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?