46 1 



only say that an examination of the chapters that are of special interest to me 

 fully bears out this censure. I would add that a reference to the index shews 

 that Cato Columella Pliny (elder) and Palladius are never cited, and express 

 my suspicion that the omission of names is not always a proof that those 

 authors were disregarded as sources. The general character of the work is 

 unscientific and feeble, abounding in quackery and superstition. Technical 

 and dogmatic, it has nevertheless an air of unreality, perhaps due in part to 

 the later editor, but probably in part to the original compiler, whose name is 

 given as Cassianus Bassus, a lawyer (o-xoXao-rtKos), apparently a Byzantine. 



It has been remarked that the cultivation of corn fills but a small space in 

 the Geoponica, being evidently quite a subordinate department of farm-life as 

 there contemplated. Is this an indication that Constantinople was still drawing 

 plenty of corn from Egypt, and may we infer that this feature is due to the 

 original compiler, writing before the loss of that granary-province? I do not 

 venture to answer the question. 



The passages interesting from my point of view occur in the second book, 

 where some reference, scanty and obscure though it be, is made to labour and 

 labourers. A chapter (2) on the classes of labourers suited for various kinds 

 of work is a good specimen of this unsatisfactory treatise. It is labelled 

 Bapwi/os, but we may well hesitate to ascribe the substance to Varro. The rules 

 given are for the most part quite commonplace, and I cannot trace them in 

 Varro's res rustica. On the other hand some of them correspond to precepts 

 of Columella. Whether this is their real source, or whether they are traditional 

 rules handed down carelessly by previous compilers, perhaps on even earlier 

 authority, I see no sure means of determining. The doctrine that boys (TrcuSes) 

 should be employed in field-labour (epyao-ta), to watch and learn from their 

 experienced elders, and the remark that their suppleness fits them better for 

 stooping jobs (weeding etc), is new to me. Varro 1 at least puts the minimum 

 age for field- hands at 2 2. Perhaps this doctrine comes from some later authority, 

 of a time when the old supply of adult field-hands was evidently failing. 



Another chapter, labelled as drawn from Florentinus (? first half of third 

 century), deals with the qualifications and duties of the eTrtVpoTros or OLKOVO^O^ 

 the Roman vilicus. This chapter (44) is also quite commonplace, and can be 

 copiously illustrated out of many authors, from Xenophon and Cato to Colu- 

 mella and Pliny. The exact meaning of one passage (3) is not clear to me, 

 but its general drift is in agreement with the rest. The notable point about the 

 chapter is that it discusses the steward and his staff as forming the ordinary 

 establishment of a farm. Are we to infer that this system was normal at the 

 time when the compiler put together the precepts under this head? Or is this 

 a case of unintelligent compilation, a mere passing-on of doctrines practically 

 obsolete by a town-bred writer in his study ? I cannot tell. The consideration 

 of further details may give some help towards a judgment. 



The next chapter (45), with the same label, treats of the steward's diary and 

 the organization of the hands (epyarcu). The main doctrine is that every day 

 must have its task, and every plan be punctually carried out, since one delay 



i Varro RR I 17 3, 4- 



