162 PETER ACTON
Another example of a barrier created by competitive advantage might be
cosmetics and perfumes. We have noted how the skills involved in customised
preparations might enable a sole practitioner to make a good living, but we
also know of a perfumery with a supervisor and three slaves (Hyp. 3.6–10).
The likely reason that some perfume businesses were able to expand lies in
the barrier to entry provided by the cost of inventory, as well as the compet-
itive advantage that results from this. Three slaves would require access to a
large range of expensive ingredients, and the wider the range they could draw
from, the better their chance of winning business. A large enterprise could
offer customers a much wider range of products than could a sole practitioner
of middling means, or a new entrant. The absurd price paid by the oversexed
Epikrates should not obscure the fact that inventory would have been a very
important consideration. Demosthenes’ inheritance included a large invest-
ment in materials for his workshops so, in addition to the workshops’ reputa-
tions, working capital needs might have inhibited entry in those cases too.^63Conclusion
Bringing these observations together enables us to see how different manu-
factures lent themselves to different firm sizes and to different potential for
generating income above subsistence levels. It might also suggest a basis for
deciding when terms like “industry” and “factory” can legitimately be applied
in ancient times.
As Figure 6.6 shows, each type of business offered different employment
or ownership opportunities. Larger units (those with barriers to entry) were
staffed by slaves. It would have been dishonourable for a citizen to sign up to
be employed by another on a continuing basis (Isae. 5.39; Isoc. 14.48). These
large workshops or factories might be owned by citizens, metics or freed
slaves.^64 They might be located in the owner’s home, but they would have
been clearly demarcated from the domestic part of the household. They were
probably for the most part run by a slave foreman paying a fixed sum to the
owner (Dem.27.9; Aeschin. 1.97).
Smaller units were the workplaces of citizens, metics and freed slaves. All
members of the household might participate, but the crafts did not lend them-
selves to the cost of engaging additional labour. The key to whether they could
bring in an attractive income was the potential to differentiate the product.
Crafts in which this was possible would have been attractive to anyone willing
to work hard and with enough skill to create demand for his particular out-
put. Others could spend time on civic or military duties, working their farms,
attending festivals and philosophising while still occasionally making goods for
sale or home consumption.