It is thus that Bœckh understands a passage in the speech against Eubulides, § 10, which both Wolf and Taylor interpret very differently. With respect to the fact, however, of foreign dealers actually holding stalls, we are not left to depend on any doubtful testimony. Footnote 1658: Pollux, ix. 34. Comm. t. ii. p. 911, seq. ----- On the prices of things in antiquity, compared with those at present prevailing, we have only one way of judging, and that is by ascertaining whether a greater degree of labour was required to provide the necessaries of life. The contrary was certainly the case in Attica, which, nevertheless, was, probably, the most expensive place of residence in the world. Even the slaves would appear to have enjoyed more leisure and exemption from toil than the industrious classes of our own most industrious community: and the citizens themselves, with their numerous festivals and amusements, public and private, evidently devoted a far greater proportion of their time to pleasure than would now be possible to any save the opulent. This, in fact, resulted from the moderate custom duties charged by the state, but much more from the superior fertility of the soil, which yielded greater returns for less labour, and from the comparative fewness of unproductive inhabitants. In modern language, the supply was greater in proportion to the demand. Still, it appears quite certain, that, though the duties laid on by the state were moderate, the merchants and retail dealers made very great profits. “This,” as Bœckh observes, “is sufficiently proved by the high rate of interest on money lent upon bottomry, in which thirty per cent for one summer was not unfrequently paid.”[1659] ----- Footnote 1659: Pub. Econ. of Ath. i. 81, seq. -----