[469] [Dem] _Euerg Mnes_ §§ 52-3 p 1155.

[470] Twice, §§ 53, 76.

[471] Hyperid _in Demosth_ fragm col 26.

[472] [Dem] _c Timoth_ § 11 p 1187.

[473] Dem _de Cor_ §§ 51-2 p 242.

[474] [Dem] _c Timoth_ § 51 p 1199.

[475] Ibid § 52.

[476] Of course οἰκέτης is often loosely used as merely ‘slave.’ But here the antithesis seems to gain point from strict use.

[477] I have not found this question distinctly stated anywhere. Beauchet _Droit privé_ IV 222 treats the μισθωτοὶ of this passage as freemen. But in II 443 he says that slaves hired from their owners were generally designated μισθωτοί. Nor do I find the point touched in Meier-Schömann-Lipsius (edition 1883-7, pp 889 foll), or any evidence that the πρόκλησις could be addressed to others than parties in a case. Wallon I 322 foll also gives no help.

[478] Dem _Eubulid_ § 63 p 1318.

[479] Hyperides _pro Euxen_, fragm §§ 16, 17, col 12, 13.

[480] Dem _Olynth_ I § 27 p 17.

[481] [Dem] C PHAENIPP §§ 5-7 pp 1040-1, §§ 19-21 pp 1044-5.

[482] ὀπωρώνης, Dem DE COR § 262 p 314.

[483] Dem _Eubulid_ § 45 p 1313, speaking of an old woman.

[484] Aeschin _Timarch_ § 27 p 4.

[485] We have already seen the case of olive-pickers in Aristoph _Vesp_ 712.

[486] See Dem _Mid_ § 48 p 530, etc.

[487] Aeschin _F Leg_ § 156 p 59. The passage of Dem _F L_ to which he refers is not in our text, for §§ 194-5 pp 401-2 is different.

[488] See Plut _Aratus_ 14, 25, 27, 36, 39, 40, _Philopoemen_ 7, 15.

[489] Isocr _paneg_ § 50 p 50.

[490] V 64-5, cf XVII 9, 10.

[491] XVI.

[492] XVII.

[493] XXII, XXV.

[494] XXV.

[495] XXV 1, 51.

[496] XXV 27, cf XXIV 137.

[497] XXV 86-152.

[498] XXV 47-8.

[499] VII 15-6.

[500] III 35, cf XV 80.

[501] X 9, cf 1, XXI 3.

[502] XXIV 136-7.

[503] XX 3, 4.

[504] XVI 34-5.

[505] XXV 56-9.

[506] XIV 58-9, cf 13, 56, where στρατιώτας is a professional soldier.

[507] _Char_ IV (XIV Jebb).

[508] See Plutarch _de garrulitate_ 18.

[509] Plut _Aratus_ 24, _Philopoemen_ 8.

[510] Polyb IV 63.

[511] IV 66.

[512] IV 75, V 1, 3, 19.

[513] X 42, etc.

[514] XVIII 20.

[515] XVI 24, XXI 6, etc.

[516] XXI 34, 36, 43, 45.

[517] V 89.

[518] XXVIII 2.

[519] V 89, cf XXV 4, XXI 6.

[520] This topic is well treated by Mahaffy _Greek Life and Thought_ chapter I.

[521] The best treatment of this matter known to me is in Bernays’ _Phokion_ pp 78-85. See Diodorus XVIII 18, Plutarch _Phoc_ 28.

[522] According to Plut _Cleomenes_ 18, Sparta was very helpless before that king’s reforms. The Aetolians in a raid carried off 50000 slaves, and an old Spartan declared that this was a relief.

[523] Freeman’s _Federal Government_ chapter V.

[524] II 62.

[525] See Strabo VIII 8 § 1 p 388, and cf Plut _Philopoemen_ 13.

[526] Polyb IV 73. Theocritus had spoken of ἱππήλατος Ἆλις (XXII 156). Keeping horses was a mark of wealth.

[527] Theocritus XXII 157 Ἀρκαδία τ’ εὔμαλος Ἀχαιῶν τε πτολίεθρα. Polyb IX 17, and IV 3 (Messenia).

[528] Eubulus fragm 12, 34, 39, 53, 66, Kock. Also other references in Athenaeus X pp 417 foll.

[529] Polyb XX 6. Otherwise Mahaffy in _Gk Life and Thought_ chapter XIII.

[530] _FHG_ II pp 254-64, formerly attributed to Dicaearchus. Cited by E Meyer _Kleine Schriften_ p 137.

[531] II 62.

[532] IV 38.

[533] IV 73, 75.

[534] XXIII 1 § 11.

[535] In the famous case of the siege of Rhodes in 305-4 BC (Diodorus XX 84, 100) freedom seems to have been a _reward_, as has been pointed out by A Croiset.

[536] IV 20, 21. Compare Vergil _Buc_ X 32-3 _soli cantare periti Arcades_, VII 4-5.

[537] In a fragment cited by Athenaeus p 272 _a_, cf 264 _c_. In Hultsch’s text Polyb XII 6.

[538] Cited by Diodorus II 39, and by Arrian _Indica_ 10 §§ 8, 9.

[539] Calderini _la manomissione_ etc chapter V.

[540] See table in Collitz _Dialectinschriften_ II pp 635-42.

[541] παραμονά, παραμένειν.