304 Labour and labourers 



But we must not forget that a parable would have little force if its 

 details were not realistic. 



Of the figures appearing on the agricultural scene we may dis- 

 tinguish the wealthy landlord 1 , whether farming for his own account 

 or letting his land to tenants : the steward 2 farming for his lord's 

 account: the tenant-farmer: probably the free peasant on a small 

 holding of his own. Labour is represented by the farmer working with 

 his own hands, and by persons employed simply as labourers. These 

 last are either freemen or slaves. Slavery is assumed as a normal con- 

 dition, but a reader can hardly help being struck by the notable pas- 

 sages in which the wage-earner appears as a means of illustrating an 

 important point. Does the occurrence of such passages suggest that in 

 these Oriental surroundings wage-service was as common a system as 

 bond-service, perhaps even more so? I hesitate to draw this conclusion, 

 for the following reason. Accepting the fact of slavery (as the writers 

 do), there was not much to be said beyond enjoining humanity on 

 masters and conscientious and respectful service on slaves. But the 

 relation between hirer and hired, presumably a bargain, opened up 

 far-reaching issues of equity, transcending questions of formal law. 

 Hence we hear much about it. That the workman is worthy of his 

 meat (epydTrj<;...Tpo<t>fj<}) is a proposition of which we have an earlier 3 

 version, referring to slaves. The cowardice of the hireling shepherd 

 points a notable moral. The rich who defraud the reaper of his hire 4 

 meet with scathing denunciation. For to him that worketh the reward 

 is not reckoned 5 of grace but of debt. 



This last proposition seems to furnish a key to the remarkable 

 parable 6 of the Labourers in the Vineyard, which has been subjected 

 to many diverse interpretations. If we accept the view that the wages 

 represent the Kingdom of God, and that this reward is granted not of 

 debt but of grace, it is clear that great stress is laid on the autocratic 

 position of the householder (ot/eo8ecr7roT7?9). His treatment of the hired 

 labourers is an assertion of entire indifference to what we call 'economic' 

 considerations. How it is to be interpreted as equitable, theologians 

 must decide, or be content to leave modern handworkers to draw their 

 own conclusions. My interest in the matter may be shewn in the ques- 

 tion whether this householder is to be regarded as a typical figure, or 

 not. I trust I am guilty of no irreverence in saying that to me he 

 seems a purely hypothetical character. That is to say that I take the 

 gist of the parable to be this: if an employer chose to deal with his 



1 Luk ia 16-9, etc. 2 ofcarf/Mf, Luk \i 41-8, 16 1-12, I Cor 4 2. 



3 [Aristotle] Econ I 5 3 SotfXy k jj.ur66s rpo0ij. * James 5 4. 



8 Rom 4 4. 



6 Matt 20 i- 1 6. Abp Trench, Notes on the Parables, has cleared away a mass of 

 perverse interpretations. 



