Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society

Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society

by Alison Burford

Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972

ISBN: 0-8014-0717-6

(Amazon)

Read by the author in Dec. 2025, purchased for $12.55

"The sword, the knife, the dagger, the spear, a hand sickle, and a harvest sickle, from when are they susceptible to ritual impurity? From the time of the completion of their manufacture. And when is this? R. Yochanan says, from when one fires them in the furnace Reish Lakish says, from when one scours them in water. He said to him: A bandit knowns about his banditry." (BT Baba Metzia 84a)

I tend to be drawn to books about the architecture profession in the classical world, so Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society was a no-brainer to read. The book draws on a wide range of sources to make reasonable conclusions about various professions, including architecture. Coming from the perspective of rabbinic literature, it was interesting to cross-examine the conclusions based on the scant evidence that appears in the mishna etc., and honestly it doesn't seem like the Greek and Roman sources are all that more expansive. This means that the data in rabbinic literature is a valid counterpoint if they lead to different conclusions, but also that it ought to be integrated into any studies of the classical world for these types of zoomed-in studies. The addition of any data points should be a blessing. As it is, this book was written over fifty years ago, so on many of the subjects there are newer and more expansive studies. 

In the quote above from the Talmud, there is an argument about when a knife is considered complete, and R. Yochanan ends up relying on the opinion of Reish Lakish, who knew his way around the business end of a knife. One of the points that Burford discusses is the back-and-forth between the client and the craftsman regarding the manufacturing process. She asks who is primarily responsible for innovation? Does a client ask for something that is abnormal and the craftsman labors to find a way to make it, or does the craftsman have a vision and try to convince the client to give him a free hand? She writes: 

"Aristotle, of course, asserted that 'the user knows best'; that, for example, the steersman will have a far clearer idea of what constitutes a good rudder than the ship's carpenter. But he vastly underrated the need for the maker to understand the function of the object he was working on if he was to make it properly. It is the craftsman who sees that hte knife-handle fits closely into the hand of the user; the potter who knows how to ensure that a jug will pour properly." 

So maybe the bandit doesn't really know his banditry? It's probably a bit of both. 

Burford makes an interesting point about the difference between architects and other craftsmen. Most craftsmen were expected to be competent but not necessarily to innovate. If someone came up with a new technique or design, it would disseminate naturally over time. Architects, however, were expected to be in charge and to direct the work of others. This is baked into the name - architecton, chief builder. We don't, however, find "self-confident potters, sculptors, bronze workers, weavers laying claim to titles like architkerameus, archilatypos, archichalkourgos, archhyphanteus." (93-94) 

She explains that one highly talented craftsman present in a location could make all the difference, elevating the level of craftsmanship in that locale across the profession. There seems to have been one highly talented clay worker, because we find much higher quality clay work that lasts one lifetime, and nothing like it exists before or after. In some sense, this is an indictment of that one craftsman, who didn't teach or mentor anyone else. I compare this to say having one outstanding talmid chacham in a location, which would often trigger growth and spread of innovative Torah, as that one person influences his students and draws others into his sphere of influence. At the same time, we might find an area that has a strong focus on a certain type or style of crafts, due to the same type of influence. (109-110) 

A brief discussion of sumptuary laws quotes Plato, who limited grave monuments: "The mound should be no higher than would be the work of five men in five days; nor shall the stone over it be larger than enough to take four lines of praise of the dead in heroic couplets." Several other examples are quoted as well. This is a sentiment reflected in Shekalim 5:7, and in the expression of R. Shimon ben Gamliel that "the righteous require no monument - their words are their memorial." 

There is a an interesting discussion about the role of craftsmen in government, and whether they could aspire to be part of the ruling class. Taken from the other direction, one could ask whether people in the ruling class also had occupations. The author brings several examples of this phenomenon. This reminds me of the numerous sages in the Talmud and Mishna who are identified by their profession none more prominently than Yochanan ha-sandlar. (p.156) 

Another chapter discusses innovations, "first discoveries" of things like purple dye (i.e. techelet), new ships, and many others. Genesis brings some examples of this as well, and there is the question whether these things were the discovery of one person or part of a process.