Economic historians have recently demonstrated that wage-labour in classical Athens was not only extensive but also characterized by a high level of horizontal specialization, which in turn created full-time occupations, and that professionals in performing arts, education, medicine and sculpture could attain a remarkably high status.Footnote ¹ Furthermore, with regard to crafts (or the so-called ‘banausic trades’), the attitude ‘that one should work hard and strive to maximize output and grow wealthy, so long as one did not act unjustly’ has been shown to be representative of popular thinking already from the Archaic period.Footnote ² Nevertheless, the picture of the social status of wage-labourers has long been muddled by the assessments of their livelihood found in works that pursue a philosophical agenda. In this regard, demonstrating that the scorn of Plato, Xenophon and Aristotle for wage-labourers did not represent a popular attitude, Lewis concluded that ‘the role of skill as a driver of social status will require further exploration, especially among the working population of Attica’.Footnote ³

In keeping with Lewis’s proposed avenue of exploration, this article focusses on the social status of a category of wage-labourers that is usually overlooked—namely, those who would be deemed unspecialized. Specialized labour is recognized as such in every society based on subjective criteria, and for Athens this was reflected in the debate about what activity falls on the spectrum of tekhnê.Footnote ⁴ Within this framework, the term ‘unspecialized’ could be used to describe the types of work deemed devoid of tekhnê by the denizens of Attica. For example, in Aristotle’s discussion of money-making (χρηματιστική), the part of wage-earning (μισθαρνία) is divided between that of craftsmen (βάναυσοι) and that of unspecialized labourers (ἄτεχνοι), who ‘are useful exclusively by means of their body’ (Pol. 1258b τῷ σώματι μόνῳ χρησίμων).Footnote ⁵ As we shall see, despite this notional division in wage-earning occupations, to labour for wages was contemptible tout court in the eyes of the elite. But what can be said about how Athenian wage-labourers viewed their unspecialized peers, such as those congregating at the area known as the ‘Labourers’ Kolonos’ in hopes of finding employment for the day?Footnote ⁶ Correspondingly, what would Athenian craftsmen think of their unspecialized compatriots working by their side in the extensive building programme instigated by Pericles?Footnote ⁷ An enquiry into the status conferred by unspecialized wage-labour in Athenian popular culture will reveal that its practitioners, unlike their specialized peers, were looked down on by elites and non-elites alike.Footnote ⁸

Popular thinking on wage-labour incorporated elements of the elite perspective, so a summary of the latter should be our point of departure. In so far as those around Socrates (and their students) were representative of the Athenian elite, their take on wage-labour (regardless of specialization, or lack thereof) was that it undermines a man’s autonomy and impedes his ability to be a good citizen.Footnote ⁹ Regarding the issue of autonomy, wage-labour was considered incompatible with personal freedom, and the economic dependence characterizing the life of a wage-labourer was thought tantamount to slavery. In one of the dialogues attributed to Plato, an unnamed man claims that, while a philosopher should have knowledge of crafts, he should not be as knowledgeable as their respective practitioners ‘but on the level appropriate to a free and educated man’ (Amat. 135d ἀλλ’ ὡς εἰκὸς ἄνδρα ἐλεύθερόν τε καὶ πεπαιδευμένον). Likewise, in Xenophon’s Memorabilia, although Aristarchus, an impoverished member of the Athenian elite, deplores the dire financial situation of his family at the end of the Peloponnesian War, he defends the immiserating abstention of his dependants from wage-labour on the ground that they are ‘educated in what befits free people’ (ἐλευθερίως πεπαιδευμένους, 2.7.4).Footnote ¹⁰ In the same vein, Aristotle emphatically argues that ‘a free man does not live for the sake of another’ (ἐλευθέρου γὰρ τὸ μὴ πρὸς ἄλλον ζῆν, Rh. 1367a). As regards the performance of citizenship, the Elean in Plato’s Statesman asserts (to Socrates’ agreement) that one ‘shall never find hirelings and thêtes, who readily serve anyone, among those partaking in the art of rulership’ (ἀλλ᾿ οὐ μήν, οὕς γε ὁρῶμεν μισθωτοὺς καὶ θῆτας πᾶσιν ἑτοιμότατα ὑπηρετοῦντας, μή ποτε βασιλικῆς μεταποιουμένους εὕρωμεν, 290a).Footnote ¹¹ Likewise, in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, after highlighting their detrimental effect on the body and mind of men, Socrates declares that ‘the crafts called banausic are disgraceful and held in utter disdain in poleis’ (αἵ γε βαναυσικαὶ καλούμεναι [sc. τέχναι] καὶ ἐπίρρητοί εἰσι καὶ εἰκότως μέντοι πάνυ ἀδοξοῦνται πρὸς τῶν πόλεων, 4.3).Footnote ¹² Finally, assuming that wage-labour, as practised by both craftsmen (βάναυσοι) and unspecialized labourers (θῆτες), debases free men and renders them unable to practise virtue (ἀρετή), Aristotle considered the thetic class on the whole to be unfit for citizenship rights.Footnote ¹³

For the non-elite perspective on wage-labour, in general, our sources afford scanty direct evidence on the status of its practitioners, which appears to have been positive.Footnote ¹⁴ None the less, a close examination of works in genres that expressed or appealed to shared collective values, such as oratory and drama, illuminates the complexities of the issue.Footnote ¹⁵ In this regard, the funeral oration of Pericles, as presented by Thucydides, provides a crucial piece of information on the background against which Athenians would have viewed labour.Footnote ¹⁶ Specifically, Pericles claims that in Athens ‘it is not a shame for one to acknowledge poverty, but the greater shame is for one not to avoid it through work’ (τὸ πένεσθαι οὐχ ὁμολογεῖν τινὶ αἰσχρόν, ἀλλὰ μὴ διαφεύγειν ἔργῳ αἴσχιον, 2.40.1). As the speech goes on to emphasize the significant social role of the politically engaged labourer, Bourriot observed that in fifth-century Athens ‘work is elevated to a civic value’.Footnote ¹⁷ The attachment of civic worth to wage-labour would unavoidably enmesh a wage-labourer in a relationship with his employer (unless perhaps that was the polis itself) which had implications extending well beyond his economic survival, since the former’s value as a citizen would directly depend on a third party. A striking example of the unease inherent in this reality appears in Xenophon’s Memorabilia, when Socrates advises Eutherus, a poor man who sold his manual labour on demand, to work for someone as a bailiff and thus secure a suitable source of income before he becomes too old and feeble. Upon hearing the recommendation, Eutherus retorts: ‘I would not stand becoming a slave’ (χαλεπῶς ἄν, ἔφη, ἐγώ, ὦ Σώκρατες, δουλείαν ὑπομείναιμι, 2.8.4), and further expands on his reasoning by admitting that he is unwilling to expose himself to ‘any one man’s censure’ (ὅλως, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες, τὸ ὑπαίτιον εἶναί τινι οὐ πάνυ προσίεμαι, 2.8.5), thus clarifying that what he considers slavish is answering to a single person.Footnote ¹⁸ Apparently, under certain circumstances, a poor Athenian would come to share the ideas of elites on wage-labour and autonomy, since it could put one in an unenviable position, and for more than economic reasons to boot.

At this point, as we turn to the non-elite perspective on unspecialized wage-labour, it would be pertinent to highlight a distinction between the different types of wage-labour drawn by Aristotle, since this distinction represents an additional ideological confluence between elites and non-elites. Specifically, Aristotle divided the groups that constitute every polis into five parts (μέρη) in terms of occupation: farmers (γεωργικόν), craftsmen (βάναυσον), traders (ἀγοραῖον), thêtes (θητικόν) and warriors (προπολεμῆσον).Footnote ¹⁹ A brief commentary is provided on the function and usefulness of each part with the exception of that of the thêtes, who stand here for unspecialized wage-labourers.Footnote ²⁰ Meanwhile, the craftsmen are said to engage in the ‘arts without which it is impossible for a polis to be inhabited’ (τὰς τέχνας ὧν ἄνευ πόλιν ἀδύνατον οἰκεῖσθαι, Pol. 1291a), whereas the thêtes receive only nominal mention. This implicit distinction of specialized and unspecialized wage-labour in terms of civic worth might seem like an extra layer of elitist bias, but comedy—one of our major sources on Athenian popular culture—suggests that everyday Athenians thought about specialization and civic worth in similar terms.Footnote ²¹

In Aristophanes’ Wealth, after Chremylus restores the eyesight of Plutus, the previously uneven distribution of wealth between honest and dishonest men shifts. This turn of events has an unnamed sykophantês rush to Chremylus’ house to complain, but there he is accosted by a formerly poor (also unnamed) Honest Man, who had arrived earlier to dedicate the rugs of his poverty days to the god. Given that in the play’s context the wretched state of the incoming sykophantês immediately gives away his moral character, as the Honest Man and the slave Carion mock him, the following conversation ensues (898–906):Footnote ²²

Although a product of comic imagination, this dialogue poses as an exchange between two non-elite Athenians; thus, provided that its dramatic success depends on its content being representative of popular thinking, its implications for the social status of wage-labourers demand closer attention.Footnote ²³ After each question about the possible occupations of ‘a good and patriotic man’ (χρηστὸς καὶ φιλόπολις) is met with a cynically negative response, the question concluding the examination of the sykophantês is considerably loaded.Footnote ²⁴ The Honest Man offers various options that would substantiate one’s claim to a life of honour in terms of occupation and, although specialized wage-labour makes it on the list (τέχνην τιν᾽ ἔμαθες;), unspecialized wage-labour is conspicuously absent. In addition, the feigned aporia (since morally dubious activities are, obviously, excluded) as to how one who was not involved in farming, trade or craftsmanship earned a livelihood suggests that these three were the only occupational options conceivable for an Athenian citizen who wished to claim civic worth. Consequently, it appears that non-elite Athenians, much like their elite counterparts, perceived unspecialized wage-labour to be unfit for a citizen.

Besides playing on the notion of an incompatibility between unspecialized wage-labour and citizenship in mainstream Athenian thought, comedy also suggests that a citizen engaging in this kind of labour was an object of general contempt. This idea is most clearly expressed in Aristophanes’ Wasps, when Bdelycleon attempts to wean his court-obsessed father, Philocleon, off court-service in a contest adjudicated by Philocleon’s like-minded peers who form the Chorus. One of the arguments Bdelycleon employs is the demeaning nature of Philocleon’s favourite pastime. As one might expect from someone espousing elitist ideals, Bdelycleon argues that, by being at the beck and call of self-serving orators for the sake of getting the three obols of court-pay, the elderly judges subject themselves to a state of slavery (682–95) and they are robbed blind of the wealth brought in by the empire they helped build long ago (698-711).Footnote ²⁵ More importantly, however, Bdelycleon’s attack against court service culminates in the claim that judges follow the orators who hold their pay ‘like olive-pickers’ (712 ὥσπερ ἐλαολόγοι χωρεῖθ᾽ ἅμα τῷ τὸν μισθὸν ἔχοντι).Footnote ²⁶ Here, one cannot help but wonder: if Bdelycleon wanted to impress on Philocleon and the Chorus the slavery of court service qua wage-labour, why of all the wage-labour options available does he choose the menial labour of a hired farmhand?Footnote ²⁷ Evidently, this equation of court service with unspecialized wage-labour is meant to persuade the old judges that they lend themselves to an activity which compromises not only their autonomy but also their dignity. In view of that, Philocleon’s abject response (713–14) and the fact that the Chorus of poor Athenians unequivocally buy into Bdelycleon’s elitist arguments (725–36) are telling.Footnote ²⁸ Considering that the ‘olive-picker’ taunt proves strongly evocative even for citizens of a low economic status, its effectiveness seems to rest on unspecialized wage-labour invoking comprehensive contempt.

Other than comedy, the widespread scorn against unspecialized wage-labour in Athenian popular culture is also attested in oratory. In a forensic speech, a certain Menexenus attempts to reclaim part of his late uncle Dicaeogenes’ estate, which at the time was in the hands of another Dicaeogenes, a cousin of Menexenus’ late uncle. Engaging in a strategic character assassination, Menexenus focusses on the treatment of extended family members by Dicaeogenes, some of whom he is said to have robbed of their property, whereas ‘others he suffered to become wage-labourers owing to lack of necessities’ (τοὺς δὲ περιεώρα εἰς τοὺς μισθωτοὺς ἰόντας δι᾽ ἔνδειαν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων, Isae. 5.39). Taking into account the social composition of Athenian courts, most of the judges addressed by Menexenus were anything but strangers to the idea of working for wages.Footnote ²⁹ Therefore, if the judges were to be convinced of Dicaeogenes’ appalling treatment of his extended family, the implied kind of wage-labourer that he ‘suffered’ (περιεώρα) his relatives becoming was one burdened not just by poverty but also by comprehensive contempt—namely, the kind exemplified by the wage-labourer deemed unspecialized.Footnote ³⁰

In summary, it can be argued that the vilification of wage-labourers in absolute terms is exclusive to the writings of elite authors who criticized wage-labour on philosophical grounds for its incompatibility with personal autonomy and with what they deemed to be a proper performance of citizenship. Still, a closer look into the sources evincing the values and ideas which informed the popular culture of classical Athens reveals that unspecialized wage-labour invoked the disdain of elites as well as non-elites. This overarching, intersectional discrimination illuminates an important drive behind Athenian history. On the Athenian Acropolis, according to the Aristotelian Athenian Constitution, stood an ancient dedication which read: ‘Anthemion the son of Diphilus dedicated this [sc. statue] to the gods … having exchanged the rank of thês for that of hippeus’ (Διφίλου Ἀνθεμίων τήνδ᾿ ἀνέθηκε θεοῖς … θητικοῦ ἀντὶ τέλους ἱππάδ᾿ ἀμειψάμενος, 7.4).Footnote ³¹ Whether Anthemion plied a trade or exerted himself in unspecialized wage-labour is unknown, but the means through which an Athenian could achieve such a spectacular upwards mobility during the Classical period is not. Colonies and cleruchies enabled both the haves and the have-nots to increase their economic status through the acquisition of new lands, whose allotment would either create new farmers in communities attached to the metropolis or provide increased opportunities for Athens-based rentiers.Footnote ³² The interest of poorer Athenians in moving abroad is best attested by the fifth-century decree about the colony at Brea, which famously had a proviso attached stipulating that ‘the colonists shall be from the thêtes and the zeugitai’ (ἐχ θετο͂ν καὶ ζε- | [υ]γιτο͂ν ἰέναι τὸς ἀπο- | [ί]κος, IG I³ 46, 44–6).Footnote ³³ Taking into account the status of unspecialized wage-labourers in Athenian society, certain Athenians would be compelled to join such expansionary undertakings by their desire to flee not only from poverty but also from social stigma.Footnote ³⁴