"Of all the occupations by which gain is secured, none is better than agriculture, none more profitable, none more delightful, none more becoming to a free man." - Cicero(106-43 B.C.) De officiis, 1.52, tr. Walter Miller, 1913
What is so good about engaging in agriculture? I think that there are two ways to approach this issue. The first is to imagine agriculture as it was in the time of Cicero, two thousand years ago. In this sense, agriculture is literally the working of the land and the raising of crops. The ideal farmer who Cicero would have been talking about is the Roman Citizen who runs a small family farm, and owns his own land. The farmer would have needed to be a tough and self-sufficient sort of person, healthy, and who in all likelihood would have spent some time as a soldier. The second way we can imagine agriculture is to think of it as way of utilizing natural resources in order to achieve a surplus of goods. In this sense, 'agriculture' may be widened to include such things as fishing and logging.. The point to keep in mind here is that 'agriculture' is a method of 'growing', a way to utilize your skill and your environment to achieve something, without ruining the land you rely upon. Good agriculture involves the capability to renew one's resources, to replace and not lose the soil,and to log and not turn forests to wasteland. One of the worries which Rome faced during the time of Cicero was a general decline in the number of family farms as they were replaced by slave-run mega farms, and a reduction in soil fertility, as much of the topsoil on the Italian peninsula was becoming very overworked. There would also have been a general rise in the number of poor who lived in the cities, as well as the rise of especially rich and powerful people who threatened the old order of the Roman Republic which Cicero sought to defend, people like Julius Caesar, Marc Antony, and Pompey. When Cicero advocates for the goodness of agriculture, he is also advocating for the goodness of the old Roman way of life.
If gain is better secured by agriculture than by other means, then it is because agriculture has the singular worth that what you get out of it is so often influenced by what you put into it. If you find an area with good sil and plentiful water, then if you carefully tend it, you will always receive back what you put into it. Agriculture is different from the activities of merchants, workers, nobles, and craftsmen because for its success, it does not require other men, or other laws. The essence of agriculture is self-sufficiency. What's more, agriculture is working on the land, land which can be in proved. It may take ten years or ten generations, but those who take care of their land, putting resources back into the soil and not over-harvesting or over-tilling, will almost certainly result in a great benefit.
It is somewhat puzzling why Cicero spoke of agriculture as being the most profitable means of securing gain - certainly other, higher-skill occupations contained the possibility of more monetary gain. On the other hand, agriculture does have the benefit of giving you gain in other ways. The working of the soil day in and day out is certainly conductive to the gain of a rough and hardy body, one which is healthy and resistant to injury. A farmer lives in the free air, suffers the winds of a storm, works with his hands, and eats the heartiest foods. Someone who lives in a city on the streets is certainly no better off, soldiers always face the threat of death, and the merchant or noble class is prone to a weak body, presumably because they work inside all the time. As well, agriculture, especially agriculture as practiced during the time of Cicero, which would have been small family farms, grants something which no other job would - self-sufficiency.
As for the practice of agriculture being more 'delightful' to practice than other activities, I think this must be a point of view. However, it is a point of view which many seem to share, as we can witness from our apparently universal need to grow plants, garden, and landscape. We simply enjoy being around plants, and working with our hands in the earth. It gives many people a sense of satisfaction, connection, and the joy of obtaining something with their own hands.
Finally, as for the pursuit of agriculture being 'becoming for a free man', there is supporting theory for this. In both Roman times and in the renaissance time of the American revolution, the small-scale farmer was thought to be the backbone of democracy. It is also so with the Scots and the Indians - for as regards the ability of a people to resist being conquered, or to push back against the powers of their own government, a community of self-sufficient farmers, used to tackling the elements alone and following their own advice, is ideally situated. They are stuck on their plots of land, so they must organize in order to fight back against the depredations of raiders, they must organize in order to manage the local waterways, and they must organize if they wish to resist the power of the law. At the same time, they do not need each other for survival most of the time, and so organization is voluntary. They are dispersed across a wide area, soi organization is not all-encompassing, as it is in the cities. They are generally injured more by war than other classes, as they lose life, limb, and time on the farm. We can say that land is the ultimate and original source of wealth. Thus, if free men live on the land which is the first origin of power and resources in human society, then human society will be disposed toward the lifestyle of the independent farmer. R On the other hand, if the land is owned and cultivated by large groups of slave's, or by absentee land-owners, groups that either live divorced from the land or have no direct link between their personal work and their personal lives, then the foundation of society tends towards the life of the merchant and the mass.
Comments
Post a Comment