171.395A-B; cf. Adam’s note to 395A, explaining Sympos. 223D, where Plato asserts the opposite. He thinks Plato is speaking ideally in the Republic passage, but here of the actual fact. But cf. Shorey, Unity, etc., p. 78, n. 597.

172.Rep. 433A-B, D, 434A-D, 432A, 443-444A, 396D-E; Charm. 161E. In his broad application of the law, he has advanced beyond Adam Smith. Cf. Souchon, op. cit., p. 81 and n. 2.

173.Rep. 397E-398A.

174.443C-D; cf. Nettleship Lectures on the Republic of Plato, p. 71.

175.Oncken observes (Geschichte der NationalÖkonomie, pp. 34-36) that while Smith drew from the law the idea of freedom of trade and industry, Plato inferred the strictest subordination of these to the will of the state, and that he also based the caste system on the principle. For the alleged caste system, cf. Souchon, op. cit., p. 82, and infra, under distribution. Aristotle’s state implies even a more rigid separation of the capable few. On Plato’s insight into economic principles, cf. Robin, op. cit., pp. 229 ff. He criticizes Guiraud for belittling the value of Plato’s social ideas, and urges that he should be judged, not by the worth of his proposed remedies, but by his scientific insight (p. 252).

176.Rep. 395A-B; 374E, 395B; e?? s????te?a ?ata?e?at?s?a?.

177.Apol. 21C-22E; cf. Rep. 495D-E, though it applies rather to the evil effects of the banausic life. Cf. Bonar, op. cit., p. 16. Ruskin (Stones of Venice, VI, 16 [Vol. X, 196]), says: It is “not the labor that is divided but the men—divided into segments of men.” It stunts their faculties.

178.Rep. 552A.

179.396C-373E; cf. Bonar, op. cit., p. 27.

180.579D.

181.Cf. Zimmern, op. cit., p. 389, note; Laws 777B: d???? ?? ?pe?d? d?s????? ?st? t? ???a ?????p?? ?a? p??? t?? ??a??a?a? d????s??, t? d????? te ???? d?????es?a? ?a? ??e??e??? ?a? desp?t?? ??da?? e????st?? ????e? e??a? te ?a? ????es?a?. On his alleged caste system, cf. above, n. 2, and infra.

182.Rep. 469C; cf. Pol. 309A.

183.Laws 806D. For Ruskin on slavery, cf. infra on Aristotle.

184.Laws 776D-777E. Espinas (Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 256) observes that Plato adopts the mean between the two extremes in his attitude to slaves.

185.Cf. Xen. Ath. Pol. i. 10-12 on the easy life of slaves in Athens, and Zimmern, op. cit., pp. 382 f., who points out that this resulted from economic necessity. Cf. 777C-D; cf. Rep. 578D-579A on the dangers and troubles arising from extensive slave-holding.

186.Laws 915A ff., another striking evidence of the actual status of freedmen and slaves in Athens.

187.Rep. 371B. The word is ???sa, something established by usage, hence “current coin,” not necessarily suggestive of intrinsic worth, as are ???ata and the metals. Cf. Ar. Clouds 248 for a play on the word, ?e?? ??? ???s? ??? ?st?. Cf. the simile, Frogs 720, and Phaedo 69A, for an analogy between it and wisdom.

188.Rep. 371B: ?????? t?? ???a???.

189.Fors Clav., IV, 11, note (Vol. XXVIII, 134 f.); cf. also Vol. XVII, 50, 194 f.

190.742A-B: ???sa d? ??e?a ???a???; 918B: ??e?p??e?? ?a? ?a??t?ta ta?? ??s?a??, referring directly to traders.

191.Laws 918B.

192.Rep. 553E; for Aristotle, cf. infra.

193.Laws 743D.

194.849E.

195.742C, 915D-E; Rep. 556A-B; Laws 850A.

196.921C, an obol per month.

197.Rep. 555E.

198. Fors. Clav., notes to Letter 43, 14 (Vol. XXVIII, 121 f.), notes to Letter 81, 16 (Vol. XXIX, 212), where he refers to Plato and Aristotle; Mun. Pul., IV, 98, note (Vol. XVII, 220), where he absolutely condemns it; On the Old Road, Vol. XXXIV, 425, on usury, ends with a citation from the Laws 913C; ? ? ?at????, ? ?????.

199.E.g. J. Scott Nearing’s recent book on Income.

200.Laws 679B, 831C; Rep. 545B ff., 548B. Cf. Ruskin on the evils arising from money, Vol. XX, 295 f.

201.Laws 743D, 742A-B, 801B.

202.742A.

203.Ruskin, Mun. Pul., I, 25. He thinks it is a relic of a barbarism that will disappear as civilization develops.

204.Laws 742A-B.

205.Sophist. 223C-D; cf. Pol., 289E for the triple division of commercials, ??p????, ?p????, and ?????a????; cf. Phaedo, 69A for a figurative use of ???a??.

206.Rep. 370A-E, home; 370E-371E, foreign; cf. Adam Smith’s idea above.

207.370E-371A; Cornford (op. cit., p. 66) wrongly asserts that Plato did not know the law that exports must balance imports. Cf. op. cit., p. 37.

208.Boeckh, Die Staataushaltung der Athener, I, pp. 382 ff.; Zimmern, op. cit., 1st ed., p. 317. But cf. Brants, Xenophon Economiste, p. 18, n. 2 and references, on the protectionist tendency of the commercial policy of Athens.

209.Laws 847C; Souchon (op. cit., p. 102) sees in this a mercantile trend, but the purposes are entirely different.

210.847B.

211.Rep. 371C-D.

212.Laws 918B-C.

213.Rep. 369C.

214.On the relation of exchange to production, cf. above, p. 28.

215.Pp. 19 ff.

216.P. 41 and notes.

217.Laws 918B.

218.918D.

219.918E.

220.P. 41 and notes.

221.Laws 918A, 920C. He seems to feel that trade as regularly pursued is a form of cheatery, in which one gains what the other loses. Cf. Ruskin, Unto This Last, I, 22 (Vol. XVII, 40 f.); IV, 66 ff. (Vol. XVII, 90 ff.); Mun. Pul., IV 95 ff. (Vol. XVII, 217 ff.), where he refers to Rep. 426E, on the difficulty of curing this disease of traders; cf. Vol. XVII, Intro., p. xlvi, citing Xen. Mem., iii. 7. 5, 6, on those who are “always thinking how they may buy cheapest and sell dearest.”

222.Rep. 371C.

223.416A-417A.

224.Cf. 415E, ???at?st???? in contrast to st?at??t????.

225.741E, 743D, 919D.

226.920A.

227.919D.

228.915A-B, though it applies especially to freedmen.

229.850B-C, and n. 1, above.

230.919C.

231.849D-E, 850A, 915D; cf. infra on this and the other regulations in their application to modern economics.

232.916D-E; cf. 917.

233.917B-D.

234.920B-C. Plato’s market regulations would exclude all selfish competition and all gain, beyond mere return for labor expended, from exchange, and would base it upon a mutual spirit of reciprocity. Thus here, as often, he is the model for Aristotle, who usually fails to recognize his debt. Espinas (Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 246) is hardly in accord with the modern spirit in declaring that competition is the social bond, and that Plato misconceives the nature of this bond.

235.920A-B, 919D.

236.Laws 920C.

237.Zimmern (op. cit., p. 280, n. 1) calls it “grandfatherly.”

238.But cf. Robin, op. cit., p. 212, n. 1, who argues that many of his suggestions are based on actual legislation in Athens or elsewhere in Greece. Cf. also Hermann, Ges. Abh. (1849), pp. 141, 153, 159, whom he cites; J. Schulte, Quomodo Plato in legibus publica Atheniensium instituta respexerit (1907, dissertation), and the bibliography cited there. But he deals very little with Plato’s economic and social laws.

239.Plato saw that it might add a time and place value (p. 41, and notes).

240.Cf. above, p. 42, n. 7; also Fors Clav., Letters 45, 82; Crown of Wild Olive, II, 75 f. (Vol. XVIII, 450 f.). He argues that there should be no profit in exchange, beyond merely the payment for the labor involved in it. He insists that “for every plus in exchange there is a precisely equal minus.” Cf. infra on Aristotle for a similar idea, pp. 107 ff.

241.Op. cit., p. 278, n. 2; cf. above, pp. 42 f.

242.Cf. p. 43.

243.Ibid.

244.Ibid. Cf. Ruskin’s more socialistic idea that all retailers be made salaried officers (Time and Tide, XXI, 134 [Vol. XVII, 427]).

245.Cf. e.g., Dem. De corona 87; Cont. Lept. xx. 31; Cont. Andr. xxii. 15; Cont. Lacrit. xxxv. 50; Lysias xxii; Hdt. vii. 102; Thuc. iii. 86, and many other passages. For modern discussions, cf. Droysen, Athen und der Westen (1882), pp. 41 ff.; Grundy, Thucydides and the History of His Age (1911), pp. 58-95; Zimmern, op. cit., 1st ed., pp. 349 ff.; Gernet, “L’Approvisionment d’AthÈnes en blÉ,” MÉlanges d’histoire, ancienne, 1909; Beloch, G. G., I, 406 f.; BevÖlkerung im Alterthum (1898), p. 30, etc.

246.Rep. 372C: ??? ?p?? t?? ??s?a? p????e??? t??? pa?da?.

247.Laws 740D; but his specific methods for carrying out his difficult suggestion, if he had any to offer, were probably impracticable, judging by his discussion of women and children in the Republic. Ruskin’s suggestions for meeting the problem are colonization, reclamation of waste lands, and discouragement of marriage (Unto This Last, IV, 80 [Vol. XVII, 108]).

248.Laws 740E; Ar. (Pol. 1265b6-12) unfairly criticizes him for limiting the amount of property, and making it indivisible, while failing to provide against a too high birth-rate.

249.741A.

250.Cf. Ruskin, cited above, p. 27.

251.For the Greek term, cf. infra on Aristotle.

252.Cf., however, Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 12-14, discussed infra, which may be a suggestion of a theory of profits.

253.Laws 921A-D, discussed on p. 39, n. 8; cf. also 847B.

254.The passages above cited, n. 1 above, need not imply labor for capitalists. It does not appear that there was ever a considerable body of free citizen laborers at Athens, who worked for capitalists, though the number of free workers, aside from labor on the farms, was fairly large. Cf. C.I.A. for records of such labor on the buildings of the acropolis; Boeckh, op. cit., I, 58: “Der geringere war durch seine UmstÄnde so gut als der arme Schutzverwandte oder Sklave zur Handarbeit genÖthigt.” On the favorable attitude toward free labor at Athens, cf. above, p. 29, n. 4. Poehlmann (op. cit., in loc.) takes the opposite view as to the number of free laborers for capitalists.

255.Rep. 552B-D, a characteristic passage; Gorg. 507E; Laws 757B.

256.920C.

257.740B ff., 923; but his purpose is to keep the allotments intact.

258.847B: ?s??? d? a?t??? pe?? ?a? t?? ??a???se?? t?? ?????, ?a? ??? t?? a?t??? ?te??? ? ?e???? t??a ????? ?d???s?, ???? d?a??? pe?t????ta ?st????? d?ad??a???t??, etc.; perhaps a strained interpretation.

259.On his attitude to industry, cf. pp. 32 ff.

260.Bonar, op. cit., p. 29.

261.Bussy, Histoire et RÉfutation du Socialisme (1859), p. 119.

262.Oncken, op. cit., p. 34.

263.Haney, op. cit., p. 16.

264.Zeller, Phil. Gr., II, 1 (1889), 907; cf. also above, pp. 32 f. Historians of economic thought generally state the case extremely; e.g., Kautz, op. cit., p. 59; Blanqui, op. cit., p. 45; Souchon also, to some extent. Poehlmann (op. cit., II, 36-108) errs in the opposite way.

265.Pol. ii. 5. 1264a11-17, 36-38; 1264b11-13.

266.423D: ?? d??e?e? ??t??; also 425D, both cited by Poehlmann.

267.415E-417B, 420A-421C admit of no other interpretation. Cf. 421C, how he turns to the next related point (t?? t??t?? ?de?f??) the question of the effect of wealth or poverty on the artisans (t??? ?????? d?????????). Cf. also infra for other citations.

268.Pol. 1264a36-38, repeated by many moderns.

269.Rep. 415B-C.

270.Cf. the undiscriminating statement of Souchon, op. cit., p. 41: “Et il n’y a guÈre eu, au cours de l’histoire de la science politique, de conception plus aristocratique que le mythe fameux des trois races d’or, d’argent et d’airain.”

271.Pol. 1264b15-25, repeated by Grote and others.

272.Rep. iv. beg.-421C.

273.I Cor. 12:14 ff.; for other evidence of Plato’s interest in all classes, cf. 519E ff., and the entire argument against Thrasymachus, Book I.

274.Rep. 421A, cited by Zeller, op. cit., II, 1, 907, as evidence of this, states merely that it is more important that there be efficient rulers than efficient cobblers. Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 36-108, a masterly defense of the Republic on this point, criticizing both Zeller and Gomperz. He errs on the other side, however, as e.g., p. 96, where he infers from Rep. 462C that Plato intended his communism to apply to the whole people.

275.416A-B, 417B.

276.415A, introducing the alleged aristocratic myth.

277.463B, 417B, 416A, 547C.

278.431E-432A, 443E, 423D.

279.421C-E, cited on p. 48, n. 8. Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 91.

280.590C.

281.431D-E, 434C.

282.378B, E, 377B, insisting upon proper stories for all children; 915E-520A, implying that the artisans shall share in all benefits of the state up to their capacity.

283.643B-C.

284.847B, 921C-D.

285.936B-C.

286.Mill is an exception, but despite his thoroughgoing definitions of economics.

287.Cf. Ar. Pol. ii. 1266b17-24.

288.On the Spartan system, cf. Guiraud, La Prop. fonc., pp. 41 f.; Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 75-98, both of whom oppose the more extreme theory of communism in Sparta.

289.On this general subject, cf. Guiraud, La Prop. fonc., 573 f.; cf. S. Cognetti de Martiis, Socialismo Antico (1889), pp. 515-17, on socialistic tendencies in Greek constitutions and politics.

290.E.g., Esmein, Nouvelle Revue historique, 1890, pp. 821 ff. For a refutation, cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., 1st ed., pp. 20 ff.; Guiraud, op. cit., p. 37; Souchon, op. cit., pp. 135 f.

291.For a refutation of the common error, cf. Zeller, op. cit., I, 1, 317, n. 1, and 318, n. 2; Guiraud, op. cit., pp. 574 f. and 7-11; Souchon, op. cit., pp. 136-39 and notes. The earliest witnesses for Pythagorean communism, Epicurus, in Diog. L. x. 2, and Timaeus of Tauromenium, ibid., viii. 10 are remote from his time and untrustworthy. The later writers (Diog. L. viii. 10; Aul. Gell. i. 9. 12; Hippolytus Refut. i. 2. 12; Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 20; Jamblichus De Pyth. vit. 30, 72, 168, 257, etc.; Photius, under ?????) quoted, and made the tradition general. The older writers know nothing of the tradition. Moreover, some passages give evidence of private property among the Pythagoreans (Diog. L. viii. 1. 15, 39). The origin of the tradition has been plausibly assigned to a misunderstanding of the proverb ????? t? t?? f???? and to the doctrine of moral helpfulness among the Pythagoreans. S. Cognetti de Martiis (op. cit., pp. 459ff.) calls it socialismo cenobito.

292.Pol. ii. 8. Hippodamas the Pythagorean, cited by Stob. Flor. xliii (xli). 92 f., should not be confused with him. The former wrote in the Dorian dialect, and differs materially in his ideas. His three classes are rulers, soldiers, and all laborers, including merchants and farmers. He says nothing of the division of the land or who shall own it, but provides that the third class furnish a living to the rest. But cf. Robin, op. cit., p. 228, n. 1, who identifies them.

293.Pol. 1267b31-33. Cf. Cornford’s visionary article (Class. Quart., VI [1912], 246 ff.), in which he seeks to prove that the tripartite psychology of Plato’s Republic is an inference from this triple division of society. Cf. a similar idea of Pohlenz, Aus Platos Werdezeit (1913), pp. 229 ff.

294.ii. 8. 1267b33-36.

295.1268a34 ff.

296.So Souchon, op. cit., p. 141, who makes him an individualist.

297.Pol. ii. 7.

298.1266a37 f.

299.1266a40: f?s? ??? de?? ?sa? e??a? t?? ?t?se?? t?? p???t??; 1266b31-33, to be realized in an old state, partly by allowing only the rich to give dowries and only the poor to receive them; 1266b2-4.

300.Ar. (1267b10) criticizes him for this.

301.1267b15; cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 7 f.

302.1266a37 f.; 1267a1 f. Aristotle’s account of these writers, as of Plato, is incomplete and unsatisfactory.

303.Rep. 415A; cf. above, pp. 48 ff. on this and the following note.

304.420B-C.

305.416D-E, 458C; cf. also Critias 112B-C, where common houses, common meals, and the prohibition of gold and silver are presented as an ideal.

307.462B-C.

308.451D-455D. Poehlmann points to this doctrine of the EbenbÜrtigkeit of women as an advanced ground even for Christianity.

309.451E.

310.Guiraud (La Prop. fonc., p. 578) distinguishes these elements in Plato’s system, Republic and Laws: exclusive right of property vested in the state; use of land granted to a part of the citizens; distribution of the product among all the citizens; obligation to work, tempered by equality of service; inequality of classes, and equality of men in each class; heredity of profession, corrected by selection of talents.

311.Cf. pp. 48 f. and notes. Even Aristotle admits (1264a33) that Plato makes his husbandmen absolute owners of their lots, on condition of paying rental. The rulers alone (?????) are to keep themselves from silver or gold (417A). Cf. Book IV, beg.: ???? ????? ?????? te ?e?t????? ?a? ????a? ????d???e???, etc.; 420A, 416D-E, 458C, 464B-D, where the community is applied to the guards only, and 464A-D, where the same is true of family communism. Doubtless he would have extended it farther, had he thought it feasible (462B-C), but Poehlmann (op. cit., I, 569 f.; II, 96 f.) overemphasizes this demand of Plato. Adler (Geschichte des Socialismus und Kommunismus von Plato bis zur Gegenwart, p. 44), DuBois (op. cit., p. 40), Oncken (op. cit., p. 34), Souchon (op. cit., 148); Malon (op. cit., pp. 90 f.), Shorey (Class. Phil., October, 1914, art. on “Plato’s Laws”) all agree with the foregoing conclusion. Francotte (L’Industrie, II, 258 ff.) leaves the question open, but (261 f.) observes that the third class is at least restrained from extremes of wealth and poverty.

312.421D, 421E-422E.

313.Ibid., the fundamental idea of the Republic. L. Stein (Sociale Frage, p. 164) rightly says: “Denn der Kommunismus Platons ist seinem Schoepfer nicht Zweck, sondern blosses paedagogisches Mittel.”

314.415E-416A, 417B, 420D, 421A, 421C. He would also avoid vulgarization of the rulers through trade (416E-417A).

315.421D.

316.Ruskin thinks that inequality of possessions, in itself, does not necessarily mean either evil or good for a nation (Unto This Last, II, 31 [Vol. XVII, 46 f.]); he argues that each is born with an absolutely limited capacity, and calls the idea of natural equality of men “radical blockheadism” (Fors Clav., VIII, Letter 95, 6 [Vol. XXIX, 496]); cf. Unto This Last, III, 54 (Vol. XVII, 74); Modern Painters, III, Pt. IV, chap. x, 22 (Vol. III, 189); Seven Lamps of Architecture, IV, 28 (Vol. VIII, 167); Fors Clav., II, Letter 14, 4 and note (Vol. XXVII, 248); Stones of Venice, III, 4 (Vol. XI, 260), all of which emphasize its impossibility. He strongly opposes socialism, cf. above, and Mun. Pul., 21 (Vol. XVII, 144), though his economic ideas contained essentially the germ of modern socialistic doctrine.

317.Cf. his ironical criticism of democratic equality in Athens, 558C: ?s?t?t? t??a ????? ?s??? te ?a? ???s??? d?a????sa; Laws 757B-D, 744B-C; cf. infra for Aristotle’s idea. Cf. p. 61, n. 1 for further notice of these passages.

318.Poehlmann (op. cit., I, 553, n. 3) is extreme in asserting that Plato’s account of the growth of the proletariat, and the rise of class struggles (Book VIII) contains “alle wesentlichen ZÜge des Bildes, welches die moderne Plutokratie gewÄhrt,” and (560), “Das vierte Jahrhundert v. Chr. hat uns den Kampf vorgekÄmpft in welchem wir selbst mittenhineinstehen.”

319.Pohlenz (op. cit., p. 240) makes his socialism a reaction against the individualism of Pericles, but makes the extreme assertion: “Die Grundlage auf der Plato seinen Idealstaat aufbaut, ist der strengste Socialismus.”

320.Cf. p. 43, n. 10. He evidently recognizes his ideas on the family and on the philosopher-king as utopian; cf. also 425D-E; but Poehlmann (op. cit., II, 144-52) opposes this view. Cf. Shorey, Class. Phil., October, 1914, pp. 357 f., on the idea of law in the Laws and Politics.

321.When advocated, it has not been with the lofty motive of Plato.

322.Poehlmann ((op. cit., I, 579, 598) admits this. Guiraud (La Prop. fonc., p. 594) points out that the analogy with modern socialism is difficult, owing to the modern abolition of slavery, great extent of states, and large increase in personal property.

323.So Souchon, (op. cit., pp. 145 ff.); Guiraud (La Prop. fonc., p. 638) well says: “Si ces derniers [modern socialists] reussissaient À appliquer leurs projects, les sociÉtÉs qui sortiraient de leurs mains n’auraient pas la moindre ressemblance avec la sociÉtÉ hellenique.” Cf. also ibid., p. 594, where he distinguishes between Plato and modern socialists. Francotte (L’Industrie, II, 250, n. 1) makes the Republic essentially socialistic, though he admits that it has not the modern aim (p. 255). Poehlmann (op. cit., II, 123-43) makes it a “Koinzidenz der beiden Prinzipien” (p. 143). Wolf (Gesch. d. Ant. Kommun. u. Individ., p. 96) distinguishes Plato’s two aims as a strong community spirit, and a strong central authority, devoid of selfish interest. Cf. S. Cognetti de Martiis, (op. cit., pp. 524-89), on the Socialismo filosofico of the Republic.

324.Vierteljahrschrift f. Staats u. Volkswirtschaft, I, 375 ff. Of course Aristophanes may have caricatured Plato as he did Socrates in the Clouds. However, since both were opposed to extreme individualism, and since the comedy was written before the Republic, it is improbable. But cf. Drumann, Arbeiter u. Communisten in Griechenland u. Rom (1860), pp. 133 f., who thinks the poet was satirizing the oral discussions of Plato. Pohlenz (op. cit., pp. 223-28) argues for an earlier edition of the Republic, and states that, though the comedy is not a direct satire on the Republic, yet its numerous specific ideas and expressions that are similar to Plato’s warrant the conclusion that the poet followed Plato. Cf. also S. Cognetti de Martiis, (op. cit., pp. 541-61), on the relation of the two.

325.434D-E, and the entire plan of the Republic. Cf. Poehlmann, (op. cit., I, 527 ff.; also II, 210 f.), on Plato’s idea of a pre-established harmony between individual and common good.

326.Poehlmann (op. cit., II, 205 ff.) suggests that this change resulted from Plato’s experiences with Dionysius of Syracuse, but it may be easily accounted for by the natural conservatism of age. Cf. Shorey, Class. Phil., IX (1914), 353.

327.739D, 740A.

328.739C-E, 807B.

329.737E, 741C.

330.831C-D, though it refers to the love of wealth, 807B, 713E.

331.Cf. Guiraud (La Prop. fonc., pp. 582 f.); cf. infra for details.

332.740-741A, 923A-B, a remarkable passage, which declares that they are not full owners either of themselves or their property, but that they belong to the whole race, past, present, and future (??pa?t?? d? t?? ?????? ??? t?? te ?p??s?e? ?a? t?? ?pe?ta ?s?????), and especially to the state.

333.737E, 745C-E.

334.745C-E.

335.740B.

336.741B-C.

337.745A, 855A-B, 754E-755A, 744E.

338.740B, 923C. If the family is large, the women are to be married off, and the men adopted by the childless (740C). Personal property may be willed to the other children (923D); cf. also above, pp. 45 f. and notes.

339.740C, 741B-D.

340.847E-848C.

341.741E.

342.847D, 919D.

343.846D, 847A, 919D.

344.806E.

345.920A; cf. above, on exchange.

346.849C.

347.Cf. p. 39 and notes.

348.Cf. p. 40 and notes.

349.742C.

350.Cf. p. 59 and notes.

351.744E. The entire wealth will thus vary from the bare lot to five times its value. Cf. Jowett, Dialogs of Plato, 3d ed., V, 127, though the division into four classes might mean that the highest was only four times the lot value. Espinas (Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 237) accepts the former interpretation.

352.54D-E. The value of the lot was thus only a mina.

353.744E, 745A.

354.745A, 754D-E (which requires it only for the excess), 755A. Espinas (op. cit., pp. 118 ff.) emphasizes the ascetic tendency of his regulations.

355.729A ff., 919B, 936B-C, against beggars.

356.744B-E, and above notes.

357.Book VII.

358.780B; women and children separate, 806E; on its Cretan origin, 625E ff.

359.846D, 847A, D, 919D, 806E.

360.744B; cf. pp. 55 f. on equality; cf. 757B-D, contrasting the mere arithmetical equality (t?? ????? ?s??), which is easily realized, and the true equality, which is very difficult. This latter apportions to each in accord with his nature (p??? t?? f?s?? a?t??). The two are almost opposites (??a?t?a??). Espinas (op. cit., p. 236) thinks that the division into property classes in the Laws is an attempt to realize this principle.

361.744B.

362.736C-D, 704.

363.Op. cit., p. 143; cf. also pp. 163-65, where he compares it to modern collectivism; cf. p. 162; also Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 295.

364.923A; cf. 877D, and much of the legislation on property, above.

365.Cf. pp. 59 f. and notes. The modern analogy is not close, yet in each case the aim is to prevent undue gains whereby the public is oppressed.

366.Cf. p. 30, n. 3.

367.Cf. p. 59 and notes. The socialistic tendency to overemphasize the power of law is also strong here as in the Republic. But cf. p. 36, n. 4, and Laws 807B, 746A-B, 747B.

368.Time and Tide, IX, 5-9. Modern Painters, V, Pt. 8, chap. i, 6 (Vol. VII, 207). Espinas (Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 246) calls this Platonic denial of “conflict of interest” in trade “le thÈme Éternel de la chimÈre socialiste.”

369.Laws 626E: t? p??e???? e??a? p??ta? p?s??; cited by Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 557; but he exaggerates the analogy.

370.Cf. 742D-E, 743D-E, 729A, and the remarks on retail trade, 918B-919E, 870B; cf. also, above, on wealth.

371.As seen above, they are all slaves or strangers. A direct comparison is hardly possible, since in the Republic, the masses are the majority of the citizens, while in the Laws, there are none.

372.744D; cf. Shorey, Class. Phil., IX (1914), 363: “Plato’s object, however, is not socialistic equalization of the ‘good things’ of life, but the enforced disinterestedness of the rulers, and the complete self-realization of every type of man, in limitation to his own proper sphere and task.”

373.Cf. pp. 55 and 60, on equality; also note 4, above.

374.Francotte (L’Industrie, II, 250) suggests that l’Étatisme, “nationalism,” would be a more applicable term for the Laws. He distinguishes this from socialism, as being not so thoroughgoing a limitation of the individual as is the “socialism” of the Republic. Cf. Shorey, Class. Phil., IX (1914), 358, on the famous “communistic” passage in Laws 739C: ??t?? ?st? ????? t? f????, etc. He calls it a “rhetorical exaltation of that ideal unity of civic feeling, which Demosthenes upbraids Aeschines for not sharing.” For further communistic ideas of Plato, cf. his incomplete romantic story of Atlantis in the Critias. The ideal is similar to that of the larger works. Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 348 ff.

375.We shall not try to distinguish between the actual ideas of Xenophon and those which he reports objectively as Socratic.

376.On the Xenophontine authorship of the Revenues, cf. Croiset, op. cit., IV, 393 and notes; Christ, Griechische Literatur-Geschichte, 4th ed., pp. 367 f. and notes. Other authorities are cited there.

377.The ??????????, at least, the first extant, devoted to private economy, and especially agriculture, but revealing practical interest in the details of the production of wealth. Cf. infra for further discussion of Economica in Greek literature.

378.For some qualifications, cf. above, Introduction.

379.Econ. i. 2: ???????? ?????? e??a? ???e?? t?? ?a?t?? ?????; cf. 3: t?? ????? d? ?????. ????? is used of one’s entire property (5).

380.Mem. iii. 4. 6; cf. further above, p. 9, n. 4. Cf. Ruskin, Pol. Econ. of Art, I, 12: “Precisely the same laws of economy, which apply to the cultivation of a farm or an estate, apply to the cultivation of a province or an island.” Cf. the story in Hdt. v. 29 on this idea. Espinas (Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 111) contrasts Xenophon, to whom the royal administration is a greatly expanded private economy, with Plato’s absorption of all private economy by the state.

381.Econ. i. 7-15; cf. 10: ta?ta ??a ??ta t? ?? ?p?sta??? ???s?a? a?t?? ???st??s ???ata ?st?, t? d? ? ?p?sta??? ?? ???ata. Cf. p. 23 and notes on Plato and Ruskin. H. Sewall (“Theory of Value before Adam Smith,” Publications of the American Economic Association, II, Part III, p. 1) says that the conception of value (???a) as a quality inherent in the thing was not questioned, but Xenophon seems to question it here. As she observes, n. 1, the term originally meant “weight,” at first weight in money, as well as actual worth.

382.i. 11 f.

383.Unto This Last, beginning; cf. preceding n. 1; Ruskin took Xen. Econ. as the foundation on which he built all his own economic studies. Cf. Unto This Last, Pref., Vol. XVII, pp. xlix and 18; Vol. XXXI, Introd.; pp. xv ff. It was the first in his Bib. Pastorum. Cf. his Preface to his translation of the Economicus; Arrows of the Chace, Vol. XXXIV, 547; Letters, II (Vol. XXXVII, 350). In Mun. Pul., IV, 105 (Vol. XVII, 230); also on pp. 288 and 88, he refers to Xenophon’s “faultless” definition of wealth, citing Mem. ii. 3. 7. Cf. also Vol. XXXI, pp. xvii and 27. Fontpertuis (“Filiation des idÉes Économiques dans l’antiquitÉ,” Jour. des Écon., September, 1871, p. 361) thinks this is at bottom the true theory of value.

384.Econ. i. 2: ?p?d?d?????? ?? ?? a???? ???ata, ? ap?d?d?????? d? ???? ?e?t?????? ??, t??? ? ?p?sta????? a?t??? ???s?a?. Brants (Xen. Econ., p. 8) overemphasizes this.

385.Rev. iv. 6-10, a remarkable passage, though he fails to include silver in the law. Cf. Kautz, op. cit., p. 129; Kaulla, Die geschichtliche Entwickelung der modernen Werttheorien, p. 2.

386.Especially in the story of Isomachus (Econ.), and the Revenues.

387.Cf. infra; also Espinas, Histoire des doctrines economiques, p. 20.

388.Econ. vi. 4; cf. i. 7 ff., cited above, p. 64, n. 1.

389.P. 64 and notes. BÜchsenschÜtz (Besitz und Erwerb, p. 15) criticizes it as too broad, including spiritual goods; too narrow, including only what one can use.

390.In Econ. ii. 2-8, Socrates’ comparison of himself with the wealthy Critoboulos; Hiero iv. 6-10; Mem. iv. 2. 37 f.; i. 6. 1-10, where Socrates defends his own simple life, especially 10: ??? d? ??????? t? ?? ?de??? de?s?a? ?e??? e??a?. If meant in the economic sense, this would approach a definition of capital, as “excess of goods over needs.”

391.Cf. p. 25, n. 11, on the similar modern doctrine.

392.Symp. iii. 8 and iv. 34-44, given as the doctrine of Antisthenes, the Cynic, though with apparent approval; Mem. iv. 2. 9.

393.Econ. xi. 9.

394.Cyrop. viii. 2. 23.

395.Mem. ii. 7. 7; Rev. iv. 29.

396.Thuc. vii. 6. 2, of walls; Gorg. 449D, ?at???; Theaet. 146D, ?p?d??t??; Xen. Econ. vii. 21, ?s??t??.

397.Hdt. i. 68; Charm. 173E; Thuc. iv. 105.

398.Ar. Frogs 1034; Isoc. Areop. 30.

399.Isoc. Areop., 146d, cited infra on the terms for capital; Ad Nicocl. 18C.

400.Mem. iii. 10. 1; Dem. xxxiii. 4.

401.C.I.A. 3924: ? ???as?a t?? af???.

402.Ar. N. Eth. vi. 4. 2 ff.

403.Op. cit., 1st ed., p. 55.

404.Econ., especially chaps. v-vii; iv. 4; Mem. ii. 1. 6; Econ. v. 17: e? ?? ??? fe?????? t?? ?e????a? ?????ta? ?a? ???a? t???a? ?pasa?, ?p?? d? ?? ??a??as?? ? ?? ?e?se?e??, ?p?s?????ta? ?a? a? ???a? t???a? s?ed?? t? ?a? ?at? ??? ?a? ?at? ???atta?, a very true statement, which does not belittle other industries.

405.Ibid. v. 2; iii. 15. 11, 16; Rev. i. 2 ff., etc.

406.Pol. i. 8 and 9.

407.Mem. ii. 7. 13 f., from Socrates. Cf. infra under distribution, on this.

408.Rev. iv. 5-7; Cossa, op. cit., p. 148; Kautz, Histoire des doctrines Économiques, p. 127; Fontpertuis, op. cit., p. 367.

409.Econ. v. 17, cited on p. 66, n. 11, perhaps the strongest statement of the economic importance of agriculture in Greek writers. Ruskin follows Xenophon in his high appreciation of agriculture. He thinks it should be largely done by the upper classes (Mun. Pul., 109 [Vol. XVII, 235]); cf. also Vol. VII, 341, 429; Vol. X, 201.

410.Econ. iv. 4; cf. Rev. v. and Cyrop. iii. 2. 17, which favor peace for the sake of economic advance.

411.Econ. iv. 8 to end of chapter, especially 21.

412.Econ., v. 1; 2-16; vi. 9-10; cf. Fontpertuis, op. cit., pp. 362 f.

413.Econ. vi. 8.

414.Cf. Revenues.

415.Econ. ii. 10, pe????s?a?. Brants thinks (Xen. Econ., p. 13) that the theory is implied in his principle of sparing (Mem. ii. 7). Blanqui (op. cit., I, 81) emphasizes Econ. i. 7-15 as defining productive and unproductive wealth, but this merely distinguishes wealth from non-wealth, from the standpoint of consumption.

416.Mem. ii. 7. 11 f.

417.Thuc. i. 90. 2.

418.Cf. n. 1, although Liddell and Scott cite the passage as having the meaning of “capital”; Mem. iii. 12. 4, where it need mean no more than wealth; Econ. i. 1. 16; Dem. xxxvi. 54: p?st?? ?f??? pas?? ?st? e??st? p??? ???at?s??. Here p?st?? is almost called capital. Cf. p. 106, n. 3.

419.Dem. xxxvi. 11: ?a?t?? e? ?? ?d?a t?? ?f??? t??t?? p??? t? t?ap???; xiv. 36; Lysias fr. 2. 2, p. 343, ed. Thalheim; Rev. iii. 9 and 12 and iv. 34 are also used of large financial undertakings; cf. Harpocration’s definition; ?ta? t?? ???????? d? ???????, ?f??? ?a?e?ta? ?d??? pa?? t??? ?tt?????; for the term in Ar. Pol. vi. 1320a35-1320b17 cf. infra. Cf. Isoc. Areop. 146d for a similar passage.

420.Dem. xxvii. 8 and 13.

421.Ar. Rhet. i. 5. 7.

422.Laughlin, ed., 1907, pp. 66 and 93.

423.Ar. Pol. 1254a1 ff.; cf. infra on Aristotle (“Production”); pseudo-Ar. Econ. ii. 1346b14.

424.Plato Laws 742C; Dem. xxvii. 75.

425.Lycurg., p. 150, 22: t??? ??????? d?e?e??e??; Dem. xxi. 184 f.; cf. Dem. lix. 8 for the interesting figurative use, t?? a?t?? ??a??? ?p?d???a?, “to pay him in his own coin”; also Lycurg., p. 168, 143.

427.Mem. ii 7. 7 f. Guiraud (La Main-d’oeuvre indust., p. 46) thinks that this passage is a good commentary on Pericles’ oration (Thuc. ii). Both see in labor, not an inevitable evil, but a good. Guiraud holds that this was the general attitude in Athens. Cf. this chapter, pp. 36-50, on “Opinions des Grecs sur le travail.”

428.Mem. ii. 8. 1-5.

429.ii. 1. 20.

430.Cf. DÖring, Die Lehre des Socrates als soziales Reform-System, pp. 387 ff.

431.Rev., especially i. 2 ff. and iv; Econ. v. 2; iii. 15; ii. 16; Kautz, op. cit., p. 126. But cf., on the other hand, Xen. Laced. Pol. on the restrictions in Sparta against acquisition of wealth by trade and arts; cf. also (Xen.). Rep. Ath. ii. 11 ff.

432.Rev. iv. 51.

433.Econ. iv. 2; vi. 5-7; agriculture and war are not included.

434.iv. 3.

435.Mem. iv. 2. 22.

436.Cyrop. viii. 2. 5 f.; cf. also ii. 1. 21, of military labor.

437.Cf. p. 70.

438.Op. cit., I, iii.

439.Op. cit., p. 40; cf. also DÜhring, Kritische Geschichte der NationalÖkonomie und des Socialismus, p. 22.

440.Cyrop. viii. 2. 5 f., cited above.

441.Mem. iii. 9. 3.

442.Econ. viii.

443.Econ. iii. 4; v. 16; ix. 11; xiii; Rev. iv. 17 ff.

444.Econ. iii. 4.

445.v. 16; xiii.

446.Econ. ix. 11; cf. p. 38, n. 4, on the actual status of slaves at Athens.

447.Mem. ii. 8. 4.

448.Rev. iii. 2: ?p?? ??? ?? p???s?? a?t?, pa?ta??? p?e??? t?? ???a??? ?a????s??.

449.Ibid.; cf. Souchon, op. cit., p. 114.

450.Rev. iv, especially 7-12; Haney (op. cit., chap. iv) and Simey (“Economic Theory among the Greeks and Romans,” Economic Review, October, 1900, p. 472) point to Rev. iii. 2 as distinguishing between money and wealth, but this hardly balances the above passage. Econ. i. 12-14 means merely that silver is not wealth unless properly used.

451.So Brants, Xen. Econ., p. 21; cf. Lenormant É La Monnaie dans l’antiquitÉ, I, 179; III, 3.

452.Rev. iv. 8.

453.Rev. iii. 4; v. 3; iii. 2; cf. Ingram, History of Political Economy, p. 15; Kautz, op. cit., p. 129; Roscher, p. 12.

454.Rev. iv. 5-11.

455.iii. 2; and iv. The demand will increase with the supply.

456.iv. 10: ???s??? ?ta? p??? pa?afa??, a?t? ?? ?t??te??? ????eta?, t? d? ???????? t???te??? p??e?.

457.iv. 5-7.

458.iv. 10.

459.iv, especially 7-9, 11; he has no word against them. Lac. Pol. vii shows that he favors their free use.

460.Brants (Xen. Econ., pp. 17 f.) says that he grasped both bases of exchange, division of labor, and natural diversity of products, but he bases it on Rep. Ath. ii. 12. 3.

461.Rev. iii., especially 5; Hiero ix. 9; ?p???a ?f??e? p????.

462.iii. 3. 4. 12 f.

463.iii. 4; v-vi.

464.vi. 1.

465.Econ. ii. 18: ???at?st??; cf. iii, where Socrates teaches the art. Cf. above, p. 17, on the Sophists’ attitude.

466.Rev. iii. 4.

467.iii. 5.

468.iii. 14.

469.iv. 50.

470.Rev. vi. 1.

471.Mem. ii. 7. 12-14. Poehlmann’s attempt to turn the argument about, so as to favor the laborer, is strained (op. cit., I, 288), though the passage may be a sidelight on the economic conditions in early fourth-century Athens. Cf. Mem. ii. 8. 4-5, where, as Poehlmann (op. cit., I, 286 f.) points out, the free laborer was coming to feel himself to be on the same status with the slave.

472.Cf. e.g., his opposition to the free democracy of Athens, for evidence of which we do not need to depend upon the Ath. Pol.

473.Rev. iv. 17; cf. p. 70; but p. 69 might point the other way.

474.Mem. iv. 4. 16; ??e? d? ?????a? ??t? ?? p???? e? p???te??e?? ??t? ????? ?a???, ?????e??.

475.Econ. xi. 9, 13.

476.Cf. how naÏvely he takes for granted the feasibility of his schemes in the Revenues. Cf. the opening sentence of the work, “As are the governors [p??st?ta?], so are the governments [p???te?a?]” cited by Poehlmann (op. cit., I, 299) as the illusion of socialism; but it might easily be expressed by a conservative. Plato (Rep. 544D) expresses a similar idea.

477.Rev. iii and iv.

478.iv. 33. The mines were already publicly owned, for the most part, but they were privately worked. Cf. Ardaillon, Les Mines du Laurion dans l’antiquitÉ (Paris, 1897).

479.iii. 14.

480.iv. 17.

481.iv.

482.iv. 49.

483.iii. 9 f.

484.iv. 30-32.

485.iv. 33; 49-52; vi. 1. Cf. the excellent rÉsumÉ of the whole plan by Poehlmann (op. cit., I, 299 ff.), though he reads into it too much of the modern socialistic spirit; e.g., 306-8, he makes it an example of the so-called psychological necessity by which socialism develops out of capitalism.

486.Cf. especially iv. 14: t?? ??t?? p??e?? p??? ????? ?a??sa? t? a?s?a?????? p?????? p???t???????? ?? a?t?? ?d??ta? ? ?e?s?a? t??t???.

487.E.g., p. 106, n. 3, citing Or. xxxvi. 44 on p?st??.

488.Peace 12, though the emphasis is on bribery.

489.Olynth. iii. 25 f.; Cont. Aristoc. xxiii. 207 f.; Or. xiii. 29 f. (Dem.), though the emphasis in all is upon patriotism. In these passages, he idealizes the past in the manner of Isocrates; cf. infra, p. 143. n. 8.

490.Or. xxxvi. 44, For Phormio.

491.Or. lvii 45.

492. Cont. Aristoc. 146; Cont. Aristog. xxv. 46, his scornful figurative use of the term ??p????.

493.Cont. Steph. i. 70: ???? t?????? ?a? t?? t?? ????? s?f???? ?a? ??e??? e?t???ata sa?t?? ??????.

494.Olynth. i. 15, referring to those who borrow money at high interest, and thus lose their property, may also be noted. Cf. pp. 105 f. and notes.

495.Nicocl. 3. 50, against injustice in money-making.

496.Ibid. 59.

497.Cont. Nicocl. (2). 32; Peace 32; cf. p. 26, n. 1, for Plato’s idea.

498.Cf. also Paneg. 76.

499.Cont. Nicocl. (2). 4.

500.Peace 7; moderation in money-making is most difficult for most men; cf. also 34 and 93 f.

501.Areop. 4.

502.Cont. Nicocl. 2; Panath. 184.

503. Areop. 51, 53, 83; ??? d? p?e???? e?s?? ?? spa?????te? t?? ????t??, a striking commentary on the economic conditions in the Athens of his day. In 44, poverty is called a source of crime. All these passages idealize the past.

504.Paneg. 29, 33, 40; Areop. 74. But cf. Panath. 29 for a hint of prejudice against them.

505.Paneg. 42.

506.Peace 20 f.

507.Areop. 32 f.; cf. infra, p. 97, n. 6, for a fuller interpretation of Aristotle’s passage; cf. Letter to Timoth. 3; Areop. 44.

508.Bousiris 16.

509.Areop. 35.

510.Panath. 259; Paneg. 79; cf. also citations on poverty, above.

511.Or. 15. 159 f.

512.Areop. 21 f.

513.Areop. 35: a? d? ???se?? ????a?; 31 f., 51; for further mention of these idealizations of ancient Athens and Sparta, cf. infra, p. 143, n. 8.

514.Areop. 53.

515.Ibid. 83: ?p??e? t?? ?e? pa???sa? ???a? d?????s??.

516.Cont. Nicocl. 31: ?t? t? t?? p??e?? ???? ???? ?????ta? t??? ?????s??.

517.Cf. infra for the Economica, which is generally recognised to be from a later member of the Peripatetic school, about 250-200 B.C.; cf. Susemihl, Economica, Intro. to the ed.; Croiset, op. cit., IV, 710; Zeller, op. cit., II, 2, 944 ff. Moreover, it deals chiefly with the practical phase of economics. On the other hand, we shall cite Eud. Eth. and Mag. mor. under Aristotle, since, though later than him, they merely imitate his thought, in so far as they touch economics. For the numerous and diverse writings ascribed to Aristotle, cf. Christ, op. cit., IV [1905], 684 ff.

518.B. St. Hilaire (preface to his French translation of the Politics, pp. 4-11) calls him “le crÉateur de l’Économie politique.” Zmavc (Archiv f. d. Gesch. d. Philos. [1899], pp. 407 ff.) also tends to overestimate him.

519.Zmavc (ibid, and also Zeitschr. f. d. gesammt. Staatswiss. [1902], pp. 48 ff.) emphasizes this fact.

520.Pol. i. 1. 1252a7-13, cited on p. 9, n. 5, a criticism of Plato’s Politics 258E-259C; on the truth in this confusion, cf. p. 10. Even Adam Smith said: “What is wise with a family can hardly be foolish with a great kingdom.”

521.Besides St. Hilaire and Zmavc, cited above, among those favorable are Cossa, Hist. des doctrines economiques, p. 149; Blanqui, op. cit., I, 49, 86. More reserved are Souchon, op. cit., p. 127; DuBois, op. cit., p. 50; Haney, op. cit., pp. 47 f.; unfair interpretation, DÜhring, op. cit., pp. 20 f.

522.i. 9. 1257a6-9: ???st?? ??? ?t?at?? d?tt? ? ???s?? ?st?? ?f?te?a? d? ?a?? a?t? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?a?? a?t?, ???? ? ?? ???e?a ? d? ??? ???e?a t?? p???at?? ???? ?p?d?at?? ? te ?p?des?? ?a? ? eta??t???.

523.Wealth of Nations, I, chap. iv.

524.Cf. Souchon, op. cit., p. 127; Haney, op. cit., p. 47.

525.Unless this is implied in ?t?at??, 1257a6, as ?st? ??? ? eta??t??? p??t?? (14 f.) might seem to indicate. Zmavc (Archiv., etc., p. 410) points to 1253b33-39, on the automatic tripods of Hephaestus, as implying it, but if so it was unintended by Aristotle. But cf. infra, pp. 84 and 86, n. 4, where it is recognized.

526.1257a11; 5-19, but not specifically stated, and the term ??e?a does not occur here.

527.i. 7. 14: ?a? t? spa???te??? t?? ?f?????, ???? ???s?? s?d???? ????st?te??? ??? ????? d? t??p?? te ?f????? t?? spa????, ?t? ? ???s?? ?pe???e?? t? ??? p??????? t?? ???????? ?pe???e?? ??e? ???eta? ???st?? ?? ?d??. Cf. Pind. Ol. i. 1 and Cope-Sandys ed. of Ar. Rhet. (I, pp. 130 f., 1877).

528.Ibid.

529.V, v. 8-14. 1133a5-1133b10 ff.

530.E.g., Stewart.

531.1133a5-12; 15 f.; 18; cf. Eud. Eth. vii. 10. 1243b28-38.

532.N. Eth. 1133a5-12, etc., 12 f.: ????? ??? ????e? ??e?tt?? e??a? t? ?at???? ????? ? t? ?at????. The emphasis seems to be on quality of labor, as suggested by ??e?tt??. Cf. both ?s?? and ???? (15) and p. 84 n. 3.

533.Ibid. 7-10; by joining means and extremes together, the proportionate exchange is effected. Cf. also 1133b4 ff.; 1133a32 f. As observed by Ritchie (Palgrave’s Dictionary, art. “Aristotle”) and H. Sewall (op. cit., p. 3, n. 2), the proportion is clearer to moderns if we make our standard one hour of labor of each workman instead of the men themselves.

534.Stewart (Notes to N. Eth. I, 449) suggests that this gives what the economists call “natural value,” but that the market value oscillates from this because of supply and demand.

535.1133a25-27; 1133b6 f. Cf. p. 34, n. 5, for Plato’s use of the term.

536.Op. cit., pp. 47 f.

537.Cf. the discussion and notes above; also 1133a15 f., where both elements seem to be recognized, though the meaning of the passage is disputed. Cf. infra, p. 108, n. 3.

538.1133a19 ff.; 29; 1133b10 ff., cited infra, on money. It clearly distinguishes the quality of exchangeableness. Cf. iv. 1. 1119b26 f., cited infra, n. 7. Cf. pp. 38 f. for Plato’s theory.

539.So Stewart, op. cit., in loc.; Zmavc, Archiv., etc., p. 415, who criticizes Karl Marx (Kapital, 4th ed., I, 26) for denying this. Barker (op. cit., p. 379) says that Aristotle did not recognize the “seller’s cost of production”; but cf. 384, where he implies the opposite.

540.But cf. his definition of wealth, pp. 85 f.

541.Bonar (op. cit., p. 40) criticizes him for this. The words ???a and t?? are not used in the passage, but for the former in a very dear economic sense, cf. iv. 1. 1119b26-27; ???ata d? ????e? p??ta ?s?? ? ???a ???sat? et?e?ta?.

542.For further discussion of this Ethics passage, cf. infra on money, exchange, and distribution. Mag. mor. i. 33. 1193b19-1194b2 repeats the idea, citing Plato Rep. on the exchange of the four producers in his primitive state.

543.i. 8. 1256b28-32. The term ?pe????, as applied to wealth, is used by Plato and Aristotle of undue love of money (Rep. 373D, 591D; Laws 870A); for Aristotle, cf. passage above and infra. There is a sense, even from the economic standpoint, in which wealth is not unlimited.

544.Prin. of Pol. Econ., preliminary remarks, and Book I, chap. iii, 3.

545.On this term in Plato and Aristotle, cf. infra under exchange.

546.Op. cit., p. 374; cf. infra on the moral attitude of Aristotle to wealth.

547.His unfair criticism of Plato seems to argue otherwise (Rep. 369C ff.; Pol. 1291a12-19), but cf. infra.

548.ii. 7. 1267b10 ff.; 1254a16 f.; Rhet. i. 5. 1361a12 ff.

549.Pol. 1254a16 ff.: ?t?a d? ???a??? p?a?t???? ?a? ????st??, similar to Walker’s term “transferability” (Pol. Econ., 3d ed., p. 5); cf. Mill, op. cit., preliminary remarks on the term.

550.N. Eth. iv. 1. 1119b26 f., cited on p. 84, n. 7.

551.Cf. the discussion above on value; cf. Mill, op. cit., Book I, chap, iii, 3, on the quality of “storableness” as an attribute of wealth. Newman (Pol. of Ar., II, note to 1256b26 ff.) asks if ??sa???s?? can be applied to slaves and cattle, and if the definition can include land. These are all included; cf. n. 1, above.

552.Pol. i. 9. 1257a6 and 14 f., and the discussion above of N. Eth. 1133a5 ff.

553.Cf. n. 3.

554.Cf. Smith, op. cit., IV, for criticism of this basal confusion of the mercantile theory.

555.Rhet. B. 16. 1390-91.

556.Pol. i. 8. 1256b31 f.; N. Eth. i. 8. 1099a31-33, especially ?d??at?? ??? ? ?? ??d??? t? ?a?? p??tte?? ???????t?? ??ta; 1101a14 f., in the definition of the e?da??? man.

557.Pol. iii. 6. 1265a32 f.: ??e??????; N. Eth. iii., chaps. 13-14 on s?f??s???, and iv, chaps. 1, 2, on ??e??e???t?? and ?s?t?a; but display of wealth is vulgar (iv. 2. 1123a19-22). Ruskin (Stones of Venice, VIII, 69 [Vol. X, 389]) refers to Aristotle on liberality.

558.? d? pe??a st?s?? ?p??e? ?a? ?a??????a?.

559.v. 1. 1129b3; so Mag. mor. B. 3. 1199b6-9, 14-35; cf. N. Eth. i. 8. 1098b31 ff. for a similar distinction between habit (????) and practice (???s??) of virtue.

560.v. 1. 1129b4-6; cf. Pol. i. 10. 1258a23-27 on the duty of the weaver or statesman; iv (vii). 15. 1334a36 f.; 13. 1332a22 f.

562.Pol. iv (vii). 13. 1332a26 f.

563.N. Eth. i. 8. 1098b12-15; cf. Pol. 1323a25 f.; Rhet. i. 5. 1360b25 ff.; also Mag. mor. A. 3. 1184b1-5 and Eud. Eth. ii. 1. 1218b32.

564.Pol. 1323a40 f.; cf. Jesus’ sentence, “Seek ye first,” etc.; cf. also 1323b19 f.; also pp. 24 ff., Plato.

565.Pol. 1323b, 1-6.

566.N. Eth. i. 5. 1096a5 f.: ? d? ???at?st?? ?a??? t?? ?st??. Cf. also Pol. 1256b28-32, discussed above, and i., chaps. 8 and 9, discussed under exchange.

567.Cf. n. 2.

568.Pol. 1323b7-11, and discussion above.

569.1256b36; N. Eth. i. 5. 1906a6 f.; ???s??? ??? ?a? ????? ?????; 7. 1097a27: d???? ?? ??? ?st? p??ta t??e?a.

570.Pol. i. 9. 1258a2 ff.; cf. also Mag. mor. B. 3. 1200a-b.

571.1258a10-14, similar to Plato Rep. i. on the arts and their function; cf. a similar passage from Isocrates (Paneg. 76) on the virtues of the Persian War heroes.

572.Pol. iii. 9. 1280a25-32; the chief ambition of a state is not t?? ?t??t?? ?????, but e? ???. Cf. above on the similar preachments of Plato, for their relation to modern economic ideas and conditions. Cf. Plato Crito 48B: ?? t? ??? pe?? p?e?st?? p???t???, ???? t? e? ???.

573.Cf. Souchon, op. cit., p. 69; for Greek terms for production, cf. p. 66 and notes.

574.i. 10. 1258a19-38; 4. 1254a7: ? d? ??? p?????, ?? p???s?? ?st??.

575.10. 1258a33 ff., t?? ?pe?et????, impossible for the economist, but true, for the moralist; cf. p. 69 for his distinction (1254a1 ff.) between ???a?a p???t??? and ?t?a p?a?t????.

576.i. 2.; on both the above, cf. Newman, op. cit., in loc.

577.Cf. especially 1258a34 ff.: ???sta d?, ?a??pe? e??eta? p??te???, de? f?se? t??t? ?p???e??. Cf. Susemihi and Hicks, Pol. of Ar., I (1894), Intro., p. 30.

578.1256a40 ff., a?t?f?t??, “self-existent,” with ???as?a, as here, equals a?t?????a, “agriculture.”

579.1258b9-27.

580.Op. cit., pp. 96, 98 f., n. 1; cf. Haney, op. cit., p. 47; Kautz, op. cit., p.138; Ingram, op. cit., p. 18. The physiocrats thought that commerce and industry increased the value of raw materials only enough to pay for labor and capital expended. Commerce was an expensive necessity, a tax on agriculture. For a good summary, cf. Haney, pp. 138 ff. Quesnay (Tableau Econ. [1776]) followed Xenophon (Econ. v. 17) as his motto. But the motive of the physiocrats was economic, not moral and political, as was that of Aristotle.

581.Pol. 1258b21 ff.; probably implied also in 1256a40 ff.; but cf. vi (iv). 4. 1291a1 ff., where the mechanic and hired laborer are counted among the necessary parts of the state.

582.1256 ff.; 1256b23 f. To him, production is a branch of acquisition. Cf. p. 28, on Plato’s use of the terms.

583.1258a19-38; 1254a7, cited on p. 88, n. 10.

584.Op. cit., pp. 358, 375 f.

585.Op. cit., p. 39, on the basis of Pol. 1258b34 f.: t? d? ?at? ???? ????????e?s?a? ???s??? ?? p??? t?? ???as?a?, f??t???? d? t? ??d?at??e??. f??t???? may mean merely “tiresome,” not “vulgar.”

586.Cf. Zmavc, Archiv., etc., p. 431; cf. passages cited infra, on the attitude of Aristotle to labor; cf. vi (iv). 4. 1291a1 ff., especially ?st? d? t??t? t? pe?? t?? t???a? ?? ??e? p???? ?d??at?? ???e?s?a?.

587.Pol. 1258a34-38, cited on p. 89, n. 2.

588.1258b9-21.

589.Ibid. 40 ff.; cf. Newman, op. cit., II, 204, on the statements of Varro De re rustica i. 1. 8 and Columella i. 1. 7 that Aristotle and Theophrastus wrote on agriculture. Cf. also (Plato) Axiochus 368C.

590.Pol. iv (vii). 9. 1329a1 f.

591.1254a1 ff.; cf. pp. 68 and 88 for Greek terms.

592.1254a2-4.

593.Op. cit., ii, chap. i.

594.Pol. 1254a7; cf. p. 88, n. 10.

595.Pol. 1254a8 ff. He thinks chiefly of the domestic slave.

596.Unto This Last, p. 61, an unjust criticism of Mill; ibid., IV, 78: “Production is primarily for the mouth, not for the granary.”

597.Op. cit., IV, chap. viii: “Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; ... and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.”

598.For reference and Greek terms, cf. p. 68.

599.For his term ?f??? cf. p. 68, n. 8, and infra. It probably was a mere business word to him. DuBois (op. cit., p. 38) thinks that he had a very clear idea of its significance.

600.Pol. 1258b12-21; cf. 1258a37 f.

601.Ibid. 21-27, and entire chaps., 8-11. For terms, cf. infra.

602.iv. 1121a29; 1122a14 f.; cf. the stress on d?s?? and ???s?? rather than on ?t?s?? and ?????, 1120a8-13; b14-16, and Stewart’s notes, I, 323.

603.Rep. 552B, discussed above.

604.Souchon (op. cit., p. 121) seems to think it was.

605.Pol. 1258b8, but cf. p. 39 and infra on this word t????. Cf. also Ar. Clouds 20; 1285 ff.; A. Smith, op. cit., II, chap. iv.

606.Souchon (op. cit., p. 97) is hardly fair to Aristotle on this point, but cf. also p. 96, n. 1; cf. Ruskin, Time and Tide, XV, 81 (Vol. XVII, 388); Mun. Pul., Pref., 21 (Vol. XVII, 144); ibid., VI, 139 (p. 264); ibid., 153 and note (p. 277), which cites Laws 743C, on the doctrine that the just are neither rich nor poor.

607.Pol. v (viii). 2. 1337b8-11. The terms for mechanical labor are t????, of ability through practice; d????????, of one who works for the people, rather than for himself or one other; ??a?s??, originally of work by the fire, but later the common term for mechanical labor, usually with a derogatory sense in the philosophers; cf. a?a?s?a, “vulgarity,” N. Eth. iv. 4. 1122a31; ??a?s??, “vulgar man,” ibid. 1123a19; Etymol. mag; Schol. to Plato Rep. 495E; Pollux i. 64. 50; Hesychius, s.v. The Greeks did not clearly distinguish the finer from the mechanical arts; cf. BÜchsenschÜtz, op. cit., p. 266; Pol. vi (iv). 4. 1291a1 ff., where all are included under ??a?s??. Cf. Cope-Sandys, Ar. Rhet., 2d ed., I, 9, 27, note. Cf. above, p. 33, n. 7, for Ruskin’s attitude.

608.Pol. 1337b12; 1258b37.

609.1337b13 f.

610.1258b38 f.

611.vii (vi). 4. 1319a26-28.

612.v (viii). 2. 1337b5-7.

613.iv (vii). 9. 1328b37-41; cf. iii. 5. 1277b33 ff.

614.1329a1; 1330a25-31.

615.1330a25-31; cf. also the pseudo-Econ. i. 2. 1343a26 ff.

616.i. 3. 1260a40 ff.; cf. infra for discussion of this idea.

617.1258b25-27; Rhet. i. 9. 27, 1367a; ??e?????? ??? t? ? p??? ????? ???. His entire argument for the slave as a mere “instrument” (cf. infra) shows the same attitude. Stewart (op. cit., II, 316) says that he failed to see that labor is “an essential function of the social organism, something ?a??? and not merely ??a??a???.”

618.Pol. iv (vii). 4. 1326a22-24.

619.1328b19-23; vi (iv). 1291a1-3.

620.1329a1; i. 11. 1258b38 f.

621.v (viii). 2. 1337b15-22, especially 17 f.: ??e? d? p????? d?af???? ?a? t? t???? ??e?e? p??tte? t?? ? a????e?.

622.The difference in employments and studies is largely one of method and aim. The most humanizing pursuit becomes ??e?e??e??? and ??a?s??, if followed to an extreme or with a sordid purpose, merely. Cf. Plato Laws 918B-919C, and the criticism of the superficial method and merely vocational motive in mathematical study (Rep. 525C ff.). Cf. above, p. 33, n. 7, for Ruskin’s idea on this point.

623.Aristotle also has the aristocratic idea of labor as robbing a freeman of his independence, Pol. v (viii). 1337b15-22; Rhet. 1367a, cited on p. 94, n. 9.

624.Pol. iv (vii). 9. 1328b39 ff.; N. Eth. x. 7. 1177b4; cf. Jowett, Ar. Pol., I, 144, cited by Stewart, op. cit., II, 446.

625.Pol. ii 3. 1261b33-38.

626.1325a31-33.

627.1258b12-20.

628.Rhet. ii. 4. 9. 1381a, where the word a?t?????? is used; cf. above on Euripides.

629.Cf. above on value, and N. Eth. v. 8-9. 1133a5-18.

630.Pol. vii (vi). 6. 1320a38 ff.; cf. p. 92, n. 6.

631.i. 12. 1259b1 ff.

632.1252b1 ff.; cf. Adam’s note to Rep. 370B; Susemihl and Hicks’s note to Pol. 1252b3, for an exception to the rule (De part. Anim. iv. 6. 11. 683a22). ???? ?p?? ? ??d??eta? ?ata???ta? t? a?t? ?p? p?e?? ???a.

633.Pol. ii 1261a30 f.; N. Eth. v. 5.

634.Pol. 1261a37-39; 1328b ff. Fontpertuis (op. cit., p. 359) accounts for the comparative superficiality of the Greek theory of labor by the fact that their political constitution diminished its importance, but cf. our introduction. Capitalistic employment of free labor was probably not extensive.

635.Cf. above, p. 16, n. 6; p. 17, n. 1.

636.On the theory of the Sophists, cf. above, pp. 16 f. On the Cynics, cf. infra; also Zeller, op. cit., II, 2, 376; Ar. Pol. 1253b20-23. Barker (op. cit., p. 359), who has a very clear and discriminating criticism of Aristotle’s theory of slavery, also states that slavery had been attacked by the “logic of events”—e.g., the enslavement of Athenians in Sicily, and the freeing of Messenian Helots, during the Theban supremacy, by which Greek freemen had become slaves and Greek slaves had become free. Cf. Pol. 1255a ff., especially 17 f. and 21-23, for the two theories.

637.The locus classicus for his theory is Pol. i. 4-7. 1253b14 ff.; 13. 1259b21 ff. For good criticisms, cf. Wallon, Histoire de l’esclavage dans l’antiquitÉ, 2d ed., pp. 372 ff.; and Barker, op. cit., 1. Cf. also Newman, op. cit., I, 143 ff.

638.Pol. i. 8. 1256b36; 1253b32.

639.Ibid. 33-39. Aristotle would have been satisfied with electricity.

640.1254a8, cited on p. 88, n. 10. This relieves the severity of the doctrine, since it shows that he thinks chiefly of domestic slavery. But in his proposed state, all industry is manned by slaves. Cf. iv (vii). 1330a25-31.

641.Pol. 1254a9-13; cf. Eud. Eth. 1241b17-24.

642.1254a13-17.

643.Op. cit., p. 362.

644.1254a28-31; 1254b15. As Wallon (op. cit., p. 391) points out, his radical error is a constant confusion of hypothesis with reality.

645.1254a23-24.

646.Ibid. 33 f.

647.Ibid. 30-40; 1254b10-13; 1253b7; 18 f., cf. Eud. Eth. 1241b17 ff.

648.1254b16-19.

649.Ibid. 20-26.

650.Ibid. 26 ff.

651.1254a21 f.

652.1254b6-10; 11 f.; 16-20; 1255b6-15; a doctrine emphasized by Plato, Rep. 590D; Laws 645B, 714A, 818A, 684C, as also by Carlyle and Ruskin; cf. Shorey, Class. Phil., IX (1914), 355 ff. Though Ruskin believed that natural slavery was the inevitable lot of many men, he did not uphold negro slavery, Mun. Pul., v, 133 (Vol. XVII, 256 f.); Time and Tide, p. 149 (Vol. XVII, 438). But he pointed to the white economic slavery as equally bad, Stones of Venice, II (Vol. X, 193); Time and Tide, p. 105 (Vol. XVII, 403); Crown of Wild Olive, 119; Cestus Aglaia, p. 55.

653.1254b32-34; 1255b5 ff.

654.1254b38 f.

655.1255a3-7.

656.Ibid. 19-21 and next note.

657.Ibid. 24 f.

658.Ibid. 25 f.: ?a? t?? ??????? d???e?e?? ??da?? ?? fa?? t?? d????? e??a?.

659.Ibid. 26-28.

660.Ibid. 33 ff.

661.1255b20-22. Barker (op. cit., p. 369, n. 1) well observes that this is a challenge of the right of slavery, not an argument for it, and that it may have impressed his contemporaries so. Cf. Ruskin: “So there is only one way to have good servants; that is to be worthy of being well served.” (Letters on Servants and Houses, Vol. XVII, 5-18, App. V); cf. also pp. 520 ff.

662.1259b26-28.

663.Ibid. 36-38.

664.Ibid. 39-41.

665.1260a2-4; 14-16; cf. 33 ff., which sets a limit on the slave’s virtue.

666.1260a39-42; 1260b2 f. Cf. Ruskin, Fors Clav., III, Letter 28, 14, on the virtue of the “menial” condition.

667.Cf. Barker, op. cit., p. 370.

668.N. Eth. 1161b1-10, especially 5: ? ?? ??? d?????, ??? ?st? f???a p??? a?t??, ? d? ?????p??.

669.Cf. his reference to Cleisthenes’ gift of Athenian citizenship to many slaves; also his own emancipation, by will, of five of his own slaves (Diog. L. V. 1. 9).

670.Cf. Barker, op. cit., p. 370.

671.Sesame and Lilies, end of lecture on “Kings’ Treasuries”; cf. Fors Clav., VII, 9 (Vol. XXIX, 230); Mun. Pul., 130, note; cf. Fors Clav., III (Vol. XXVII, 515 f.). Lett. 28, 13 ff., on the workman as a serf.

672.Barker, op. cit., 368.

673.On the servile condition of the modern laborer, cf. Ruskin as above; a common idea also of Carlyle and of many modern economic writings.

674.Pol. 1257a31 ff., praised for its exactness and insight. Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 585; DÜhring (op. cit., p. 23) belittles it. Newman (op. cit., II, 184) points to ?e????t??a? as implying that the increased distance between buyers and sellers also caused the origin of money.

675.N. Eth. v. 5. 1133b26-28.

676.Pol. 1257a31-36; ?e????t??a? ??? ?e?????? t?? ???e?a? t? e?s??es?a? ?? ??dee?? ?a? ??p?pe?? ?? ?p?e??a???, ?? ??????? ? t?? ???sat?? ?p???s?? ???s??, etc.

677.Ibid. 36-38; e?eta?e???st?? could mean “malleability,” but probably not, since he considers coinage to be an afterthought.

678.Ibid. 38 f.

679.Ibid. 39-41.

680.1257b1-5.

681.As a symbol of exchange (?????? t?? ???a???) it is a medium of exchange and a measure of value (Rep. 371B; Laws 742A-B, 918B).

682.v. 8. 1133a18-1133b28.

683.1133a29.

684.Ibid. 5-19; 25; 27 f.; 1133b10, etc.

685.1133a19-22, 25 f.; 1133b16; 22; ix. 1164a1 f.; Pol. 1258b1-5, eta???? ?????; 1257a30 ff. Stewart (op. cit., I, 416 ff.) thinks that the author meant to apply the corrective (d?????t????) function of justice also to money, in that it makes exchange more fair and uniform. As evidence, he points to N. Eth. 1131a18 ff. and 1133a19-22, where the functions of justice and money are defined in similar terms. Cf. also his interesting remarks on the dianemetic function, which prompts exchange and distribution.

686.1133b10-13.

687.Ibid. 15-18: ??te ??? ?? ? ??s?? a??a??? ???????a ??, etc.

688.Pol. 1257b8 f.

689.1257b10-18; for the theory of the Cynics, cf. infra, especially on Eryxias. Cf. Newman, op. cit., II, 188, note, and his reference to Macaulay’s note on the margin of his edition of the Politics.

690.1257b19 ff.; cf. the transitional sentence, 18, a slight hint that he accepts the theory.

691.N. Eth. v. 5. 1133a29-31; cf. 1133b20 f., ?? ?p???se??, cf. infra, where the pseudo-Economica takes it for granted.

692.Pol. 1257a36 f., cited on p. 102.

694.Cf. p. 86, n. 1, for passages.

695.Blanqui (op. cit., pp. 36, 88), Ingram (op. cit., p. 18), DuBois (op. cit., p. 51 and n. 1), Zmavc (Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Staatswiss. [1902], pp. 76 f.), Palgrave’s Dictionary (art. “Aristotle,” p. 54), all admit this conclusion. Barker (op. cit., p. 380) says that the idea is hinted at. Souchon (op. cit., pp. 110 f.) accepts the other view, stating that this was his purpose, to show the folly of making merely imaginary goods the goal of all life.

696.Cf. N. Eth. v. 5. 1133b13 f.

697.Pol. 1257b5-8, and the whole of 1257b; 1258b1-5.

698.1258b25.

699.N. Eth. 1121b34: ?a? t???sta? ?at? ???? ?a? ?p? p????. Cf. Zell’s translation.

700.Pol. 1258b1-8; but cf. p. 39 on this point. The etymology should not be taken seriously. Ruskin cites Aristotle on this point. Cf. above, p. 39, n. 10.

701.Cf. Barker, op. cit., p. 385 and n. 2, where he criticizes Poehlmann for his idea that Aristotle “is attacking a great credit system,” and “is enunciating a gospel of socialism.” But cf. infra.

702.Pol. 1257b5 ff.

703.Ibid. 33 ff.; for further discussion of chrematistik, cf. infra.

704.Cf. Haney, op. cit., p. 49: “In Athens, the circulation of capital was inconsiderable, and money was not lent for productive purposes as often as for the purpose of relieving distress”; Souchon, op. cit., p. 93, though (pp. 106 f.) he recognizes the other side.

705.Cf. Paley and Sandys ed., especially Or. xxxvi; Isoc. Trapeziticus; Boeckh, op. cit., I, 160 ff.; V. Brants, “Les operations de banque dans la GrÈce antique,” Le MusÉon, I, 2, 196-203; Koutorga, Le trapÉzites, (Paris, 1859); cf. also E. Meyer, Kleine Schriften.

706.Or. xx. 25.

707.Or. xxxvi. 44: e? d? t??t? ????e??, ?t? p?st?? ?f??? t?? pas?? ?st? e??st? p??? ???at?s??, p?? ?? ?????se?a?.

708.Ibid. 57 ff.

709.Cf. p. 105, n. 7, on Souchon; E. Boehm von Bawerk (Capital und Capitalzins, [1900] I, 17 f.) says: “Die GeschÄftsleute und Praktiker standen sicher auf der zinsfreundlichen Seite.” He accounts for the fact that almost the only passages against interest are in the philosophers by the inference that to uphold interest was superfluous, and to oppose it was useless. Poehlmann exaggerates both the degree of credit operations, and the prejudice of Aristotle.

710.For the Greek terms, cf. p. 40.

711.Pol. 1257a15-17.

712.Ibid. 22-28; N. Eth. v. 5. 1133b26-28.

713.Pol. 1257a30 ff. These two periods of ????????? and ???at?st??? correspond well to the German terms Naturalwirtschaft and Geldwirtschaft. Kautz (op. cit., p. 137, n. 4) says that this antithesis was about as dear to Aristotle as it is to moderns. For the terms, cf. infra.

714.N. Eth. v. 4. 1132b11-1133b28; cf. also under value and money, above; cf. Mag. mor. i. 33. 1193b19 ff.

715.1132b11-20; cf. Rep. 369B-C; 370B, for a similar idea of Plato.

716.1132b33.

717.Ibid. 32-34, especially t? ??t?p??e?? ???????? s???e? ? p????; 17 f.; Stewart, op. cit., I, 449.

718.1133a5-10, cited on p. 83, nn. 2-7; cf. Eud. Eth. vii. 10. 1243b28-38.

719.1133a10 f.

720.Cf. p. 83, n. 7. The less valuable product must make up in quantity what it lacks in quality. The proportion thus becomes, ?e????? : s??t?t??? : : x pairs of shoes : a quantity of grain of equal value (1133a32 f.). Cf. other methods of statement, 1133b4 f., 22 Stewart, op. cit., I, 453 f.

721.1133b1-4.

722.1133a11 f.; 16-18: ?t???? ?a? ??? ?s??. Cf. Rep. 369C, 370B; Ar. Pol. 1261a22 for a similar idea. Stewart (op. cit., I, 464 f.), following Jackson, interprets, on the basis of 1132a33, the buyer’s two advantages to be, if he buys too cheaply, the part of the article still unpaid for, and the money he should have paid for it. Cf. ibid. pp. 455-67 for other interpretations.

723.1133a15 f.: ???????t? ??? ??, e? ? ? ?p??e? t? p????? ?a? ?s?? ?a? ????, ?a? t? p?s?e?? ?pas?e t??t? ?a? t?s??t?? ?a? t????t??. I follow Jackson, note, pp. 97 f.; Rassow, Forsch., p. 18 (Peters’ trans., p. 154, n. 2), in accepting this difficult passage as an integral part of its context, and in interpreting it as above, though aside from the context, it would hardly bear this meaning. Stewart (op. cit., I, 455 ff.) thinks it is an interpolation or note, referring merely to the mechanical fact in the arts that material is receptive to the impression.

724.1133a18 f.; 25-28; 1133b6-8; 19 f.; cf. Rep. 369C.

725.1133a19-29; cf. Stewart’s excellent comments, op. cit., I, 459 ff.

726.1133b14-16; 20-22: t??t? ??? p??ta p??e? s?et?a; e.g., if a house is equal to five minae and a bed is worth one, five beds equal one house (23-26).

727.HandwÖrterbuch der Staatswwissenschaft, art. “Geld,” 2d ed., Bd. IV, 82 f.

728.Op. cit., p. 384.

729.Cf. citations above, p. 42, n. 7, and p. 44, n. 2. Cf. DuBois, op. cit., p. 46.

730.Cf. Haney, op. cit., p. 48.

731.Pol. 1259a2 f.; 33-35.

732.iv (vii). 6. 1327a25-30.

733.Rhet. i. 4. 7: pe?? t?? e?sa?????? ?a? ??a??????, as among the subjects for a statesman’s consideration; cf. also 11.

734.Pp. 89 and notes.

735.Pol. 1257a28-30; vi (iv). 4. 1291a4-6; 1291b19 f.; vii (vi). 7. 1321a6, all seem to take retail and wholesale trade in the state for granted. But it is not named in the list of necessary callings in the ideal state, 1328b24 ff.; 5 ff.; cf. also 1329a40 ff. Of course the citizens are not to engage in it (1328b37 ff.).

736.N. Eth. v. 8. 1132b4 f.; 1133a27; all of chap. 8; cf. above, on just exchange.

737.Pol. iv (vii). 6. 1327a25-28.

738.vii (vi). 5. 1320a39: ?f???? ?p???a?. Cf. p. 96.

739.Cf. discussion above of just exchange.

740.Pol. i. chaps. 8-11. Ruskin does not seem to have used the term “chrematistik,” and he has no reference to this passage, though, as seen above, he has much to say in the same general spirit.

741.Pol. 1256a11 f.; cf. p. 40 on Plato’s terms for trade. For the word ???at?st???, cf. Rep. 415E, contrasted to soldiers; Gorg. 477E, the art that frees from poverty; 452C; Euthyd. 304C, of the Sophists; Xen. Econ. ii. 18, where no prejudice is implied.

742.Pol. i. 8. 1256a10-12; but cf. N. Eth. i. 1. 1094a9: t???? ?????????? d? p???t??; and Pol. iii. 4. 1277b24 f.: ?pe? ?a? ???????a ?t??a ??d??? ?a? ???a????? t?? ?? ??? ?t?s?a? t?? d? f???tte?? ????? ?st??. An American economist would hardly make the latter distinction. Newman (op. cit., II, 166) thinks that in these two passages he states the actual condition, but cf. infra, where Aristotle admits a degree of acquisition in domestic economy.

743.1256a15 ff.

744.1256b26-39.

745.Ibid. 30-37; cf. above on the definition of wealth.

746.1258a19 ff. He would combat the common idea that the first business of economics is to provide unlimited revenue (1259a35; 1254a1 f.)

747.1256b40-42; 1257a4 f.; 17 f.; cf. Eud. Eth. iii. 4. 1232a6-9.

748.1257b1 f.; 9 f.

749.1257a18 f., 28-30; 1257b19 f.; 31 ff.

750.1257a31 ff. Poehlmann (op. cit., I, 599) cites Schaeffle, Bau und Leben des sozialen KÖrpers, I, 256, that this analysis of the change from natural to capitalistic economy holds “im Kern die ganze moderne Kritik des Kapitals,” but the standpoint of the two is essentially different.

751.1258a1-14. Extreme desire demands superfluity (?pe????).

752.1257b20 f.

753.Ibid. 23 ff.

754.Ibid. 35 f. The two uses overlap (?pa???tte?).

755.Ibid. 36-39.

756.1258a16-18.

757.Ibid. 19 ff. The other function is secondary (?pe?et???).

758.Ibid. 39 f.

759.Ibid. 37 f.

760.1258b12-21.

761.Ibid. 1 f.; cf. 1256a40 ff., where ?ap??e?a is opposed to a?t?f?t?? ????s? t?? ???as?a?.

762.1258b20-23.

763.Ibid. 25-27. This contrasted yet overlapping relation between the two kinds of finance is well represented by Haney, op. cit., 46. Cf. also Ashley, op. cit., p. 340, for a synopsis of the divisions of ?t?t???.

764.1258b27-33.

765.Op. cit., pp. 333 ff., more satisfactory than Jowett’s idea that the intermediateness consists either in exchange for money of the direct products of the earth, or else that wood-cutting and mining are themselves the intermediate form; or than Newman’s (op. cit., II, 202 f.) theory that it consists in the fact that in this type wealth is sought, not from fruits or animals, but from things, just as exchange seeks wealth from other men or from money, as Ashley shows. However, two questions still remain unanswered: why Aristotle has three forms in chap. 11 and only two elsewhere; and why the terms, ????p??, wood-cutting, and mining are so prominent, if their relation to the thought is only incidental.

766.Pol. iv (vii). 1328b39 ff.; 1327a29-31.

767.This was a common Greek feeling (Dem. xxv. 46).

768.But he seems to recognize it elsewhere (N. Eth. v. 8).

769.Cf. DuBois, op. cit., p. 48.

770.Cf. the entire criticism of chrematistik, and especially 1257b40-42, the contrast between ??? and e? ???. On this point, cf. above, pp. 109 f. and 87 ff. Zmavc (Zeitschrift, etc., p. 52), rightly states that even Adam Smith made his economic theory a subordinate part of his practical philosophy.

771.An unfair criticism, as seen above.

772.Pol. 1266b8-14; iv (vii). 1335b22 ff.

773.1265b6-12.

774.1270a40 ff.

775.Cf. iv (vii). 4. 1326a25-30, especially, t?? ???? d????s?? p???te?es?a? ?a??? ??de?a? ???e? ??sa? ??e????? p??? t? p?????. Cf. entire chapter.

776.1130b ff.; cf. under value, money, and exchange. The terms are d?a??? or ? t?? ?????? d?a???.

777.1131a11.

778.Ibid. 21: ?a? ? a?t? ?sta? ?s?t??, ??? ?a? ?? ???. Cf. above, pp. 55 f. and 60 f., on Plato’s idea of equality; cf. infra for further comments on Aristotle.

779.1132b32 f.; cf. pp. 107 ff. and notes for a more detailed discussion, and for Greek expressions.

780.1131b27-32: ? d?a??? ?sta? ?at? t?? ????? t?? a?t?? ??pe? ????s? p??? ?????a t? e?se?e????ta. Cf. Mag. mor. i. 33. 1193b36 ff. Stewart (op. cit., I, 432) says that the expression ? t?? ?????? d?a??? must mean more than distribution by some central authority, for the most important form of it is the distribution of wealth, operating under economic laws that regulate wages and profits.

781.1131a24-26.

782.Ibid. 22-24. For Plato, cf. pp. 55 f.

783.Ibid. 26-29.

784.Ibid.; Pol. iii. 1280a7 ff.; 1282b23 ff.

785.Cf. above, pp. 113, and 93 ff. on labor.

786.Pol. ii. 4. 1262b2 f.

787.1264a11-17; 36-38; 1264b11-13, all discussed above under Plato.

788.iv (vii). 1329b41 ff.

789.1271a29-37; 1272a12-21.

790.N. Eth. v. chaps. 4-5, discussed above.

791.Pol. vi (iv). 1295b35 ff.

792.v (vi). 1320a33 ff.; cf. pp. 95 f.; cf. especially 35: te??ast??? ??? ?p??, ?? e?p???a ?????t? ???????, and 1267b3 ff. on the insatiety of the masses. He believed that the state doles for mere consumption aggravated the evil—a very sane doctrine which our city charity organizations are prone to overlook.

793.Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 339 f., on this passage.

794.Cf. above, n. 4 above, and pp. 95 f.

795.1320a36: ?pe? d? s?f??e? t??t? ?a? t??? e?p?????, and 34, t??t? ??? a?t??? t?? ??????? e??a? t?? d????at?a?; viz., undue poverty of the masses.

796.Op. cit., p. 7; cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 600, on this point.

797.Pol. ii. 7. 1266b14-25, as advocated by Phaleas; cf. above. Cf. infra for Aristotle’s advocacy of equality in landed property.

798.1267a37-39.

799.Ibid. 39-41.

800.1267b1-4; vii (vi). 1320a31; cf. p. 117 on this idea. He does not consider the rise in the cost of living.

801.1266b28-30.

802.Cf. Bonar, op. cit., p. 45.

803.Aristotle, like Plato, strongly emphasizes education as a great cure for the ills of the state (1310a15 ff.). It should be common to all citizens, and be publicly supervised (1336a22 ff.).

804.1267a13-17.

805.1266b38-1267a2.

806.Ecclesiazusae. Poehlmann (op. cit., I, 403) argues that such ideas were widespread in Greece.

807.Pol. iii. 9. 1280a14-21: s?ed?? d? ?? p?e?st?? fa???? ???ta? pe?? t?? ???e???. Cf. 7-31, his discriminating remarks on equality in general.

808.vii (vi). 5; iii. 10; cf. Haney op. cit., p. 45.

809.Cf. above on fair exchange; also p. 116 and notes.

810.vi (iv). 4. 1292a4-38.

811.vii (vi). 3. 1318b1-5, especially ?? d? ??at???te? ??d?? f???t????s??; cf. iii. 9. 1280a, especially 22-30, on the false idea of equality on both sides.

812.i. 1: ???? p???t????; 1280a31 ff.; 1252b30 f.; cf. all of chap. 9 to 1281a10.

813.1280b10-12, against Lycophron; cf., above, p. 16; ?a? ? ???? s?????? ?a? ... ?????t?? ???????? t?? d??a???, ???? ??? ???? p??e?? ??a???? ?a? d??a???? t??? p???ta?.

814.Op. cit., II, 304.

815.Pol. v (viii). 1. 1337a27-30, a remarkable passage, suggestive of Plato and of St. Paul’s analogy of the body. Aristotle paints vividly the antithesis between political and economic equality, whereby there grows up a state within a state (1295b13 ff.), for he believes with the author of Eud. Eth. vii. 10. 1242a, that man is not only a p???t????, but also an ?????????? ????. Cl. Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 276 ff.

816.1266b8-14; 1265a38-42; unfair to Plato, as seen above.

817.1266b24-28; 1265a28-38.

818.1265b22 ff.

819.1267b9-13.

820.Cf. his criticism of the Spartan system, 1270a40 ff.

821.On its wisdom, cf. infra; on its feasibility, cf. 1263b29: p?pa? ?d??at??.

822.1261a16-1261b15.

823.1261b30-32; 24-28.

824.32-35.

825.1262b4-24.

826.22-24.

828.1263b30 ff., and preceding note.

829.1263a11-16.

830.22-26; 39 f.

831.26-30, citing the proverb ????? t? f????. Cf. 1329b14 ff. N. Eth. viii; 8 f. on f???a; Pol. 1252b29; 1280a25; cf. Xen. Laced. Pol. vi. 3-4.

832.Cf. preceding note, and 1261b32 ff.

833.1261a30 f. N. Eth. v. 5.

834.1263b22 f.

835.37-42. But Plato used both methods.

836.1263b27-29; e.g., besides the personal satisfaction (1263a40 f.), the opportunity for liberality (1263b11-13).

837.iv (vii). 10. 1330a5 ff. He would make part of the land public. In the Laws, the expense is met by making the product public.

838.1271a29-37.

839.Ibid. 28 f.; 1272a12-21.

840.Cf. above on socialism in the Laws.

841.Pol. ii. 1270a21 f.; viii (v). 1309a23-25, though rather a measure for an oligarchy; vii (vi). 1319a8-13, for a democracy, also against mortgage on land; cf. Guiraud, La Prop. fonc., p. 591. Like Plato, he opposes free disposal of dowries (1270a23-25).

842.Cf. p. 122, n. 1.

843.1330a9-23.

844.1265b24-26.

845.iv (vii). 1329a18-21.

846.1330a25-31; 1328b40; 1329a2; cf. Souchon, op. cit., pp. 169 f., on his system as compared with that of the Laws.

847.Cf. p. 120, n. 5; but cf. viii (v). 1308b16-19 for a recognition of the desirability of such a regulation.

848.Cf. above, his criticism of chrematistik, Pol. i. chaps. 8-10.

849.So Souchon, op. cit., p. 167; cf. above for differences in detail.

850.Cf. pp. 119 f.; 1280b35 ff. He does not overlook the complement of this principle, that the prosperity of the whole involves that of the parts (iv [vii]. 1328b37 ff.; 1329a18-21), his unjust criticism of Plato on this point. Zmavc (Zeitschrift, etc., p. 56, n. 3) rightly observes that there is more truth in this Greek doctrine of the relation of the individual to the state than moderns are prone to recognize.

851.Op. cit., p. 391.

852.Francotte (L’Industrie, II, 250) strongly emphasizes their extreme limitation of the individual. Souchon (op. cit., p. 170) refers to them as precursors of Marx, though he recognizes the difference in their aim.

853.Third century B.C.; cf. Zeller, op. cit., II, 1, 986 ff.

854.Cic. De fin., iv. 18. 49; Plut. Adv. Stoicos, p. 1065: ?? t?? ?e?????t??? ?a? Spe?s?pp?? ?at???????te? ?t? t? ? t?? ??e?a? ?d??f??a? ??e?s?a? ?d? t?? p???t?? ???fe???. On Crantor, cf. Ap. Sext. Emp. (Bekker, p. 538, ll. 4 ff.); on the above, cf. Heidel, Pseudo-Platonica (dissertation, Chicago, 1896), p. 60, n. 5; cf. also Def. 140, of Speusippus (Mullach, op. cit., III, 80): p???t?? ?t?s?? s?et??? p??? e?da????a?.

855.For discussion of all the Economica, cf. infra.

856.Born ca. 370 B.C. (Zeller, op. cit., II, 2, 807, n. 1), a voluminous writer, from whom a substantial amount is extant, notably his Characters.

857.pe?? p???t?? (Aspas. in Eth. 451; and Cic. De officiis ii. 16. 56).

858.Cf. Zeller, op. cit., II, 2, 856.

859.Stob. Flor. iv. 283, No. 202, ed. Mein.: ? a?t?? (Theophrastus) ??e?e? ?fe???e? ?a?t??? ????e?? ?p? ?????? ???, etc.

860.Theophrasti Opera, ed. Wimmer, iii. 231. fr. 86 f.; Plut. Lycurg. 10.

861.Theoph. Op. iii. 182. fr. 78: ??d?? p???? ????s?? ?? p???s??? t?? ?t??a ?e?t?????, etc. (Plut. Cupid. Divit. 527).

862.Cic. De officiis ii. 16. 56.

863.Porph. De abstin. iii. 25.

864.Cf. above on Xenophon.

865.Cf. infra on Cynics; Diog. L. vi. 1. 16; not extant.

866.Diog. L. iv. 12; not extant.

867.pe?? ???????a?; for fragments, cf. ed. Jensen (Teubner). He was an Epicurean; cf. M. Hoderman, “Quaestionum Oeconomicarum Specimen,” Berliner Studien f. Class. Phil., XVI, 4 (1896), 38 f., for a summary statement of his teaching.

868.Diog. L. x. 11. 24: pe?? p???t??; probably opposed to the Cynic ideas on wealth. Cf. Hoderman, op. cit., 37 and note.

869.For the few fragments, cf. Stob. lxxxv. 21 (Vol. III, p. 150, ed. Mein.), of Stoic tendency. Cf. F. Wilhelm, “Die Oeconomica der Neupythagoreer,” Rhein. Mus., XVII, 2 (1915), 162.

870.For frag., cf. Stob. Flor. xlii. 12 (Vol. II, p. 78, ed. Mein.); 46 (Vol. II, p. 366); lxxiv. 59 (Vol. III, p. 362); lxxxv. 12 (Vol. III, p. 138); of Stoic tendency, though the fragments may not be from him. Cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., p. 162; Hoderman, op. cit., pp. 40 f.

871.Cf. his Conjugalia moralia, which, though it does not bear the name Economica, is similar in content to them. Cf. Hoderman, op. cit., p. 43; cf. also his essay, ?e?? F???p???t?a?, which moralizes on the folly of inordinate desire for wealth, in the Stoic vein, e.g., ed. Bern., Vol. III, 524D, p. 357: pe??a ??? ??? ?st?? ???? ?p??st?a t? p???? a?t?? ?a? f???p???t?a.

872.Jamblichus (Vit. Pyth. 72. 89. 169 f.) says that among the followers of Pythagoras were those who were called ??????????. They date from about the middle to the end of the second century B.C. Cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 161-224.

873.Cf. Stob. v. 28. 15 (p. 680, 7 ff., ed. Wachs.); called ??????????. Wilhelm (op. cit., p. 164, n. 3) thinks that the entire essay may be extant in a Hebrew translation. Bryson was Peripatetic in tendency. He makes a third division of slaves, in addition to ?at? f?s?? and ?at? ????; viz., ?at? t??p?? t?? ?????. He also gives a catalogue of vocations, similar to that of Xen. Econ. i. 1-4, and raises the question as to the function of economics.

874.Cf. Stob. v. 28. 16 (p. 681, 15 ff.); iv. 22. 101 (p. 534, 10 ff.); v. 28. 17 (p. 684, 16 ff.); v. 28. 18 (p. 686, 16 ff., ed. Wachs.): pe?? t?? t?? ??????? e?da????a?; composed largely of negative utterances on the rich, and of observations on the relations of the sexes; Platonic and Stoic in tendency. Cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 177, 222.

875.Cf. Stob. iv. 25. 50; v. 28. 19 (ed. Wachs.): pe?? ???a???? ?????a? and pe?? ???a???? s?f??s??a?; similar to Stoics.

876.Cf. Stob. iv. 23. 61 f. (p. 588, 17 ff., ed. Wachs.); Stoic-Peripatetic in tendency. The two latter deal chiefly with the marriage relation. On the general subject of Economica, cf. Hoderman and Wilhelm, as above.

877.Book iii, in Latin, is of later origin, and is of no economic interest. Book i is perhaps from Eudemus of Rhodes, a pupil of Aristotle and Theophrastus (Zeller, II, 2, 869 ff.), but Philodemus (De vita ix) assigns it to Theophrastus (Zeller, II, 2, 944); cf. Susemihl, introduction to his edition of the Economica, 1887. Book ii is later, but from the Peripatetic school (Zeller, II, 2, 945).

878.Cf. Susemihl, op. cit., p. v, n. 1, for a list of parallel passages from Xenophon and Aristotle.

879.1343a1-4, especially ? ?? p???t??? ?? p????? ?????t?? ?st??, ? ????????? d? ??a???a. Cf. also 14 f. Cf. Aristotle, above. Zeller (II, 2, 181, n. 6) points out that Eud. Eth. makes a similar distinction, in that he places economics between ethics and politics.

880.1343a8 f., though 25 ff. implies the limitation, ?t?se?? d? p??t? ?p???e?a ? ?at? f?s??.

881.1344b22 ff.

882.ii. 1345b13 ff.

883.Ibid. 20 ff.: ???sa, ??a????a, e?sa????a, and ??a??ata.

884.1343a25-27.

885.Ibid. 28-30. Cf. Aristotle, who makes war a natural pursuit.

886.1343b2 f.

887.Cf. preceding n. 8.

888.1343b3 f.

889.Ibid. 26 ff.

890.1344b15 f.; 1344a23-1344b11.

891.1348b17 ff.

892.1349a33 ff.

893.1350a23 ff.

894.1349b31 ff. Debasement of the currency was common in the time of the author.

895.1346b24 ff.; 1347b3 ff.; cf. At. Pol. 1259a6-35.

896.1346a14-16: t? t??a??ata ? e??? t?? p??s?d?? ???es?a?.

897.1352a16 ff.; cf. above on the Socratics, under exchange.

898.Of Cyrene (435 B.C.), a pupil of Socrates. No genuine fragments of his writings are extant. Cf. Zeller, II, 1, 346 ff.

899.Cf. Horace Ep. i. 17, 23.

900.Cf. Zeller, II, 1, 346, n. 2, and Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 9.

901.Zeller II, 1, 346, n. 2; cf. Oncken, op. cit., p. 47, a basal principle of hedonism.

902.Cf. Hor. Ep. ii. 2. 60.

903.342-270 B.C. His theory was far different than the Cyrenaic doctrine of the pleasure of the moment.

904.Diog. L. x. 130, 144, 146; Stob. Flor. xvii. 23.

905.Usener, Epicurea (1887), pp. 300-304, ???sta?.

906.Ibid., p. 302, fr. 473; p. 303, fr. 476.

907.Diog. L. x. 130 f.

908.Usener, p. 304, fr. 479.

909.Ibid., p. 302, fr. 473 f.; cf. Stob. Flor. xvii. 30.

910.Usener, p. 303, and fragments.

911.Stob. xvii. 34; Seneca Ep. 25. 4 f.; Cic. Tusc. disp. v. 31.

912.Diog. L. x. 119; Philod. De vit. ix. cols. 12 ff., 27, 40.

913.Cf. Barker, op. cit., p. 37; cf. above on Sophists; also Dunning, Political Theories Ancient and Mediaeval (1913), pp. 103 f.

914.Cf. Hasbach, Allgemeine philosophische Grundlagen der Pol. Econ. (1890), pp. 76 and 36 f.; Dunning, as above.

915.For his life, cf. Zeller, II, 1, 280 ff., and Diog. L. vi. A few fragments of his philosophical dialogues are extant. Cf. above, p. 126, n. 7. for his Economicus. He and Diogenes are discussed at this point, since the Cynic movement as a whole is logically post-Aristotelian.

916.Diog. L. vi. 1. 15; cf. Gomperz, op. cit., II, 117 and note, with citations from Dio of Prusa; also Zeller, op. cit., II, 1, 325 f. and note, who thinks Plato’s ironical “city of pigs” (Rep. ii) may well have been a reference to the ideas of Antisthenes.

917.Cf. preceding note, and infra, on later ideal states.

918.Pol. i. 1253a1-4: ?????p?? f?se? p???t???? ????, etc.

919.Dionis Prus. Opera (ed. Arnim, 1893, or vi. 25 f.), ascribed to Diogenes, but it was also the idea of Antisthenes. Cf. Gomperz, op. cit., II, 118; compare Rousseau.

920.Diog. L. vi. 104.

921.Ibid. vi. 12; cf. chap. 9, 105.

922.Xen. Symp. iv. 34, 34-43, on the advantages and disadvantages of the two kinds of wealth; iii. 8; Econ. i. 7 f.; ii. 2 f.

923.Xen. Symp. iv. 35

924.Mullach, op. cit., II, p. 289, fr. 86: f?????????.

925.Diog. L. vi. 2, ?a? ?t? ? p???? ??a??? s???st?se d?? t?? e????? ??a?????? ?a? t?? ?????. Heracles, the toiler, was their patron saint. Antisthenes is said to have written two dialogues called Heracles (Diog. L. vi. 2. 18), but Zeller, (op. cit., II, 1, 307, n. 4) thinks only one was genuine.

926.Cf. infra on Diogenes. Ar. Pol. 1253b20-22 probably refers to the Cynics, as holding it to be ?at? f?s??, ??d? d??a???, and ?a???. Cf. Newman, op. cit., I, 140, n. 2, on this. He cites Strabo, p. 15; 110, on the opposition of the Cynic Onesicritus to slavery. Cf. above, pp. 97 ff.; Zeller, op. cit., II, 1, 280 ff., 323 f.

927.Cf. infra on Diogenes and Eryxias; Ar. Pol. 1257b10, probably Cynic.

928.412-323 B.C.; cf. Zeller, op. cit., II, 1, 280 ff.

929.Mullach, F.Ph.G., II, 326, fr. 276; cf. Diog. L. vi. 47: t?? p???s??? ?a??, p??at?? e?pe ???s?a????.

930.Mullach, II, 302, fr. 27; 327, fr. 285; cf. infra on Teles, for like idea.

931.Mullach, II, 316, fr. 168; Chrysost. Homil. lxiv in Matthew points to Paul’s parallel, I Tim. 6: 10: ???a ??? p??t?? t?? ?a??? ?st?? ? f??a?????a.

932.Mullach, II, 305, fr. 63.

933.Ibid. fr. 66; 65.

934.Ibid. fr. 61; p. 327, fr. 285.

935.Gomperz, op. cit., II, 133; Zeller (op. cit., II, 1, 323 f.) is not sure that the Cynics taught a positive anti-slavery doctrine, but cf. p. 132, n. 2.

936.Diog. L. vi. 66, 74 f.; cf. Epict. Dissert. iii. 24. 67.

937.Athen. iv. 159c; ???????? d? ?? t? p???te?? ???sa e??a? ????ete? ?st?a??????.

938.Diog. L. vi. 72: ??e?e d? ?a? ?????? e??a? de?? t?? ???a??a?, etc. Aristotle (Pol. ii. 7. 1266a34) names Plato as its sole advocate, but cf. Zeller, op. cit., II, 1, 321 f., n. 4, and Gomperz, op. cit., II, 132, though they think that he did not hold it in the extreme form stated by Diogenes Laertius.

939.There is no specific evidence, though it would accord well with his other teachings. Cf. Gomperz, op. cit., II, 132.

940.Called “Thebaios”; flor. ca. 328 B.C.; cf. Diog. L. vi. 87.

941.Mullach, F. Ph. G., II, 334, fr. 6; 338, frs. 38, 39; cf. also Diog. L. vi. 86.

942.Cf. The Beggar’s Wallet, an amusing parody of the Odyssey (von Arnim, Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa [1898], 255 ff.) Gomperz (op. cit., II, n. 545 to p. 125) doubts its genuineness for Crates, but thinks it is from a Cynic source; cf. also infra on Teles.

943.The pseudo-Aristotelian Economics is a possible exception. The Economics of Xenophon has a broader theme, and the Revenues is for practical purposes.

944.Pseudo-Platonica, p. 59.

945.It is given mere passing mention in Boeckh, op. cit., I, 693; Hoderman, op. cit., p. 9; Francotte, L’Industrie, II, 310, n. 1; Cossa, op. cit., p. 146; Oncken, op. cit., p. 37; Bonar, op. cit., p. 11, n. 1; Kautz, op. cit., p. 121; Simey, op. cit., p. 474; Hagen, Observationum oec. pol. in Aesch. dialog., qui Eryx. inscribitur (dissertation, 1822). The latter has not been examined.

946.On its origin, cf. Otto Schrohl, De Eryx. qui fertur Platonis (dissertation, 1901) which gives a full bibliography, pp. 5 ff.; Heidel (Pseudo-Platonica, p. 61), following Steinhart (Mueller, VII, 14), attributes it to a later Socratic, in sympathy with Antisthenes; p. 69, n. 3, he thinks it grew out of Euthyd. 288E ff.; for other points of contact, cf. Schrohl, 10 ff.

947.On the first, cf. 393A-394E, 402E-403C; on the second, cf. 396E-397D, 405C-406B.

948.Cf. preceding n. 3.

949.278E-282.

950.Cf. above, in loc.

951.For Stoics, cf. infra.

952.Xen. Mem. i. 6, especially end: ??? d? ????? t? ?? ?de??? de?s?a? ?e??? e??a?, etc.; cf. Schrohl, op. cit., pp. 26-28.

953.400E, 401A.

954.401A: ???? p??a d? t?? ???s???, ?pe?d? ?e ?? p??ta. Cf. also 400E.

955.401B, 401E.

956.402E, 393E-394E, and the general thesis that the wisest are richest.

957.400A-E, 394D, arguing that economic demand might make a man’s wisdom more valuable than another’s house.

958.399E.

959.Cf. 399E, where Eristratos defines p???t?? as t? ???ata p???? ?e?t?s?a?.

960.393A, 393D-394A; cf. above, pp. 24 ff. and notes for Plato and others.

961.394D-E, 402E.

962.393E, 396E-397E, 403E, the insistence upon ability to use, so common in Plato, Xenophon, and Ruskin.

963.394D-E, which reads like a passage from the New Testament.

964.397E.

965.396C: ?? ?? t? ????, ????? t??, ??? d? ?, ??de???. Cf. The Simple Life: “He who has nothing is nothing.” Cf. Eurip. fr. 328, Danae (Nauck): ?a??? d? ? ? ????, ?? d? ????te? ?????.

966.396E-397E; cf. infra, the Stoic doctrine of “indifferents”; but they included health and wealth in the same class, while the Eryxias does not. Cf. Diog. L. vii. 103; cf. a similar passage in the Euthydemus; cf. Schrohl, op. cit., p. 34.

968.405D.

969.405E.

970.406B.

971.Ibid., but cf. 134, n. 8, where Socrates approaches this asceticism.

972.403E, distinguishing the materials of a house, the tools by which they are provided, and the tools for building. Cf. Plato and Aristotle, in loc., for a like distinction.

973.399E.

974.400A-E.

975.400A-B. Heidel (op. cit., p. 61) points to his “ostentatious display of learning” here.

976.402B-C, 404A-B.

977.400E.

978.400C-E, especially ?sa ?? ??a t?????e? ???s?a ??ta ??? ta?ta ???ata, though at this point the term has been made to include all wealth; cf. also 402C: ???? ta?t? ?? e?? (???ata) ??? t? ???s?a ???? t? ?s?? ??p????es?a?.

979.Cf. Teletis Reliquiae, ed. Hense, Freiburg, 1889. The ancient source is Stobaeus. Teles, a Cynic of Megara, wrote about 240 B.C. Cf. Hense, op. cit., XXI-XXXV; Gomperz, op. cit., II, 129 ff. Fr. iv. A, pp. 24 ff., and iv. B, p. 34, are of special economic interest.

980.Fr. IV, A, pp. 24 ff.

981.Fr. IV, A, p. 24: d?? ??e?e??e??a? ?a? ??pa??a?.

982.Ibid. 27; cf. the example of the F????de?, who have an eye, but do not use it; cf. also the quotation from the “ancients” on the distinction between ???ata, “used wealth,” and ?t?ata, “wealth merely possessed” (ll. 13 f.).

983.P. 32, the unsated life will not be satisfied even with immortality, since it cannot become Zeus. L. 13 ff., kings are always in want, spa?????s??. Cf. Xen. Symp. iv. 36.

984.P. 26, ll. 4 f., 6-12; p. 31.

985.P. 28, ll. 13-29.

986.P. 29, ll. 6 ff.

987.P. 29; cf. pp. 30 f.; p. 26, ll. 11 f.

988.P. 26.

989.Fr.; ?e?? a?ta??e?a?; p. 9: ?a? t? ??e? d?s?e??? ? ?p?p???? ? pe??a.

990.Ibid.

991.Ibid. Cephalus in Rep. i gives a more balanced judgment.

992.Ibid., pp. 6 f., citing Bion on the answer of poverty to her accusers. Cf. Aristoph. Plutus 558 f. on the power of poverty, cited by Ruskin, Aratra Pentel., IV, 139 (Vol. XX, 296).

993.Fr. iv. B, p. 34, he attacks the opposite thesis.

994.Ibid., ll. 5 f.; p. 35, good doctrine for a tramp; p. 34.

995.Ibid., ll. 13 ff.

996.Ibid., pp. 36 f., a comparison of Aristides and Callias.

997.Fr. iv. A, p. 28, purporting to be the answer of Crates as to what he would gain by being a philosopher.

998.Cf. infra; also Cic. De fin. iii. 10. 33 f.; Zeller, op. cit., III, 1, 214.

999.Cic. Paradox. 6, on the thesis that only the wise are rich.

1000.Seneca Benef. vii. 3. 2 f.; 6. 3; 8. 1.

1001.Diog. L. vii. 125. On both the citations above, cf. Zeller, III, 1, 251.

1002.Called Citieus, born 320 B.C., of Semitic descent.

1003.Stoic Vet. Fr., ed. Arnim, 1905, I, 47, fr. 190 (Stob. Ecl. ii. 7. 5, pp. 57 f., ed. Wachs.); Diog. L. vii. 101 f., 103-5.

1004.Von Arnim, op. cit., p. 53, fr. 220; Cic. De fin. v. 84: “At Zeno eum (mendicum) non beatum modo, sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est.”

1005.Von Arnim (p. 52, fr. 216 [Stob. Ecl. ii. 7. 11g, pp. 991., ed. Wachs.]) cites Zeno as placing among the goods of the sp??da??? man the fact that he is ?????????? and ???at?st????, while the fa???? are opposite; cf. also p. 100.

1006.Von Arnim, p. 61, fr. 264 (Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 12. 76, p. 691p).

1007.Von Arnim, p. 62, fr. 268 (Diog. L. vii. 33): ???sa d? ??t? ???a??? ??e?e? ??es?a? de?? ?atas?e???e?? ??t? ?p?d??a? ??e?e?. Oncken (op. cit., p. 48) thinks that the Stoics were forerunners of the physiocrats.

1008.Plut. De Alex. Fort. i. 6: ? p??? ?a?a????? p???te?a t?? ... ???????. He says that it agreed in principle with the states of Plato and Lycurgus. Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 341 ff., but cf. infra, p. 140 f. Cf. n. 2, above. Ar. Pol. ii. 4. 1266a: e?s? d? t??e? p???te?a? ?a? ???a?, etc., shows that a series of ideal states had preceded his, though he says Plato’s was the most radical.

1009.Plut. De Alex. Fort. i. 6.

1010.Diog. L. vii. 33, 131; cf. nn. 3 and 5 above.

1011.Diog. L. vii. 131; 33.

1012.Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 342, n. 1.

1013.Cf. above, n. 5; Athen. xiii. 561c.

1014.Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 11, n. 8; also 346.

1015.Diog. L. vii. 33.

1016.On this double tendency in the Stoics, and reasons therefore, cf. Souchon (op. cit., pp. 173 f.); Poehlmann (op. cit., II, 342 f., and I, 111) and Wolf (op. cit., pp. 116 ff.) exaggerate their socialistic tendency. For further discussion, cf. infra. Cf. L. Stein, Soc. Frage, pp. 171-80.

1017.280-206 B.C. Aristo and Cleanthes, successors of Zeno, also emphasized similar doctrines in relation to wealth. Cf. von Arnim, I, p. 89, frs. 396, 397, 398, from Aristo; ibid., p. 137, fr. 617, from Cleanthes.

1018.Ibid., II, 79, fr. 240; III, 28, fr. 117; p. 29, frs. 122, 123; p. 32, fr. 135.

1019.Ibid., III, 156, fr. 598; p. 159, fr. 618; p. 155, fr. 593.

1020.Ibid., p. 155, fr. 597.

1021.Ibid., p. 160, fr. 629, “Lucro autem numquam sapiens studet.”

1022.Ibid., p. 169, fr. 623: ???? d? t?? sp??da??? ????a ???at?st???? e??a?, ????s???ta ?f? ??, ???at?st???, ?a? p?te ?a? p?? ?a? ???? p?te.

1023.Von Arnim, III, 168, fr. 674.

1024.Ibid., p. 36, frs. 151, 152, “Bonum ex malo non fit: divitiae fiunt: fiunt autem ex avaritia divitiae ergo non sunt bonum” (Seneca Ep. 87. 22).

1025.Von Arnim, p. 172, fr. 686 (Stob. Ecl. ii. 7, p. 109, 10): .... ?????? ?at??e?e??, ?? fa???? de?? ?p? pa?de?a? pa?? t?? ?p?t????t?? ???at??es?a?.

1026.Von Arnim, p. 86, fr. 352: ?????p?? ??? ?? f?se?? d????? ??de??; p. 87, fr. 358; cf. p. 141, n. 7, above.

1027.Ibid., fr. 357.

1028.Ibid., 89, fr. 365; p. 86, frs. 356, 354.

1029.Ibid., p. 86, fr. 355; p. 88, fr. 362; p. 89, 364. Cf. Espinas, Hist. des doctrines Èconomiques, 56 f., on the Stoics’ attitude toward labor and slavery: “Ni les Cyniques ni les Stoiciens ne mÉprisaient le travail”; “La seule servitude dÉshonorante est celle des passions et du vice.”

1030.Poehlmann (op. cit., II, 342 f. and notes), citing von Arnim, III, 77, fr. 314, ? ???? p??t?? ?st? as??e??, etc., thinks Chrysippus’ principle of the law of reason as king of all is anti-individualistic. He cites also Cic. De fin. iii. 19 (64), where the individual seems to be made to exist for the sake of the whole. But cf. above, p. 140 f. and notes.

1031.Cf. Diog. L. vii. 131, and above, p. 140, nn. 7 f.

1032.Op. cit., p. 171.

1033.Cf. above, on Cynics and Stoics, and infra; cf. even in Plato, Laws 679A-B.

1034.The Socratics were the pioneers in this regard also. On the unhistorical character of the alleged early communism in Sparta, cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 75 ff. and 100 f.; on this triple tendency in the post-Aristotelian social thought, cf. ibid., pp. 99 ff., on “Der Sozialstaat der Legende und das sozialistische Naturrecht”; also Souchon, p. 172.

1035.Cf. above, p. 140.

1036.Cf. Porphyry De abstin. iv. 1. 2; Mueller, F.H.G., II, 233. His ???? ????d?s? was a history of the degeneration of Greek civilization from the primitive ideal. Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 109 and n. 1, on his influence on Rousseau, who refers to him. Cf. ibid., n. 2, for a similar idea of a golden age in Theoc. xii. 15.

1037.On his social ideas, cf. Poehlmann, I, 113 ff.

1038.Strabo vii, p. 463 (F.H.G., I, 256, fr. 76).

1039.Nic. Damasc. (F.H.G., III, fr. 123): d?? t?? t?? ??? ?????t?ta ?a? d??a??s????. Cf. also ibid., I, 257, fr. 78, Ephorus.

1040.Ibid.; also fr. 76: p??? te ???????? e??????ta? ????? p??ta ????te? t? te ???a ?a? ???a??a? ?a? t???a ?a? t?? ???? s?????e?a?.

1041.Panathen. 178: ???? pa?? sf?s? ?? a?t??? ?s????a? ?atast?sa? ?a? d????at?a? t??a?t??, ??a? pe? ??? t??? ?????ta? ?pa?ta t?? ?????? ?????se??; also 153; for an idealized picture of early Athenian life, cf. Paneg. 79; Areop. 31; 32, 35, 44, 83; cited by Poehlmann, op. cit., I, 136 f.

1042.Cf. Polybius vi. 45, and Poehlmann’s note (I, 122).

1043.Book vi. 10; 48; etc.; cf. Poehlmann, as above.

1044.Cf. his Lycurgus, especially 8, 9, 10, 3, 25, 30, 31.

1045.Cf. Poehlmann, I, 122 and n. 3.

1046.Cf. above, notes p. 143, nn. 4-6. especially 6.

1047.Cf. above, p. 140.

1048.Cf. above, p. 62, n. 6.

1049.Op. cit., II, 359 ff., though he has been too ready to see in them a direct analogy to modern socialism.

1050.Book viii of his Philipp. Histories (Athen. xii. 517d ff.).

1051.Cf. Poehlmann, I, 362 ff.

1052.Mueller, F.H.G., II, 392, fr. 13; cf. 386 ff.

1053.Diod. i. 6. 93; 4, a platonic ideal.

1054.Ibid. v. 45. 3 ff.

1055.Ibid. 45. 3.

1056.Diod. v. 45. 5; 46. 1 shows that the artisans were included in the communism.

1057.Ibid. 45. 4: t??? ???p??? ??af????s?? e?? t? ??????, etc.; though prizes were given for excellence in farming.

1058.Ibid. ii. 55-60.

1059.Ibid. 59.6: ??a???? d? a?t??? t??? ?? ???????? d?a???e??, t??? d? ???e?e??, t??? d? pe?? t?? t???a? e??a?, ?????? d? pe?? ???a t?? ???s??? ?s???e?s?a?, t??? d? ?? pe???d?? ???????? ?e?t????e??, p??? t?? ?d? ?e???a??t??. Cf. p. 34, n. 1, above, on Ruskin’s idea that all should do some head and some hand work. Poehlmann (II, 391, n. 2) compares it to the socialism of Bebel. The implication that Plato’s state is distinguished from this, as a society of citizens who do not work (402 f.), is hardly fair. The proper distinction is rather that Plato insists that each citizen do the particular kind of work for which he is best fitted. It is needless to ask which had the saner view, from the economic or any other standpoint. Jambulus’ repudiation of the division of labor in the interest of equality is certainly one of the most radical measures ever suggested in the history of communism.

1060.Op. cit., p. 195; Roscher is, of course, extreme in his appreciation.

1061.Cf. Brants, Les thÉories Écon. au XIII et XIV siÈcle; Espinas, Histoire des doctrines Économiques, pp. 72 ff.; Haney, op. cit., pp. 69 ff.

1062.In his De origine, natura, jure, et mutationibus monetarum (fourteenth century). On their dependence upon Aristotle, cf. Zmavc, Zeitschr. f. d. gesammt. Staatswiss., 1902, pp. 54 and 77 f.; and Archiv f. d. Gesch. der Phil., 1899, 407 ff.

1063.Cf. Souchon, pp. 199 f., who observes that the Greek moral goal was perfection of the individual through the state, while that of the Middle Ages was individual salvation to another world.

1064.Cf. Oncken, op. cit., p. 38.

1065.He calls Plato the “master of economy” (Fors Clav. [Vol. XXVIII, 717]); cf. also Vol. XXXVIII, 112 on his Platonic discipleship. He says (Arrows of the Chace, Vol. XXXIV, 547): “The economy I teach is Xenophon’s”; cf. also Vol. XXXVII, 550, Letter to Professor Blackie, II: “My own political economy is literally only the expansion and explanation of Xenophon’s.” Cf. Vol. XXXI, Intro., pp. xv ff.; Vol. XVII, pp. xlix and 18; cf. his preface to his translation of the Economicus; cf. also E. Barker, Pol. Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day (“Home University Library”), pp. 191-96, who emphasizes this Greek influence. Cf. above, p. 23, n. 5; 64, n. 3.

1066.Barker, cited above, in n. 2, also emphasizes this fact. Cf. the edition of Ruskin above cited, Introduction to Vol. XVII, an excellent discussion of Ruskin’s economic ideas and their influence, for a bibliography (p. cxii) and citations from many modern economists on the subject; e.g., the notable address in 1885, in recognition of his work, signed by a number of leading English economists; the striking citations from Ingram; from Stimson (Quarterly Journal of Economics, II [1888], 445), that the future political economy will make its bricks for building “from Ruskin’s earth rather than from Ricardo’s straw”; from the late regius professor of modern history at Oxford, “The political economy of today is the political economy of John Ruskin, and not that of John Bright or even of John Stewart Mill.”

1067.P. 46, n. 3 (Wagner, Die Akad. Nat.-oek. und der Socialismus, 1895).

1068.Op. cit., p. 201.