AGRICULTURE, TRADE, AND HANDICRAFT.
The Ancient Greek Prejudice Against Labour--Cultivation of the
Soil--Agricultural Implements--Cattle Rearing--Handicrafts--The
Organisation of Labour--Various Trades--Wholesale and
Retail--Bankers and Money-Changers.
The domains on which the activity of the ancients was chiefly
concentrated were agriculture and cattle rearing, trade, and handicraft.
Intellectual or artistic labour, which at the present day plays a very
important part as a means of earning a livelihood, was hardly considered
at all in Ancient Greece, and the artist, if he worked for pay, was put
on the same footing as the artisan; in fact there were very few
intellectual professions connected with money. These circumstances
changed somewhat in the Hellenistic period; but even there the
intellectual labour of teachers, physicians, etc., would be placed in
the same class with other occupations, though gradually, as the payment
of this labour increased, so did also the estimation in which it was
held.
As to the statistical relation in which agriculture, industry, and trade
stood to one another, there were naturally many changes as civilisation
advanced; and again, local circumstances in every part of Greece, in
every district, and perhaps even every city, as well as the geographical
position, the nature of the land, the adaptability of the soil for
cultivation, etc., were of importance for these branches; and again,
peculiarities of race, national prejudices, were often of great weight
in the choice of a profession. It was an idea not peculiar to the Doric
races, though most strongly developed among them, that in reality every
kind of work done for pay was unsuitable for a citizen, and that his
whole activity should be given without reward to the State; but this
theory--though the main features of it are defended even by philosophers
such as Plato and Aristotle, and it rests on the assumption that every
citizen must have sufficient possessions for himself and his family, and
obtain what he requires by the labour of slaves--was only gradually
developed, and was quite foreign to the Homeric age, as well as to the
period immediately following, in which Hesiod could venture to say that
not work but idleness was disgraceful. Changes in political conditions
produced other changes as well. When the old Monarchy was succeeded by
the rule of the Oligarchs, and the privileged class being in possession
of landed property and numerous slaves, devoted its whole activity to
military and political matters, the prejudice originated that only such
occupations were worthy of a free and noble citizen, and that all work
was low and servile; and it is natural that this opinion should have
been obstinately maintained at Sparta, because the constitution there
kept the character of the Oligarchy most rigidly. In other places a
healthier conception of work gradually prevailed, and, in particular,
the tyrants of the older period tried to combat the disinclination of
the citizens for professional activity; in their case, however, it was
not only reasons of political economy, but also political expediency
that influenced them, since they did not wish to see their rule
threatened by an unoccupied warlike population longing for a share in
the government. But these efforts were only partially crowned with
success, and though in the time of absolute democracy many citizens
practised occupations connected with money, yet the old idea still
prevailed that those really stood on a higher footing whose fortune
permitted them to live without any definite occupation, and we
constantly meet with traces of it even in a philosopher like Socrates,
whose statement that idleness was the sister of freedom reflects the
opinion of the majority with particular emphasis.
The prejudice against many professions was not equally directed against
all. Agriculture was least liable to it. In the heroic period,
agriculture was the chief occupation, not only of the lower classes, but
even of the nobles and princes, who regarded it as no disgrace to
perform with their own hands, or superintend, many duties connected with
farming. It was natural that a change should be gradually introduced in
these patriarchal conditions, and this was due not only to political
revolutions, but also to the advance of civilisation, and the growth of
industrial and commercial life in Greece; yet agriculture always
remained one of the most respected occupations, especially in those
states whose geographical position cut them off from trade, and the
nature of whose soil was suited for agriculture and cattle-rearing; in
these places the citizens too took part in these occupations, though in
other places, especially at Sparta, any work performed with the hands
was regarded as unsuitable for citizens, and was assigned to slaves or
free subjects. In the large towns, such as Athens, where trade and
industry attained a great height, and democracy, growing freer and
freer, tended to advance idleness by official gifts to citizens, such as
the show-money and public meals, agriculture lost in general estimation,
and the citizen of a large town regarded the industrious countryman as
a creature of a lower rank. This was but natural, and we find analogy
for it in many of our modern conditions. Local circumstances naturally
had a good deal to do in determining the position occupied by an
agricultural population. Where the land was good and the profits
considerable, the farmer occupied a better position than in those places
where but a poor harvest rewarded his toil. The soil of Greece was not
everywhere suited for agriculture, and in many places it required the
most careful labour to win any fruits from it. In Hellas, the
mountainous districts are more extensive than the plains suitable for
cultivation; consequently in many places they had to construct
artificial terraces, because the stony ground would not otherwise have
borne any fruit. In other places too, want of water, which in the hot
season of the year often amounted to actual drought, necessitated
artificial irrigation by means of canals and drainage, and again, the
mountain brooks, which often overflowed their banks in the rainy season
and threatened destruction to the fields, had to be regulated by means
of dykes. Descriptions of such structures have come down to us, and many
traces of them may still be found in Greece, some of them even pointing
to very considerable technical knowledge; the State, too, sometimes
undertook work of this kind, as is proved by the office of
water-superintendent, who, in many places, had the control of the
natural and artificial watercourses, and whose duty it was to prevent
undue use, and to inflict fines in such cases.
We know very little about the management of farms and the arrangements
for dividing land among large landowners or small cultivators, in the
separate districts of Greece. Greek antiquity shows no traces of
_latifundia_, such as gradually made way in Italy; there were some large
estates with numerous slave-workers, but small farms were commonest. In
some districts, as for instance in Arcadia, a small peasantry were the
chief part of the population, and it is not surprising, therefore, that
even the leaders of the State did not shrink from taking part in
agricultural labour, though the larger landowners left this to their
slaves and overseers. The Athenians, however, regarded the rough manners
of these smaller farmers as coarse, and the citizens of the larger
towns, accustomed to the refinements of ordinary life, mocked at their
rustic manners; we scarcely ever find any recognition of the fact that a
strong and healthy race of peasants together with an industrious
middle-class is the best means for maintaining the life of a state.
In its technical aspects, ancient agriculture remained in much the same
state throughout the whole of antiquity as it occupied in the heroic
age, and probably this was the common inheritance of the Indo-Germanic
race. In Homer, we find the custom, which always prevailed afterwards,
of alternating only between harvest and fallow; even the succeeding ages
seem to have known nothing of the rotation of crops. The implements used
for the necessary farming occupations were of the simplest kind, in
particular the primitive plough, which was not sufficient to tear up the
earth, so that they had to use the mattock in addition; they had no
harrow or scythe, in place of which they used the sickle, and their
threshing arrangements were most unsatisfactory, since they simply drove
oxen, horses, or mules over the threshing floor, and beat out the ears
with their hoofs, by which means a great part of the harvest was lost.
It was only the large number of labourers at the disposal of the
farmers, in consequence of the numerous slaves, to which at times, when
there was a press of work, they added hired labourers, and the great
care taken in manuring and improving the ground, etc., that enabled them
to earn a living at all. Great wealth was never attained in ancient
Greece by agriculture, certainly not by growing corn; vines and olives
supplied better profits, though here too the instruments used were of
the simplest, but the ground was especially favourable to their
cultivation. Oil, in particular, could be supplied by Greece to foreign
countries, but corn did not grow in a quantity sufficient to provide
their own population, and consequently they had to import a great deal
from foreign countries, especially from the Black Sea, and afterwards
too from Egypt.
[Illustration: FIG. 196.]
Greek writers give us very little information about the life of the
country people; a few simple pictures taken from vase paintings afford
some little notion of it. Fig. 196 represents three countrymen
surrounded by a variety of animals: deer, lizards, a tortoise, a
strange bird, and another creature, perhaps meant to represent a locust;
each of the men is directing a plough drawn by two oxen, holding the
handle in one hand, and in the other the goad-stick for urging on the
beasts. Behind one of the ploughmen walks a man with a large basket on
his left arm, in which, no doubt, there are supposed to be seeds, which
he is about to strew with his right hand. Fig. 197 represents a scene
from the olive harvest. On the right and left of an olive tree sit two
men, before them on the ground stand jars; one of them holds a little
flask in his left hand, and appears to be squeezing the juice of an
olive into it through a funnel, in order to test the quality of the
harvest. The inscription on the picture is, “O, Father Zeus, would that
I might grow rich!” The reverse side of the vessel, not represented
here, shows the fulfilment of this simple prayer in the picture and
inscription.
[Illustration: FIG. 197.]
Cattle-rearing played a very important part in Greek farming. In the
time of Homer it even exceeded agriculture in importance; the wealth of
great people at that time consisted chiefly in herds; to give cattle as
a bridal gift was very common; in calculations of value cattle formed
the basis instead of coined money, which was at that time unknown. The
kinds especially cultivated in the historic period were horses, asses,
mules, and oxen, and also sheep, goats, and swine. Except in a few
districts, horse-rearing was of little importance. The mountainous
nature of the country made the use of horses for driving difficult, nor
do they seem to have been required for carrying burdens; they were
chiefly used for riding purposes, for the cavalry, and also for
travelling, racing, etc.; and in connection with racing horse-rearing
became a favourite occupation of the aristocracy, and almost a mania at
Athens at the time of the Peloponnesian war, when many young men were
ruined by it. Horse-rearing was best developed in Thessaly, where the
wide plains were suitable for the purpose. The Thessalian cavalry was
always noted for its quantity and excellence. For domestic use mules and
asses took the place of horses, especially as beasts of burden. The
mules were used for drawing and for the plough, while the asses were
chiefly employed for carrying burdens. Cattle-rearing seems to have been
more important in the Homeric age than afterwards, when the needs of the
population could not be satisfied by the home growth, and importation of
foreign cattle from the Black Sea and from Africa was necessary. The
small number of herds of cattle was probably due to the fact that in
Greek antiquity very little cow’s milk was drunk, but chiefly goat’s
milk. Sheep-rearing, however, was very general, and brought to great
perfection, since they not only used the flesh and milk of the sheep for
food, but in particular required their skin and wool for clothing. Linen
was not much worn; the country people wore sheepskins, and the rest of
their dress was almost entirely made of sheep’s wool. Excellent
qualities of this were produced by Hellas proper, as well as by the
Greek colonies in Asia Minor and Lower Italy, and a great deal of it was
exported to foreign countries, where the woollen stuffs of Asia Minor,
Attica, and Megara, were held in great repute from most ancient times.
Goats were chiefly kept for the sake of the milk; the skins were used by
the peasants for clothing. The goat’s hair was woven into stuff, not in
Greece itself, but probably in Northern Africa and Cilicia, where a kind
of coarse cloth was manufactured of it, which however was not often used
for clothing. The facility of goat-rearing, which required no special
care, and could be carried on even on rocky ground, where but little
grass grew, enabled it to become very extensive, and we find it, in
fact, throughout almost the whole of Greece in ancient times.
Swine-rearing, on the other hand, played a very small part, for it was
not sufficiently remunerative. Although the flesh was used for food,
yet, in the historic period it was not so popular a dish as in the age
of Homer, and they did not understand how to draw a profit in other ways
from swine. Cattle-rearing was conducted on tolerably rational
principles. They were very careful in the choice of the animals used for
breeding, and in very early times attempts were made to improve the race
by importing foreign kinds from other countries. The cattle were chiefly
fed on pasture; the herds were driven out not only in summer, but even
in winter, when the climate permitted it; and in summer they were taken
to the mountains and forests, in winter to the plains. The sheep got
most attention, because the excellence of the wool depended on the care
they received, and Diogenes is supposed to have said that it was better
at Megara to be a ram than the son of a citizen, for the sheep were
carefully covered up, but the children were allowed to run about naked.
This custom of covering the sheep with skins to preserve the wool
existed in other places too. As Greece was not rich in pasture land,
there was a difficulty occasionally in providing sufficient pasture for
the herds; sometimes they had to be sent to very distant parts, it even
happened that states made treaties together, which permitted the
citizens of one state to use the pasture land of another for a fixed
period.
During the Homeric age, handicraftsmen seem to have been in a position
which, corresponding to the ideas entertained in ancient times about
physical labour, was by no means despised. This is easily
comprehensible, since even the gods were represented as undertaking the
labour of artisans; Hephaestus working at a forge, Athene weaving; and
we find even the heroes, the princes, and nobles sometimes themselves
working as carpenters and joiners, and with their own hands constructing
some object for their home; nowhere in Homer do we find a trace of
contempt for hand-work. Of course, handicrafts were not much developed
at that time, and there were only a small number of crafts which could
be looked upon as actual trades, such as that of smiths, workers in
gold, carpenters, stone masons, etc., while many occupations which
afterwards formed a distinct trade were performed at home by the masters
and slaves. In later times a very important change took place connected
with the political and social revolutions already mentioned.
Agriculture and cattle-rearing were still regarded as an occupation
which a free citizen might carry on without degrading himself, since the
more menial part of the work was performed by slaves or hired labourers,
and the master only superintended; but the work of the handicraftsmen
was designated by them with the word mechanical (βάναυσος), a word
indicating a contempt that cannot be expressed in the translation. This
word expressed the full scorn felt by the free citizen living on his own
fortune, and devoting all his intellectual and physical powers to the
State--of the gentleman, in fact--for the man with the horny hand, who
toiled in his workshop to earn his daily bread. This reproach of
“mechanical” was never aimed at the rich owner of a number of slaves,
who worked for his benefit; a factory owner need not take part in the
work himself, but had his overseers to attend to that; it was the little
man who had no other hands to work for him, and who wielded the hammer
himself, or who worked the cloth in the fuller’s shop, whom they looked
down on. In vain wise lawgivers tried to call the attention of the
citizens to the blessing of handicraft, and the honourable nature of
this occupation; in vain the democrats gave political equality to
artisans by permitting them to vote and speak in the Assembly of the
people along with the other citizens; while there was even a law
forbidding anyone publicly to reproach a citizen with his occupation.
There were some states in which an important part of the prosperity
depended on handicrafts, and there a more moderate view gradually made
way, but, generally speaking, the contempt for handicraft remained and
continued, the rather as even philosophers regarded it as but a
necessary evil. Doubtless they recognised the usefulness of
handicrafts, but still they maintained that work of this kind in the
workshop, near the hot furnace or in the gloomy room, was not suited to
a free citizen, and that the effort of gaining money which was connected
with it was injurious to the mind, and made it coarse and uncultivated,
and it was thus that the word _banausos_ came to be synonymous with
common, low, and stupid. No wonder that even the artists, whose work
depended on handicraft, and who, with few exceptions, worked for pay,
were put in the same class with shoemakers, bakers, and smiths! It is
strange indeed, that this depreciation of handicraft observed throughout
Greek literature in no way prevented the development and perfection of
the technical arts of Greece. There were many branches of it which
continued for centuries at the same point without making any technical
advances; but still trades attained a high degree of perfection in
antiquity, though it was chiefly in those where the practical element
was not as important as the artistic that the natural sense of beauty of
the Greeks made itself felt, so that there are numerous productions of
ancient handicraft which even our modern trades cannot rival. In fact,
we might almost say that, with the exception of such trades as bakers,
butchers, or fullers, Greek handicraft in almost every branch developed
into art, while at the present day there are only a few branches which
rise above the ordinary craft level.
The handicrafts were partly in the hands of citizens, and partly in
those of free settlers (μέτοικοι) and slaves. The proportion in which
they were divided among these three classes varied a good deal according
to time and the nature of the occupation. At Athens the number of free
citizens who carried on handicrafts was not small, in spite of the
contempt in which they were held; in Peloponnesus, it was only Sparta
where the free citizen kept aloof from all trades, while in the other
states the conditions were much the same as at Athens and elsewhere. The
resident foreigners formed a very important part of the workmen; at the
time when industry flourished most in Attica, trade seems to have been
almost entirely in their hands; and it is but natural that in those
countries where the free citizens kept aloof from trade, the settlers
who performed their labour with the help of slaves should have formed a
great part of the working population. Every master workman whose
position permitted kept working slaves; rich capitalists invested their
money in large undertakings, in which the work was done by a great
number of slaves, who either belonged to them or were hired for the
purpose. We shall have occasion later on to discuss the conditions under
which they worked.
We know very little about the organisation of labour. There were no
castes compelled by law to undertake certain trades, though in some
places special occupations were hereditary; thus, for instance, at
Sparta, the cooks and flute players always belonged to particular
families. Otherwise, when we find any occupation hereditary, this is not
due to legal compulsion, but to natural causes; thus the sons of
sculptors very often became sculptors, or the medical profession was
handed down in certain families, and so on. Nor do we meet with the
guilds so early developed in Italy; these are not heard of until the
Roman period, when we find them in Asia Minor. It is uncertain to what
extent the State was concerned with trade and its productions. There do
not seem to have been any limitations put upon it except certain police
regulations, such as that at Athens, which compelled tanners and
cheesemongers to have their workshops and booths outside the denser
parts of the city on account of the smell. There do not seem to have
been any taxes on trade; at Athens there was a toll on hetaerae; at
Byzantium jugglers, soothsayers, etc., paid one; but there is no reason
to suppose that handicrafts were taxed in the same way.
[Illustration: FIG. 198.]
It would be impossible to enter into the technical details of all the
trades. A few pictures taken from the life of artisans must suffice
instead. The terra-cotta figure, No. 198, represents an artisan in his
usual costume, the exomis, which left the right side free, and the
pilos, or felt cap; it is not clear from the picture what occupation he
is carrying on, since the object in his left hand is not distinct. Fig.
199 introduces us to a shoemaker at his work; he is seated on a low
stool in front of his work-table, and with one hand holds a piece of
leather, stretched over a board of hard wood; he is just about to cut it
out with the curved shoemaker’s knife; a second knife is suspended above
near some shoes, a hammer, and some strips of leather on the wall. Fig.
200 also introduces us into a shoemaker’s workshop. Here a girl is being
measured for a pair of shoes; for this purpose she has got
[Illustration: Fig. 199.]
on the table, so that the bearded workman, who is sitting in front of
it, may mark the outline of her soles on the leather on which she is
standing. In his right hand the shoemaker holds his crescent, a knife
with a curved blade; the apprentice, seated on the other side, is
holding a piece of leather bent together, probably destined to make the
upper part of the shoes. A white-haired old man, perhaps the master of
the workshop, or the father of the girl, stands by giving directions;
tools, lasts, strips of leather, and such like, are hung round on the
walls. Fig. 201, the counterpart to Fig. 200, represents a smithy. Near
the hearth, of which only a portion can be seen, crouches a young
workman, holding a piece of iron on the anvil with the forceps in his
right hand, while another workman, also without any clothing, strikes
the iron with a massive hammer, suspended above his head by both hands.
Two men wearing the himation, perhaps visitors to the workshop, are
seated on low stools. On the ground lie a hammer and forceps; on the
walls hang tools, such as hammers, chisels, drills, and productions of
the workshop, viz. a sword and a can.
Fig. 202 introduces us to the workshop of an artist and a metal founder.
In the presence of two men dressed in the himation, leaning on their
sticks, two workmen are occupied in chiselling or working over the
colossal figure of a warrior, represented in a posture of attack, which
is placed under a scaffolding. There is another colossal figure of a
naked youth, who has fallen to the ground, and is stretching out his
arms as though praying for help. Here the head has not yet been added,
for as a rule the ancients composed their large bronze figures in
several pieces; the head lies on the ground near the statue, at which a
workman is doing something with his hammer, perhaps trying to smooth
away roughness produced in the casting. This second figure seems to be
connected with the first, and the whole to represent a group of
combatants. A little further is the furnace, behind which stands an
assistant looking round; a workman crouching on a low stool wears the
cap usually worn by labourers with fire, and consequently represented in
pictures of Hephaestus; he is stoking the coals in the
[Illustration: FIG. 200.]
furnace to a fresh glow with a long pole curved at the end, and a second
apprentice stands looking at him, leaning on his hammer. On the walls
hang a variety of tools--hammers, files, a saw, etc.; also models of
feet and heads, and little tablets representing sketches of whole men
and animals.
No less interesting is the workshop of a vase painter, represented in
Fig. 203. Here we see a youth seated in an armchair, with a large
two-handled cup on his knee, which he is painting with the brush held in
his right hand; near him stands a little low table, on which are several
pots containing paints or varnish. Behind him a young apprentice, who
also has pots on the ground near him, is painting a large amphora; on
the right a second boy and a girl are working at a cup and another
amphora, while a jar and a large drinking-cup (κάνθαρος) stand on the
ground, and other vessels hang on the wall. Athene, the patroness of the
arts, and Nike are hasting to crown the skilful labourers as the reward
of industry.
It is difficult to determine the kind of work which the magnificent old
man in Fig. 204, a terra-cotta figure from Tanagra, is doing; in front
of him is a board with which he is occupied, and a little gridiron. Some
have pronounced him a baker, others a maker of plaster of Paris tablets,
others a tanner; perhaps he might be a cook, seated in the street, and
frying some quickly-cooked dish over the gridiron, in order to sell it
to the common people, who often procured their food in this way from
travelling cooks.
Even worse than the position of the artisans was that of the hired
workmen, that is, those labourers who, though free citizens, had not
learnt any technical art with which they could earn their living, and
who were therefore obliged to hire themselves out for
[Illustration: FIG. 201.]
hard bodily labour. Not only citizens, but even their wives, were often
driven by need to perform such menial offices as day labourers in mills
or in the fields; many such workmen carried weights in the harbour, or
helped to load or unload the goods, to carry stones for building, etc.
The pay was very small, if only on account of the competition of slave
labour; sometimes a day’s wages was three or four obols, though higher
amounts are mentioned. The fleets, and in particular the rowing boats,
were manned out of this class, which was socially regarded as the
lowest, and which bore the name of “thetes.”
[Illustration: FIG. 202.]
In the eyes of the Greeks, tradesmen stood on the same footing as
mechanical labourers. There was, of course, a distinction; if the
cultured Greek, who occupied himself only with higher intellectual
pursuits, despised the artisan because he regarded his bodily activity
as unworthy of a free man, the tradesman seemed to him contemptible
because he was influenced only by desire for gain, and all his striving
was to get the advantage over others. The
[Illustration: FIG. 203.]
profit and wealth accruing to so many Greek states from trade was not
sufficient to decrease the prejudice against money-making occupations,
even the common people were not able to understand that the merchant, on
account of the risk of injury, or even loss of his goods, changing
conditions of price, and all his own trouble involved, was obliged to
demand a higher price for his wares than what had been originally paid
by himself; and the opinion that the merchant’s business was based on
love of gain and deceit was so common that even a philosophical
intellect like Aristotle’s was under the influence of this prejudice. It
is possible that the Greek merchants often deserved the reputation of
dishonesty which they bore; their predecessors, the Phoenicians, who had
formerly carried on the whole trade of Greece, had not unduly been
reproached with deceit and even robbery and piracy, and it is possible
that there were traces of this still visible in the Greek merchants.
Still the contempt for the merchant class was not equally directed at
all; the wholesale dealer who imported his wares from a distance, and
had little personal contact with the public, was less affected by it; in
trading cities, such as Aegina and Athens, a great number of the rich
citizens belonged to this class. But the small trader was the more
exposed to the reproach of false weights and measures, adulteration of
goods, especially food, and all manner of deceitful tricks. Some
complaints were made that are still heard at the present day, that the
wine dealers mixed water with their wine, that the cloth-workers used
artificial dressing to make their materials look thicker, that the
poulterers blew out the birds to make them seem fatter, etc. Worst of
all was the reputation of the corn dealers. The division between
[Illustration: FIG. 204.]
wholesale and retail traders seems to have been somewhat sharper in
Greek antiquity than at the present day, partly because the former were
not only merchants but also seafarers. The wholesale dealers as a rule
were owners of ships; they fetched their goods themselves on their
journeys, or commissioned responsible subordinates in their place. The
ship was laden at home with goods which were likely to find a good sale
at the port to which she journeyed; of course the owner made inquiries
beforehand about the best places for disposing of his goods, the private
conditions, possible competition, etc. It was, therefore, very important
to hit the right moment, and artificial manoeuvres for sending up the
price of goods were not unknown. Arrived at their destination, the wares
were publicly sold, for which purpose bazaars were erected in large
harbours; then the goods were either bought collectively by a wholesale
dealer, or in small quantities by smaller traders; there were also
agents who undertook the mediation between the buyer and seller in
return for a commission. As a rule, therefore, goods were purchased with
the money, chiefly products of the country which might be sold with
advantage at home; it was almost necessary to make fresh purchases,
since the money of another state would have no value at home, though
Attic money could pass current anywhere. A merchant did not always
content himself with putting in at one single port; he often visited a
succession of neighbouring ports, calling at smaller stations on the
way, sometimes selling, sometimes buying, and often the cargo of a ship
changed three or four times during a journey. Probably these wholesale
dealers did not deal only with particular goods as at the present day,
but took anything which was likely to find a good sale, such as corn,
wine, oil, honey, skins, wool, clothes, textile ware, metal work, even
statues and books. Payment was made in coined money, and the calculation
cannot always have been an easy one, owing to the variety of money
systems prevailing in antiquity. In the Homeric age barter was usual,
but afterwards this ceased in civilised countries, though in some
districts, as for instance the neighbourhood of the Black Sea, it
continued for some time longer.
Very different was the position and occupation of the retail dealer or
pedlar. He did not travel by sea, scarcely even by land, but usually
carried on his business at one place; he either bought his goods direct
from the producers or from the wholesale dealers, and offered them for
sale in open shops or in booths on the market-place; in large towns
there were special stands or markets for particular goods, but those who
offered their wares at these places were usually the producers
themselves, thus at the Pot Market at Athens, the wares were offered by
real potters, who had doubtless made them themselves. We must therefore
distinguish between shopkeepers who lived only by trade, and did not
themselves produce, and producers, who brought their own goods to
market; the latter were regarded as merchants by the ancients, and the
hatred, where it existed, was chiefly directed at the small shopkeepers,
who sold their wares for as high prices as possible. In small cities the
circumstances may have been somewhat different, for it was only the most
important trades connected with food and clothing that were carried on
there, and many branches were not represented at all; consequently many
kinds of goods had to be imported for sale by the small shopkeepers. No
doubt the inhabitants of the small towns and even the country people
often went to the capital to satisfy their wants, especially to the
great markets held on fixed days of the month, usually on the first; the
national festivals too provided opportunities for many kinds of
purchases, since a sort of fair was usually connected with them.
In the market-places of large towns there were usually covered arcades
in which the merchants and dealers set up their wares; in some places
there were market-halls of this kind for special goods, such as corn,
oil, ointments, etc. Besides these permanent places of sale, there were
light booths of a temporary nature, constructed in tent fashion of woven
reeds and linen. The life in the market-place probably resembled that of
the present day in the south; the custom of calling out and extolling
goods existed in ancient Greece as well, and so did the excessive
demands of the seller and the depreciation on the part of the purchaser,
and even the notorious rudeness of the fish-wives seems to have been
known to the Greeks. We find mention also of peddling, and carrying
wares from house to house, and this was chiefly the case with
provisions.
Greek art supplies very few pictures from the trader’s life. Fig. 205,
taken from a vase-painting, though a caricature, has an especial
interest on account of its subject: a certain king Arcesilas of Cyrene
(probably mythical), is represented as a dealer in silphium; it is well
known that the silphium plant, so much valued by ancient epicures, came
from Cyrene, and was an important article of trade. Under a canopy, the
curtains of which are suspended by rings, stands a large pair of scales,
at which five men are weighing goods, some of which are heaped up on the
scales and others lying about on the ground.
[Illustration: FIG. 205.]
Most of the goods are as yet unpacked; these workmen, however, have
already filled large woollen sacks with them, and one of them is in the
act of tying his up, while another is carrying his away. The weighing
and packing are conducted under the superintendence of king Arcesilas,
who is seated close by, holding in his left hand his sceptre, and with
his right apparently giving directions to a workman standing before him.
His costume is very extraordinary. The panther under the prince’s seat,
a lizard, a stork (or crane), a monkey, and several pigeons, give life
to the picture, and partly indicate the place where the scene is laid.
Below the main picture, where we must suppose the cellar for the stores
to be, workmen are piling up finished packets, under the direction of a
man in a cloak.
Occupations connected with money were largely developed in antiquity.
The merchants who dealt with such business--the bankers and
money-changers--were called by the Greeks “table-merchants”
(τραπεζῖται), from the table at which they originally carried on their
occupations. Their duties were of a double nature; besides the actual
business of changing, they undertook the investment of capital and the
transaction of money business. When the increased coinage of money and
the augmentation of trade and travel brought large sums into the hands
of individuals, those who had not invested their possessions in wares or
property or slaves, naturally desired to profit by it in some other way,
and thus the loan business was gradually developed, in which capitalists
lent money to those who required it for any mercantile undertaking, in
return for a security and interest. In the bond executed in the presence
of witnesses, the amount of the capital, the interest agreed upon, as
well as the time for which the loan was arranged, had to be entered. For
greater safety, a third person usually became security for the debtor,
or else some possession was mortgaged, the value of which corresponded
to the sum lent. They distinguished between pledges in movable objects,
such as cattle, furniture, slaves, etc.; and mortgages given partly on
movable objects, such as factory slaves, and partly on immovable
property. Mortgages of this kind were very common in seafaring business.
The merchant who borrowed money from a rich citizen in order to carry
on a particular business with it, pledged his ship or the goods with
which he dealt, or perhaps both, to his creditor in a formal contract.
They endeavoured to obtain as much security as possible by very exact
arrangements concerning the object of the journey, the nature of the
goods, etc.; moreover, the interest in business of this kind was very
high, because the creditor ran the risk of losing his bargain entirely,
or in part, by storms, or pirates, or other misfortunes. Mortgages were
also given on property in land, and the creditor’s right of ownership
was inscribed on stone tablets set up on the property in question, with
the name of the creditor and the amount of the debt. In some places the
State itself conducted books for mortgages, in which all the property
was entered, together with the amount of the mortgages upon it. Here, as
in other loans, interest was high, and this was due to the insecurity of
trade and the very incomplete development of agricultural conditions.
There were no laws against usury; from ten to twenty per cent., or
higher if it was for risk at sea, was common, but there were even cases
where thirty-six or forty-eight per cent. were taken. Of course, in
these circumstances complaints of extortion were made.
The arrangement of this money business was chiefly in the hands of the
bankers. Their original and chief occupation was the changing of
money--the various kinds of coinage which became current through foreign
trade; and here they got their profit from the rate of exchange. They
also lent money, both small sums and capital for trade and other
business undertakings, and this was their share in these monetary
transactions. Rich people often invested their money with these bankers,
who paid them interest and gave them security or pledges; they then
themselves lent the money to men of business, and on account of the risk
naturally demanded higher interest than they paid. But even when money
was lent direct by a capitalist to a merchant, the mediation of a banker
was often resorted to in concluding the contract; for these men were
well known to the public on account of their extensive business, and
possessed considerable business knowledge. As a rule, though some were
known as usurers, and trickery and bankruptcy occasionally occurred,
they enjoyed so much confidence that they were gladly engaged as
witnesses in business contracts, and requested to take charge of the
documents. Money also was deposited with them, for which no particular
use appeared at the moment, and which would not be safe if kept at home;
of course, if this capital lay idle the banker could pay no interest,
but often demanded a sum for taking charge of the deposit. Some of them
left their money in the hands of money-changers to increase the business
capital, and the extent to which this was done is proved by the fact
that the banker Pasion, at the time of Demosthenes, in a business
capital of 50 talents (£11,700), had 11 talents (£2,593) lent by private
persons.