462 



upsets the whole course (njv njs cpyao-ta? rdtv) and is bad for both crops and 

 land. This again is stale enough, and may be illustrated from Cato and Colu- 

 mella. The rules for organizing the hands in groups of suitable size, so as to 

 get a maximum of efficiency with a minimum of overseers, agree closely with 

 what we find in Columella. Thus there is a strong probability that the labour 

 intended is that of slaves. 



In chapter 46, with same label, the subject is one of scale (irepl /xerpov 

 epyao-ias), the expression of several operations in terms of labour-units (epycurwu, 

 operae). This also is an old story, capable of much illustration from earlier writers. 

 The work contemplated is that of a vineyard. The way in which the hands 

 (epyarcu) are referred to is more suited to a slave-staff than to wage-earners. 



So too in chapter 47, with same label. It is Trepl rfjs T<OI> yo>py<ov vyieias, 

 enjoining general care of the men's health and prescribing remedies for various 

 ailments. It seems taken for granted that the hands will submit to the treat- 

 ment imposed. Remembering the traditional interest of the master in his 

 slaves' health, we can hardly doubt that slaves are meant here. 



Chapter 48, labelled as drawn from Didymus (? fourth or fifth century), is a 

 warning against ill-considered transplantation from better spots to less whole- 

 some ones. The reverse order is the right one. This rule applies not only to 

 plants (<vra) but to farm-workers (yewpyoi) also. The principle can be traced 

 back to earlier writers. It seems assumed that the men, like the plants, can be 

 removed at the master's will. Probably slaves are meant, and we may recall 

 the objections of Varro and Columella to risking slave-property in malarious 

 spots. 



Chapter 49, labelled Bapwi/os, asserts the necessity of keeping such artisans 

 as smiths carpenters and potters on the farm or near at hand. The tools have 

 to be kept in good order, and visits to the town waste time. That this precept 

 comes from Varro i 16 3, 4, seems more than doubtful: reference will shew 

 that the passages differ considerably. 



I would add that the argument prefixed to book in, a farmer's calendar, 

 at least in Beckh's text, gives a list of the months from January to December, 

 attaching to each Roman name the corresponding Egyptian one. The editor 

 apparently accepts this double list as genuine. If it be so, has the fact any 

 bearing on the relations between Constantinople and Egypt referred to above? 



B. THE FARMER'S LAW. 



The so-called 'Farmer's Law,' i/o^os yewpyiKos, is now assigned by the 

 critics to the time of the Iconoclast emperors, say about 740 AD. It is an 

 official document of limited scope, not a general regulative code governing 

 agricultural conditions in all parts of the eastern empire. Its text origin ar- 

 rangement and the bearing of its evidence have been much discussed, and it 

 will suffice here to refer to the articles of Mr Ashburner 1 on the subject. What 



1 In the Journal of Hellenic Studies 1910 and 1912. There the views of Zacharia are 

 discussed. 



