434 Slave and wage-earner 



between an ox-servant arid a man-servant had in practice no existence, 

 arid the days of theory were as yet in the far future. A human enemy, 

 captured and spared, could be put to use in the same way as a domes- 

 ticated ox. His labour, minus the cost of his keep, left a margin of 

 profit to his owner. At the moment of capture, his life was all he had : 

 therefore his conqueror had deprived him of nothing, and the bargain 

 was in his favour, though economically in his owner's interest. No 

 wonder then that our earliest records attest the presence of the slave. 

 Even nomad tribes were attended by slaves 1 in their migrations, nor 

 indeed has this custom been wholly unknown in modern times. On 

 the other hand it is remarkable how very little we hear of wage-earning 

 labour in ancient agriculture. Nothing seems to imply that it was ever 

 a normal resource of cultivation. When employed, it is almost always 

 for special work at seasons of pressure, and it seems to have remained 

 on this footing, with a general tendency to decline. In other words, 

 the margin of profit on the results of wage-earning labour seemed to 

 employers less than that on the results of slave labour, so far as ordinary 

 routine was concerned. And we are not in a position to shew that in 

 their given circumstances their judgment was wrong. But we need to 

 form some notion of the position of the wage-earning labourer in a 

 civilization still primitive. 



The main point ever to be borne in mind is that the family house- 

 hold was a close union of persons bound together by ties of blood and 

 religion under a recognized Head. A common interest in the family 

 property carried with it the duty of common labour. The domestic 

 stamp was on everything done and designed. Even the slave had a 

 humble place in the family life, and family religion did not wholly 

 ignore him. He was there, and was meant to stay there. Farm-work 

 was the chief item in the duties of the household, and he bore, and was 

 meant to bear, his full share of it. But the hired labourer stood in no 

 such relation to the household union, however friendly his connexion 

 with his employer might be. He did his work, took his wage, and 

 went: no tie was severed by his going, and any other person of like 

 capacity could fill his place if and when the need for help-service 

 arose. In short, his labour was non -domestic, irregular, occasional : and 

 therefore less likely to receive notice in such records as have come 

 down to us. But if we conclude (as I am inclined to do) that wage- 

 labour was not much employed on the land in early times, We must 

 admit that this is rather an inference than an attested tradition, y 



The distinction between domestic regular service and non-domestic 

 help-service is essential, and on a small holding from which a family 



1 E Meyer Kl Schriften p 179 will only use the word slaves of a part of these, but the 

 distinction does not matter here. 



