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 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 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 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.

In Italy today, Messrs =Bolton King and Thomas Okey= furnish a most interesting collection of facts relative to Italian rural conditions. The extent to which the phenomena of antiquity reappear in the details of this careful treatise is most striking. Italy being the central land of my inquiry, and convinced as I am that the great variety of local conditions is even now not sufficiently recognized in Roman Histories, this excellent book is of peculiar value. In the course of (say) fifteen centuries Italy and her people have passed through strange vicissitudes, not merely political: a great change has taken place in the range of agricultural products: yet old phenomena of rural life meet the inquirer at every turn. Surely this cannot be dismissed lightly as a casual coincidence. I cannot find room to set out the resemblances in detail, so I append a short table of reference to passages in the book that have impressed me most. Supplementary to this, as a vivid illustration of conditions in a mountain district, the first three chapters of In the Abruzzi, by =Anne Macdonell=, are decidedly helpful. For instance, it appears that the old migratory pasturage still existed in full force down to quite recent times, but the late conversion of much Apulian lowland from pasture to tillage has seriously affected the position of the highland shepherds by reducing the area available for winter grazing. The chapter on brigandage has also some instructive passages.

REFERENCES TO Italy today.

Peasant contrasted with wage-earner, pp 64-6, 72, 74, 126, 166-8, 171-2, 175-6, 200, 312, and Index under mezzaiuoli and peasants. Agricultural classes, pp 164-6. Partiaries, pp 168, 173. Emphyteusis, p 173. Improvements, p 173. Farming through steward, pp 174-5. Tenancies, pp 168-74, and Index under peasants. Rents in kind, p 171. Debt of various classes, pp 182-4, 366, 376. Taxes, p 140. Gangs of labourers, pp 166, 376. Wages, pp 126, 128, 168, 174, 366, 369-71. Food in wage, p 370. Emigration, pp 371, 396. Self-help in rural districts, pp 184-6, 376. Charities, pp 220 foll, 379 foll. Socialists and Peasantry, pp 64-6, 170, 172, cf 71-2.

(3) =R E Prothero=, The pleasant land of France. London 1908.

Chapters (essays) II and III, French farming and Tenant-right and agrarian outrage in France, contain much of interest.

pp 91-2 Social advantages of the system of peasant proprietors. A training to the rural population. Element of stability. The answer to agitators ‘Cela est bien, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin.’ Difficulties which beset its artificial creation. Métayage (under present conditions) has proved the best shelter for tenant-farmers against the agricultural storm. Need of implicit confidence between landlord and working partner.

pp 98-9 Tenant-right in Santerre (Picardy). Tenant considers himself a co-proprietor of the land. Former payment of rent in kind taken to be a sign of joint ownership. Now in money, but calculated upon market price of corn. Landlord’s loss of control. High money value of droit de marché.

p 104 Traces of Roman occupation. Roman soldier followed by farmer. ‘Under the empire the colonus was not a slave, but the owner of slaves: he held his land in perpetuity; he could not leave it. He paid a fixed rent in kind, which could not be raised. Tenant-right therefore is explained as the recognition by the Frankish conquerors of this hereditary claim to the perpetual occupation of the soil.’ [One of the various explanations offered.]

p 119 Severe legislation failed to get rid of tenant-right, but since 1791 it has been recognized, and so its importance decreased. Under the ancien régime leases were short—9 years—and precarious. They were governed by the Roman law maxim emptori fundi necesse non est stare colonum. That is, if property changed hands during the continuance of the lease, the new owner might evict the tenant. The Code Civil confirms law of 1791—dispossession only if provision has been made (in lease) for it.

In general, land-tenures vary very greatly in the various provinces.

(4) =G G Coulton=, Social life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation. Cambridge 1918.

In Section VI Manor and Cottage are a number of extracts throwing light on the rustic conditions of their times.

1. A model Manor pp 301-6, describing the organization of an estate, with the duties of the several officials and departmental servants. Watchful diligence and economy, strict accountability and honesty are insisted on, that the rights of the Lord may not be impaired.

2. The Manorial court, pp 306-8.

3. The peasant’s fare, p 308.

4. Incidents of the countryside, p 309.

7. Decay of yeomanry, pp 310-12. (Latimer.)

8. Decay of husbandry, pp 312-14. (Sir T More.)

All these passages are of great interest as shewing how a number of phenomena observable in the case of ancient estates are repeated under medieval conditions. The typical Manor with its elaborate hierarchy and rules, the struggles of the small yeoman, the encroachments of big landlords, the special difficulties of small-scale tillage caused by growth of large-scale pasturage, the increase of wastrels and sturdy beggars, are all notable points, worthy the attention of a student of ancient farm life and labour.

THE BIG MAN AND THE SMALL FARMER.

(5) =Clifton Johnson=, From the St Lawrence to Virginia. New York 1913, p 21. Chapter on the Adirondack winter.

(Conversation in an up-country store.)

‘I worked for Rockefeller most of that season. You know he has a big estate down below here a ways. There used to be farmhouses—yes and villages on it, but he bought the owners all out, or froze ’em out. One feller was determined not to sell, and as a sample of how things was made uncomfortable for him I heard tell that two men came to his house once and made him a present of some venison. They had hardly gone when the game warden dropped in and arrested him for havin’ venison in his house. All such tricks was worked on him, and he spent every cent he was worth fighting lawsuits. People wa’n’t allowed to fish on the property, and the women wa’n’t allowed to pick berries on it. A good deal of hard feeling was stirred up, and Rockefeller would scoot from the train to his house, and pull the curtains down, ’fraid they’d shoot him. Oh! he was awful scairt.’

EASTERN EUROPE.

(6) =Marion L Newbigin DSc=, Geographical aspects of Balkan problems. London 1915.

Turks—‘not all their virtues, not all their military strength, have saved them from the slow sapping of vitality due to their divorce alike from the actual tilling of the land and from trade and commerce.... He has been within the (Balkan) peninsula a parasite, chiefly upon the ploughing peasant, and the effect has been to implant in the mind of that peasant a passion for agriculture, for the undisturbed possession of a patch of freehold, which is probably as strong here as it has ever been in the world.’ p 137.

Thessaly—‘the landowners are almost always absentees, appearing only at the time of harvest’ (originally Turks, now mostly Greeks) ‘who have taken little personal interest in the land’ (no great improvement in condition of cultivator). (So in Bosnia—better in Serbia and Bulgaria) ‘lands mostly worked by the peasants on the half-shares system.’ p 175.

Albania—(poverty extreme—temporary emigration of the males, frequent in poor regions) ‘young Albˢ often leave their country during the winter, going to work in Greece or elsewhere as field labourers, and returning to their mountains in the spring.’ pp 183-4.

Generally—small holdings mostly in the Balkan states.

D. LIST OF SOME BOOKS USED.

This list does not pretend to be complete. Many other works are referred to here and there in the notes on the text. But I feel bound to mention the names of some, particularly those dealing with conditions that did or still do exist in the modern world. Miscellaneous reading of this kind has been to me a great help in the endeavour to understand the full bearing of ancient evidence, and (I hope) to judge it fairly. It is on the presentation and criticism of that evidence that I depend: for the great handbooks of Antiquities do not help me much. The practice of making a statement and giving in support of it a reference or references is on the face of it sound. But, when the witnesses cited are authors writing under widely various conditions of time and place and personal circumstances, it is necessary whenever possible to appraise each one separately. And when the aim is, not to write a technical treatise on ‘scientific’ lines, but to describe what is a highly important background of a great civilization, a separate treatment of witnesses needs no apology. I cannot cite in detail the references to conditions in a number of countries, for instance India and China, but I have given them by page or chapter so as to be consulted with ease.

(1) AGRICULTURE AND RUSTIC LIFE AND LABOUR.

M Weber, Die Römische Agrargeschichte, Stuttgart 1891.

C Daubeny, Lectures on Roman husbandry, Oxford 1857.

Ll Storr-Best, Varro on farming, translated with Introduction commentary and excursus, London 1912.

E de Laveleye, Primitive Property, English translation 1878.

H Blümner, article ‘Landwirtschaft’ in I Müller’s Handbuch VI ii 2, ed 3 pp 533 foll.

A E Zimmern, The Greek Commonwealth, Oxford 1911.

Büchsenschütz, Besitz und Erwerb, Halle 1869.

Columella of Husbandry, translation (anonymous), London 1745.

(2) ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL MATTERS.

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, passim.

H Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, Berlin 1883-1902.

K W Nitzsch, Geschichte der Römischen Republik, vol II, Leipzig 1885.

L Bloch, Soziale Kämpfe im alten Röm, ed III Berlin 1913.

David Hume, Essays, ed 1760 (Essay XI of the populousness of antient nations).

J Beloch, Die Bevölkerung der Griechisch-Römischen Welt, Leipzig 1886.

H Francotte, L’Industrie dans la Grèce ancienne, Bruxelles 1900-1.

O Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, Berlin 1897-1913.

O Seeck, ‘Die Schatzungsordnung Diocletians,’ in Zeitschrift für Social- und Wirthschaftsgeschichte, Weimar 1896.

H Schiller, Geschichte der Römischen Kaiserzeit, Gotha 1883-7.

S Dill, Roman society in the last century of the Western Empire, London 1898.

G Gilbert, Handbuch der Griechischen Staatsalterthümer, vol II, Leipzig 1885.

(3) LAW AND THE LATER COLONATE.

Several of the books named under other heads deal with legal points, for instance Beauchet, Lipsius, Meier and Schömann, Calderini, M Clerc.

The Digest and Codex Justinianus have been used in the text of Mommsen and P Krüger.

The Codex Theodosianus in text of Mommsen and P M Meyer, Berlin 1905 and in Ritter’s edition of Godefroi, Leipzig 1736-45.

P Girard, Textes de droit Romain, ed 4 Paris 1913.

F Zulueta, ‘De Patrociniis vicorum,’ in Vinogradoff’s Oxford Studies, Oxford 1909.

M Rostowzew, Studien zur Geschichte des Römischen Colonates, Leipzig and Berlin 1910.

B Heisterbergk, Die Entstehung des Colonats, Leipzig 1876.

A Esmein, Mélanges d’histoire du Droit, Paris 1886.

Fustel de Coulanges, ‘Le Colonat Romain,’ in his Recherches sur quelques problèmes d’histoire, Paris 1885.

H F Pelham, Essays (No XIII), Oxford 1911.

I am sorry that inability to procure copies has prevented me from consulting the following works:

Beaudouin, Les grands domaines dans l’empire Romain, Paris 1899.

Bolkestein, de colonatu Romano eiusque origine, Amsterdam 1906.

(4) MANUMISSION AND KINDRED TOPICS.

A Calderini, La manomissione e la condizione dei liberti in Grecia, Milan 1908.

M Clerc, Les métèques Athéniens, Paris 1893.

L Beauchet, Droit privé de la République Athénienne, Paris 1897.

J H Lipsius, Das Attische Recht etc., Leipzig 1905.

Meier und Schömann, Der Attische Process, Berlin 1883-7.

Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht.

G Haenel, Corpus legum, Leipzig 1857.

C G Bruns, Fontes Iuris Romani antiqui.

Dareste, Haussoullier, Th Reinach, Recueil des inscriptions juridiques Grecques, Paris 1904. (Laws of Gortyn.)

Wescher et Foucart, Inscriptions de Delphes, Paris 1863.

Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, ‘Demotika der Metöken,’ in Hermes 1887.

(5) SLAVERY AND SLAVE TRADE.

H Wallon, Histoire de l’esclavage dans l’antiquité, ed 2 Paris 1879.

J K Ingram, A history of slavery and serfdom, London 1895.

E H Minns, Scythians and Greeks, Cambridge 1913 (pages 438, 440, 461, 465, 471, 567).

V A Smith, The early history of India, Oxford 1914 (pages 100-1, 177-8, 441).

M S Evans, Black and White in the Southern States, London 1915.

” Black and White in South-east Africa, ed 2 London 1916.

J E Cairnes, The Slave Power, ed 2 London and Cambridge 1863.

W W Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery, Cambridge 1908.

W E Hardenburg, The Putumayo, the Devil’s Paradise, with extracts from Sir R Casement’s report, London and Leipzig 1912.

H W Nevinson, A modern Slavery, London and New York 1906.

Sidney Low, Egypt in transition (see under Medieval and Modern conditions).

Mrs M A Handley, Roughing it in Southern India, London 1911 (pages 193-4).

(6) MEDIEVAL AND MODERN CONDITIONS.

Books illustrating matters of rustic life, peasant proprietorship, agricultural wage-labour, etc.

Bolton King and Thomas Okey, Italy today, new ed London 1909.

R E Prothero, The pleasant land of France, London 1908 (Essays II and III).

Anne Macdonell, In the Abruzzi, London 1908 (chapters 1-3).

G Renwick, Finland today, London 1911 (pages 59, 60).

Sir J D Rees, The real India, London 1908.

Marion L Newbigin, Geographical aspects of Balkan problems, London 1915.

Ralph Butler, The new eastern Europe, London 1919 (chapter VII).

John Spargo, Bolshevism, the enemy of political and industrial democracy, London 1919 (pages 69, 156, 275, 278).

W H Dawson, The evolution of modern Germany, London 1908 (chapters XIII, XIV).

P Vinogradoff, The growth of the Manor, ed 2 London 1911.

G G Coulton, Social life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation, Cambridge 1918 (Section VI).

Mary Bateson, Medieval England 1066-1350, London 1903.

Sidney Low, Egypt in transition, London 1914 (pages 60-2, 240-1).

Sidney Low, A vision of India, ed 2 London 1907 (chapter XXIII).

Sir A Fraser, Among Indian Rajahs and Ryots, ed 3 London 1912 (pages 185, 191-210).

J Macgowan, Men and Manners in modern China, London 1912 (pages 17 foll, 189-96, 275-7).

M Augé-Laribé, L’évolution de la France agricole, Paris 1912.

(7) SPECIAL AMERICAN SECTION.

H Baerlein, Mexico, the land of unrest, London 1914 (chapters VIII, XI).

F L Olmsted, A journey in the seaboard slave States (1853-4), ed 2 New York 1904 (pages 240, 282, vol II pages 155, 198, 237).

H R Helper, The impending crisis of the South (economic), New York 1857.

B B Munford, Virginia’s attitude towards Slavery and Secession, ed 2 London 1910 (pages 133-4 etc).

W Archer, Through Afro-America, an English reading of the Race-problem, London 1910.

A H Stone, Studies in the American Race-problem, London 1908 printed in New York.

F F Browne, The everyday life of Abraham Lincoln, London 1914 (pages 348-9).

G P Fisher, The colonial era in America, London 1892 (pages 254, 259).

J Rodway, Guiana, London 1912 (of Indians, pages 224-5).

J Creelman, Diaz, Master of Mexico, New York 1911 (pages 401-5).

E R Turner, The Negro in Pennsylvania 1639-1861, Washington 1911.

Social and economic forces in American history, New York and London 1913 (by several authors).

J F Rhodes, History of the United States from 1850, London 1893-1906.

C R Enock, The Republics of Central and South America, London and New York 1913.

FOOTNOTES

A good specimen of such work at a late date may be found in Statius Silvae IV 3 on the via Domitiana lines 40-66.

For instance Diodorus V 38 § 1, Strabo XII 3 § 40 (p 562), Apuleius met IX 12.

Not artistic, of course.

See especially Ed Meyer Kleine Schriften pp 80-212.

To this question I return in the concluding chapter.

A good instance is Xen anab IV 1 §§ 12-14.

Veget I 3.

Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία cap 16, with Sandys’ notes.

Catil 4 § 1 non fuit consilium ... neque vero agrum colundo aut venando servilibus officiis intentum aetatem agere.

To this topic I return in the concluding chapter. See chapter on Aristotle.

See chapter on Cato.

For the existence of this system in Modern Italy see Bolton King and Okey Italy today pp 174-5.

Cic in Catil II § 18. See the chapter on Cicero.

Cf Valerius Maximus VII 5 § 2.

For modern Italy see Appendix.

Cf Caesar B C I 34, 56, discussed in the chapter on Varro.

Oratio XV (1 pp 266-7 Dind).

VI 315, XXIII 712, VII 221.

XII 433-5, XXI 445, 451, X 304.

XXI 444.

XVIII 550.

II 751.

XVIII 542, 554, XI 67, XX 495-7, V 500, XIII 590.

XXI 257-9.

XI 68.

XVIII 550-60.

XXI 281-3.

XXI 40-2, 78-80, 101-3, 453-4, XXII 45, XXIV 751-2.

XVI 835-6, VI 463.

VI 455, XVI 831, XX 193.

XII 421-4.

IV 245, XIV 3-4, 62-5, XVI 302-3, XVII 533. (Iliad V 413, VI 366.)

Selling XIV 297, XV 387, 428, 452-3, XX 382-3. Buying I 430, XIV 115, etc.

XIX 488-90, XXII 173-7, 189-93, 440-5, 462-4, 465-77. (Cf XVIII 82-7.)

IV 245 foll.

IX 205-7, XI 430-2, XVI 14 foll, XIX 489, XXIII 227-8, etc.

XIV 449-52.

VII 224-5, XIX 526.

IV 643-4, 652.

In XIX 56-7 a τέκτων, Icmalius, is even mentioned by name.

XVII 382-7, XIX 134-5.

XIV 56-8.

XVII 578.

XVII 18-9, 226-8.

XVIII 403.

VII 112 foll, VIII 557-63.

IX 109-11, 125 foll.

XV 319 foll.

XVIII 1-116.

IX 191.

II 22, IV 318, XIV 344, XVI 139-45.

XIV 222-3.

XIII 31-4.

XVIII 357-64.

XI 489-91.

IV 644.

IV 735-7.

XXIV 208-10.

XXIV 222-55.

XXIV 257.

XV 412-92.

XIV 271-2.

XXI 213-6.

XV 363-5.

XIV 62-5.

XVIII 366-75.

299-302, 394-5, 399-400, 403-4, 646-7.

289-90, 303-5, 308-13, 381-2, 410-3 (cf 498).

20-4.

37-41.

298-9, 397-8.

289-90.

303-5.

308-13.

410-3, 500-1, 554 foll, 576 foll.

391.

25-6.

493, 538, 544, 809.

686.

717-8.

394-400.

327-34.

341.

605.

602-3.

370.

459, 469-71, 502-3, 559-60, 573, 597-8, 607-8, 765-7.

406 is reasonably suspected.

405, 779, 800.

695-705.

32, 597, 606-7.

Solon the Athenian, by Ivan M. Linforth of the University of California (1919) discusses in full the conditions of Solon’s time and his actual policy, with an edition of his poetic remains.

The view of M Clerc Les métèques Athéniens pp 340-5.

ἄλλος γῆν τέμνων πολυδένδρεον εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν λατρεύει τοῖσιν καμπύλ’ ἄροτρα μέλει. Mr Linforth takes the last four words as defining ἄλλος, the plowman. I think they refer to the employers, spoken of as a class.

Aristotle Ἀθ πολ 11, 12, 16.

See the remarks of Dareste Haussoullier and Th Reinach in the Recueil des inscriptions juridiques Grecques (Paris 1904) on the Gortyn Laws.

See Livy X 4 § 9.

See his references to the Spartan use of ξείνοι = βάρβαροι IX 11, 53, 55.

VIII 68 γ.

VIII 26, 105-6.

II 164-7.

Isocrates Busiris §§ 15-20 pp 224-5 also allows for no special class of γεωργοὶ in Egypt.

Plato Timaeus p 24. Diodorus I 28, 73-4 (? from Hecataeus of Abdera, latter half of 3rd cent BC).

II 141, 168. See Index under Egypt.

The passage of Isocrates just cited seems to favour this view.

VIII 137.

VIII 26.

VIII 51.

VII 102.

VI 137.

IV 72.

VIII 142.

οἰκετέων here = members of the family, as often. Stein refers to VIII 4, 41, 44, 106. Compare the use of οἰκεὺς in the Iliad, and see Aesch Agam 733, Eur Suppl 870.

Pers 186-7, 255, 337, 391, 423, 434, 475, 798, 844.

Eum 186-90.

Prom 454-8, 708.

Fragm 194, 198, Dind.

Suppl 612-4, Eum 890-1.

Trach 52-3, 61-3, O T 763-4, Fragm 518, 677, Dind.

Antig 338-40. The use of horses for ploughing is strange. Jebb thinks that mules are meant.

O T 1029.

Trach 31-3.

Electra 37-8, 375-6, Phoenissae 405, fragm 143 and many more.

The loyalty of slaves to kind masters is referred to very often.

References in Euripides are too many to cite here.

Cf the oft-quoted line from Eur Auge ἡ φύσις ἐβούλεθ’, ᾗ νόμων oὐδὲν μέλει.

Cf Eur fragm 515, 828, Dind, etc.

Cf Eur fragm 263, 1035, Dind, and the use of τὸ δοῦλον ‘the slave-quality’ in Hecuba 332-3, Ion 983, etc.

See Cope’s note on Aristotle rhet 1 13 § 2.

Herc Fur 1341-6.

Alcestis 2, 6. Electra 203-4. Cyclops 76 foll, cf 23-4.

Electra 252.

Electra 35-9.

ibid 73-4.

ibid 75-6.

ibid 78-81.

The slaves in 360 and 394 are attendants of Orestes.

Suppl 420-2.

Orest 918-20. Cf fragm 188 Dind where the virtue of rustic life is sketched καὶ δόξεις φρονεῖν σκάπτων ἀρῶν γῆν ποιμνίοις ἐπιστατῶν.

Rhesus 74-5.

Rhesus 176.

Heracl 639, 788-9, 890, cf fragm 827 Dind.

Die pseudoxenophontische Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία ... von Ernst Kalinka (Teubner 1913). A great work.

1 § 3.

1 § 5 etc.

This view reappears later in Isocrates.

In his book The Greek Commonwealth.

1 §§ 10-12.

Kalinka well points out that in 1 § 11 ἐλευθέρους ἀφιέναι is not technical = manumit.

In 1 § 17 it is notable that among those who gain by concentration of business at Athens is εἴ τῳ ζεῦγός ἐστιν ἢ ἀνδράποδον μισθοφοροῦν. Country carts would now be plentiful in Athens.

1 § 19.

2 § 14.

Equites 792-4, Pax 632-6, Eccl 243.

Eccl 197-8.

Eccl 591-2.

Plut 510-626.

Old Strepsiades still has his thoughts fixed on these, Nubes 202-3.

Plut 903.

Plut 223-4.

Ach 180, 211, Pax 570, 1185-6, Eq 316-7, Nub 43 foll.

The gradual conversion is seen in Ach 557 foll, 626 foll.

Ach 32-4.

Pax 551-70, 1127 foll; cf fragm 100, 107, 109, 294, 387, Kock.

Pax 509-11.

Pax 190.

Pax 551-70, 1318-24.

Lysistr 1173-4.

Ach 248-50, 259.

Ach 266.

Nub 43 foll, 138.

Vesp 442-52.

Pax 1140 foll.

Pax 1248-9.

Lys 1203-14.

Eccl 651.

Plut 26-7, 253.

Plut 517-20, 525-6.

Plut 510-626.

Aves 1152.

Aves 1431-2 (cf Vesp 959), fragm of Δαιταλεῖς 4 Dind, 221 Kock.

Vesp 712.

Ran 164-77.

Eccl 197-8, 591-2.

Nub 71-2. Cf φελλέα in Isaeus VIII § 42 p 73.

Pax 552, 1318.

Ach 1018-36.

Eccl 605, Av 712.

Thucydides and the history of his age chapters III-VII.

See Francotte L’industrie dans la Grèce ancienne livre II cc 5-7.

Thucydides mythistoricus chapter II.

II 14, 16. An earlier period is referred to in I 126 §§ 7, 8.

II 65 § 2.

I 141.

Die Bevölkerung der Griechisch-Röm. Welt p 150.

I 143.

Theopompus in Athenaeus 149 d.

I 139 § 2.

VI 91 § 7.

VII 27 § 5.

Trygaeus in Aristoph Pax is a farmer from this district.

III 73, VIII 40 § 2.

III 88 § 3.

II 62 § 3.

opus cit chapters IV, VII.

For instance, in Euboea and Aegina.

III 50. Herodes, whose murder was later the occasion of a speech of Antiphon, is thought to have been one of the cleruchs.

Arnold’s note explains the situation well, and Beloch p 83 agrees.

See the inscription relative to Brea, G F Hill Sources III 317.

See the hint in the speech of Pericles I 143 § 4.

That there was normally much insecurity in rustic life in some parts of Greece, may be inferred from the dance-scene of the farmer and the robber, acted by men from north central Greece in Anabasis VI 1 §§ 7, 8. Daubeny’s Lectures pp 17, 18.

Hellenica II 1 § 1.

Hellenica VI 2 § 37.

Ar Pol VII 6 § 8.

Anab III 2 § 26.

Anab VI 4 § 8.

Anab I 2 § 27, V 6 § 13, VII 3 § 48, 8 §§ 12-19.

Anab IV 1 §§ 12, 13.

Anab V 3 § 4.

Anab IV 8 § 4. It does not appear that the man rejoined his native tribe.

Anab VII 7 § 53.

See the protest of Callicratidas, Hellen I 6 § 14, with Breitenbach’s note.

Anab VII 1 § 36, 2 § 6, 3 § 3.

Memorab II 7.

Memor I 2 § 57, II 7 §§ 4-11, 8.

Memor III 13 § 4.

Memor I 1 § 16, IV 2 §§ 22-31.

Memor I 5 § 2.

Memor III 7 § 6, 9 §§ 11, 15.

Econ 20 §§ 22 foll.

Econ 12 § 3.

Econ 3 §§ 1-5, 5 §§ 15, 16, 12 § 19.

Econ 7-9, 12-14, 21.

Econ 13 § 9, cf 9 § 5.

Econ 12-15.

Econ 14 § 8.

Econ 14 § 9.

Econ 5 § 4, 14 § 2, 20 passim.

Econ 5 § 6.

Econ 1 § 4, 4 § 6.

cf Memor II 7 §§ 7-10.

Econ 11 §§ 9, 10.

Econ 20 passim.

Econ 21 § 10.

Econ 21 § 12.

Econ 21 § 9.

Memor II 8 especially § 3. For this suggestion that a free man should be steward of a rich man’s estate I can find no parallel. See the chapters on the Roman agricultural writers. The case of the shepherd in Juvenal I 107-8 is not parallel.

Memor II 5 § 2. See Vect 4 § 22 for suggested employment of free citizens or aliens.

Vectigalia ch 4 passim.

Cyrop VII 5 § 67, VIII 3 §§ 36-41.

Cyrop IV 4 §§ 5-12, VII 5 §§ 36, 73.

Cyrop VIII 1 §§ 43-4.

Cited from Kock’s edition 1880-8.

Menandrea, ed Körte 1910, Teubner.

Fragments 100-24. From other plays, 294, 387.

Cratinus 81, Pherecrates 212.

e.g. Antiphanes 265, Philemon 227, Menander 581, etc.

Philemon 95.

Philemon 213, Menander 68, 716, Hipparchus 2.

Menander 14, Posidippus 23 with Kock’s note.

Pherecrates 10, Crates 14.

Nicophon 13, 14.

Athenaeus VI pp 263, 267 e-270 a.

Menandrea pp 159-61 (fragments of Γεωργός).

Menandrea pp 157, 159.

opus cit and Menander 97 Kock. For ἄγροικος connoting simplicity cf 794 ἄγροικος εἶναι προσποιεῖ πονηρὸς ὤν.

Menandrea p 155, 96 Kock.

Menandrea p 15 (lines 26, 40).

Menandrea p 13 (line 12, cf 111).

Menandrea p 5.

Menandrea p 25.

Kock III p 473 (adespota 347).

Lucian, Timon 7, 8. Kock adesp 1434, note.

Menander 795.

Menander 642.

Menander 408.

Menander 63, τὰ κακῶς τρέφοντα χωρί’ ἀνδρείους ποιεῖ.

Stobaeus flor LVI 16 preserves an utterance of Socrates on labour, especially agricultural labour, as the basis of wellbeing, in which he remarks that ἐν τῇ γεωργίᾳ πάντα ἔνεστιν ὦν χρείαν ἔχομεν.

ἰδιωτῶν Aristotle Pol II 7 § 1.

Arist Pol II 6 § 13, 12 § 10.

Arist Pol II 7 § 6 and Newman’s note.

Arist Pol II 7, 8.

In Thucydides and the history of his age chapters III-VII.

Politics III 13 § 2.

See Newman on Ar Pol II 7 § 7.

Ar Pol II 6 § 13.

Ar Pol II 12 § 10.

Ar Pol II 7 §§ 3-7.

Pol II 7 passim.

Pol II 7 §§ 14, 15.

μυρίανδρον Pol II 8 §§ 2, 3, with notes in Newman.

‘Artisan’ is not quite = τεχνίτης. All professional work is included.

Pol II 7 §§ 8, 9. The probable influence of Spartan precedents is pointed out in Mr Newman’s note.

See the valuable discussion in Grundy op cit chapter VIII.

Cf Isocr de pace § 69 p 173, §§ 129-131 p 185.

Plato was evidently uneasy at the growing influence of metics, to judge from the jealous rule of Laws p 850. This is in striking contrast with the view of Xenophon.

Laws 630 b, cf 697 e.

See Republic 565 a on the indifference of the handworking δῆμος. Cf Isocr de pace § 52 p 170.

Cf Xenophon hell VII 5 § 27 on the ἀκρισία καὶ ταραχὴ intensified after Mantinea, 362 BC.

Even Isocrates, who hated Sparta, says of it τὴν μάλιστα τὰ παλαιὰ διασώζουσαν, Helen § 63 ρ 218, and attributes the merits of the Spartan government to imitation of Egypt, Busiris § 17 p 225. He notes the moral change in Sparta, de pace §§ 95 foll pp 178-180.

Republic p 421 e, Laws 936 c, 744 e.

Laws 736 c, cf Rep 565 a, b.

Republic 421 d.

Republ 416 d, e, 417, 464 c, 543 b.

Republ 540 e-541 a.

Republ 469-471.

Republ 495 d, 590 c, 522 b. Laws 741.

Republ 374 c, d.

Republ 433-4.

Republ 468 a.

That the speculations of Greek political writers were influenced by the traditions of a primitive communism is the view of Emil de Laveleye Primitive property ch 10.

Republ 463 b.

Republ 369 b-373 c.

Cf Isocrates Panath § 180 p 271.

Republ 547 b foll.

Republ 550-2.

Laws 756. See Rep 565 a with Adam’s note.

Laws 754.

See Politicus 293-7, Grote’s Plato III pp 309-10.

Laws 737 foll, 922 a-924 a, called γεωμόροι 919 d.

Laws 744 d, e.

Laws 745 c-e.

Laws 842 c-e.

Laws 742.

Laws 705.

Rustic slaves, Laws 760 e, 763 a.

Laws 832 d. The artisans are not citizens, 846 d-847 b.

Laws 806 d.

Laws 777 c.

Laws 777 d-778 a, cf 793 e.

Laws 838 d.

Laws 865 c, d, cf 936 c-e.

Laws 720. See Rep 406 on medical treatment of δημιουργοί.

Case of domestics, Republ 578-9.

Laws 776-7.

Laws 690 b.

Politicus 262 d.

Politicus 289-90, Republ 371, Laws 742 a.

Republ 467 a, Laws 720 a, b.

Laws 762 e.

Laws 823.

Republ 344 b.

Republ 435 e-436 a, Laws 747 c.

Rep 423 b, 452 c, 544 d, Laws 840 e.

Laws 886 a, 887 e.

It is not easy to reach a firm opinion on this matter. The inscribed records are nearly all of a much later age. But even a more informal method of manumission would surely, if common, have left more clearly marked traces in literature. See Index, Manumission.

The problem of the worn-out plantation slave was much discussed in the United States in slavery days. An interesting account of the difficulties arising from emancipation in British Guiana is given in J Rodway’s Guiana (1912) pp 114 foll.

Laws 914-5, and an allusion in Republ 495 e.

Laws 914 a, 932 d.

See Lysias XXII, speech against the corn-dealers.

See for instance Andocides de reditu §§ 20-1 p 22 (Cyprus), Isocrates Trapeziticus § 57 p 370 (Bosporus).

Isocr de bigis § 13 p 349.

Isocr Panegyricus § 28 p 46, cf Plato Menex 237 e.

Andoc de myster §§ 92-3 p 12, Böckh-Fränkel Staatsh I 372-7. For private letting of farm-lands see Lysias VII § 4-10 pp 108-9 (one tenant was a freedman), Isaeus XI § 42.

Isaeus VI §§ 19-22, VIII § 35, XI §§ 41-4.

Isocr Areopagiticus § 52 p 150.

Lysias I §§ 11, 13, p 92.

Antiphon fragm 50 Blass.

Isocr Panath § 179 p 270.

Isocr Philippus §§ 48-9 pp 91-2.

Isocr de pace §§ 117-8 p 183.

Isocr Paneg §§ 34-7 pp 47-8, de pace § 24 p 164, Panathen §§ 13, 14, p 235, §§ 43-4 p 241, etc.

Isocr Paneg § 132 pp 67-8.

Isocr Areopag § 44 p 148.

Isocr de pace § 90 p 177, Areopag §§ 54-5 pp 150-1, § 83 p 156.

Isaeus VIII § 42 p 73, cf Aristophanes Nub 71-2.

Andocides de pace § 15 p 25, § 36 p 28.

Isocr de pace § 92 p 177.

Lysias VII especially §§ 4-11 pp 108-9.

Lysias VII § 16 p 109.

See especially the Archidamus §§ 8, 28, 87, 88, 96, 97.

Isaeus fragm 3 Scheibe.

Isaeus VI § 33 σὺν τῷ αἰπόλῳ.

See Isocrates Plataicus § 48 p 306 (of Plataeans), and Isaeus V § 39 with Wyse’s note.

I should mention that for simplicity sake I refer to the Politics by the books in the old order. Also that I do not raise the question of the authorship of the first book of the so-called Economics, as the point does not affect the argument. In common with all students of the Politics I am greatly indebted to the edition of Mr W L Newman.

This χορηγία includes a population limited in number and of appropriate qualities. Politics VII 4, and 8 §§ 7-9.

Pol VII 4 § 6.

See the story of Peisistratus and the peasant in Ἀθην πολ c 16.

Economics I 5 § 1, 6 § 5, Pol I 7 § 5, and see the chapter on Xenophon.

Pol VI 4 §§ 8-10.

We have a modern analogue in the recent legislative measures in New Zealand and Australia, not to speak of movements nearer home.

See note on Plato, p 75.

Ἀθην πολ cc 11, 12.

A most interesting treatment of this topic is to be found in Bryce’s South America (1912) pp 330-1, 533, where we get it from the modern point of view, under representative systems.

See the general remarks Pol IV 6 § 2, VI 4 §§ 1, 2, 13, 14. For historical points Ἀθην πολ cc 16, 24.

Pol III 15 § 13.

Pol IV 4 §§ 15, 18, cf VII 9.

Pol VI 4 §§ 1, 2, 13.

Pol VI 4 § 11.

Whether the πεπονημένη ἕξις (favourable to eugenic paternity) of Pol VII 16 §§ 12, 13, may include this class, is not clear. In Roman opinion it certainly would.

Pol VII 6 § 8. Xenophon (see p 53) records cases of seamen ashore and in straits working for hire on farms.

See Sandys on Ἀθην πολ c 4.

Pol II 7 § 12.

Pol II 7 § 7.

Severely criticized in Pol II 6 § 15, though adopted by himself. See below.

See Pol VI 5 §§ 8-10, on the measures that may be taken to secure lasting εὐπορία.

Cf IV 15 § 6, etc.

E Barker The political thought of Plato and Aristotle.

Ethics II 1 § 4.

Pol VII 16.

Pol VII 8, 9, etc.

Pol VII 10.

This adoption of the split land-lots (see above p 91) is perhaps explained by the fact that the landowners are not αὐτουργοί, so the difficulty of dual residence does not arise.

Pol IV 8 § 5, 9 § 4, etc.

Pol II 6 § 17, 9 §§ 21-2, IV 9 §§ 7-9. The same view is found in Isocrates.

Pol VII 9 § 5.

Pol V 6 §§ 12, 13.

Pol VII 14, 15, VIII 4, cf II 9 § 34.

Economics I 5 § 3 δούλῳ δὲ μισθὸς τροφή. Cf the saying about the ass, Ethics X 5 § 8.

Deinarchus refers (in Dem § 69 p 99) to Demosthenes’ ownership of a house in Peiraeus, and goes on to denounce him as heaping up money and not holding real property, thus escaping taxation. Yet the laws enjoin that a man who is a political leader ought γῆν ἐντὸς ορων κεκτῆσθαι. This wild abuse at least is a sign of existent feelings.

We may at least add slaves.

Pol VII 4 § 6.

Aristotle, like most of the philosophers at Athens, was a metic. See Bernays’ Phokion note 8, in which the notable passage Pol VII 2 §§ 3-7 is discussed.

The author of Revenues (πόροι).

Pol II 3 § 4, 5 § 8.

Pol I 7.

Pol VII 10 § 14, Econ I 5 § 5.

But perhaps to some extent by the author of Econ I 6 § 9.

See Econ I 5 §§ 1, 2, 6 § 5.

Pol II 3 § 4, 5 § 4.

He only once (III 5 § 2) in the Politics mentions ἀπελεύθεροι and once in the Rhetoric (III 8 § 1).

Too often asserted to need references. But Pol III 5 §§ 4-6 is notable as pointing out that τεχνῖται were generally well-to-do, but θῆτες poor.

Pol VII 6 §§ 3-8.

Pol I 8 §§ 3 foll.

Pol I 9.

Pol I 10, 11.

Pol I 11 § 1, and Mr Newman’s note.

Pol I 11 §§ 3-5.

Rhetoric I 9 § 27 πρὸς ἄλλον ζῆν, and Cope’s note.

Pol VI 8 § 3, VII 6 §§ 1-5.

Pol I 2 § 5, 5 §§ 8, 9, cf Ethics VIII 11 § 6.

Pol I 13 § 13, cf II 5 § 28.

Pol I 5, 6.

Pol VII 6 §§ 7, 8.

Pol VII 15 §§ 1-6, VIII 4 §§ 1-5, and a number of passages in the Ethics.

Indeed in Pol VII 15 §§ 2-3 he practically says so.

Pol VIII 3 § 7.

Pol VIII 4.

Pol II 5 § 19.

Pol II 10 § 16.

Pol VI 2 § 3, cf 4 § 20, and Ethics X 10 § 13.

Pol VII 12 §§ 3-6.

Pol VII 8 § 7.

II 6 § 6 ἀργοί (in his criticism of Plato’s Laws).

Rhet I 12 § 25, cf Plato Rep 565 α αὐτουργοί τε καὶ ἀπράγμονες.

Rhet II 4 § 9, cf Euripides Orestes 918-20.

de mundo 6 §§ 4, 7, 13.

Even after the ruin of Phocis and the peace of 346 BC the old man wrote in the same strain. But it was to Philip, in whom he recognised the real master of Greece, that he now appealed.

References are too numerous to be given here. A locus classicus is Dem Lept §§ 30-3 pp 466-7, on the case of Leucon the ruler of Bosporus. We hear also of corn imported from Sicily and Egypt, and even (Lycurg § 26 p 151) from Epirus to Corinth.

Demosthenes Olynth I § 27 p 17.

(Dem) c Polycl §§ 5, 6 pp 1207-8.

A good case of such investment by guardians is Dem Nausim § 7 p 986.

Dem F Leg § 314 p 442, εἶτα γεωργεῖς ἐκ τούτων καὶ σεμνὸς γέγονας.

See cases in Aeschines Timarch § 97 p 13, Dem pro Phorm §§ 4, 5 p 945. The inheritance of Demosthenes himself included no landed property, c Aphob I §§ 9-11 p 816.

Dem F Leg § 146 p 386, cf § 114 p 376, § 265 p 426, de cor § 41 p 239.

c Phaenipp §§ 5-7 pp 1040-1.

Aeschines mentions two ἐσχατιαὶ in the estate of Timarchus.

The lack of ξύλα in Attica made timber, like wheat, a leading article of commerce, and dealing in it was a sign of a wealthy capitalist. Cf Dem F Leg § 114 p 376, Mid § 167 p 568.

I suspect this is an exaggeration.

Lacrit §§ 31-3 p 933.

Dem Androt § 65 p 613, repeated in Timocr § 172 p 753.

Dem Aristocr § 146 p 668.

Dem c Callicl passim.

ἀστικοῦ, Dem Callicl § 11 p 1274.

Nicostr passim.

Nicostr § 21 p 1253.

Dem Pantaen § 45 p 979.

Dem Eubulid § 65 p 1319.

Aeschin Timarch § 99 p 14.

Euerg Mnes §§ 52-3 p 1155.

Twice, §§ 53, 76.

Hyperid in Demosth fragm col 26.

c Timoth § 11 p 1187.

Dem de Cor §§ 51-2 p 242.

c Timoth § 51 p 1199.

Ibid § 52.

Of course οἰκέτης is often loosely used as merely ‘slave.’ But here the antithesis seems to gain point from strict use.

I have not found this question distinctly stated anywhere. Beauchet Droit privé IV 222 treats the μισθωτοὶ of this passage as freemen. But in II 443 he says that slaves hired from their owners were generally designated μισθωτοί. Nor do I find the point touched in Meier-Schömann-Lipsius (edition 1883-7, pp 889 foll), or any evidence that the πρόκλησις could be addressed to others than parties in a case. Wallon I 322 foll also gives no help.

Dem Eubulid § 63 p 1318.

Hyperides pro Euxen, fragm §§ 16, 17, col 12, 13.

Dem Olynth I § 27 p 17.

C PHAENIPP §§ 5-7 pp 1040-1, §§ 19-21 pp 1044-5.

ὀπωρώνης, Dem DE COR § 262 p 314.

Dem Eubulid § 45 p 1313, speaking of an old woman.

Aeschin Timarch § 27 p 4.

We have already seen the case of olive-pickers in Aristoph Vesp 712.

See Dem Mid § 48 p 530, etc.

Aeschin F Leg § 156 p 59. The passage of Dem F L to which he refers is not in our text, for §§ 194-5 pp 401-2 is different.

See Plut Aratus 14, 25, 27, 36, 39, 40, Philopoemen 7, 15.

Isocr paneg § 50 p 50.

V 64-5, cf XVII 9, 10.

XVI.

XVII.

XXII, XXV.

XXV.

XXV 1, 51.

XXV 27, cf XXIV 137.

XXV 86-152.

XXV 47-8.

VII 15-6.

III 35, cf XV 80.

X 9, cf 1, XXI 3.

XXIV 136-7.

XX 3, 4.

XVI 34-5.

XXV 56-9.

XIV 58-9, cf 13, 56, where στρατιώτας is a professional soldier.

Char IV (XIV Jebb).

See Plutarch de garrulitate 18.

Plut Aratus 24, Philopoemen 8.

Polyb IV 63.

IV 66.

IV 75, V 1, 3, 19.

X 42, etc.

XVIII 20.

XVI 24, XXI 6, etc.

XXI 34, 36, 43, 45.

V 89.

XXVIII 2.

V 89, cf XXV 4, XXI 6.

This topic is well treated by Mahaffy Greek Life and Thought