Personal labour and direction 13 



and Dion Chrysostom ; and sometimes, when the word is not used, it 

 is represented by equivalents. But both the hired labourer and the 

 slave were employed for the express purpose of working with their own 

 hands. ""And yetj" solaiTas agriculture is concerned, I cannot rind that 

 theyjwej;ej^ejdite^j^ith avToygyia 2 the connotation 1 of which is generally 

 favourable, seldom neutral, never (I think) unfavourable. It seems then 

 that the figure present to the mind was one who not only worked with 

 his own hands, but worked for his own profit -that is, on his own 

 farm^And with this interpretation the traditions of early Rome fully 

 agree. 



To admit this does not however imply that the working house- 

 master employed neither hired labourer nor slave^So long as he took 

 a hand in the farm-work, he was a working cultivator for his own profit. 

 The larger the scale of his holding, the more he would need extra 

 labour. If prosperous, he would be able to increase his holding or sup- 

 plement his farming 2 by other enterprises. /^More and more he would 

 be tempted to drop handwork and devote himself to direction. If still 

 successful, he might move on a stage further, living in the city and 

 carrying on his farms by deputy.) employ ing stewards, hired freemen 

 or slaves, or freedmen, his former slaves. If he found in the city more 

 remunerative pursuits than agriculture, he might sell his land and the 

 live and dead stock thereon, and become simply an urban capitalist. 

 So far as I know, this^j^st^ste^ was very seldom taken 7 ar> d I believe 

 the restraining influence to have been the prestige attached to the 

 ownership of land, even when civic franchises had ceased to depend on 

 the possession of that form of property alone. If this view be correct, 

 the fact is notable: for the system of great landed estates, managed 

 by stewards 3 on behalf of wealthy owners who lived in the city, was 

 the ruin of the peasant farmer class, in whose qualities statesmen and 

 philosophers saw the guarantee for the state's lasting vigour. No longer 

 were avrovpyol a force in politics: in military service the professional 

 soldier, idling in the intervals of wars, superseded the rustic, levied for 

 a campaign and looking forward to the hour of returning to his plough. 

 It was in Italy that the consummation of this change was most marked, 

 for Rome alone provided a centre in which the great landlord could 

 reside and influence political action in his own interest. To Rome the 

 wealth extorted from tributary subjects flowed in an ever-swelling 

 stream. No small part of the spoils served to enrich the noble land- 

 lords, directly or indirectly, and to supply them with the funds needed 



1 To this topic I return in the concluding chapter. See chapter on Aristotle. 



2 See chapter on Cato. 



3 For the existence of this system in Modern Italy see Bolton King and Okey Italy today 

 PP 174-5- 



