Position of stewards 59 



dialogue it appears that the chief points of agricultural knowledge are 

 simple enough : Socrates knew them all along. Why then do some 

 farmers succeed and others fail ? The truth of the matter is, replies 

 Ischomachus, that the cause of failure is not want of knowledge but 

 want of careful superintendence. This criticism is in general terms, 

 but it is surely inapplicable to the case of the working peasant farmer: 

 he who puts his own labour into the land will not overlook the short- 

 comings of a hired man or a slave. In the agriculture of which this 

 book treats it is the practical and intelligent self-interest of the master 

 that rules everything. His appearance on the field 1 should cause all 

 the slaves to brighten up and work with a will: but rather to win his 

 favour than to escape his wrath. For in agriculture, as in other pursuits, 

 the ultimate secret of success 2 is a divine gift, the power of inspiring a 

 willing obedience. 



I have kept back one passage which needs to be considered with 

 reference to the steward 3 . Gan we safely assume that an eVtr/?o7ro9 was 

 always, or at least normally, a slave? Of those who direct the labourers, 

 the real treasure is the man who gets zealous and steady work out of 

 the hands, whether he be steward or director (eVtr/ooTro? or ^TTLO-T/ITIJ^). 

 What difference is connoted by these terms ? In the Memorabilia* 

 Socrates meets an old friend who is impoverished by the results of the 

 great war, and driven to earn his living by bodily labour. Socrates 

 points out to him that this resource will fail with advancing age : he 

 had better find some employment less dependent on bodily vigour. 

 'Why not look out for some wealthy man who needs an assistant in 

 superintendence of his property? Such a man would find it worth his 

 while to employ you as director (or foreman, epytav eTrio-rarovvTa), to 

 help in getting in his crops and looking after his estate.' He answers 

 'it would gall me to put up with a servile position (8ov\ei,av).' Clearly 

 the position of eTrtardrrj^ appears to him a meaner occupation than 

 free wage-earning by manual labour. In another place 5 we hear of an 

 eTTLo-rdrr)^ for a mine-gang being bought for a talent (2 3 5). That 

 superintendents, whatever their title, were at least normally slaves, 

 seems certain. As to the difference between 'steward' and 'director' 

 I can only guess that the former might be a slave promoted from 

 the ranks, but might also be what the 'director' always was, a new 

 importation. It seems a fair assumption that, as a free superintendent 

 must have been a new importation, a specially bought slave 'director' 

 would rank somewhat higher than an ordinary 'steward,' whose title 



1 Econ 21 10. 2 Econ 21 12. 3 Econ 21 9. 



4 Memor n 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. 



5 Memor n 5 2. See Vect 4 22 for suggested employment of free citizens or aliens. 



