HERE is a volume of great importance in our general plan. In it we reach back to the volume on Prehistoric Man, in which we saw the part played by the hand, the continuations of the hand, the making of the first tools, the birth of industry and its expansion, the appearance of agriculture, and the beginnings of trade and its development by the mutual relations of human groups.
As we said in the Foreword to that volume, our lamented friend Paul Lacombe was to have written an introduction establishing the connexion between these two works; he was to have dwelt on the evolution of technique, on the part played by economics in the history of mankind. At one time Paul Lacombe, who afterwards admitted the superior importance of the intellectual element, was inclined to place economic activity in the forefront of history. As far as the beginnings were concerned, he was absolutely right. Without ceasing, " the air devours man"; he has to repair himself, to remake himself. Sun, rain, and wind compel him to cover himself with a roof, with a garment. " Only when the work of economics has been done do the other desires unfold, and, according to the amount of effort which has been required for economics to reach their end, there is more or less time and will left for all the rest."1 His reflections, such as the doctrine of " historical materialism,"2 had the good effect of causing historians to devote much attention to an order of phenomena which had hitherto been too much neglected. The history of Homo Faber had to be written, mid that history was all the more interesting and necessary in view of the fact that, as our friend said, " man has at all times been to a great extent a workman."3 We have promised to dwell especially, taking our in- spiration from him, on the part played by work, on the succession of inventions, " on the infinite development of tools, born of the hand, the consequences of which are infinite in themselves, often quite unforeseeable; tools have made man like a god."
After Prehistoric Man, in which M. de Morgan, with his immense knowledge, embraced primitive civilization in all its fumblings and all its extension, a certain number of volumes—those of MM. Febvre and Pittard, which dealt with physical environment and racial migrations, and those of MM. Morel and Davy, Moret, Delaporte, and Glotz, which brought Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Ægean on to the historical scene1—have contributed to revealing the part played in the remote past by the need to keep alive, and then by the desire to better material life. Here, in a specially economic study, in a huge general picture, M. Toutain, who knows the Grœco-Roman world thoroughly, shows hoiv classical antiquity, taking over the achievements of other times and places, strove to turn the terrestrial environment to better and better account—down to the days of disaster, ruin, and a temporary retrogression of collective life.
To write the economic history of societies is, indeed, as has been seen and as will be seen more fully here, to follow the work done by man to improve his dwelling 
, to make use of his domain, to profit by its various resources—objects and their properties, superficial or deeper, and energies of all kinds—to increase the number of " goods," of " values," and to form plentiful reserves of them; and it is, at the same time, to study the distribution of those goods among men.
Many problems arise from a study of this kind—the fart played in economic development by accident in its various forms; also, and chiefly, the part played by the social factor, the logical factor, individual inventiveness; the methods of organization governing the production and circulation of goods or their distribution; the effects of luxury on civilization and the relationship of economic progress to human happiness. In economics, as in other things, comparison, based on the facts recorded by the historian, entails generalization.
M. Toutain, like some others of our collaborators, would write purely as a historian. In the setting of the Mediterranean basin and the outlying regions which were attached to it by the Roman Empire in its greatest days, from the beginnings of Greek history to the fall of the Empire, he describes " economic life in all its forms, in its almost infinite variety and complexity he sets forth " facts, hard, definite facts, with reference to their place and date as far as possible."1 He is afraid of oversimplification ;2 he is mistrustful of comparisons;3 he refuses to systematize, for to attempt to extract systematic views from the manifold, diverse data is to leave the solid ground of " true history."4
But the mere extent of the subject gives rise to comparisons and, by the nature of things, general ideas force themselves upon the author or upon the reader. They are all the more valuable for not being preconceived. The philosophy of history, in its generalizations, is inclined to be impatient; historical synthesis, as we have preached often enough and have endeavoured to illustrate in our practice, proceeds cautiously and safely, from the particular to the general.
While, then, this book is a remarkably accurate historical treatise, which, by the host of details which it gives about material life, enables one to conjure up the daily existence of the ancients in all classes of society, we shall here dwell not so much on that aspect of the book as on the results which emerge from it; we shall systematize, in spite of M. Toutain—and with his help.
First of all, what our fellow-worker's general plan and the manner in which he has carried it out show brilliantly, is the close connexion between economic life and social morphology, or the changes which take place in the size and densitu of societies.
Often, in previous Forewords, we have called attention to the fundamental identity, the innate sympathy, the disposition to help one another, which tend to bring human beings into association, and also to the unifying process, largely due to war and conquest, which makes historical groups, from the clan to the empire. The advance of association and unification had its effect on economic life, but it was itself to a great extent brought about by economic interest. The desire to have more room and the love of adventure, in individuals and in groups, are not in themselves sufficient to explain migrations, nor can ambition alone explain conquests. Men join men and groups join groups, or subdue others to themselves, in order to improve their material life. As, more or,less consciously, a society grows bigger and denser, its solidarity becomes tighter and more complex, and differences become more marked and produce unforeseen effects.1 A whole economic life, what may be called an economic complex, can only be studied and defined in relation to social structures, which are themselves bound up with a logic and also with a host of contingent circumstances. This emerges clearly from M. Toutairt's account.
At the beginning, the Greeks lived a mainly rural life, " bounded by a very close horizon," "tied to their own soil." They were dependent on the Phoenicians, " at once merchants and pirates, sea-traffickers who had taken the place of the Ægeans in the Eastern Mediterranean."2 The Greek colonization which went on from about the eleventh century to the end of the seventh was the great fact, due to many causes and productive of many consequences, which utterly transformed the economic life of the Mediterranean. The Greeks extended the area from which they themselves obtained resources—foodstuffs and raw materials —and opened markets for their own products, but they also took to sea-faring and enterprise, winning " the mastery of the waves and sea-routes "3 and extending the area of exchanges from one end of the Mediterranean to the other. " Before that great event, the expedition of Alexander, before all barriers between Greece and the East were thrown down, the enterprising genius of the Greeks had penetrated west and north far beyond the points where it had succeeded in founding colonies and trading-stations."4 Work became more intense; industry and, above all, trade developed; hence the new part played by money, that admirable instrument of exchange, and the constitution of movable wealth by the side of landed wealth, which, however, still held first place. Athens now played a preponderant part, and in general the cities, which continually increased in number, had a great influence on the economic organization of the world.
The extension of the area of exchanges, which was at once a cause and a result of the increase of consumption, went on under Alexander and in the Hellenistic period. We have seen the marvellous plan of the unity of mankind conceived by the pupil of Aristotle.1 That unity was destined to be only a dream, but the result of his expedition was a very real coming together of the peoples. Greece gradually decayed, but the wealthy East, exploited and rendered fruitful by the Greek genius, with towns springing up and rapidly rising to prosperity, great trade-routes developing, and centres of importation, exportation, and transit appearing on every side, attracted the products of distant and sometimes hardly explored lands and reached the markets of Central Asia, India, Arabia, the east coast of Africa, and Western Europe. Kings and cities seem to have become aware of " an economic solidarity previously unknown."2 Into that prosperous world flowed all the things which could satisfy men's needs—or provoke them. In illuminating pages we shall see what delights Hellenistic civilization already offered to the privileged—and what temptations to the rest.3
Almost to the beginning of the Christian era, the Western Mediterranean presents a very different picture. When the East was in full bloom, the West was still going through the first stages " towards the rational use of natural resources, towards the methodical and fruitful organization of human labour."4 In Carthage, which played the same part in the West as Tyre in the East, perhaps in a still more narrowly and sordidly mercantile fashion, and in Italy, which was well situated, economically and racially, to serve as a connecting link between West and East, progress was made, the chief factor in which was the sea.5 Rome " was to preside for several hundreds of years over the economic synthesis and expansion of the ancient world,"6 and the foreign policy of Rome was to make economic life, " if one may use the words regarding antiquity, international and world-wide."7 The foundation of the Empire had the same results as Alexander's conquest. It widened " the horizon of the activity and labour of man to the very boundaries of what the ancients called the Inhabited Earth, the 
"; only the Atlantic was an " impassable barrier,"1 As M. Toutain justly observes, from the Christian era onwards, progress was no longer bound up with conquest, but with the Roman Peace whose character and blessings are described in M. Chapot's The Roman World and with the work of internal organization—improvement of the administration, diffusion of law, multiplication of cities, and development of the system of routes by land and sea.2 There were two centuries of remarkable prosperity during which the transformed West and the East became more and more united. Comfort—" but it was still a very comparative comfort "—extended to the mass of men, while luxuries were obtained from various sources, far beyond the Mediterranean basin.3 In the second century, under the Antonines, this economic evolution touched its highest point.
If we mentally change the position of the chapters which M. Toutain devotes to the Western Mediterranean (in which he gives a full, straightforward summary of the progress accomplished in the stone and metal ages by certain peoples of Europe), we shall obtain from this volume, in an abstract scheme, a succession of main stages passed in economic evolution—from nomadic life (in which man goes to the place of production) to settled life (in which he attracts products to the centres of consumption)4 and from household economy (production and consumption in common) to urban economy (division of labour among producers and consumers, town markets) and then inter-urban and international economy (monetary economy and exchanges over greater and greater distances). Moreover, once the Greek world has reached a certain degree of economic organization and expansion—down to the advent of machinery and the creation of true capitalism—the characteristic features of economic life are not again altered in their fundamental nature; but there were serious crises, followed by centuries of retrogression, the many causes of which will be described in the volume on The End of the Ancient World and the Dawn of the Middle Ages.5
Here we are doing no more—as may be seen—than calling attention to the results of a piece of historical work which preaches no doctrine. With Francois Simiand we shall readily say: " Historical reality is complex, and cannot be brought under formulas. There are differences between similar phenomena found in different societies and at different times. I do not deny all this, but the fact does not invalidate the legitimacy of comparative studies or of the establishment of types, if these are undertaken with a suitably critical spiritWith him, again, we shall say: " It is not going away from reality and plunging into logical, artificial constructions, to analyze that reality with clear but exact categories and to look in it for relations which are general inform but are always close to the data supplied by fact; for only these categories and relations give a true understanding of the very complexity of that reality"1 Now, history likewise compels M. Toutain, in regard to the classification of economic phenomena and the evolution of phenomena of various categories, to make interesting statements which we have now to underline.
In each division of this book, the chapters agriculture, industry, trade recur regularly. They correspond to the various activities by which goods come into being and move about. The two great classes of economic phenomena, production (agriculture and industry) and exchange or circulation, are discussed more fully than distribution; phenomena of this last class, though not neglected, are perhaps given less importance, and in any case are not studied by themselves.2
From M. Toutain's book it emerges plainly that in ancient times productive activity, considered in its two kinds and in respect both of technical methods and the details of institutions, stopped or slowed down in its advance sooner than commercial activity.
Agriculture and stock-breeding, with the beginnings of settled life, with the clearing of waste land and deforestation, were at first the chief labour of man. Little by little, the two kinds of farming developed, as the Greek world and then the Roman Empire extended, bringing wider and wider areas into use, and as methods were improved, the rational utilization of the soil and climate making it possible to increase the yield.1 The xvork of man—small landowner, agricultural labourer, or serf attached to the soil (as a result of invasions)—created wealth ivhich became more and more plentiful; for nature has no value except for the need and by the effort or idea ivhich utilizes and exploits it. But a time came when that exploitation stood still. There was even a shortage of corn at the end of the Empire. The latifundia, which owed their development to slave labour, after having been the curse of Italy, became the curse of the Roman world. The indifference and greed of the great landlords led them to neglect corn, and the system of colonatus was devised in order to meet the danger of famine. As for agricultural apparatus, it underwent little change, and " the real implements of the farmer still had their old shape. Plough, spade, hoe, mattock, pick, fork, scythe, sickle, and pruning-knife were, as the surviving specimens show, just as they had been handed down from generation to generation."2
Industry, " that is, the transformation of various raw materials into things intended to satisfy men's needs and luxurious tastes,"3 progressed—still more than agriculture—by the specialization of the crafts and a division of labour which went to great lengths.4 It is in the domain of industry that that important social phenomenon manifests itself most effectively. We see the workman appear, " whose labour, being devoted to one definite task, supplied the other members of the community with the food, utensils, tools, and manufactured articles which came to be needed all the more as the production of them became more normal, more plentiful, and more technical. So the energies of each man were released from the manifold tasks for which they were not fitted, and could concentrate and so become more fruitful."1 Family industry was superseded by small and medium industry. Workshops and building-yards were set up, and even fairly large factories, under the Empire.2 In Rome, professional corporations came into being and, after first, it seems, being confined to handicraftsmen, extended to manufacturers and merchants. " The idea of association was one of the original features of the economic life of Rome."3
It may well be imagined that the number of raw materials, of things utilized, steadily increased. The urban centres of the Greek world and the Empire consumed an infinite variety of substances for building and furniture-making.4 Yet this industrial development had its limits. There could not be a true " big industry," for lack of machinery.5 In sum, industrial methods did not make any decisive advance in the centuries covered by this volume, any more than agricultural methods. Such progress as there was consisted chiefly " in the extension of industry, in the number of workshops built and in the number and extension of the markets opened to it."6
We must lay stress on this last point. Down to the decline of the Empire, trade did not cease, not only to eostend, but to perfect its methods. Freedom and ease of trade grew steadily as well as its volume.7
No doubt, if one considers the evolution of trade from its beginnings, there does seem to have been a stage of social constraint at which it was subject to all kinds of religious restrictions and regulations;8 but it developed in a non-religious, individualistic direction,9 and above all in the direction of international organization. It has even been maintained that trade must have been international (" intersocial " would be a better word) before it was internal, sea-borne before it was land-borne; but the theory seems to hold good only for certain complex forms of business. However that may be, at an early date, without doubt, division of labour arid mutual exchange of services tended to become established between men belonging to different and even hostile groups. We know' of the phenomenon of the " silent trade " (goods laid down on a beach), which for the time being makes the foreigner (hostis) a party in an exchange, an associate.1 Periodical meetings, or markets, strengthened by bonds of hospitality, give exchange a regular character. The system of " community of market" must necessarily end in " more or less complete fusion of the groups resorting to the market. The market provided with common organs constitutes the centre of crystallization of a new society based ... on differences and division of labour. Round the market, merchants, craftsmen, etc., establish themselves. The peace (the law) of the market extends to them permanently, and you have a city. The city is a market whose establishmen ts have become fixed and whose peace has become permanent. The agglomeration of an urban form is characteristic of a commercial civilization. The market of the city (agora, forum, etc.) for a long time continues to be the centre of common life."2 Between groups which become larger and larger and more and more distinct, trade continues its work, the importance of which cannot be exaggerated. It establishes a solidarity among men, even over great distances.3 The men who did trade on a big scale, the traders of Phoenicia, Greece, Syria, Carthage, and Rome, not only assumed a capital part in the evolution of all economic life, by causing every form of production to increase; they contributed to the unification of the an cient world, and by causing tastes, customs, and ideas to circulate, as it were, they served the unity of mankind.
What was at once the cause and the effect of that splendid development of trade, was the continuous creation in the Mediterranean basin of means of expansion, of the material equipment needed—routes by land and water (sea, rivers, canals), vehicles and ships, various driving-powers, skilfully constructed ports, and huge entrepots.1 At the same time, commercial institutions, especially in the Roman Empire, " attained a high degree of perfection."2 Compared with urban trade, the early booths and shops, and even the " market-halls, local markets, and fairs,"3 the trading and shipping offices which were built up on the corporations of merchants in the great commercial centres represented a very great power. " From one end of the Empire to the other, commerce was, as it were, unified. Natural commodities, raw materials, and manufactured goods travelled about the Mediterranean in every direction; they were carried by whole merchant navies, and associations of shipowners . . . doubtless played the part of the modern shipping company."4 Certain pages in this book, at the end of Parts Two and Four, give a very definite idea and sometimes a striking picture of the organization effected under Alexander's successors and the Roman Emperors and of the prodigious activity and variety of the circulation of goods.5
But the essential agent of this intensive trade, and therefore of increasing production, was money. Even when the exchange of gifts and barter properly so called were superseded by the use of metal, raw or manufactured,6 a real progress was accomplished. But " the really fruitful revolution, which gave trade an impulse which it had not known before, was the invention of true money, coin with a public, official stamp."7 There was now a common measure of the value of things,8 which was convenient because of its portable, easily handled form and also because of the impersonal character which it save to dealings: " it made them an operation between two abstract entities, the buyer and the seller, who did not need to know one another."1 Subsequent progress consisted in a tendency to unify currencies (if monetary unity was first instituted by Rome, the preponderance of Athens had made the Attic drachma a kind of standard),2 but chiefly in the various uses of coin which led up to the banking system, and then in the organization of banking and the development of the mechanism of finance—public and private banks, current accounts, cheques, letters of credit, transfers from one account to another, and joint-stock financial companies.3 " By the side of that first instrument of circulation, money, another appeared, namely credit. It facilitated circulation because it made it possible to exchange, not only present wealth against present wealth, but present wealth against future wealth."4.
So movable wealth was formed, and, so " capitalism " came into being, if it was not the capitalistic system as we think of it today.5
Really, it is a mistake to confine the word " capitalas is usually done, to movable wealth. " Capital " includes everything which, resulting from previous work, is not consumed iinmediately, everything among the natural objects used by man which is to serve for later satisfactions. Land under culture and working equipment, like coin, where everything is potential, eminently represent the fruit of human experience and foresight. Thanks to capital, man lives less and less at the mercy of chances, coincidences, circumstances; he makes certain not only of wellbeing but of unlimited possibilities of better-being. All men, however, do not share equally in the immediate consumption xvhicli most meets the need; still less, then, do they share equally in capital which accumulates. The ownership of things is distributed unequally. And the unequal distribution of goods is a most important object of study in economics.
At the beginning, was ownership collective? Lacombe has observed that the scholars who devote their studies to the classical peoples " seem to doubt that their peoples ever practised collective ownership." Sociologists, on the contrary, " assert that all peoples without exception began with collective ownership, and that even the peoples in whom the scholars in question specialize still practised it at the dawn of the historical period, or, at the very least, still possessed institutions which were clearly descended from that practice. I take my stand firmly," Lacombe declares, " on the side of the sociologists."1 His argument is very strong; it refers, however, only to the soil. For the times and peoples with which he deals, M. Toutain is disinclined to admit the contention of the sociologists, or, at least, he holds that individual or family ownership existed alongside of the other kind. However that may have been, we here follow the development of private property and see the rise of all the inequalities in natural resources, and therefore in pleasures and leisure, which gave rise, in the course of history, to countless economic conflicts and moral problems.
It would seem that in Greece, where land continued to be the main form of wealth until a late date, a certain equality was maintained fairly long. Before the fourth century, according to Aristotle, nobody was in utter distress.2 In the Hellenistic period, landed property became concentrated. In Rome, at an early date, the distribution of land was very unequal; there were rich and poor, and no middle class, but a town proletariate. The countryside, for causes which are indicated in this book and set forth more fully elsewhere,3 was deserted. The " agrarian question " became a grievous problem; the laws passed to remedy the evil " were openly violated or quietly evaded."4 In the Empire as a whole, small and medium sized property held their own for a long time. Btit when other countries were afflicted by the same curse as Italy, when the small landowner and free tenant farmer disappeared, as in Egypt, where the system of farming-out had been established for the royal and sacred domains, the State had to interfere to prevent the land from being deserted, and created the new class of coloni, slaves of the land.
Movable wealth was as unequally distributed as the soil. If we consider industry, except in the East, where there were many free craftsmen combined in guilds (but subject to strict regulations and fairly heavy taxes), and in some Greek cities,1 it did not serve to spread ease of life or to diffuse the fruits of capital, for slaves played a large and disastrous part in it, both driving out the free worker and taking the place of machinery. It was one of the essential characteristics of ancient economic life that there were human beings who were treated as things, that the manufacturer had at his disposal (like the big landlord, of course) a capital of flesh and a working plant of muscle. On the " unprecedented extension " of slavery, as a result of wars and piracy, and on the low cost of slave labour (hard enough in other respects), M. Toutain gives edifying details.2
Antiquity, as we knoiv, was unacquainted with machinery. Decisive progress had been made in technical methods in the stone and metal ages.3 Why, betxveen those distant times, in which a series of marvellous inventions provided economic life with its essential stock-in-trade, and the age of machines, do we find increasing multiplication and circulation of consumable things without any parallel advance of the " manufacturing intelligence "?4 Are we to suppose that the aptitude declined because humanity proceeds by alternate periods of technical invention and speculative crisis? We have already discussed this law of the two states, which is very contestable and too absolute.5 No doubt, social organization can, at certain times, by the progress of " verbal technique," by " illusory techniques," of religious, magical origin, and by the conservative power of tradition and the corporate spirit, hamper theplayofthe " mechanical instinct" which is born in the individual at the contact of nature and has benefited social organization. But it seems to be above all slavery that is to blame here. Not only did it supply a lazy solution for technical problems (Aristotle said that the slave would be indispensable so long as the shuttle did not fly by itself);1 it caused manual labour to be despised as a servile occupation. By a kind of contamination, the material applications of science seemed degrading to the Greek and Roman philosophers. Archimedes himself, according to Plutarch, regarded " mechanics in general and everything practical as a low and obscure art."2 Although many guilds of small manufacturers and free craftsmen sprang up under the Empire, workshops of any size continued to rely on slave employees to supply the needs (small as they still were) of the masses and the luxuries of the few. Moreover, the object of the professional associations was chiefly moral. In short, in the presence of slavery, there was not in antiquity, and could not be, any machinery or any organized body of wageearners.
If, now, we turn to trade, Rome is different from Greece and the Hellenistic world. In the latter, a large class of merchants profited by its ample development; in the former, it was left to a minority of big business men, who did not enjoy great esteem. It was held in the same contempt as the mechanical arts, and down to 224 B.C. it was, like them, forbidden to all Roman citizens. The Senatorial order continued to be officially excluded from it (Claudian Law). Outside the great companies run by members of the Equestrian order, " the greater part of business . . . was in the hands of freedmen, usually of Greek or Oriental origin."3 They flooded Italy with Eastern goods, but with far more luxuries than articles of general consumption. In the face of the Senatorial class which had groxvn rich by conquest and pillage, they constituted a plutocracy, equally powerful and vleasure-loving.
Wealth in Rome, which originally came from the right of the stronger, then from big business and banking, but chiefly from the farming of taxes1 and usurious money-lending (the legal interest was 12 per cent.), had too little to do with agricultural and industrial work. In general—and one should especially note this—antiquity was incapable of making really fruitful and beneficial use of movable capital. No doubt, the formation of cities, states, and empires, the increase of the size and density of human societies, and the impulse of social logic which tends to intermingle, to fuse particular interests in ever greater numbers, the better to satisfy them, led, in the ancient world, to the development of production and circulation, to the creation of the mechanism of money and banking, to more well-being, and to a future secured for a longer time ahead. But technical processes had remained stationary, or almost so. The capital amassed by human labour and its fruits were distributed haphazard. Events showed how fragile was that economic constitution, how precarious that prosperity—and how curiously unequal, too, in different times and places. Before the economic crisis and retrogression, a moral crisis had set in, just because of the contrast which there was between excess of selfish wealth and extreme penury; beyond the problem of wealth, of earthly felicity, it raised the question of human happiness.
It is well known that economists for a long time erred in the direction of pure theory, deducing the laivs of economic development from the definition of Homo Œconomicus. Interest in history and the progress of ethnology and sociology have to a great extent added to and corrected the hard-and-fast orthodox conceptions. But in the place of over-simple deduction new theories have risen up. Misusing ethnology, some have made a too systematic reconstruction of economic beginnings from the so-called " primitive man" of today.2 Misusing sociology, others have explained economic evolution too exclusively by the social factor.3 The complex interplay of the various factors of that evolution—manifold accidents, institutional necessities, social and intellectual logic—is clearly seen in this very objective study, which surveys economic reality widely and from a great height.1 M. Toutain has contributed to our synthesis a stone which is all the more valuable in that it falls into place—let us say it once more in concluding—without any effort to propound a doctrine.
HENRI BERR.
1 De l'histoire considérée comme science, p. 48.
2 See out Synthèse en histoire, p. 181.
3 Prehistoric Man, pp. xiii-xiv. " So the hand, which met the immediate and imperative needs of the body, decided that man should be above all things a manual worker, a tool-maker, a digger of the earth. And that is what he still is, for far the most part. That, it seems, ought not to appear in the history of man, and that is just what is real history, truly universal or semi-universal history—but it is the history known as historical materialism " (Journal, 26th July, 1915).
1 A Geographical Introduction to History, Race and History, From Tribe to Empire. The Nile, Mesopotamia, The Ægean Civilization, all in this series.
1 Below, pp. 1, 4.
2 P. 29.
3 P. 26.
4 Without, of course, refusing to make use of the works of other modern writers, he prefers, with the school of Fustel de Coulanges, to resort as much as possible to the ancient authors and documents.
1 See Durkheim, De la division du travail social, esp, pp. 336 ff.; Lacombe, op. cit., p. 192; Cornejo, Socdnlogie giniralc, pp. 468 ff. (see especially interesting remarks on what he calls "moral density"); La Sunthèse en histoire. pp. 135 ff., 184 ff.
2 Pp. 20, 23.
3 P. 30.
4 P. 70.
1 Macedonian Imperialism, in this series.
2 Pp. 139-41, 152, 161.
3 Pp. 157 ff.
4 P. 204.
5 Pp 199, 212.
6 P. 213, of. p. 251.
7 P. 226.
1 Pp. 250, 259.
2 Pp. 259, 284, 303, 323.
3 Pp. 291-3, 297-8, 307.
4 Pp. 176-7.
5 Pp. 79, 323 ff.
1 In Année sociologique, vol. x, pp. 533, 551, regarding works by Salvioli and Mantoux.
2 We are almost in agreement with F. Simiand over the classification which he has slowly elaborated in the first series of L'Année sociologique, and described in greater detail in La Méthode positive en science économique, pp. 153 ff., and L'Année sociologique, new series, vol. i, pp. 720 ff. We believe, however, that it is better, at least in the case of ancient economic life, not to include circulation under the head of production; but we agree with him that distribution and consumption tend to merge into one another. To study consumption is to study the use of wealth, immediate use, answering more or less well to the need (lack, overproduction), and deferred use (conservative or productive). To study distribution is to consider the users. Here we cannot follow the classification of Simiand in its details, which are complicated and perhaps, in some points, provisional.
The problem of classification interests many economists, who are trying to break down the traditional framework and to conform to the nature of things. For this question and for economic bibliography in general, use L'Année sociologique (economic sociology), the Revue de l'Instilut de Sociologie, Solvay (political and social economy), and the handbook entitled Die Wirtschafislheorie der Gegemvarl: I. Gesamtbild der Forschung in den einzclnen Ländern: Frankreich, a remarkable general survey of French works and tendencies, taken in conjunction with many foreign works and tendencies, by G. Pirou.
1 Pp. 37, 102,106, 109, 260, 265-6, 271. In the words of a Greek philosopher, intelligence became " the fellow-worker of nature." See Cloché, La Civilisation athénienne, p. 135.
2 Pp. 262-3, 282.
3 P. 17.
4 Pp. 47-8, 53-6
1 P. 57. See Cloché, op. cit., p. 137.
2 Pp. 301 ff.
3 P. 316.
4 Pp. 130, 284, 286-7, 202.
5 P. 57.
6 P. 293.
7 Pp. 29, 62, 139-40, 195.
8 See Davy, in From Tribe to Empire, pp. 108-109.
9 Huvelin, " Définition et évolution du droit commercial," in Rev. de Synthèse historique, vol. vii, p. 72.
1 Ibid., p. 67.
2 Ibid., pp. 68, 74. For the Middle Ages, see G. Bourgin, " Les Origines urbaincs du Moyen Age," in Rev. de Synth, hist., vol. vii, p. 321.
3 Below, p. 140
1 Pp. 147, 241-4, 312.
2 Huvelin, " Histoire cxterne et interne du droit commercial," in Rev. de Synth. hist., vol. viii, p. 201.
3 See pp. 66 and 158 for remarks on the roads used by traders and pilgrims, which should be compared with J. Bédier's ingenious suggestions regarding the function of the pilgrim-ways in the Middle Ages.
1 P. 319.
5 Pp. 158-9, 306-7, 317 ff.
6 Pp. 22, 70-1, 186.
7 P. 71.
8 Subjectively the value corresponds to the need, the desire. In addition to this subjective element, there are, in the notion of value, objective elements—plenty or scarcity and work. Hence the opposition between demand and supply. The measuring of values, in economy, is a remarkable and paradoxical invention; economic value, as Simiand has ingeniously said, is an opinion which is a quantity. See La Synthèse en hisloire, p. 186, and Année sociologique, vol. xi, p. 543.
1 Cornejo, op. cit., vol. i, p. 481.
2 Pp. 73, 167. Cæsar created the gold standard, the aureus.
3 Pp. 74-6, 165-8, 246-50.
4 Huvelin, art. cit., in Re.v. de Synth, hist., vol. vii, p. 69; below, p. 79.
5 The capitalistic system is the application of accumulated capital to industry, with the effects on the organization of labour which it involves. In speaking of antiquity, one can at the very most talk of commercial capitalism, and one can just talk of financial capitalism. See H. Sée, Les Origines du capitalisme moderne, p. 7.
1 L'Appropriation privée du sol, in Rev. de Synth, hist., vol. vi, p. 24.
2 P. 39.
3 See Primitive Italy, in this series.
4 P. 221.
1 Pp. 60-1.
2 See esp. pp. 231-2, 239. Cf. Bulletin de la Soc.franç. de Fhilosophie, Feb.-March, 1914, " Y-a-t'il un rhythmc dans le progrès intellectuel?" (Meyerson), p. 103: "A strong slave . . . was worth on an average, in the Roman world, £16; but there were periods . . . when his price went as low ... as 3s. Cato the Elder allows " (his slaves) " no rest; when a slave is not eating or sleeping (and of course he should do as little of either as possible), he works." On the condition of the slave and his gradual betterment, and on the freedman, see Declareuil, Rome the Law-giver, in this series, pp. 126-35, 340-42.
The craftsman seems to have complained, not of the competition of the slave, but rather of the need for industrial labour—on account of the lack of land.
3 P. 174, Cf. Weber, in a/m Bulletin, pp. 81-82; Lacombe, op. cit., pp. 162, 173.
4 We must not deny all invention, all progress in details; see, in a/m Bulletin, Meyerson, pp. 95 ff., and Weber, p. 113. Cf. G. Lombroso-Ferrero, " Pourquoi le machinisme ne fut pas adopts dans l'antiquite," in Rev. du Mois, May-June, 1920, p. 451.
5 Foreword to Prehistoric Man.
1 Meyerson, art. cit., p. 104.
2 P. 239. Cf. Meyerson, art. cit., p. 101; G. Lombroso-Ferrero, art. cit., p. 450.
3 P. 245.
1 Until the system of direct collection was introduced and wealthy taxpayers were made responsible (the result of which in the end was that they migrated into the country).
2 Just remarks in O. Leroy, Essai d'introduction critique à l'étude de l'économie primitive (on K. Bücher).
3 See La Synthèse en histoire, pp. 181 ff. (on Durkheim).
1 A curious and significant feature—M. Toutain believes in the effective part played by the individual (see pp. 328-9), and rightly. We have tried to show (in La Synthèse en histoire and General Introduction to The Earth before History) what the individual can do, either as a contingent or as a logical factor in the social and in the intellectual order. But in this book, except perhaps Alexander, we hardly see one individual, so overwhelming are the great economic phenomena, the mass phenomena. Cf. the remarks of Henri Sée, in a similar work, Les Origincs du capitalisme moderne, in which he has " always endeavoured to rely on concrete facts," to take accidents into account, but has endeavoured " to do a work of synthesis "; lie observes that " personalities fall entirely into the background," in favour of " certain facts of another order," whose " connexion " is more apparent (pp. 2-3).