limited in practice, though his position is very far removed from
slavery, I have pointed out above. Also, that modern facilities for
movement have helped materially to assert and enlarge his freedom. From
this point of view the discovery of the New World was the turning-point
of European history. But in course of time capitalistic phenomena
appeared there also, and on a larger scale. And now, almost the whole
world over, the handworker is striving, not only for higher wages but
for more complete self-disposal. This necessitates some control of the
industries in which he works. Individual effort being vain, he forms
unions to guard his interests. The unions, acting by strike-pressure,
come into conflict with governments representing the state. The next
step is to employ political pressure by gaining and using votes under
representative systems, so as to remodel legislation and administration
in a sense favourable to the handworker. This movement, now well under
way in the most civilized countries, is not perhaps socialistic in
principle, and we do not yet know how far it is likely to take that turn.
In order to fight exploitation, the handworker has to surrender a good
deal of his individual freedom: whether he will be content to surrender a
good deal more, the coming age will see. This much at least is clear,—the
handworking wage-earners are no longer, as in the ancient world, a class
of no account. That they have wrung so many great concessions from
unwilling capitalists seems to me a proof that their freedom, even under
medieval[1820] restrictions, had always in it something real, some
quality that sharply distinguished it from ancient slavery. In ancient
slavery I can see no germ out of which betterment of labour-conditions
could conceivably arise. It simply had to die, and modern attempts to
revive it have had to die also.
In the foregoing pages I have recognized two lines of distinction. One is
that commonly admitted, the line that parts freeman from slave. The other
is that between free wage-earner and slave. In looking back from modern
circumstances to ancient, the latter is much the more important. For, now
that slavery in the proper sense has been abolished by modern civilized
peoples, the conditions of wage-earning stand out as presenting the most
momentous issues of the present age. To the statesmen the questions
raised are full of anxiety as to the probable influence of present
policies on future wellbeing. A student of Greco-Roman civilization must
ask himself whether modern labour-questions and their attempted solutions
may not indirectly furnish help in appraising and judging the conditions
of the past. Now it so happens that in the case of agriculture recent
events in Russia possess very marked significance, and it is therefore
hardly possible to leave them unnoticed here.
It seems to be established[1821] beyond reasonable doubt that the genuine
and effective doctrine of Leninite Bolshevism, in its definition of the
‘working class,’ excludes the peasantry. They are not ‘proletarian.’
That is, the great majority of peasants have something. This each wants
to keep, and if possible to augment. In short, they are Individualists.
Now Bolshevism builds on dogmas of Marxian Socialism, however much it
may warp their application, however widely it may depart from Marxian
theory in its choice of methods. Therefore it sees in the peasants only
a class of petty bourgeoisie with the anti-socialistic instincts of that
hated class, and will spare no effort to exclude them from political
power. It disfranchises employers, even though the work they do is
productive and useful to society. We need go no further: these principles
of the Bolshevik creed, be it prophetic vision or be it crazy fanaticism
blind to the facts of human nature and devoid of all practical sense of
proportion, are enough for my present purpose. It results from them that
all wage-earning is wrong: no man has the right to employ another man for
his own purposes: that the relation benefits both employer and employed,
even if true, is a consideration[1822] wholly irrelevant. For it is
promised that the new civilization, recast on the Bolshevik model, will
leave no room for wage-service of one man to another.
I am not to criticize this scheme of social and economic life, but to
look at it coolly as an illustrative fact. It is surely a significant
thing that, while slavery and serfdom are now reckoned as virtually
obsolete phenomena of the past, the old distinction, between the man who
works himself for himself and the man who works for another, is still
before us as the vital line of division in labour-questions. Bloodshed
and torture as means of enforcing the dogma may be confined to Russia,
but the distinction is at the bottom of industrial unrest all over the
world. Most significant of all is the admission that peasant landholders
are not a ‘proletariate.’ Of course they are not. But to philosophers
and statesmen of antiquity they appeared as an all-important class, not
only as producers of food but as a solid element of population, promoting
the stability of state governments. This stability was favourable to
continuity of policy and enabled all interests to thrive in peace.
Have the development of machinery and transport in recent times so far
altered the conditions of agriculture that this is no longer the case? In
other words, is the agricultural labourer, the present wage-earner, to
supersede the peasant landholder as the dominant figure of rustic life?
Is the large-scale farmer to survive only as the impotent figurehead of
rural enterprises? Is a political proletariate competent to regulate
the conduct of an industry directly dependent on soil climate and
seasons? Wherever man is in immediate contact with forces of nature,
in farm-life as in seafaring, the bodily energies of many can only be
effective through subordination to the mind of one. How far, under the
modern factory system, where the mill goes on as usual in all weathers,
direction by wage-earners may be a practicable proposition, I cannot
tell. That such a plan would be a failure on a farm, I have no doubt
whatever.
My general conclusion then is that the old distinction observable under
Greco-Roman civilization was in itself a sound one. Yet it led to no
lasting and satisfactory solution of agricultural labour-problems.
Many causes no doubt contributed to this failure; but the lack of a
satisfactory labour-system was probably the greatest. Neither slavery
nor serfdom was capable of meeting the need, and the wage-earning system
never grew so as efficiently to supersede them. Now, after centuries
of the wage-system, we are uneasily asking ourselves whether modern
civilization is gravely endangered through the failure of this system
also. It seems that in agriculture at least there are two possible
alternatives, either a final settlement of the wage-question on a footing
satisfactory to the labourer, or a return to αὐτουργία. Probably neither
of these will be found to exclude the other or to be equally applicable
to the circumstances of all countries. That communal ownership and
shifting tenure can be revived seems impossible under modern conditions,
whatever some Socialists may fancy. On the other hand voluntary
cooperation in marketing seems to have a great future before it. Of a
movement in that direction I have found no traces among the ancients: but
modern developments in the way of transport may remove many difficulties.
At any rate it is in such efforts of adaptation and compromise that
expert agriculturists seem to be looking for help. As to labour, slavery
and serfdom being excluded from modern civilized states, the coming
problem is how to secure the performance of agricultural work. The
choice lies between attractive wage-conditions, appealing to individual
interest, and the Socialist scheme of tasks carried out under official
direction, assumed to be in the best interests of a whole community. Both
plans offer a substitute for the crude compulsory methods vainly employed
in the ancient world. Which plan is the more suited to the demands of
human nature, whether self-disposal or communism is to be the dominant
aim and note of society, coming generations must decide.
APPENDIX.
SOME BYZANTINE AUTHORITIES.
To follow up the history of agricultural labour under the so-called
Byzantine empire, after the Roman empire had fallen in the West, is
beyond my scope. Yet there are certain matters on which light is thrown
by surviving documents that it is hardly possible wholly to ignore.
That the position of the agricultural classes did not follow the same
lines of development in East and West, is in itself a fact worth noting,
though not surprising. It may be said to run parallel with the general
fate of the two sections of the once Roman world. In the West[1823] the
growth of what we call Feudalism and the rise of new nation-states are
the phenomena that in the course of centuries gradually produced our
modern Europe. In the East the Empire long preserved its organization,
declining in efficiency and power, but rallying again and again, serving
as a bulwark of Christian Europe, and not extinguished finally till 1453.
It might perhaps have been guessed that the conditions of rustic life
would undergo some change, for the system of the later Roman colonate
was already shewing signs of coming failure in the time of Arcadius and
Honorius. The need of some system more favourable to individual energy
and enterprise, more to be trusted for production of food, was surely
not to be ignored. Food must have been a need of extreme urgency, with
armies constantly engaged in northern or eastern wars, and the mouths of
Constantinople ever hungry at home. After the Saracen conquest of Egypt
in the seventh century, the food-resources on which the government could
rely must have been seriously reduced, and the need greater than ever.
Thus we are not to wonder if we find indications of great interest taken
in agriculture, and direct evidence of reversion to a better land-system
than that of the later Roman colonate.
A. GEOPONICA.
The curious collection known as =Geoponica=[1824] comes down to us
in a text attributed to the tenth century, which is supposed to be a
badly-edited version of an earlier work probably of the sixth or early
seventh century. It is in a scrap-book form, consisting of precepts on a
vast number of topics, the matter under each heading being professedly
drawn from the doctrine of some author or authors whose names are
prefixed. Some of these are Byzantine writers, others of much earlier
date, including Democritus and Hippocrates, and the Roman Varro. Modern
critics consider these citations of names untrustworthy, the collector or
editor having dealt very carelessly with the work of his predecessors.
I can 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 (σχολαστικός), 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 Βάρωνος, 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 (παῖδες) should be employed
in field-labour (ἐργασία), 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[1825] at least puts the
minimum age for field-hands at 22. 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 ἐπίτροπος
or οἰκονόμος, the Roman _vilicus_. This chapter (44) is also quite
commonplace, and can be copiously illustrated out of many authors, from
Xenophon and Cato to Columella 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 (ἐργάται). The main doctrine is that
every day must have its task, and every plan be punctually carried out,
since one delay upsets the whole course (τὴν τῆς ἐργασίας τάξιν) and
is bad for both crops and land. This again is stale enough, and may be
illustrated from Cato and Columella. 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 (περὶ μέτρου
ἐργασίας), the expression of several operations in terms of labour-units
(ἐργασίαι, _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 (ἐργάται) are referred to is more
suited to a slave-staff than to wage-earners.
So too in chapter 47, with same label. It is περὶ τῆς τῶν γεωργῶν
ὑγιείας, 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 treatment 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 wholesome ones. The reverse order is the right one. This rule
applies not only to plants (φυτά) but to farm-workers (γεωργόι) 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 Βάρωνος, 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 III, 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=,’ νόμος γεωργικός, 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 arrangement and the bearing of its evidence have been
much discussed, and it will suffice here to refer to the articles of Mr
Ashburner[1826] on the subject. What concerns me is the position of
farmers under the Byzantine empire in the eighth century as compared with
that of the fourth or fifth century _coloni_, and the different lines
of development followed by country life in East and West. Therefore it
is only necessary to consider some of the main features of the picture
revealed to us by various details of the Farmer’s Law.
The first point that strikes a reader is that the serf[1827] _colonus_
has apparently disappeared. Land is held by free owners, who either
themselves provide for its cultivation or let it to tenants who take
over that duty. The normal organization is in districts (χωρία) each of
which contains a number of landowners, who either farm their own land
or, if short of means (ἄποροι), let it to other better-equipped farmers
of the same district. Thus the transactions are locally limited, and the
chief object of the law is to prevent misdeeds that might prejudicially
affect the prosperity of the local farmers. These are in a sense partners
or commoners (κοινωνοί), the ‘commonalty’ (κοινότης) of the district,
which is a taxation-unit with its members jointly liable. The district
seems to be regarded as originally common and then divided into members’
lots, with a part reserved perhaps as common pasture. Redivision is
contemplated, and the lots seem to belong rather to the family than to
the individual. To judge from the tone of the rules, it seems certain
that the farmers and their families are a class working with their own
hands. But there are also wage-earning labourers, and slaves owned or
hired for farm work. Tenancy on shares, like the partiary system in Roman
Law, appears as an established practice, and in one passage (clause
16) Mr Ashburner detects a farmer employed at a salary, in short a
_mercennarius_.
Thus we find existing what are a kind of village communities, the
landowning farmers in which are free to let land to each other and
also to exchange farms if they see fit to do so. How far they are free
to flit from one commune to another remains doubtful. And there is no
indication that they are at liberty to dispose of their own land-rights
to outsiders. There appears however side by side with these communal
units another system of tenancies in which individual farmers hire land
from great landlords. Naturally the position of such tenants is different
from that of tenants under communal owners: the matter is treated at some
length by Mr Ashburner. What proportion the corn crop generally bore to
other produce in the agriculture of the Byzantine empire contemplated by
these regulations, the document does not enable us to judge. Vineyards
and figyards were clearly an important department, and also gardens for
vegetables and fruit. Live stock, and damage done to them and by them,
are the subject of many clauses, nor is woodland forgotten. But the olive
does not appear. So far as one may guess, the farming was probably of a
mixed character. The penalties assigned for offences are often barbarous,
including not only death by hanging or burning but blinding and other
mutilations of oriental use. At the same time the ecclesiastical spirit
of the Eastern empire finds expression in the bestowal of a curse on one
guilty of cheating, referring I suppose primarily to undiscovered fraud.
The state of things inferred from the provisions of the ‘Farmer’s Law’
is so remarkable in itself, and so different from the course of rustic
development in the West, that we are driven to seek an explanation of
some kind. Many influences may have contributed to produce so striking
a differentiation. But one can hardly help suspecting that there was
some one great influence at work in the eastern empire, to which the
surprising change noted above was mainly due. In his _History of the
later Roman Empire_[1828] Professor Bury has offered a conjectural
solution of the problem. It is to be sought in the changes brought
about in the national character and the external history of the Empire.
Since the middle of the sixth century north-west Asia Minor and the
Balkan country had been filled with Slavonic settlers, and other parts
with other new colonists. Now the new settlers, particularly the Slavs,
were not used to the colonate system or the rigid bond of hereditary
occupations, and emperors busied in imperial defence on the North and
East knew better than to force upon them an unwelcome system. Invasions
had reduced the populations of frontier provinces and shattered the old
state of serfdom. Resettlement on a large scale had to be carried out
within the empire, and under new conditions to suit the changed character
of the population. Among the new elements that produced this change the
most important was the coming of the Slavs.
For the Slavs had themselves no institution corresponding to the German
_laeti_. Slaves indeed they had, but not free cultivators attached to
the soil. Therefore they could not, like the Germans in the West, adapt
themselves to the Roman colonate; accordingly their intrusion led to
its abolition. In support of this view the well-known Slavonic peasant
communities are cited as evidence. Nor can it be denied that this
consideration has some weight. But, while we may provisionally accept the
conclusion that Slavonic influences had something, perhaps much, to do
with the new turn given to the conditions of rustic life in the East, we
must not press it so far as to infer that the colonate-system was extinct
there. In no case could the ‘Farmer’s Law’ fairly be used to prove
the negative: and moreover it is apparently the case according to Mr
Ashburner that the document is not a complete agricultural code for all
agricultural classes within the empire. If it is ‘concerned exclusively
with a village community, composed of farmers who cultivate their own
lands,’ it cannot prove the non-existence of other rustic conditions
different in kind. Colonate seems to have disappeared, while slavery
has not. But that is the utmost we can say. The slave at least is still
there. As to the important question, whether the farmers contemplated in
the Law enjoy a real freedom of movement, as has been thought, it is best
to refer a reader to the cautious reserve of Mr Ashburner.
The one general inference that I venture to draw from these two
authorities is that, however much or little the conditions of agriculture
may have changed in the surviving Eastern part of the Roman empire, the
employment of slave labour still remained.
C. EXTRACTS FROM MODERN BOOKS.
(1) =Hume=, Essay XI, _Of the populousness of antient nations_.
We must now consider what disadvantages the antients lay under with
regard to populousness, and what checks they received from their
political maxims and institutions. There are commonly compensations
in every human condition; and tho’ these compensations be not always
perfectly equal, yet they serve, at least, to restrain the prevailing
principle. To compare them and estimate their influence, is indeed
very difficult, even where they take place in the same age, and in
neighbouring countries: But where several ages have intervened, and only
scattered lights are afforded us by antient authors; what can we do but
amuse ourselves by talking, _pro_ and _con_, on an interesting subject,
and thereby correcting all hasty and violent determinations?
MODERN ITALIAN CONDITIONS.
(2) =Bolton King and Thomas Okey=, _Italy today_.