Liban. arg. ad Orat. in Theocrin. t. viii. p. 334. Footnote 1596: Poll. viii. 126. Petit, v. 5. p. 522. Footnote 1597: Bœckh, i. 69. Cf. Kühn ad Poll. viii. 63. t. iv. p. 675. Footnote 1598: Lysias, περὶ δημος. χρημ. § 4. Harpocrat. v. ναυτοδίκη, p. 131. Suid. t. ii. p. 208, seq. Cf. Sigon. de Repub. Athen. iv. 3. 441. Footnote 1599: De Vectigal. iii. 3. Footnote 1600: Poll. viii. 63. 101, with the Notes. Bœckh. i. 70. Footnote 1601: Demosth. in Apatur. § 7, in Pantænet. § 1. Footnote 1602: Demosth. in Callip. § 3, adv. Leptin. § 14. Suid. in v. p. 609. a. b. Poll. iii. 59. viii. 91. Προξένους ἐκάλουν, τοὺς τεταγμένους εἰς τὸ ὑποδέχεσθαι τοὺς ξένους τοὺς ἐξ ἄλλων πόλεων ἥκοντας. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1022. Kust. Footnote 1603: Bœckh, Pub. Econ. of Athens, i. 71. Footnote 1604: Demosth. adv. Lept. § 28. Cf. Dem. in Callip. § 3. ----- It has been made a question, whether or not perfect freedom of trade existed among the ancients, and upon the whole it appears, that among the Athenians, at least, no unwise or vexatious interference habitually took place.[1605] ----- Footnote 1605: Publ. Econ. of Athens, i. 71, seq. Xen. de Vectigal. passim. Cf. Heeren, Polit. Hist. of Anc. Greece, c. x. p. 163. ----- Bœckh remarks that, in the plan of Xenophon for restoring the revenue, no allusion is made to the removal of onerous restrictions on trade; from which it may be inferred that none such existed. Heeren[1606] is clearly of this opinion: “nothing was known of the balance of trade, and consequently all the violent measures resulting from it were never devised by the Greeks. They had duties as well as the moderns; but these duties were exacted only for the sake of increasing the public revenue, not to direct the efforts of domestic industry by the prohibition of certain wares. There was no prohibition of the exportation of the raw produce; no encouragement of manufactures at the expense of the agriculturist. In this respect, therefore, there existed a freedom of industry, commerce, and trade. And such was the general custom. As every thing was decided by circumstances, and not by theories, there may have been single exceptions, and perhaps single examples, where the state for a season usurped a monopoly. But how far was this from the mercantile and restrictive system of the moderns!” ----- Footnote 1606: Polit. Hist. of Anc. Greece, c. x. p. 163. -----