58 eTTtjuieXeia and avrovpyla 



must judge him 1 according to a definite standard does he or does he 

 not honestly and zealously discharge his trust? 'When I find that in 

 spite of good treatment they still try to cheat me, I conclude that their 

 greediness is past curing, and degrade them 2 from their charge.' This 

 seems to mean that they are reduced to the position of the ordinary 

 hands. 'But when I observe any induced to be honest 3 not merely be- 

 cause honesty pays best, but because they want to get a word of praise 

 from me, these I treat as no longer slaves (wcnrep e\ev6epoi<; 77877). I 

 not only enrich them, but shew them respect as men of honour.' One 

 is tempted to interpret these last words as implying that actual manu- 

 mission takes place, the services of the men being retained as freedmen. 

 But the words do not say so plainly, and it is safer to read into them 

 no technical sense. That the men are trusted and allowed to earn for 

 themselves, is enough. The agriculture depicted in the Economicus is 

 that of a landowner with plenty of capital, not that of the peasant 

 farmer. The note of it is superintendence 4 (eVtMeXeta), not bodily 

 labour (avrovpyia). In one place avrovpjia is mentioned, when agri- 

 culture is praised, one of its merits being the bodily strength that those 

 gain who work with their own hands. It is as well to repeat here that 

 the fact of a farmer labouring himself does not prove that he employs 

 no other labour. On the other hand there is good reason to infer that 

 the other class, those who 'do their farming by superintendence,' are 

 not manual labourers at all. The benefit to them is that agriculture 

 'makes them early risers and smart in their movements.' The master 

 keeps a horse, and is thus enabled to ride out 5 early to the farm and 

 stay there till late. 



It is remarkable that in this book we hear nothing of hired labourers. 

 There are two references 6 to the earning of pay, neither of them in 

 connexion with agricultural labour. Yet the existence of a class of 

 poor people who have to earn their daily bread 7 is not ignored. 

 Socrates admires the economic skill 8 of Ischomachus. It has enabled 

 him to be of service to his friends and to the state. This is a fine thing, 

 and shews the man of substance. In contrast, 'there are numbers of 

 men who cannot live without depending on others : numbers too who 

 are content if they can procure themselves the necessaries of life.' The 

 solid and strong men are those who contrive to make a surplus and 

 use it as benefactors. I read this passage as indirect evidence of the 

 depression of small-scale free industry and the increase of slave-owning 

 capitalism in the Athens of Xenophon's time. And I find another in- 

 dication 9 of this in connexion with agriculture. In the course of the 



1 Econ 12-15. 2 Econ 14 8. 3 Econ 14 9. 



4 Econ 5 4 , 14 2, 20 passim. 5 Econ 5 6. 6 Econ i 4, 4 6. 



7 cfMemor n 7 7-10. Econ n 9, 10. 9 Econ 20 passim. 



