It is, no doubt, possible, that many monopolies of which we know nothing may have existed in antiquity;[1610] but it will be quite evident that, upon such possibility, it would be useless to reason. The monopolies which we know to have existed were few, and of short duration. Aristotle, while observing what advantages both individuals and states sometimes derived from them, attributes a better policy to Athens. He gives two or three examples of private monopolies, the well-known story of Thales and the oil-presses, and that of a man who bought up all the iron[1611] at Syracuse, and adds, that, in great pecuniary straits, governments were sometimes found to imitate them.[1612] Thus, at a late period of their history, the Athenians are supposed to have monopolised the lead obtained from the silver mines of Laureion, which they did, we are told, at the instigation of Pythoclos; that is, they bought it up at the usual price of two drachmas the commercial talent, and sold it at six drachmas.[1613] At Rome the price was higher. As there can be little doubt that the lead was for exportation, no injury was inflicted on individuals. With respect to the monopoly granted by the Byzantines to a banker, it may be observed, that it was only one of the many shifts to which the nakedness of their treasury compelled them to have recourse. The list is given in the second book of the Economics, and is not without interest. I would not affirm that their contrivances were innocent.[1614] Again, the Selymbrians, in a period of public difficulty, constituted themselves monopolists in a manner which Mr. Bœckh might fearlessly have pronounced “less defensible.” By law they were not permitted to export in times of scarcity; but being in want of money, they decreed that the state should purchase all the old stock at a fixed price, leaving individuals sufficient for their yearly consumption, after which they sold the surplus at a higher price, with permission to export.[1615] ----- Footnote 1610: Id. Ibid. Footnote 1611: Dr. Gillies translates “corn,” and calls the man a banker! “Ethics and Politics,” ii. 52. Footnote 1612: Aristot. Pol. i. 11, seq. 18, seq. Bekk. Footnote 1613: Aristot. Œcon. ii. 37. Bœckh it is who conjectures the commercial to be meant, no weight being mentioned in the original. Pub. Econ. of Ath. i. 44. 73. Cf. Plin. Nat. Hist, xxxiv. 48. Dr. Wordsworth restores, with great felicity, the true reading in the passage of Aristotle: τῶν ἀργυρίων for τῶν τυρίων. Athens and Attica, p. 208. Bœckh’s conjecture, though ingenious, is less probable. Publ. Econ. ii. 429. Footnote 1614: Aristot. Œcon. ii. 4. Footnote 1615: Id. ii. 18. From Mr. Bœckh’s account it might seem as though the exportation of corn was always prohibited at Selymbria (Pub. Econ. i 73); whereas this was the case during famines only. -----