In a recent paper on "Ancient and Modern Imperialism," read before the
British Classical Association, Lord Cromer, England's late consul-general
in Egypt, notes certain points of resemblance between the English and the
Roman methods of dealing with alien peoples. With the Greeks no such
points of contact exist, because, as he remarks, "not only was the
imperial idea foreign to the Greek mind; the federal conception was
equally strange." This similarity between the political character and
methods of the Romans and Anglo-Saxons strikes any one who reads the
history of the two peoples side by side. They show the same genius for
government at home, and a like success in conquering and holding foreign
lands, and in assimilating alien peoples. Certain qualities which they
have in common contribute to these like results. Both the Roman and the
Anglo-Saxon have been men of affairs; both have shown great skill in
adapting means to an end, and each has driven straight at the immediate
object to be accomplished without paying much heed to logic or political
theory. A Roman statesman would have said "Amen!" to the Englishman's
pious hope that "his countrymen might never become consistent or logical
in politics." Perhaps the willingness of the average Roman to co-operate
with his fellows, and his skill in forming an organization suitable for
the purpose in hand, go farther than any of the other qualities mentioned
above to account for his success in governing other peoples as well as his
own nation.
Our recognition of these striking points of resemblance between the Romans
and ourselves has come from a comparative study of the political life of
the two peoples. But the likeness to each other of the Romans and
Anglo-Saxons, especially in the matter of associating themselves together
for a common object, is still more apparent in their methods of dealing
with private affairs. A characteristic and amusing illustration of the
working of this tendency among the Romans is furnished by the early
history of monasticism in the Roman world. When the Oriental Christian
had convinced himself of the vanity of the world, he said: "It is the
weakness of the flesh and the enticements of the wicked which tempt me to
sin. Therefore I will withdraw from the world and mortify the flesh." This
is the spirit which drove him into the desert or the mountains, to live in
a cave with a lion or a wolf for his sole companion. This is the spirit
which took St. Anthony into a solitary place in Egypt. It led St. Simeon
Stylites to secure a more perfect sense of aloofness from the world, and a
greater security from contact with it by spending the last thirty years of
his life on the top of a pillar near Antioch. In the Western world, which
was thoroughly imbued with the Roman spirit, the Christian who held the
same view as his Eastern brother of the evil results flowing from
intercourse with his fellow men, also withdrew from the world, but he
withdrew in the company of a group of men who shared his opinions on the
efficacy of a life of solitude. A delightful instance of the triumph of
the principle of association over logic or theory! We Americans can
understand perfectly the compelling force of the principle, even in such a
case as this, and we should justify the Roman's action on the score of
practical common sense. We have organizations for almost every conceivable
political, social, literary, and economic purpose. In fact, it would be
hard to mention an object for which it would not be possible to organize a
club, a society, a league, a guild, or a union. In a similar way the
Romans had organizations of capitalists and laborers, religious
associations, political and social clubs, and leagues of veterans.
So far as organizations of capitalists are concerned, their history is
closely bound up with that of imperialism. They come to our notice for the
first time during the wars with Carthage, when Rome made her earliest
acquisitions outside of Italy. In his account of the campaigns in Spain
against Hannibal's lieutenants, Livy tells us[101] of the great straits to
which the Roman army was reduced for its pay, food, and clothing. The need
was urgent, but the treasury was empty, and the people poverty-stricken.
In this emergency the prætor called a public meeting, laid before it the
situation in Spain, and, appealing to the joint-stock companies to come to
the relief of the state, appointed a day when proposals could be made to
furnish what was required by the army. On the appointed day three
_societates_, or corporations, offered to make the necessary loans to the
government; their offers were accepted, and the needs of the army were
met. The transaction reminds us of similar emergencies in our civil war,
when syndicates of bankers came to the support of the government. The
present-day tendency to question the motives of all corporations dealing
with the government does not seem to color Livy's interpretation of the
incident, for he cites it in proof of the patriotic spirit which ran
through all classes in the face of the struggle with Carthage. The
appearance of the joint-stock company at the moment when the policy of
territorial expansion is coming to the front is significant of the close
connection which existed later between imperialism and corporate finance,
but the later relations of corporations to the public interests cannot
always be interpreted in so charitable a fashion.
Our public-service companies find no counter-part in antiquity, but the
Roman societies for the collection of taxes bear a resemblance to these
modern organizations of capital in the nature of the franchises, as we
may call them, and the special privileges which they had. The practice
which the Roman government followed of letting out to the highest bidder
the privilege of collecting the taxes in each of the provinces, naturally
gave a great impetus to the development of companies organized for this
purpose. Every new province added to the Empire opened a fresh field for
capitalistic enterprise, in the way not only of farming the taxes, but
also of loaning money, constructing public works, and leasing the mines
belonging to the state, and Roman politicians must have felt these
financial considerations steadily pushing them on to further conquests.
But the interest of the companies did not end when Roman eagles had been
planted in a new region. It was necessary to have the provincial
government so managed as to help the agents of the companies in making as
much money as possible out of the provincials, and Cicero's year as
governor of Cilicia was made almost intolerable by the exactions which
these agents practised on the Cilicians, and the pressure which they
brought to bear upon him and his subordinates. His letters to his intimate
friend, Atticus, during this period contain pathetic accounts of the
embarrassing situations in which loaning companies and individual
capitalists at Rome placed him. On one occasion a certain Scaptius came to
him[102], armed with a strong letter of recommendation from the impeccable
Brutus, and asked to be appointed prefect of Cyprus. His purpose was, by
official pressure, to squeeze out of the people of Salamis, in Cyprus, a
debt which they owed, running at forty-eight per cent interest. Upon
making some inquiry into the previous history of Scaptius, Cicero learned
that under his predecessor in Cilicia, this same Scaptius had secured an
appointment as prefect of Cyprus, and backed by his official power, to
collect money due his company, had shut up the members of the Salaminian
common council in their town hall until five of them died of starvation.
In domestic politics the companies played an equally important rôle. The
relations which existed between the "interests" and political leaders were
as close in ancient times as they are to-day, and corporations were as
unpartisan in Rome in their political alliances as they are in the United
States. They impartially supported the democratic platforms of Gaius
Gracchus and Julius Cæsar in return for valuable concessions, and backed
the candidacy of the constitutionalist Pompey for the position of
commander-in-chief of the fleets and armies acting against the Eastern
pirates, and against Mithridates, in like expectation of substantial
returns for their help. What gave the companies their influence at the
polls was the fact that their shares were very widely held by voters.
Polybius, the Greek historian, writing of conditions at Rome in the second
century B.C., gives us to understand that almost every citizen owned
shares in some joint-stock company[103]. Poor crops in Sicily, heavy rains
in Sardinia, an uprising in Gaul, or "a strike" in the Spanish mines would
touch the pocket of every middle-class Roman.
In these circumstances it is hard to see how the Roman got on without
stock quotations in the newspapers. But Cæsar's publication of the _Acta
Diurna_, or proceedings of the senate and assembly, would take the place
of our newspapers in some respects, and the crowds which gathered at the
points where these documents were posted, would remind us of the throngs
collected in front of the bulletin in the window of a newspaper office
when some exciting event has occurred. Couriers were constantly arriving
from the agents of corporations in Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Asia with the
latest news of industrial and financial enterprises in all these sections.
What a scurrying of feet there must have been through the streets when the
first news reached Rome of the insurrection of the proletariat in Asia in
88 B.C., and of the proclamation of Mithridates guaranteeing release from
half of their obligations to all debtors who should kill money-lenders!
Asiatic stocks must have dropped almost to the zero point. We find no
evidence of the existence of an organized stock exchange. Perhaps none was
necessary, because the shares of stock do not seem to have been
transferable, but other financial business arising out of the organization
of these companies, like the loaning of money on stock, could be
transacted reasonably well in the row of banking offices which ran along
one side of the Forum, and made it an ancient Wall Street or Lombard
Street.
"Trusts" founded to control prices troubled the Romans, as they trouble
us to-day. There is an amusing reference to one of these trade
combinations as early as the third century before our era in the Captives
of Plautus.[104] The parasite in the play has been using his best quips
and his most effective leads to get an invitation to dinner, but he can't
provoke a smile, to say nothing of extracting an invitation. In a high
state of indignation he threatens to prosecute the men who avoid being his
hosts for entering into an unlawful combination like that of "the oil
dealers in the Velabrum." Incidentally it is a rather interesting
historical coincidence that the pioneer monopoly in Rome, as in our day,
was an oil trust--in the time of Plautus, of course, an olive-oil trust.
In the "Trickster," which was presented in 191 B.C., a character refers to
the mountains of grain which the dealers had in their warehouses.[105] Two
years later the "corner" had become so effective that the government
intervened, and the curule ædiles who had charge of the markets imposed a
heavy fine on the grain speculators.[106] The case was apparently
prosecuted under the Laws of the Twelve Tables of 450 B.C., the Magna
Charta of Roman liberty. It would seem, therefore, that combinations in
restraint of trade were formed at a very early date in Rome, and perhaps
Diocletian's attempt in the third century of our era to lower the cost of
living by fixing the prices of all sorts of commodities was aimed in part
at the same evil. As for government ownership, the Roman state made one or
two essays in this field, notably in the case of mines, but with
indifferent success.
Labor was as completely organized as capital.[107] In fact the passion of
the Romans for association shows itself even more clearly here, and it
would be possible to write their industrial history from a study of their
trades-unions. The story of Rome carries the founding of these guilds back
to the early days of the regal period. From the investigations of
Waltzing, Liebenam, and others their history can be made out in
considerable detail. Roman tradition was delightfully systematic in
assigning the founding of one set of institutions to one king and of
another group to another king. Romulus, for instance, is the war king, and
concerns himself with military and political institutions. The second
king, Numa, is a man of peace, and is occupied throughout his reign with
the social and religious organization of his people. It was Numa who
established guilds of carpenters, dyers, shoemakers, tanners, workers in
copper and gold, fluteplayers, and potters. The critical historian looks
with a sceptical eye on the story of the kings, and yet this list of
trades is just what we should expect to find in primitive Rome. There are
no bakers or weavers, for instance, in the list. We know that in our own
colonial days the baking, spinning, and weaving were done at home, as they
would naturally have been when Rome was a community of shepherds and
farmers. As Roman civilization became more complex, industrial
specialization developed, and the number of guilds grew, but during the
Republic we cannot trace their growth very successfully for lack of
information about them. Corporations, as we have seen, played an
important part in politics, and their doings are chronicled in the
literature, like oratory and history, which deals with public questions,
but the trades-guilds had little share in politics; they were made up of
the obscure and weak, and consequently are rarely mentioned in the
writings of a Cicero or a Livy.
It is only when the general passion for setting down records of all sorts
of enterprises and incidents on imperishable materials came in with the
Empire that the story of the Roman trades-union can be clearly followed.
It is a fortunate thing for us that this mania swept through the Roman
Empire, because it has given us some twenty-five hundred inscriptions
dealing with these organizations of workmen. These inscriptions disclose
the fact that there were more than eighty different trades organized into
guilds in the city of Rome alone. They included skilled and unskilled
laborers, from the porters, or _saccarii_, to the goldsmiths, or
_aurifices_. The names of some of them, like the _pastillarii_, or guild
of pastile-makers, and the _scabillarii_, or castanet-players, indicate a
high degree of industrial specialization. From one man's tombstone even
the conclusion seems to follow that he belonged to a union of what we may
perhaps call checker-board makers. The merchants formed trade associations
freely. Dealers in oil, in wine, in fish, and in grain are found organized
all over the Empire. Even the perfumers, hay-dealers, and ragmen had their
societies. No line of distinction seems to be drawn between the artist and
the artisan. The mason and the sculptor were classed in the same category
by Roman writers, so that we are not surprised to find unions of men in
both occupations. A curious distinction between the professions is also
brought out by these guild inscriptions. There are unions made up of
physicians, but none of lawyers, for the lawyer in early times was
supposed to receive no remuneration for his services. In point of fact the
physician was on a lower social plane in Rome than he was even among our
ancestors. The profession was followed almost exclusively by Greek
freedmen, as we can see from the records on their tombstones, and was
highly specialized, if we may judge from the epitaphs of eye and ear
doctors, surgeons, dentists, and veterinarians. To the same category with
the physician and sculptor belong the architect, the teacher, and the
chemist. Men of these professions pursued the _artes liberales_, as the
Romans put it, and constituted an aristocracy among those engaged in the
trades or lower professions. Below them in the hierarchy came those who
gained a livelihood by the _artes ludicræ_, like the actor, professional
dancer, juggler, or gladiator, and in the lowest caste were the
carpenters, weavers, and other artisans whose occupations were _artes
vulgares et sordidæ_.
In the early part of this chapter the tendency of the Romans to form
voluntary associations was noted as a national characteristic. This fact
comes out very clearly if we compare the number of trades-unions in the
Western world with those in Greece and the Orient. Our conclusions must be
drawn of course from the extant inscriptions which refer to guilds, and
time may have dealt more harshly with the stones in one place than in
another, or the Roman government may have given its consent to the
establishment of such organizations with more reluctance in one province
than another; but, taking into account the fact that we have guild
inscriptions from four hundred and seventy-five towns and villages in the
Empire, these elements of uncertainty in our conclusions are practically
eliminated, and a fair comparison may be drawn between conditions in the
East and the West. If we pick out some of the more important towns in the
Greek part of the Roman world, we find five guilds reported from Tralles
in Caria, six from Smyrna, one from Alexandria, and eleven from Hierapolis
in Phrygia. On the other hand, in the city of Rome there were more than
one hundred, in Brixia (modern Brescia) seventeen or more, in Lugudunum
(Lyons) twenty at least, and in Canabæ, in the province of Dacia, five.
These figures, taken at random for some of the larger towns in different
parts of the Empire, bring out the fact very clearly that the western and
northern provinces readily accepted Roman ideas and showed the Roman
spirit, as illustrated in their ability and willingness to co-operate for
a common purpose, but that the Greek East was never Romanized. Even in the
settlements in Dacia, which continued under Roman rule only from 107 to
270 A.D., we find as many trades-unions as existed in Greek towns which
were held by the Romans for three or four centuries. The comparative
number of guilds and of guild inscriptions would, in fact, furnish us
with a rough test of the extent to which Rome impressed her civilization
on different parts of the Empire, even if we had no other criteria. We
should know, for instance, that less progress had been made in Britain
than in Southern Gaul, that Salona in Dalmatia, Lugudunum in Gaul, and
Mogontiacum (Mainz) in Germany were important centres of Roman
civilization. It is, of course, possible from a study of these
inscriptions to make out the most flourishing industries in the several
towns, but with that we are not concerned here.
These guilds which we have been considering were trades-unions in the
sense that they were organizations made up of men working in the same
trade, but they differed from modern unions, and also from mediaeval
guilds, in the objects for which they were formed. They made no attempt to
raise wages, to improve working conditions, to limit the number of
apprentices, to develop skill and artistic taste in the craft, or to
better the social or political position of the laborer. It was the need
which their members felt for companionship, sympathy, and help in the
emergencies of life, and the desire to give more meaning to their lives,
that drew them together. These motives explain the provisions made for
social gatherings, and for the burial of members, which were the
characteristic features of most of the organizations. It is the social
side, for instance, which is indicated on a tombstone, found in a little
town of central Italy. After giving the name of the deceased, it reads:
"He bequeathed to his guild, the rag-dealers, a thousand sesterces, from
the income of which each year, on the festival of the Parentalia, not less
than twelve men shall dine at his tomb."[108] Another in northern Italy
reads: "To Publius Etereius Quadratus, the son of Publius, of the _Tribus
Quirina_, Etereia Aristolais, his mother, has set up a statue, at whose
dedication she gave the customary banquet to the union of rag-dealers, and
also a sum of money, from the income of which annually, from this time
forth, on the birthday of Quadratus, April 9, where his remains have been
laid, they should make a sacrifice, and should hold the customary banquet
in the temple, and should bring roses in their season and cover and crown
the statue; which thing they have undertaken to do."[109] The menu of one
of these dinners given in Dacia[110] has come down to us. It includes lamb
and pork, bread, salad, onions, and two kinds of wine. The cost of the
entertainment amounted to one hundred and sixty-nine _denarii_, or about
twenty-seven dollars, a sum which would probably have a purchasing value
to-day of from three to four times that amount.
The "temple" or chapel referred to in these inscriptions was usually
semicircular, and may have served as a model for the Christian oratories.
The building usually stood in a little grove, and, with its accommodations
for official meetings and dinners, served the same purpose as a modern
club-house. Besides the special gatherings for which some deceased member
or some rich patron provided, the guild met at fixed times during the year
to dine or for other social purposes. The income of the society, which was
made up of the initiation fees and monthly dues of the members, and of
donations, was supplemented now and then by a system of fines. At least,
in an African inscription we read: "In the Curia of Jove. Done November
27, in the consulship of Maternus and Atticus.... If any one shall wish to
be a flamen, he shall give three amphorae of wine, besides bread and salt
and provisions. If any one shall wish to be a magister, he shall give two
amphorae of wine.... If any one shall have spoken disrespectfully to a
flamen, or laid hands upon him, he shall pay two denarii.... If any one
shall have gone to fetch wine, and shall have made away with it, he shall
give double the amount."[111]
The provision which burial societies made for their members is illustrated
by the following epitaph:
"To the shade of Gaius Julius Filetio, born in Africa, a physician, who
lived thirty-five years. Gaius Julius Filetus and Julia Euthenia, his
parents, have erected it to their very dear son. Also to Julius
Athenodorus, his brother, who lived thirty-five years. Euthenia set it up.
He has been placed here, to whose burial the guild of rag-dealers has
contributed three hundred denarii."[112] People of all ages have craved a
respectable burial, and the pathetic picture which Horace gives us in one
of his Satires of the fate which befell the poor and friendless at the
end of life, may well have led men of that class to make provisions which
would protect them from such an experience, and it was not an unnatural
thing for these organizations to be made up of men working in the same
trade. The statutes of several guilds have come down to us. One found at
Lanuvium has articles dealing particularly with burial regulations. They
read in part:[113]
"It has pleased the members, that whoever shall wish to join this guild
shall pay an initiation fee of one hundred sesterces, and an amphora of
good wine, as well as five _asses_ a month. Voted likewise, that if any
man shall not have paid his dues for six consecutive months, and if the
lot common to all men has befallen him, his claim to a burial shall not be
considered, even if he shall have so stipulated in his will. Voted
likewise, that if any man from this body of ours, having paid his dues,
shall depart, there shall come to him from the treasury three hundred
sesterces, from which sum fifty sesterces, which shall be divided at the
funeral pyre, shall go for the funeral rites. Furthermore, the obsequies
shall be performed on foot."
Besides the need of comradeship, and the desire to provide for a
respectable burial, we can see another motive which brought the weak and
lowly together in these associations. They were oppressed by the sense of
their own insignificance in society, and by the pitifully small part which
they played in the affairs of the world. But if they could establish a
society of their own, with concerns peculiar to itself which they would
administer, and if they could create positions of honor and importance in
this organization, even the lowliest man in Rome would have a chance to
satisfy that craving to exercise power over others which all of us feel,
to hold titles and distinctions, and to wear the insignia of office and
rank. This motive worked itself out in the establishment of a complete
hierarchy of offices, as we saw in part in an African inscription given
above. The Roman state was reproduced in miniature in these societies,
with their popular assemblies, and their officials, who bore the honorable
titles of quæstor, curator, prætor, ædile, and so forth.
To read these twenty-five hundred or more inscriptions from all parts of
the Empire brings us close to the heart of the common people. We see
their little ambitions, their jealousies, their fears, their gratitude for
kindness, their own kindliness, and their loyalty to their fellows. All of
them are anxious to be remembered after death, and provide, when they can
do so, for the celebration of their birthdays by members of the
association. A guild inscription in Latium, for instance, reads:[114]
"Jan. 6, birthday of Publius Claudius Veratius Abascantianus, [who has
contributed] 6,000 sesterces, [paying an annual interest of] 180 denarii."
"Jan. 25, birthday of Gargilius Felix, [who has contributed] 2,000
sesterces, [paying an annual interest of] 60 denarii," and so on through
the twelve months of the year.
It is not entirely clear why the guilds never tried to bring pressure to
bear on their employers to raise wages, or to improve their position by
means of the strike, or by other methods with which we are familiar
to-day. Perhaps the difference between the ancient and modern methods of
manufacture helps us to understand this fact. In modern times most
articles can be made much more cheaply by machinery than by hand, and the
use of water-power, of steam, and of electricity, and the invention of
elaborate machines, has led us to bring together a great many workmen
under one roof or in one factory. The men who are thus employed in a
single establishment work under common conditions, suffer the same
disadvantages, and are brought into such close relations with one another
that common action to improve their lot is natural. In ancient times, as
may be seen in the chapter on Diocletian's edict, machinery was almost
unknown, and artisans worked singly in their own homes or in the houses of
their employers, so that joint action to improve their condition would
hardly be expected.
Another factor which should probably be taken into account is the
influence of slavery. This institution did not play the important rôle
under the Empire in depressing the free laborer which it is often supposed
to have played, because it was steadily dying out; but an employer could
always have recourse to slave labor to a limited extent, and the
struggling freedmen who had just come up from slavery were not likely to
urge very strongly their claims for consideration.
In this connection it is interesting to recall the fact that before
slavery got a foothold in Rome, the masses in their struggle with the
classes used what we think of to-day as the most modern weapon employed in
industrial warfare. We can all remember the intense interest with which we
watched the novel experience which St. Petersburg underwent some six years
ago, when the general strike was instituted. And yet, if we accept
tradition, that method of bringing the government and society to terms was
used twice by the Roman proletariat over two thousand years ago. The
plebeians, so the story goes, unable to get their economic and political
rights, stopped work and withdrew from the city to the Sacred Mount. Their
abstention from labor did not mean the going out of street lamps, the
suspension of street-car traffic, and the closing of factories and shops,
but, besides the loss of fighting men, it meant that no more shoes could
be had, no more carpentry work done, and no more wine-jars made until
concessions should be granted. But, having slaves to compete with it, and
with conditions which made organization difficult, free labor could not
hope to rise, and the unions could take no serious step toward the
improvement of the condition of their members. The feeling of security on
this score which society had, warranted the government in allowing even
its own employees to organize, and we find unions of government clerks,
messengers, and others. The Roman government was, therefore, never called
upon to solve the grave political and economic questions which France and
Italy have had to face in late years in the threatened strikes of the
state railway and postal employees.
We have just been noticing how the ancient differed from the modern
trades-union in the objects which it sought to obtain. The religious
character which it took seems equally strange to us at first sight. Every
guild put itself under the protection of some deity and was closely
associated with a cult. Silvanus, the god of the woods, was a natural
favorite with the carpenters, Father Bacchus with the innkeepers, Vesta
with the bakers, and Diana with those who hunted wild animals for the
circus. The reason for the choice of certain other divine patrons is not
so clear. Why the cabmen of Tibur, for instance, picked out Hercules as
their tutelary deity, unless, like Horace in his Satires, the ancient
cabman thought of him as the god of treasure-trove, and, therefore,
likely to inspire the giving of generous tips, we cannot guess. The
religious side of Roman trade associations will not surprise us when we
recall the strong religious bent of the Roman character, and when we
remember that no body of Romans would have thought of forming any kind of
an organization without securing the sanction and protection of the gods.
The family, the clan, the state all had their protecting deities, to whom
appropriate rites were paid on stated occasions. Speaking of the religious
side of these trade organizations naturally reminds one of the religious
associations which sprang up in such large numbers toward the end of the
republican period and under the Empire. They lie outside the scope of this
chapter, but, in the light of the issue which has arisen in recent years
between religious associations and the governments of Italy, France,
Spain, and Portugal, it is interesting to notice in passing that the Roman
state strove to hold in check many of the ancient religious associations,
but not always with much success. As we have noticed, its attitude toward
the trade-guilds was not unfriendly. In the last days of the Republic,
however, they began to enter politics, and were used very effectively in
the elections by political leaders in both parties.[115] In fact the
fortunes of the city seemed likely to be controlled by political clubs,
until severe legislation and the transfer of the elections in the early
Empire from the popular assemblies to the senate put an end to the use of
trade associations for political purposes. It was in the light of this
development that the government henceforth required all newly formed
trades-unions to secure official authorization.
The change in the attitude of the state toward these organizations, as
time went on, has been traced by Liebenam in his study of Roman
associations. The story of this change furnishes an interesting episode in
the history of special privilege, and may not be without profit to us. The
Roman government started with the assumption that the operation of these
voluntary associations was a matter of public as well as of private
concern, and could serve public interests. Therefore their members were to
be exempted from some of the burdens which the ordinary citizen bore. It
was this reasoning, for instance, which led Trajan to set the bakers free
from certain charges, and which influenced Hadrian to grant the same
favors to those associations of skippers which supplied Rome with food. In
the light of our present-day discussion it is interesting also to find
that Marcus Aurelius granted them the right to manumit slaves and receive
legacies--that is, he made them juridical persons. But if these
associations were to be fostered by law, in proportion as they promoted
the public welfare, it also followed logically that the state could put a
restraining hand upon them when their development failed to serve public
interests in the highest degree. Following this logical sequence, the
Emperor Claudius, in his efforts to promote a more wholesome home life, or
for some other reason not known to us, forbade the eating-houses or the
delicatessen shops to sell cooked meats or warm water. Antoninus Pius, in
his paternal care for the unions, prescribed an age test and a physical
test for those who wished to become members. Later, under the law a man
was allowed to join one guild only. Such a legal provision as this was a
natural concomitant of the concession of privileges to the unions. If the
members of these organizations were to receive special favors from the
state, the state must see to it that the rolls were not padded. It must,
in fact, have the right of final supervision of the list of members. So
long as industry flourished, and so long as the population increased, or
at least remained stationary, this oversight by the government brought no
appreciable ill results. But when financial conditions grew steadily
worse, when large tracts of land passed out of cultivation and the
population rapidly dwindled, the numbers in the trades-unions began to
decline. The public services, constantly growing heavier, which the state
required of the guilds in return for their privileges made the loss of
members still greater. This movement threatened the industrial interests
of the Empire and must be checked at all hazards. Consequently, taking
another logical step in the way of government regulation in the interests
of the public, the state forbade men to withdraw from the unions, and made
membership in a union hereditary. Henceforth the carpenter must always
remain a carpenter, the weaver a weaver, and the sons and grandsons of the
carpenter and the weaver must take up the occupation of their fathers, and
a man is bound forever to his trade as the serf is to the soil.