Work for self or for another 15 



is clear that, while the presence of the slave presupposes the freeman 

 to control him, the presence of the freeman does not necessarily imply 

 that of the slave. Dion Chrysostom 1 was logically justified in saying 

 that freedom comes before slavery in order of time. And no doubt 

 this is true so long as we only contemplate the primitive condition of 

 households each providing for its own vital needs by the labour of its 

 members. But the growth of what we call civilization springs from the 

 extension of needs beyond the limits of what is absolutely necessary 

 for human existence. By what steps the advantages of division of 

 labour were actually discovered is a subject for the reconstructive 

 theorist. But it must have been observed at a very early stage that 

 one man's labour might be to another man's profit. Those who tamed 

 and employed other animals were not likely to ignore the possibilities 

 offered by the extension of the system to their brother men. It would 

 seem the most natural thing in the world. It might be on a very small 

 scale, and any reluctance on the bondsman's part might be lessened by 

 the compensations of food and protection. A powerful master might 

 gather round him a number of such dependent beings, and he had 

 nothing to gain by treating them cruelly. On them he could devolve 

 the labour of producing food, and so set free his own kinsmen to assert 

 the power of their house. In an age of conflict stronger units tended 

 to absorb weaker, and the formation of larger societies would tend to 

 create fresh needs, to encourage the division of labour, and to promote 

 civilization by the process of exchange. Labour under assured control 

 was likely to prove an economic asset of increasing value. In agricul- 

 ture it would be of special importance as providing food for warriors 

 busied with serving the community in war. 



This imaginative sketch may serve to remind us that there are two 

 questions open to discussion in relation to the subject. First, the 

 purely speculative one, whether the early stages of progress~lrTciviliza- 

 tion could have been passed without the help of slavery. Second, the 

 question of fact, whether they were so passed or not. It is the latter 

 with which I am concerned. The defects of the evidence on which we 

 have to form an opinion are manifest. Much of it is not at first hand, 

 and it will often be necessary to comment on its unsatisfactory charac- 

 ter. In proceeding to set it out in detail, I must again repeat that two 

 classes of free handworkers must be clearly kept distinct those who 

 work for themselves, and those who work for others. It is the latter 

 class only that properly come into comparison with slaves. A man 

 habitually working for himself may of course work occasionally for 

 others as a wage-earner. But here, as in the case of the farmer-soldier, 

 we have one person in two capacities. 



1 Oratio xv (i pp 266-7 Dind). 



