CIass,JrLB_l_l Book ^ ^— - Gopyri^litl^^. CQFOUGHT DEPOSm Ube xaniverstt^ of CbicaGO A HISTORY OF GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY ALBERT AUGUSTUS TREVER THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS W^'^'^ -X'1^ Copyright 1916 By The University of Chicago All Rights Reserved Published August 1916 / >CLA437374 Composed and Printed By The University of Chicago Press Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. AUG 25 1916 PREFACE The need of a reinterpretation of Greek economic theory in the light of our modern humanitarian economy is presented in the introduction to this work. If this volume may, in some degree, meet such a need, by awakening the classicist to the existence of important phases of Greek thought with which he is too unfamiHar, and by reminding the economist of the many vital points of contact between Greek and modern economy, our labor will have been amply repaid. There are doubtless errors both in citations and in judgment which will not escape the critic's eye. We trust, however, that the work is, on the whole, a fair representation of the thought of the Greeks in this important field. In the course of our study, we have naturally been obhged to make constant reference to the actual economic environment of the Greeks, as a proper background for their theories. It is therefore our pur- pose to publish, at some future date, a general history of economic conditions in Greece, which may serve as a companion to this volume. We gladly take this opportunity to express our gratitude to Professor Paul Shorey, of the University of Chicago, for his sug- gestion of the subject of this work, as also for his many helpful criticisms and suggestions during the course of its preparation. Lawrence College, Appleton, Wis. November i, 1915 CONTENTS CHAPTER p^gg I. Introduction -j 1. Previous works on Greek economic thought, and reasons for the present study. 2. Scope, purpose, method. 3. General characteristics of Greek economic thought. II. Economic Ideas before Plato, and Reasons for the Unde- veloped Character of Greek Economics 14 III. Plato 22 1. General standpoint. 2. Theory of value. 3. Wealth: theory; moral attitude. 4. Production. a) Agriculture. b) Capital. c) Labor and industry: (i) Plato's attitude toward. (2) Division of labor. (3) Slavery. 5. Money: theory; moral attitude; interest. 6. Exchange: theory; criticism of Plato's negative attitude. 7. Population. 8. Distribution: theory; attitude toward laboring classes. 9. Communistic and sociaHstic ideas. a) Reasons for such tendencies in Greek thought. h) Republics heiove Vhto: Hippodamas; Phaleas. c) Plato's Republic. d) Plato's Laws. IV. Xenophon 5, 1. Double standpoint. 2. Theory of value. 3. Wealth: practical interest in. 4. Production. a) Theory; positive interest. b) Agricidture. c) Capital. d) Labor and industry. (i) Positive interest in its development. (2) Division of labor. (3) Slavery. S 6 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT CHAPTER PAGE 5. Money: theory; in favor of unlimited increase. 6. Exchange: proposed means for its free development. 7. Population. 8. Distribution: attitude toward masses. 9. Socialistic tendencies in the Revenues. V. The Orators — Demosthenes, Isocrates 77 VI. Aristotle 81 1. Attitude toward matters economic; domestic and public economy. 2. Theory of value. 3. Wealth: theory; negative attitude toward. 4. Production: theory; negative standpoint. a) Agriculture. b) Capital: theory; negative interest. c) Labor and industry, (i) Negative attitude. (2) Division of labor. (3) Slavery. 5. Money: origin; theory; interest; reasons for the negative attitude of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. 6. Exchange: theory; tariff; criticism of " chrematistik." 7. Population. 8. Distribution: theory; attitude toward masses. 9. Communism and socialism. a) Negative criticism of Plato's Republic and other systems. b) Positive theory. VII. Minor Philosophers, Contemporaries or Successors or Plato and Aristotle 125 1. The Academy, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Grantor. 2. Theophrastus. 3. Economica; the pseudo-Aristotelian Economica. 4. Cyrenaics: Aristippus; Bion. 5. Epicureans. 6. Cynics: Antisthenes; Diogenes; Crates. 7. Pseudo-Platonic Eryxlas. 8. Teles. 9. Stoics: Zeno; Aristo; Cleanthes; Chrysippus; Plutarch. 10. Communistic tendencies after Aristotle. VIII. General Conclusions on the Importance and Influence of Greek Economics 146 Bibliography 151 Index 157 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For a complete list of scholars who have devoted more or less attention to the economic ideas of Greek thinkers, the reader is referred to the bibliography at the conclusion of this work. On the surface, the Ust appears to be reasonably extensive. It will be observed, however, that the majority of the works are not of recent date; that many of them deal largely with the practical phase of economics ; that most of the larger works on economic history treat Greek economic and social theory in a merely incidental manner, and that nearly all are written from the general standpoint of the economist rather than with the more detailed analysis of the classi- cist. The work of Souchon, the most extensive, careful, and satis- factory discussion of the subject, is no exception to this latter rule, and since his standpoint is too exclusively that of the older English economists, his criticism of the Greek theories is not always suffi- ciently sympathetic. The monumental volumes of Poehlmann have treated Greek social theories thoroughly, but the chief inter- est of the author is rather in the actual social conditions, and his work is marred by a constant overemphasis of the analogy between ancient and modern capitalism and socialistic agitation. More- over, there is no book in the English language, on Greek economic thought, that treats the subject in anything more than the cursory manner of Haney and Ingram.^ There is, thus, still a place for a work of this type in the English language, written from the standpoint of the classicist, but with a view also to the needs of twentieth-century students of economics. The present work aims to fulfil such a need. Its scope differs quite essentially from all other accounts of Greek theory pre- viously published, in that our purpose is not merely to consider the extent to which the Greek thinkers grasped the principles of ' F. Wilhelm {Rhein. Mus., XVII, No. 2 [1915], 163, n. 2) says: "Eine Geschichte der theoretischen Behandlung der Oekonomik bei den Griechen ist noch zu schreiben." The present work was undertaken in the year 191 1, 7 8 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT the orthodox economy of Ricardo and Mill. We shall also endeavor to ascertain how far they, by the humanitarian and ethical tone of their thinking, anticipated the modern, post-Ruskin economy, which makes man, not property, the supreme goal, and recognizes the multiplicity of human interests and strivings that belie the old theory of the "economic man." Our verdict as to the impor- tance of the Greek contribution to economic thought is thus likely to be somewhat more favorable than that which is usually rendered. We purpose also to emphasize more than is often done the important fact that Greek theory is essentially a reflection of Greek economic conditions, and that a true interpretation of the thought depends upon a clear understanding of the economic his- tory of Greece. However, as we shall see, this by no means impUes that the anti-capitaUstic theories of the Socratics are evidence of an undeveloped state of commerce and industry in fifth- and fourth-century Athens. The method of presentation is primarily chronological. Thus the ideas of each thinker can be discussed in a more thorough and unitary manner, and more in relation to the contemporary eco- nomic conditions that gave rise to them. Moreover, despite some practical advantages of the topical method, it savors too much of an artificial attempt to force the Greek thinkers on the procrustean rack of the concepts of modern economy. The general characteristics of Greek economic thought have often been enumerated. They may be restated with advantage, at this point, together with some additions and needed criticisms. I. Simplicity. — The theory of economics as a separate science never developed in Greece. The consideration of economic prob- lems was incidental to the pursuit of politics and ethics. In so far as Greek thinkers treated such subjects, their theories reflect the comparative simplicity of their economic environment. Without prejudging the issue as to the actual extent of capitalism in ancient Athens, we need only to think away the vast international scope of our modern commercial problems, our giant manufacturing plants with their steam and electric power, our enormous wealth and its extreme concentration, the untold complexity of modern business and finance, the vast territorial expanse of modern nations, INTRODUCTION 9 almost all our luxuries and commonplace comforts, to begin to appreciate something of this ancient simpHcity/ However, as a direct result of this limitation, the Greeks were led to deal with their problems more in terms of men than in terms of things, and thus their economic vision was sometimes clearer and truer than our own. Aristotle struck the keynote in Greek economic thought in stating that the primary interest of economy is human beings rather than inanimate property.^ 2. Confusion of private and public economy. — ^As a result of this simpHcity, the terms olKOPoixla and oUovofxiKr) were, both in deri- vation and largely in usage, referred to household management rather than to public economy.^ Domestic and public economy were regularly defined as differing merely in extent.^ Aristotle, however, distinctly criticizes the confusion of the two.s More- over, there is no warrant for the frequent assertion that Greek thinkers never rose above the conception of domestic economy. Xenophon's treatise on the Revenues of Athens, and Aristotle's entire philosophy of the state are a sufhcient answer to such general- zations. The statement of Professor Barker that "political economy," to Aristotle, would be a "contradiction in terms," is extreme.^ There is also a certain important truth in the Greek 'Cf. Zimmem, Greek Commonwealth', pp. 211 ff.; but the statement on p. 222 is extreme: "where competition and unemployment are unknown terms, where hardly anyone is working precariously for money wages or salary." ^ Cf. Roscher, Ansichten der VolkswirtschafP (1878), I, chap, i, p. 7; Ar. Pol. 1259&18-21. Cf. Plato Rep. 498A; Xen. Econ., a treatise on household management; Ar. Pol. i. p. 3, on the divisions of oUovoixla; chap. 8, on whether finance {xrvij-'^tictikti) is a part of olKom/j.tKi^; pseudo-Ar. Economica; cf. infra, p. 63, nn. 5 and 6; p. 82, n. i; p. 128, for fuller discussion. "Xen. Mem. iii. 4. 6 fif., especially 12; Econ. xx; Plato Pol. 259 B-C; cf., on this passage, Espinas, Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII (1914), 105; cf. Ruskm: "Econ- omy no more means saving money than it means spending money. It means the administration of a house" {A Joy Forever, I, 8, Allen ed., London, 1912, Vol. XVI, 19) . We shall frequently quote from this monumental edition of Ruskm. s Pol. i. I. 2: 6(T0L ij.^v otv otovrai iroKiTiKbv Kal PaaCKiKhv Kal oiKovojMKbv Kai 8e(nroTi- k6v eJvai rbv avrbv, ov koKQs \iyovaLv. « Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, p. 357; cf. Zmavc, Zeitschr.f. d. gesammt Staatswissenschaft, 1902, pp. 59 f., and his references to Boeckh, Jtteyer, and Beloch; Kautz, Die Gesch. d. Entwickelung der National Okonomik, p. 133, n. 5; for note on the authorship of the Revenues, cf. infra, p. 63, n. 2. lO , GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT confusion, which has been too generally missed by modern critics and statesmen — that the public is a great property-holder, and that pohtics should be a business which requires the application of the same economic and ethical laws as are admitted to govern in private affairs. 3. Confusion of economics with ethics and politics — The assertion that Greek economic theory was confounded with ethics and politics has become a commonplace. The economic ideas of Greek thinkers were not arrived at as a result of a purposeful study of the problems of material wealth. All economic relations were considered primarily from the standpoint of ethics and state welfare. *'The citizen was not regarded as a producer, but only as a possessor of wealth."' Such statements are too commonly accepted as a final criticism of Greek thinkers. Though the con- fusion was a source of error, and caused Greek economic thought to be one-sided and incomplete, yet some important considerations should be noted. a) The Socratic philosophers are our chief source for the eco- nomic ideas of the Greeks. Too sweeping conclusions should not, therefore, be drawn from them as to the general attitude, of the Greeks. Xenophon is much freer from the ethical emphasis than the other Socratics. Thucydides is entirely free from it, and very probably his standpoint came much nearer being that of the average Athenian citizen. h) The confusion was not merely with individual ethics, for Greek moral philosophy always had the welfare of the state for its goal. Indeed, the basal reason for this close union of economics, ethics, and politics is the true idea that the state should rise above internal strife, and unite all in a care for the common interest.^ c) The standpoint of the Greek philosophers is certainly no more to be criticized than is that of the so-called orthodox political economy .3 They represent two extremes. If the Greek theory ' Ingram, History oj Political Economy, p. 12; cf. Souchon, Les Theories economiques dans la Grece antique, p. 34. ^ Cf. Souchon, op. cit., pp. 31 ff. 3 Cf. V. Brants, Xenophon Economiste, reprint from Revue Catholique de Louvain, 1881, pp. 4ff. INTRODUCTION ii did not give to wealth its full right, and was open to the charge of sentimentalism, the Ricardian doctrine, with its "economic 4'' —i' man," which eliminated all other ideals and impluses, was an unreal ^^ . . and pernicious abstraction. Of the two errors, the Greek is the less objectionable, and is more in accord with the trend of economic thought today. The best economists are now insisting more and more on the Greek idea that economic problems must be considered from the standpoint of the whole man as a citizen in society. Modern political economy "has placed mkn as man and not wealth in the foreground, and subordinated everything to his true welfare." "Love, generosity, nobility of character, self-sacrifice, and all that is best and truest in our nature have their place in economic life."^ "The science which deals with wealth, so far from being a 'gospel of Mammon,' necessarily begins and ends in the study of man."^ "Es soil kein Widerspruch zwischen Ethik und Volkswirtschaft bestehen, es soil das Sittengesetz fiir die Wirtschaft gelten und in ihr ausgefiihrt werden."^ Such strong statements taken at random from modern economists should serve to temper our criticism of the Greek confusion. Plato's definition of economics, as suggested by one of the most recent historians of economic thought,'' could easily be accepted by many a modern scholar: "Economics is the science which deals with the satisfaction of human wants through exchange, seeking so to regu- late the industries of the state as to make its citizens good and happy, and so to promote the highest well-being of the whole." The contention of the Socratics, that all economic operations must finally root in the moral, that all economic problems are moral problems, and that the province of economics is human welfare, ' Ely, Sticdies in Historical and Political Science, 2d series, pp. 48 ff., especially p. 64, where he states that it is a return to the Greek view. ' Ely, Outlines of Economics, 1908, pp. 4 ff.; cf. Seligman, Principles of Economy, (1905), pp. 4 ff., especially p. 14, where he even quotes the sentences of Ruskin with approval: "There is no wealth but hfe"; "Nor can anything be wealth except to a noble person" {Unto This Last, IV, 77 [Vol. XVII, 105]). All citations will be from the Allen library edition unless otherwise stated. 3 Scho&vibtrgyHandhiich der polit. Econ. (1890), I, 56. ^Haney, History of Economic Thought, p. 52; cf. Ely, op. cit., p. 48, n. i, cited in n. I, above, for a similar definition based on Plato. 12 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT is thus a dominant twentieth-century idea. And just as the ethical interest of the Greek philosophers caused them to empha- size the problems of distribution and consumption, so these are the phases of economics that receive chief consideration today. To be sure, modern thought appreciates more fully the complementary truth that all our social and moral problems root essentially in economic conditions, though this too was by no means overlooked by Plato and Aristotle. 4. Ascetic tendency. — It cannot be denied, however, that, as a result of the overemphasis on the ethical, Greek economic thought was hampered by a certain asceticism. But this was also an out- growth of pessimistic tendencies in Greek philosophy itself. More- over, the ascetic ideas of the philosophers cannot be accepted as the common attitude of Athenian citizens, any more than Thoreau can be recognized as a criterion of the economic thought of his day in New England.^ Asceticism was certainly foreign to the mind of Pericles and Thucydides. In the course of our discussion, also, we shall find that it represents, after all, only one phase of the thought of the philosophers themselves. 5. Socialistic tendency. — Since Greek economy was chiefly interested in the problems of distribution, it tended toward social- ism, both in theory and in practice. This was also a natural out- growth of the fact that individual interests were subordinated to public welfare. Though the latter half of the fifth century wit- nessed a great individualistic movement in Greece, and though individualism and independence are often named as prominent Greek characteristics, yet these terms did not constitute a basal political principle, even in the free Athenian democracy, in the same sense as they do with us today. The life of the Greek citizen was lived far more for the state, and was more absolutely at the disposal of the state, than is true in any modern democracy. In Greece, politics was thus the social science of first importance, and the supreme purpose of all human activity was to make good citizens. State interference or regulation was thus accepted as a matter of course, and the setting of prices, rigid regulation of ' Kautz {op. ciL, p. 57) goes to the extreme of saying that antiquity represents "die Negation der okonomischen Interessen und der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit." INTRODUCTION 13 grain commerce, exploitation of the rich in the interest of the poor, and public ownership of great material interests such as mines were not revolutionary ideas, but common facts in Greek life/ The tendency of the theorists was therefore naturally toward centralization of power in the hands of the state, and an ex- aggerated idea of the omnipotence of law.^ Yet despite the error inherent in it, this socialistic tendency of Greek economic thought had its basal truth, which is becoming an axiom of modern eco- nomics and statesmanship— the belief that private property is not a natural right, but a gift of society, and hence that its activi- ties should be controlled by society, and made to minister to public welfare. Indeed, we have by no means escaped the error of the Greek thinkers, for one of the most common mistakes of statesmen and political theorists today is an overestimate of the effectiveness of law. ' Even abolition of debts and redivision of lands were not unknown in Greek history. Grote {History of Greece, III, 105 f . and notes) denies this, but the heliastic oath, which he cites (Dem. Adv. Timoc. 746, and Dio Chrysost. Or. xxxi. 332), proves that such measures were agitated, or there would be no reason for protective measures. Cf. infra, Plato {Laws, 736E), who takes this for granted. Cf. Solon's Fragments; Isoc. {Panath. 259) says that it would be hard to find a Greek state, except Sparta, that has not fallen into "the accustomed accidents," viz., (naffiv, a- dperds ovk dffivrjs irdpoiKos. Cf. also III, 168, fr. 49 (50), Alcaeus. 5 Erga 25 f. ^ Cf . his poems, especially fr. xiii. 43 ff.; Ar. Ath. Pol. x. i; Vhit: Solon 15, 22-24; Kautz, op. cit., pp. 114 f. and note, on Solon and the other lawgivers; Gilliard, Quelque Refortnes de Solon. Cornford {Thucydides Mythhistoricus, p. 66) thinks he was "on the verge" of discovering the law that exports must balance imports. 14 \ ECONOMIC IDEAS BEFORE PLATO 15 are full of moral utterances on wealth, emphasizing its temporary nature as compared with virtue/ Pythagoras and his followers have often been given a prominent place in the history of com- munism, but this is probably due to a false interpretation.^ It is likely, however, that he opposed the evils of luxury, and moralized on the relation between wealth and virtue.^; Democritus wrote a work on agriculture.'' Like the other philosophers, he taught that happiness was to be sought in the gold of character, rather than in material wealth. s To his mind, poverty and wealth alike were but names for need and satiety (kopov).^ Wealth without understanding was not a safe possession, depending for its value on right use.^ The amassing of wealth by just means, however, was good,^ though unjust gains were always a source of evil.^ Excessive desire for wealth was worse than the most extreme poverty.'" It is possible also that Democritus held to a mild form of the social contract theory of the origin of society." Heraclitus complained bitterly of the unwisdom of the masses and their merely material view of life.'^ He made the common antithesis between material and spiritual wealth,^^ and observed the fact that gold is a universal medium of exchange.'^ Hippodamas of Miletus ^Elegies iiiyf., 227 G., iis/f., 181 f., 267 ff., 173 ff., 351 ff., 393 2-, S23 ff., 621 f., 199 ff., 753, 145 f., 559 f., etc. ' On this error, cf. infra, on communism before Plato. 3 Cf. Kautz, op. cit., p. 114; Jamblichus, De Pyth. viL, chap, xii, p. 58; chap, xvi, p. 69. * Diels, Frag. d. Vorsokratiker (1912), II, 20, 69. 5 Ihid., p. 95, fr. 171; p. 73, fr. 40. « Ibid., p. 119, fr. 283. ''Ibid., p. 77, fr. 77; cf. Stob. Flor. 94. 24; xPVfJ-vais, "nature," which had been accepted as a suihcient reason for the state's existence, was now opposed to "law," j'ojuos, as natural to artificial. The Sophists argued that, in a primitive state of nature, perfect individualism was the rule. Men did injustice without restraint. The weaker, however, being in the majority, and finding it to their disadvantage to compete with the strong, agreed neither to do nor to suffer injustice, and constrained the stronger minority to co-operate in their decision. Thus arose the social contract whereby nature gave up its real instinct for an artificial convention {(TvvdrjKr]), and thus society came into being.^ The theory, at first, though untrue, was not intended to be destructive of moral foundations, but was opposed rather to the traditional idea of the laws of a state as the "decrees of a divinely inspired lawgiver."^ In the hands of men like Thrasymachus'* and Callicles,^ however, it became a means of denying that the life according to nature was bound by any laws which the strong need observe, and that might was the only final law. In line with their radical individuahsm, the Sophists were also pioneers in the more cosmopolitan spirit that characterized the Cynics and Stoics. They taught the doctrine of the fundamental worth and relationship of men,^ and thus, with the Cynics, started the attack upon the theory that upheld slavery as a natural insti- ' Pol. ii; cf. infra for details. ' Cf. Glaucon's tentative argument presenting the Sophist theory, Rep. 358E ff., very similar to that of Hobbes. Cf. Barker's {op. cit., pp. 27 ff.) excellent presenta- tion of the rise of this theory and its causes. 3 Cf. A. Dobbs, Philosophy and Popular Morals in Ancient Greece (1907), p. 48. For examples, cf. Hippias, cited below, n. 6, or Lycophron, opposed by Aristotle, cited below in Aristotle's criticism of socialism {Pol. 1 280610-12). * Rep. i, and the story of Gyges, Rep. ii. 5 Gorg. 482E flf., though CaUicles was hardly a Sophist. * E.g., Hippias in Protag. 337C, where he says that men are related {avyyevels, oUelovs) by nature, not by law, and that the law is a tyrant of men that does much violence contrary to nature (Trapd ttjv '(i Cf. above note and Mtm. Pul., II, 30, notes; Fors Clav., Letter 70, 3 (Vol. XXVII, 713), the "good things." 24 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT WEALTH Plato has much to say of wealth, though he deals with it strictly from the standpoint of the morahst. We look in vain for a clear definition, or for a consistent distinction of economic wealth from other goods. His terms are ttXovtos, used of both material and spiritual wealth; xPW^'^o., often interpreted literally of "useful things," as the basis of the subjective doctrine of value discussed above; /crij/xara, "possessions," and such words as xpv<^os and apyvpLov. His use of these terms, especially the first, is ambiguous. At times he means material goods only; again, Hke Ruskin, he includes every human good, intellectual and moral as well;^ again he means "excessive wealth."^ As a result of his conception of value, he includes in material wealth all those objects that depend for their worth upon wise use and character in the possessor.^ Material wealth is regularly placed last by Plato, as inferior to all other goods of soul or body, a mere means, and not an end in itself," for virtue does not come from property, but property and all other goods from virtue. ^ Material goods should be the last thing in one's thought,^ and the fact that people universally put them first is the cause of many ills to state and individual alike. ^ Wealth is not bHnd, if only it follows wisdom.^ ) The things usually called goods are not rightly so named, unless the possessor be just and worthy .9 To the base, on the other hand, they are the greatest evil.'° In all of this, Plato is the forerunner of Ruskin, with his ' Fors Clav., Lett. 70, 8 f. (Vol. XXVIII, 718 ff.), where he refers to Plato's Laws 727A. » Cf . infra for citations. ^ Cf. p. 23 and notes. " Laws 697B, 631C, 728A, 870B; Apol. 29D-E. 5 Apol. 30B; also Laws 743E; Gorg. 451E; cf. Ruskin, Fors Clav., Lett. 70, 6 and II (Vol. XXVIII, 717), where he cites Laws 726-728A, on the value of the soul. He also cites Laws 742-743 and Rep. 416E (cf. Mun. Pul. [Vol. XVII, 89, 148]). ^ Laws 743 E. 7 831 C-D. Ruskin (Crown of Wild Olive, 83 [Vol. XVIII, 456 f.) cites Critias i2oEff., in urging the same idea. He also cites Plato's myth of the metals, Rep. 416E, in similar vein {Mun. Pul., Ill, 89 [Vol. XVII, 211]). 8631C cited by Ruskin, Mun. Pul, III, 88 (Vol. XVII, 210). 9 661A, 661B; iSe/*. 331A-B. ^"Laws 661B; Hipp. Maj. 290D; Menex. 246E. PLATO 25 characteristic assertions: "Only so much as one can use is wealth, beyond that is illth"; and "Wealth depends also on vital power in the possessor."^ Plato especially inveighs against excessive wealth and luxury.^ Men are urged not to lay up riches for their children, since great wealth is of no use to them or the state.^ The prime object of good legislation should not be, as is commonly supposed, to make the state as rich as possible,'' since excessive wealth and luxury decrease productive efficiency ,s are incompatible with the highest character or happiness, being based on both unjust acquisition {KTrj(7Ls) and unjust expenditure {avaXufjiaTa) ,^ produce degenera- tion in individual and nation,' and are the direct cause of war^ and civic strife.^ Were it feasible, he would prefer to go back to the simpler life of earlier times, before luxury and the inordinate desire for riches had so dominated all society/" Of course he reahzes that such a return is impossible, but he has Httle hope of any other escape from the evils. He is thus led to express the behef that the fewer wants the better, a doctrine common also to Ruskin, Carlyle, and Thoreau." ^ Mun. Put., II, 35 ff.; he refers to both Xenophon and Plato as being right on this point. Cf. Fors. Clav., I, 8 (Vol. XXVII, 122); Unto This Last, 64 (Vol. XVII, 89). ^ Rep. S50D, 373D: iinv Kal iKfivoi OLtpQxnv aiiroiis iTrl XPVI^'^'^'^'' KT^inv Aireipov inrtp^dvres rhv rOiv dvajKaluv 6pov. On dTreipos cf . infra under Aristotle. Cf. Dobbs, op. cit., pp. 202 f. and note, on the evil results of excessive wealth and poverty in the Greece of that age. Like Ruskin, Mun. Pul., VI, 153 and note (Vol. XVII, 277), who cites Laws 736E; Aratra Pentelici, IV, 138 (Vol. XX, 295 f.) on money as the root of all evil, citing Laws 7osB. ^ Laws 72g A. 47420. ^ Rep. 421D. * Laws 742E, especially ir'Kovalovs d' a5 ff(p6dpa Kal dyadoiis dSiivaTov. For the modern application of this doctrine, cf. infra; cf. also 743A, C; Rep. S50E, S51A, ' Rep. 422; cf. 372E ff. on the ^Xeyp-alvovcra state. *373E; Phaedo 66C. Compare the modem doctrine that lasting peace is impos- sible under the present economic system. ^ Laws 74.4D: dLda-raa-is; also a basal idea of the i?e_^«Wi(;. " This is the spirit of the Republic throughout, but cf. especially 369C-374D, and p. 25, n. 7. "Laws 736E: Kal ireviav r)yovp.ivovi dvai /xt] rb ttjv ovalav iXdrru troieiv, dWd rb Tr)v dir\7]r]v) ;'^ in this, he was a forerunner of Ruskin, who opposed the old popular fallacy that the expenditures of the wealthy, of whatever nature, benefit the poor;'' (5) in the dominant note in economic thought today, so emphasized by Plato and Ruskin, that the prime goal of the science is human life at its best — as Ruskin states it, "the producing as many as possible full- breathed, bright-eyed, and happy-hearted human creatures";' (6) in the fact that the national demand for unlimited wealth is now recognized, as Plato taught, always to have been the most fruitful cause of international differences; (7) in the fact, which is receiving ever-greater recognition by modern economists and statesmen, that the innate quality of the object for good or harm must be considered in a true definition of economic wealth.'' PRODUCTION Plato seems to have had little positive interest in the problems of production. He was too much engrossed with suggesting means for limiting excessive acquisition. He was, however, quite apt ' Rep. 552B-D; cf. Robin, op. cit., p. 243, n. i, on Kr]-fiv. ^ In Mun. Pul., Ill, 91 (Vol. XVII, 213), he makes Circe's swine a type of false consumption; cf. Fors Clav., Letter 38 (Vol. XXVIII, 3° 2-); Mun. Pul., Pref., 16 (Vol. XVII, 139 f.); Queen of the Air, III, 124 ff. (Vol. XIX, 404 ff-); Pol. Econ. of Art, I, 48 ff. (Vol. XVI, 47 ff.); Unto This Last, IV, 76 (Vol. XVII, 102); Mill also attacked this idea. 3 Unto This Last, II, 40 (Vol. XVII, 56); cf. also Mun. Pul., II, 54 (Vol. XVII, 178 f.). < Discussed above. 2S GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT in his use of illustrations from industrial life.^ He was also appa- rently the first to give a real classification of trades,^ as follows: furnishers of raw materials {irpcoroyepes eUos), makers of tools (opyava), makers of vessels for conserving products (d77€ta), makers of vehicles (oxvi^'O-), manufacturers of clothing and means of defense (7rpojSXi7juara) , workers in fine arts (iraiyvLov) , producers of food {dpefxfxa) — a fairly inclusive catalogue for that age; if com- merce and the learned professions were included. But some of the classes overlap, since they follow no necessary principle of division. He divided productive arts into co-operative {(xwaLriovs) , which provide tools for manufacture, and principal (dtrtas), which pro- duce the objects themselves.^ They were further divided into productive arts (TrotTyri/cat), which bring something new into existence, and acquisitive {KT-qriKai) , which merely gain what already exists. In the latter class, he placed all commerce, science, and hunting."* Plato would thus appear to exclude commerce and the learned professions from the true sphere of production. This, however, is only apparent, in so far as legitimate exchange is con- cerned. He clearly understood that the merchant and retailer save the time of the other workers,^ and that they perform a real service to the community, in that they make necessary exchange convenient and possible.^ He thus recognized them as producers of a time and place value, and he cannot be accused of the physio- cratic error, which denied productivity to all workers except those who produce directly from natural resources.^ His distinction ' Cf. Pol. 281D-283A, for an excellent description of the weaving industry; also Crat. 388C ff.; Phileb. 56B, on carpentry. ' Pol. 287D-289B; cf. Espinas, op. cit., pp. 35 f.; "L'Art economie dans Platon," Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII (1914), 106 ff. 3Po/. 281D-E; d. aho Phaedo ggA-B; Phileb. 27 A; Timaeus ^GC-B. '^ Sophist. 219A-D. Bonar's {op. cit., p. 20) criticism of this on the ground that learning may produce something new, while the arts may merely change the shape of things, takes Plato too seriously. We have here only a characteristic Platonic generalization. Cf. Shorey, Unity of Plato's Thought (1903), p. 64, n. 500, on the foregoing passages from Sophist, and Pol.; cf. Robin, op. cit., pp. 231 f. ^Rep. 371C. ^ Laws 918B-C, especially ttws yap ovk evepyirrjs iras Ss Slv oiifflav xpW'i^wv wvri- vuvovv, dff'u/j.p.erpov odcrav Kal aj'ti/uoXoy, b/j.aX'fivTe Kal cip-jxerpov direpydi^eTai. ' Cf. DuBois, Precis de Vhistoire des doctrines economigues dans leurs rapports avec les fails et avec les institutions, pp. 45-47, comparing Plato and Aristotle on this PLATO 29 of productive and acquisitive arts can, furthermore, hardly be interpreted as intending to limit production to the material merely, though learning is relegated to the acquisitive class. Such an interpretation would be out of harmony with the whole trend of his thought.' His further classification of productive agencies as creative (eveKa rod irote'lv tl) or preventive {rod ixr) iraax^iJ^y sub- stantiates this, for many of the preventive agencies are intellectual and scientific. ' The general attitude of Plato toward economic production may be inferred from his insistence upon the thorough application of the division of labor for the perfection of industry .^ He evidently recognized it as the necessary basis of all higher Hfe. We have seen above, also that one of his chief objections to excessive wealth or poverty was the fact that they caused inefficiency in production .j Agriculture. — Of the three factors that enter into production — land, labor, and capital — the most important in the mind of the Greek thinkers was land. The relative prominence of agriculture was partly the cause of this, but in the case of the philosophers, their ethical passion, their idea of the necessity of leisure for personal development, and their conservative attitude toward industry and commerce were the chief motives that impelled them to urge their contemporaries back to the simple life of the farm.'*] point. Laws 743D and Plato's attitude on agriculture (cf. infra) might seem to point the other way. Cf. infra, p. 41, nn. 7-10. Espinas (Revue des etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 247, n. i) is extreme in calling him a physiocrat. The term woiild more nearly apply to Aristotle. ' Ar. {Pol. vi [iv]. 1291012-19) so interprets him, because he finds the origin of the state in physical needs {Rep. 369C S..), but this is a carping criticism. Blanqui is hardly fair to Plato on this point {Histoire de I'economie politique en Europe, p. 88). Cf. above, p. 22, n. 4, on Plato's other theory of origins. = Pol. 279C. 3 Cf. infra and Poehlmann, op. cit., 1, 574. ^ As we shall see, the third reason has been exaggerated for the philosophers. On the favorable attitude to labor at Athens, cf. V. Brants, Revue de Vinstruction publique in Belg., XXVI (1883), 108 f., 100 f.; he distinguishes between the doctrine philoso- phique and the doctrine politique. So also Guiraud, La main-d'ceuvre industrielle datis I'ancienne Grece (1900), pp. 36-50; Zimmern, op. cit., pp. 382 ff., 256-72. For the older view of general prejudice against free labor in Greece, cf. Drumann, Arbeiter und Contmunisten in Griechenland u. Rom (i860), pp. 24 ff. Francotte {Ulndustrie) takes the more conservative position. Cf. infra for further notice of this problem. 30 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT The aristocratic feeling, still strong in European countries, that landed property is the most respectable, probably also had some influence, though land was not so distinctively in the hands of the upper classes in Attica. Though the praise of agriculture was a characteristic feature of Greek literature in all periods, it was not at first a conscious economic theory.^ Later, toward the end of the fifth century, it became a definite ethico-economic doctrine of the philosophers, as a criticism of their times, and as an appeal to what was deemed to be the more healthful life of the earlier days. Plato does not devote so much attention to this theme as do Xenophon and Aristotle. His standpoint, however, is practically the same, though his tendency toward the physiocratic error is not so marked. In his second state, he orders that agriculture shall be the only means of money-making,^ and he even strikes the modern note of conservation, in his directions for the care of land, waters, springs, and forests.^ On this point, he and the other Greek thinkers accord well with the economy of the past decade with its urgent preachment, "Back to the land," though the modern watchword has, of course, a more economic emphasis. Capital. — Though the function of capital, aside from natural resources, was a famiUar fact in the Athenian life of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.,'' there is scarcely any consideration of it by the theorists before Aristotle. Plato has no definition of capital, nor indeed scarcely any recognition of the fact of its existence.^ His emphasis on the virtue of economy, however, and his criticism of those who spend the "stored wealth," imply the idea that wealth should be used not merely for enjoyment, but also for productive ^ Hesiod Erga; Theog. 969-975, though even here it is opposed to commerce. * Laws 743D, but he would even limit this, so that it may not become a sordid occupation. 3 Laws 760E-761C, 763D. Ruskin cites this in Fors Clav.; cf. Vol. XXEX, 546. ■* Cf. pp. 19 f., and notes; cf. also p. 106, n. i. The extensive commerce of Athens necessitated the presence of a comparatively large amount of money capital, and a large amount was also invested in slaves. For further notice, cf. infra, p. 68, nn. 8 ff., on the terms. sBut cf. Laws 742C (/c€0d\ato»'), and infra, under Xenophon, on the terms for capital. PLATO 31 purposes.^ His strictures upon interest show that he has but slight appreciation of the productive function of money-capitah" Labor and industry. — On the other hand, Plato has considerable insight into the role of labor in production. To be sure, he shares with the other philosophers a certain prejudice against manual labor as degrading to freemen.^ The mechanical arts call forth reproach.'* Free citizens should not be burdened with such ignoble occupations,^ and any person who disobeys this rule shall lose his civic rights until he gives up his trade .*^ Agriculture alone shall be open to them, and only so much of this as will not cause them to neglect their higher welfare.' However, this prejudice has been read into some passages in Plato by a forced interpretation. The assertion of Socrates,^ that craftsmen have not temperance (o-w^- poarvvq), since they do other people's business, is made merely to draw Critias into the argument. The statement that all arts having for their function provision for the body are slavish,' does not necessarily imply prejudice against physical labor. Such arts are .slavish, to Plato, because they have no definite principle of service as gjnnnastics has. He is merely illustrating the point that it is an inferior type of statesmanship that works without a definite principle for the highest political welfare. The idea, expressed in the Politics,^" that the masses (ttX^^oj) cannot acquire political science is a criticism against unprepared statesmanship rather than against labor. Indeed, Plato asserts the same of the wealthy." ^ Cf. Rep. 552B, and p. 27. Kautz (op. cii., p. 119) overemphasizes this; cf. Souchon, op. cit., p. 91, n. 2, who observes, however, that Plato, by his insistence upon collectivism in landed property implies that "la terre est tou jours un capital, et que la fortune mobiliere ne Test jamais." ' Cf. infra on money. 3 On the general attitude toward labor in Athens, cf. p. 30, n. 4. On Plato's regard for the laborer, cf. infra, under distribution. * Rep. 590C, but only for him whose higher nature (rd rod ^eXrlffrov el5os) is naturally weak, though the implication is that this is characteristic of the artisans. Cf. Poehlmaim, op. cit., II, 49 f. s Laws 842D, 806D-E, 741E, 846D, 919D. ' 847A. 8 Charm. 163A-C. "> 292E, 289E-290A. ' 743D. » Gorg. S17D-S18E. " Ibid. 300E. 32 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT Moreover, the following facts should be observed: that the prejudice of Plato against the manual arts is chiefly limited to the Laws; that even there his prejudice is primarily against retail trade rather than against industry;' that in so far as a real hos- tility exists, its true source is not in any opposition to labor or indus- try per se, but rather in the political belief that only as citizens have leisure for politics can prepared statesmen take the place of super- ficial politicians,^ and in the moral feeling that constant devotion merely to the physical necessities of life causes men to neglect the primary purpose of their existence.^ : Modern scholars have usually been extreme in their interpre- tation of Plato on this point."* Such unwarranted generalizations as the following are common: "II ne decouvre dans les professions qui tendent au lucre qu'egoisme, bassesse d'esprit, degradation des sentiments." "Platon et Aristote voient dans le commerce et dans I'industrie deux plaies de la societe; ils voudraient les extirper k'iond, si cela etait possible."^ One of the worst misinterpretations has been perpetrated by Roscher, in inferring from the Republic (372 ff.) that Plato "das Leben der Gewerbetreibenden als ein Leben thierischen Behaglichkeit schildert, sie wohl mit Schweinen vergleicht."* Such absurdities are unfortunately not rare, though they might be avoided by a careful reading, even in a translation.'' ' Cf. Rep. 371C for a contrast in his attitude toward the two; cf. Bonar, op. cil., pp. 21 f. 2 Laws 846D, 847A. Ruskin {Fors Clav., Letter 82, 34 [Vol. XXIX, 253 f.]) contrasts the fevered leisure that results from extreme money-making with the true leisure, citing Laws 831. 3 Laws 743D. The aristocratic Greek feeling of independence against selling one's powers to another, and the fact of the frank acceptance of slavery, by most contemporary thinkers, as the natural order, also exerted some unconscious influence. * Cf . infra for citations from Zeller, and Poehlmann's able, but somewhat extreme, defense of Plato (op. ciL, II, 36 ff.). He cites Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, V, I, Ft. 2, art. 2, in similar vein to Plato, on the ill-effects of mechanical labor, despite his undoubted interest in the industrial arts. 5 Francotte, ULndustric, I, 246, in reference to the Laws. ^ Op. cit., p. 26, n. 2. ' Eisenhart {Geschichte der Nationalokonomie, p. s) also says that Plato calls " Volkswirtschaf t gerade zu den Staat der Schweine." Dietzel ("Beitrage zur Ge- schichte des Socialismus und des Kommunismus," Zeitschrift fUr Literatur und Ge- schichte der Staatswissenschaflen, p. 397, n. i) criticizes both the foregoing. PLATO 33 It should not be overlooked either that Plato's utterances on labor are by no means all negative. Skilled labor is recognized in several of the minor dialogues as fulfilling an actual need in civilization. Laborers are represented as having their part in knowledge and virtue/ and are admitted to be the necessary foundation of all human well-being.^ A positive interest is also manifested by Plato in labor and the proper development of the arts in both the Republic and the Laws. He constantly harps on the necessity of each doing his fitting work, and doing it well, and in his opinion happiness consists in this rather than in idleness.^) (^ Indeed, that each one perform well the task for which nature has fitted him is the definition of justice itself.'* The indolent rich man is a parasite and a drone, a disease of the state. This is Plato's favorite figure in both the Republic and the Laws, a figure that is suggestive of Hesiod, the pioneer champion of labor.^ He is even ready to admit that it is, after all, not the kind of labor but the character of the workman that ennobles or degrades any work.^ In fine, his attitude toward the mechanical arts is similar to that of Ruskin, who also thinks that manual labor is degrading.' ^ Sympos. 209A; Phileh. 56C. ' Protag. 321E. 3 Rep. 420E, 421C; Laws 779A, 807A-E, 808C. The passages in the Laws apply particularly to the work of the soldier and the citizen. Cf. Ruskin, Unto This Last, I, 22 (Vol. XVII, 40) for a similar idea that the function of the laborer is not pri- marily to draw his pay, but to do his work well. *Rep.4ssA. ' Rep. 552A, C, S64E; cf. Laws 901A, where he refers to the passage in Hesiod's Erga 304: Kr]r)vi Miin. Pnl., V, 105 and note (Vol. XVII, 234 f.), where he refers to Plato's diminutive, avOpajTriffKoi, as applied to laborers {Rep. 495C; Laws 741E); Time and Tide, 103 (Vol. XVII, 402), 127 (p. 423 and note); Crown of Wild Olive, 2 (Vol. XVIII, 388), on the furnace; Lectures on Art, IV, 123 (Vol. XX, 113); on the evil effects of arts needing fire, as iron-working, where Xen. Econ. iv. 2, 3 is cited. He makes frequent reference to the Greek attitude, e.g.. Vol. XVIII, 241, 461, and above. But he was not absolutely opposed to machinery; cf. Cestus Aglaia, 33 for what is called the finest eulogy of a machine in English Uteratiure. He even anticipated the great future mechanical development {Mim. Pul., 17). 34 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT But as with Plato, the chief secret of his prejudice lies in the fact that laborers usually do their work mechanically, without thought. He beheves that "workmen ought often to be thinking, and think- ers ought often to be working." He is willing to classify all work as liberal on this basis, the only distinction being the amount of skill required.' However, in agreement with Plato's idea, he would set the roughest and least intellectual to the roughest work, and this he thinks to be "the best of charities" to them." With Plato, he is also convinced that, under actual conditions of labor, the degradation is very difficult to avoid, and therefore he would emphasize chiefly agricultural labor, where education of head and hand are more fully realized.^ It is, however, in Plato's constant insistence upon the principle of the division of labor, as a prerequisite for any succces in the mechanical arts or elsewhere, that he reveals insight into, and interest in, productive labor. This is the basal idea in the Republic. It is also one of the chief regulations in the Laws, where its direct application to the artisan is a clear evidence that he appreciates the economic significance of the principle.'' To him, it is the foundation of all human development. Society finds its source in mutual need (17 rjiierepa xp€ta) . Man is not self-sufficient (avTapKTjs) . Reciprocity is necessary even in the most primitive state. ^ Out of this necessary dependence arises the division of labor, a beneficent law, "since the product is larger, better, and more easily produced, whenever one man gives up all other business, and does one thing fitting to his nature, and at the opportune time."^ 'Stones of Venice (Vol. X, 201); cf. also IV, 6 (Vol. XI, 202 f.), where he cites Plato i4/c. 1. 129. =" Fors. Clav., VII, 9 (Vol. XIX, 230). 3 Cf. Vol. XXVII, Intro., p. Ixv. *Rep. 370A-C and many other passages. Cf. infra; Laws 846E-847A. Cf. infra on the unfair interpretation of Rep. 421A by Zeller and others. Plato implies by the passage merely that specialization is more important for the statesman than for the cobbler (421C). ^Rep. 369C. Adam Smith makes this the basal fact of exchange (Wealth of Nations, I, ii). " Rep. 370C: 7rXe/w re iKaara ylyverai Kal KiWiov Kal pg.ov, brav els tv Kara . 371B: ^vfi^oXov TTJs aWayiis, PLATO 39 definition "a ticket or token of right to goods.'" It seems to imply that money is not itself a commodity to be trafficked in. (In the Laws, he specifies more clearly the functions of this symbol. It acts as a medium of exchange and as a measure of value.^ The latter office is performed by reason of the fact that money is a common denominator of value, changing products from incom- mensurable (aavixfxeTpov) and uneven (avoiiJiaXov) to commensurable and even .3 Since Plato did not consider money to be a commodity to be bought and sold, and since he did not appreciate its productive function as representative capital, his theory of interest was super- ficial. His attitude toward it was somewhat similar to that of many people today toward speculation in futures in the stock market, as a practice contrary to public interest and policy. The application of the term tokos to interest by Plato"* and Aristotle, as though interest were the direct child of money, is probably only a punning etymology, and not intended seriously. It can there- fore hardly be used, as it often is, to prove the superficiality of the theory of the Socratics. Plato, however, would have no money- making by usury ,s nor indeed any loaning or credit at all, except as an act of friendship.^ Such contracts should be made at the loaner's own risk,7 and held legal only as a punishment for breaking other contracts.^ He calls the usurer a bee that inserts his sting, money, into his victims, thereby beggaring them and enriching himself.^ Such strictures against interest were common in mediaeval Europe, reappeared in Ruskin,'" and are implied in the present ' Fors Clav., IV, ii, note (Vol. XXVIII, 134 f.); cf. also Vol. XVII, 50, 194 f. ' 742A-B: v6fj.i(TfjLa 5' iveKa dWayiis; 918B: i^eviropeiv Kal 6fj.a\6TT}Ta rats ovalais, referring directly to traders. 3 Laws 9 1 8B . s Laws 743D . ^Rep. 553E; for Aristotle, cf. infra. ^849E. 7 742C, 915D-E; Rep. SS6A-B; Laws 850A. * 921C, an obol per month. ' Rep. SSSE. ^"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; A fJ^V Karidov, fir) dv^rj. 40 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT opposition, in some quarters, to so-called "unearned income."^ The motive in mediaeval times, however, was distinctively reli- gious, and was also partly due to the absence of a developed capital- ism. With Ruskin and modern theorists, on the other hand, the objection is, at bottom, socialistic. The motive of the Socratics was essentially moral and political. Plato's other error concerning money, as above observed, was that it need possess no intrinsic value for domestic use. He looked upon gold and silver as causes of degeneration in state and indi- vidual,^ and would therefore have put a ban on them for use within the state.^ To his mind, a mere state fiat was sufficient to give currency and value.'' This doctrine has also often recurred in the history of economic thought, as in Ruskin and the Greenback party of a generation ago.^ The error, however, was not so grave in Plato's case, for he, at least, recognized the need of the precious metals for international purposes.*^ Moreover, in his proposed state of such limited extent, the problem would have been far simpler, and he would have distinguished between actual condi- tions and possibilities in Greece and his admittedly more or less Utopian ideal. EXCHANGE Exchange in Greek economy held a very minor place, compared with its dominant importance in modern theory. It was dis- cussed chiefly in a negative manner, as the object of the moral and aristocratic prejudice of Greek thinkers. We find, however, some appreciation of its true place in the economic life of a state. Plato divides trade, dXXa7i7 or ayopaariKi], into avToiroiXLKrj , which sells its own products, avrovpyoov, and fxeTa^iXrjTLKr] , which exchanges the products of others. He further divides the latter into KaTrrjXLKT}, the exchange within the state, which he calls one-half of all the ' E.g. J. Scott Nearing's recent book on Income. 'Laws 679B, 831C; Rep. 54562., 548B. Cf. Ruskin on the evils arising from money, Vol. XX, 295 f. 3 Laws 743D, 742A-B, 801B. -i 742A. 5 Ruskin, Mun. Pul., I, 25, He thinks it is a relic of a barbarism that will dis- appear as civilization develops. * Laws 742A-B. PLATO 41 exchange, and iniropLKrj, foreign commerce.' He finds its origin in the division of labor, and in the mutual interdependence of men and states." He understands the necessity of the reciprocal atti- tude in international, as well as in private, exchange, and thus has a clearer insight than the mercantilists and some modern statesmen. A state must raise a surplus of its own products, so as to supply the^ other state from which it expects to have its own needs satisfied.^i Since a tariff on imports played little part in Greek Ufe, except in so far as it was imposed for sumptuary or war purposes," the per- plexing modern problem of the protective tariff scarcely came within the horizon of Greek thinkers. Plato would prohibit the import of certain luxuries, as a moral safeguard. He divides merchandise into primary and secondary products, and would not permit the import of the latter .« Elsewhere, however, he legislates agamst imposts upon either imports or exports, though unconscious of the significance of his suggestion.^ ('He appreciated something of the function of exchange in society. It performed a very important service, as a mediator between producer and consumer.' Like money, it served to equalize values, and thus acted as an aid to the satisfaction of needs .^ When limited to this primary function, it was of advan- tage to both parties to the exchange,' and merchants and retailers had then a real part in the production of values.'" The sweeping assertion is too often made that the Greek people were hostile to trade, and therefore that their theorists were espe- cially opposed to it. We have already seen how false this idea is I Sophist. 223C-D; cf. Pol, 289E for the triple division of commercials, xd^v'^oi, ilivopoi, and dpyvpafiol^oi- cf. Phaedo, 69A for a figurative use of dWay^. " Rep. 370A-E, home; 370E-371E, foreign; cf. Adam Smith's idea above. 3 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. t Boeckh, Die Staatanshaltung der Athener, I, pp. 382 ff.; Zimmem, op. cit., ist ed., p. 317. But cf. Brants, Xenophon Economiste, p. 18, n. 2 and references, on the pro- tectionist tendency of the commercial policy of Athens. sLaws 847C; Souchon (op. cit., p. 102) sees in this a mercantile trend, but the purposes are entirely different. «847B. ■! Rep. 371C-B. » Laws giSB-C. 9 Rep. ^egC. " On the relation of exchange to production, cf. above, p. 28. 42 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT for the Greeks themselves/ but it also needs a great deal of quali- fication in the case of their writers. Their hostility is directed especially against the more petty business of retail trade {KaTrjXLKrf) rather than against the extensive operations of the merchant (epixopos) . But their opposition even to this is not entirely undis- criminating. We have seen that Plato clearly understands the necessity of exchange to the Hfe of the state.^ He admits that even retail trade is not necessarily evil.^ The chief reason why it appears so is because it gives free opportunity for the vulgar greed of unlimited gain, which is innate in man."* If the noblest citizens, who are governed by rational interests, should become retailers and innkeepers, the business would soon be held in honor .^ Plato, however, would limit exchange to its primary function as defined above.^ Like Ruskin, he believes that, whenever it is pursued merely for private gain, it becomes a source of degeneration to individual and state. It is then akin to the fraudulent or counterfeit pursuits (kl^StjXols) J The retailers in well-ordered states are generally the weakest men, who are unable to undertake other work.^ The rulers in the Republic must keep themselves entirely free from the trammels of trade, lest they become wolves instead of shepherds,' though Plato is grappling here with a very real problem that still faces us — how to prevent graft among pubhc servants.'" In the Laws, retail trade is entirely prohibited to citizens," and permitted only to metics and strangers," and, indeed, only to those whose corruption will be of least injury to the state.'^ These aliens are not to be permitted to gain overmuch wealth,'"* and they must depart from the state, after twenty years' 'Pp. igff. 3 Laws gi8B. sgigE. ' P. 41 and notes. ■* 918D. ^ P. 41 and notes. ' Laws 918A, g2oC. 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 flf. (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." ^Rep.$yiC. 9416A-417A. " Cf. 415E, xP'?A'tt''''<'"''"'^'is in contrast to 6v) the question of the eflect of wealth or poverty on the artisans (roi>s dWovs drjuiovpyovs) . Cf. also infra for other citations. 9 Pol. 1264036-38, repeated by many moderns. " Rep. 41SB-C. PLATO 49 an aristocracy based strictly on intellectual and moral excellence. No arbitrary obstacle hinders either the degradation or the rise of any individual from his class. It depends entirely upon the possession of the gold of character and mentality, for which all may strive. Moreover, the hfe of the so-called first caste is liter- ally dedicated to the best service of the rest. If this be aristocracy, we cannot have too much of it.^ Neither is Aristotle's criticism warranted, that Plato makes the happiness of the whole state something different from the sum of its parts.^ He merely states the principle, universally true, that no class has a right to expect to be happy at the expense of the whole state, and that, in the long run, the prosperity of each is bound up in the prosperity of all. Indeed, he puts the very objections of Aristotle and Grote into the mouth of Adeimantus, and answers them satisfactorily, in his illustration of the painted statue.3 There could hardly be a better example of Plato's lofty ideal, that each part is to contribute its share toward the utility, beauty, and happiness of the whole, and that through this co- operation each realizes the highest quantum of happiness for himself. This doctrine of mutual interdependence is the basal principle of Christianity, taught by Jesus and Paul in a strikingly similar figure of the body and its members,'' though naturally Plato's idea of brotherhood is narrower in scope. The common assertion that Plato has no regard for the artisan class, then, is unwarranted.^ The entire Republic is built upon the opposite principle, to prevent exploitation of the lower by the upper classes; and his comparison of good and evil rulers to ' Cf. the undiscriminating statement of Souchon, op. cit., p. 41: "Et il n'y a guere eu, au cours de I'histoire de la science politique, de conception plus aristocratique que le mythe fameux des trois races d'or, d'argent et d'airain." = Pol. 1264615-25, repeated by Grote and others. ^ Rep. iv. beg.-42iC. '^ 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. 5 Rep. 42 1 A, cited by Zeller, op. cit., II, i, 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 commimism to apply to the whole people. 50 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT shepherd dogs and wolves^ is a precursor of the famous passages of Milton and Ruskin on the same theme. All classes of citizens in the state are brothers.^ The rulers are saviors {aicrrjpas), allies, shepherds (Troltieves) , nurses {Tpo(j)ias), paymasters, and friends.^ This happy unity {dfxovoia), or harmony (^u/i^coj'ia) , of all classes is to Plato the highest goal toward which the true statesman should strive,'' and the point of next highest importance to the communism of the guards is the proper regulation of wealth and poverty for the artisans.^ The mere fact that he does not believe the artisans to be capable of political independence by no means indicates that he is indifferent to their social or economic welfare. It is to conserve this that he would put the government into the hands of the most capable,^ and, in any event, the artisans are not to be held in sub- jection so much by external force as by their own free self-restraint.'' This, in itself, is sufficient evidence that Plato intended to include the third class in his lower scheme of education, a fact borne out also by other passages.^ It must be admitted that a somewhat different spirit pervades the Laws, where he seems to have despaired of the lofty ideal of the Republic. He relegates the working classes to non-citizenship. But here, also, he is still anxious that they shall have the sort of education that befits their station,' and that justice be done them.'" (He also provides against the existence of beggary in the state.'*) Whatever may be said of his aristocratic spirit, therefore, he cannot be justly accused of the gross indifference of the early nineteenth- century economy and of modern capitalism toward either masses or public, in their concern for material wealth." Mi6A-B,4i7B. ' 4isA, introducing the alleged aristocratic myth. 3 463B, 417B, 416A, S47C. " 431E-432A, 443E, 423D. 5 421C-E, cited on p. 48, n. 8. Cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., 11, 91. 6590C. 7 43iD-E,434C. *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. »643B-C. "847B,92iC-D. " 936B-C. " Mill is an exception, but despite his thoroughgoing definitions of economics. PLATO 51 COMMUNISTIC AND SOCIALISTIC IDEAS The Greek theory of distribution was employed chiefly in the criticism of the institution of private property, and in the sug- gestion of more or less communistic systems to succeed it. This tendency, however, was not like the modern either in motive or in general type. Modern socialism aims to be scientific, and pro- fesses to build a scientific system on a basis of economic laws. Greek sociaHsm had no such aim. It did not lay claim to any relation to economic law, but frankly presented itself for what it was, a politico-moral sentiment. Other points of distinction will be observed as we proceed, but this primary one must not be overlooked, if either the spirit or the meaning of the Greek social theory is to be understood. Two considerations made the communistic sentiment a normal one to the Greek democrat, (a) The institution of private property had not become so thoroughly imbedded in the very foundations of society as it has today. The custom of family tenure was not entirely forgotten, and in some backlying districts may well have been still in vogue.^ In some states, also, a part of the land was probably still held in common by the citizenship. The frequent establishment of cleruchies in conquered territories, in which the land was regularly assigned by lot, and the ever-recurring revo- lutions, which usually resulted in confiscation of the land in favor of the victorious party, must have assisted materially in unsetthng the confidence of the Greeks in private property as a basal insti- tution of society. The actual existence of a polity Kke that of Sparta, where private ownership does not seem to have been so absolute,^ doubtless also exerted its influence on the imagination of Greek thinkers, (b) As is generally recognized, the Greek, far more than the modern, took for granted the subordination of the individual citizen to the state. We have also seen that he tended to magnify the power of legislation as sufficient to encompass any reform, even in the face of economic laws. To him, therefore, the ' Cf. Ar. Pol. ii. 1266617-24. 'On the Spartan system, cf. Guiraud, La Prop, fane, pp. 41 f.; Poehlmann, op. ciL, I, 75-98, both of whom oppose the more extreme theory of communism in Sparta. 52 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT demand that the state be made the dispenser of private property did not seem unnatural.' We should be on our guard, however, against exaggerating the extent of this sentiment among the Greek writers, or against reading into them the modern socialistic doctrines. A consideration of the predecessors of Plato in social speculation may be conveniently introduced at this point, before we proceed to the discussion of the Republic. Some have thought to find traces of communism in Homer. The evidence of any real com- munism, however, is very slight, and the frankly individualistic spirit of the poems is against it. Moreover, this is a problem that concerns the economic conditions rather than the theory.^ Little is definitely known of Pythagoras and his school, but it is improb- able that he either taught or practiced a real communism.^ As for Hippodamas of Miletus, it is difficult to gain a clear idea of his ideal state from Aristotle's meager description,'' but it seems not to have been markedly socialistic. He divides his body of ten ' On this general subject, cf. Guiraud, La Prop, f one, 573 f.; cf. S. Cognetti de Martiis, Socialismo Antico (1889), pp. 515-17, on socialistic tendencies in Greek constitutions and politics. ^ E.g., Esmein, Nouvelle Revue historique, 1890, pp. 821 ff . For a refutation, cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., ist ed., pp. 20 ff.; Guiraud, op. cit., p. 37; Souchon, op. cit., PP- 135 f- 3 For a refutation of the common error, cf. Zeller, op. cit., I, i, 317, n. i, 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 Refiit. i. 2. 12; Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 20; Jamblichus De Pyth. vit. 30, 72, 168, 257, etc.; Photius, under KOivd) 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. i. 15, 39). The origin of the tradition has been plausibly assigned to a misunderstanding of the proverb Koiva rd tQv 745^- 8 74SA, 754D-E (which requires it only for the excess), 75SA. Espinas (op. cit., pp. 118 ff.) emphasizes the ascetic tendency of his regulations. 9 729A ff., 919B, 936B-C, against beggars. " 744B-E, and above notes. " Book VII. " 780B; women and children separate, 806E; on its Cretan origm, 625E fif. '3 846D, 847A, D, 919D, 806E. PLATO 6i not only in property, but also in birth, virtue, strength, and beauty, are bound to exist/ He would therefore have taxes and distri- butions unequal in the same ratio, so as to avoid dissatisfaction and dispute.^ The difficulties incident to such a scheme of legis- lation he would obviate by starting a new state in virgin soil.^ Souchon'' recognizes the Plato of the Laws as a true socialist, and points to his attempt to prevent all inequality, and to his extreme state intervention as characteristic elements of socialism. Plato certainly does approach nearer to a real socialism in the Laws than in the Republic. In addition to the points noted by Souchon, there may be observed the application of the system of equality to the whole citizenship, though at the cost of shutting out all the workers; the strong sense of the social function of property ;s the practical denial of real private ownership of land; the demand for publicity in business, which is one of the chief suggestions for the regulation of corporations today ;^ the active interest in the conservation of natural resources, which, while not socialistic, lies in the direction of greater social control ;7 and the fact that distribution of the products of industry is made practically a function of the state.^ The demand for equality and unity is also somewhat analogous to the modern socialistic hostility to competition, which Ruskin calls the ''law of death. "^ It may be ' 744B; cf. pp. 55 f. on equality; cf. 757B-D, contrasting the mere arithmetical equality (jy]v apidnQi ta-qv), which is easily realized, and the true equality.which is very difficult. This latter apportions to each in accord with his nature (irphs t^v l\wv, 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. CHAPTER IV XENOPHON Xenophon was a man of affairs, whose interests touched the practical Hfe of the world on many sides, as is evidenced by the broad scope of his extant works. He was also, however, a pupil of Socrates. In his economic thought, therefore, he vacillates between the positive interest of the practical economist and the negative criticism of the Socratics.^ On the whole, his practical bent dominates, and is especially exhibited in his essay on the Revenues of Athens j^ as also in the fact that he was the first writer to produce a work devoted entirely to economics .^ The spirit of the moral philosopher, on the other hand, is prominent wherever the influence of Socrates is felt, as in the first chapters of the Economicus and in the Memorabilia. When the Socratic ideal dominates, he, in common with other Greek thinkers, confuses economics with ethics, and private with public economy.'' He makes the science of economy deal with the management of pri- vate estates,^ and beheves with Plato and Ruskin that the same qualities are necessary for the successful handling of the affairs of either house or state .^ ' We shall not try to distinguish between the actual ideas of Xenophon and those which he reports objectively as Socratic. =■ On the Xenophontine authorship of the Revenues, cf. Croiset, op. cit., IV, 393 and notes; Christ, Griechische Liter atur-Geschichte, 4th ed., pp. 367 f. and notes. Other authorities are cited there. 3 The oiKOPOfUKds, at least, the first extant, devoted to private economy, and especially agriculture, but revealing a practical interest in the details of the production of wealth. Cf. infra for further discussion of Economica in Greek literature. 4 For some qualifications, cf. above. Introduction. ^ Econ. i. 2: oIkov6im)v dyodov elvai oiKeTv rhv eavrov oIkov, cf. 3: "rbv S,X\ov d^ oJkov. oJkov is used of one's entire property (5). ^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], m) contrasts Xenophon, to whom the royal administration is a greatly expanded private economy, with Plato's absorption of all private economy by the state. 63 64 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT VALTJE Xenophon insists strongly on utility or serviceableness as a necessary quality of property {xp'^txara, KTrjiiara). By this, however, he means primarily, not potential utility in the object, but ability of the owner to use rightly.^ Even exchangeability does not insure value in anything, unless the seller can use to advantage that which he receives in return.^ This idea of value is true enough from the ethical standpoint, and should not be left out of account, as is being recognized by modern economists. But to attempt to build a theory of economic value on such a basis, as Ruskin does,^ would result in hopeless confusion. Value is not merely an individual and moral, but also a social and economic, fact. A hint of exchange value is given in the impHed classification of goods as usable or salable.'' But there is no discrimination between useful things in the economic and uneconomic sense. In the Revenues, on the other hand, when free from Socratic influence, Xenophon makes a positive contribution to the theory of value. He observes that the exchange value of goods varies with supply and demand, and that this law is, in a sense, self-regulative by the ^ Econ. i. 7-15; cf. 10: tovtA dpa 6vTa rtfi fj.iv iiri 5' ivSfu^ov rb fikv /xrjdevtis dei^dai OeTov eTvai. If meant in the economic sense, this would approach a definition of capital, as "excess of goods over needs." ' Cf. p. 25, n. II, on the similar modem doctrine. * Symp. iii. 8 and iv. 34-44, given as the doctrine of Antisthenes, the Cynic, though with apparent approval; Mem. iv. 2. 9. » Econ. xi. 9. 66 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT is not consistent Avith justice, is not emphasized by Xenophon. He calls that man happiest who has best succeeded in just acquisi- tion, and who uses his wealth in the best manner.^ PRODUCTION The Greeks had no specific word for production, as we have, since industry, though well developed, was not a dominant feature of Greek Hfe, and economics had not become a separate science. The word ipyaala, meaning "labor" or "business," served the purpose. The term was used of productive labor,^ of building or manufacturing,^ of work in raw materials,'' most commonly of agriculture,^ of industries in general,^ of the trades, commerce, or other business for money-making,' and of a guild of laborers.^ The term 17 ttoit^ti/ci) rix^rj, "the productive art," which approaches more nearly to a specific, technical expression, was also used.' Thus, though there is no clear-cut term for production, the state- ment of Zimmem'" that the Greeks had no better word for "busi- ness" than diwv. "Op. cit., ist ed., p. 55. " £coM., especially chaps, v-vii; iv. 4; Mem. ii. i. 6; Econ. v. 17: e5 fj.^v y6,p 83; vDv 5^ irXtlovs eialv oi a-iravl^ovrei tQp ix^^''''^^^ 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. THE ORATORS-DEMOSTHENES; ISOCRATES 79 But despite this moraHzing tendency, he agrees with the other orators in appreciating highly the economic importance of the manual arts.^ He points also, with apparent pride, to the exten- sive commerce of Athens as compared with, that of other states,^ and one of his chief arguments for peace is that thereby the city will be filled with merchants and strangers and metics.^ This entire plea for peace, which he bases so largely on economic advan- tage, has a decidedly modern ring. He understood well the impor- tance of industrial development in the general prosperity of a democracy. In almost AristoteHan language, he pictures how in the good old days the rich were accustomed to give the poor a start in business (d0opMi7), either in agriculture, trade, or the arts/ This positive economic interest is further evidenced by his emphasis upon the increased skill that results from the appHcation of the division of labor .^ Isocrates, hke Plato, was especially opposed to civic strife and the extreme individuaUstic communism that demanded a redivision of lands and abohtion of debts.^ In the ideal past of his dreams, there were no extremes of wealth and poverty, private property was safe, and revolutions did not rend the state. Now, on the other hand, all is changed. Sparta is the only state that has not been torn by the bitter party strife.^ He contrasts the high regard in which the wealthy were held in his boyhood with the present jealous discontent. To be known as a wealthy man now is ahnost equivalent to being considered criminal and is a thing for which to apologize.^ This attitude toward the rich, of which Isocrates complains, is significant in the Hght of similar tendencies in our own democracy today. Again, in agreement with Plato and Aristotle, Isocrates opposes the doctrine of mere arithmetical equahty, and insists that the true ' Paneg. 29, 33, 40; Areop. 74. But cf. Panath. 29 for a hint of prejudice against them. 2 Panes 42. ^ Peace 20 f. ^ Areop. 32 f.; cf. infra, p. 97, n. 6, for a fuUer mterpretation of Aristotle's pas- sage; cf. Letter to Timoth. 3; Areop. 44- sBousiris 16. ^Areop. 35- T Panath. 259; Paneg. 79; cf. also citations on poverty, above. ^Or. 15. 159 f. 8o GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT equality apportions to each what befits his capacity.^ But though he is hostile to the crasser type of communism, he makes the chief characteristic of the ideal past a noble community feeling and spirit of co-operation. In that happy time, the common weal was first in the thought of all, each had regard for others' interests, the poor were not jealous of the rich, and the rich assisted the poor/ At times, he even approaches the modern humanitarian sentiment for the submerged classes. He defines true national prosperity as a condition in which no citizen is lacking the means of liveHhood,^ and thinks the poor might well be pardoned for their indifference to public welfare, in their anxiety over the daily means of sub- sistence.'' He also states the somewhat sociaHstic principle so emphasized by Plato, that the character of the state will be hke that of the ruler.^ ^ Areop. 21 i. ^ Areop. 35: 0,1 Si xPV'^^'-^ Koivai; 31 f., 51; for further mention of these ideal- izations of ancient Athens and Sparta, cf. infra, p. 143, n. 8. 3Areop. 53. * Ibid. 83: oirhBtv rijv del vapovcrav ijfiipav Sid^ovffiv. s Cont. Nicocl. 31: Sri t6 ttjs 7r6Xewj SXtjs ^dos o/wiovrai. rots &pxovdbvov, olov xpvahi ffid'^pov Axpriffrbrepos &v iWov 5i Tpbirov re icpdovov rov ffvavlov, 5ti t} XP^<^" virep^xei • rb yap TroWdxts rov 6\i'ydKi<: inrepix^i ■ Mev Xiyerai Hpurrov fi^y v8up. Cf. Pind. 01. i. i and Cope-Sandys ed. of Ar, Rhet. (I, pp. 130 f., 1877). => Ibid. 3 V, V. 8-14. 1 133^5-1 133&10 ff- " E.g., Stewart. 5 113305-12; IS f.; 18; cf. Eud. Eth. vii. 10. 1243&28-38. ^ N. Eth. 113305-12, etc., 12 f.: oiOkv yap KwXi/et Kpetrrov ehai to Oaripov epyov fj rb ear4pov. The emphasis seems to be on quality of labor, as suggested by Kpeirrov. Cf. both liTitactical grind to prepare teachers to pursue the same folly is no more one of the humanities than is industrial chemistry.'* Furthermore, Aristotle and Plato are doubtless right in their belief that a necessary extreme application to physical labor to earn the daily bread inevitably prevents mental and moral development and the proper performance of the duties of citizenship. And our modem democracies with their boasts of universal suffrage are still something of a farce, as long as economic conditions are such that the mass of the population has left no time to think of any- thing, except how to provide the bare physical necessities. Aris- totle's insistence upon leisure for the Hfe of the citizen is no demand for aristocratic indolence.^ Neither is it Jowett's "condition of a gentleman," or merely the idealized notion of an "internal state" in which "the intellect, free from the cares of practical life, energizes or reposes in the consciousness of truth." It is rather a demand for release from material cares, so as to insure the highest degree of activity in self-development and political service.'' It may well be observed too, that Aristotle, the special champion of slavery, and reputed scorner of physical labor for freemen, exhibits a real interest in industry, in imguarded moments. One 'v(viii). 2. 1337615-22, especially 17 f.: 33-38. ^325031-33. 31258612-20. '• Rhet. ii. 4. 9. 1381a, where the word avrovpyol is used; cf. above on Euripides, s Cf. above on value, and N. Eth. v. 8-9. ii33a5-i8. ^ Pol. vii (vi). 6. 13200385.; cf. p. 92, n. 6. ' i. 12. 125961 ff. * 125261 ff.; cf. Adam's note to Rep. 370B; Susemihl and Hicks's note to Pol. 125263, for an exception to the rule {Depart. Anim. iv. 6. 11. 683022). aXV 6irov firj 9 Pol. ii. 1261030 f.; N. Eth. v, 5. ^^ Pol. 1261037-39; 1328611. Fontpertuis (. cz"^., p. 359) accounts for the com- parative superficiality of the Greek theory of labor by the fact that their political constitution diminished its importance, but cf. our introduction. Capitalistic employ- ment of free labor was probably not extensive. ARISTOTLE 97 SLAVERY We have seen that the references to slavery in Xenophon and Plato are incidental, and reveal a certain unconscious naivete as to the actual social problem involved. By Aristotle's day, how- ever, the criticisms of the Sophists had shaken the foundations of all traditional institutions, and their thesis that slavery is con- trary to nature had become through the Cynics a prominent social theory/ The thought on the subject had crystallized into two leading doctrines — one including benevolence in justice, and hence denying the right of slavery; and the other identifying justice with the rule of the stronger, and hence upholding slavery as based on mere force.^ The practical Aristotle, an upholder of slavery, not from tradition, but through conscious belief in its economic necessity, thus takes his stand midway between the two opposing theories. He champions the old view of natural slavery, but rejects the basis of mere force for that of moraHty and benevolence.' His thesis is that slavery is a natural and necessary relation in human society, not accidental or conventional. The slave, being property, which is a multitude of instruments {opyavcov TrXrjdos), is an animate instrument {opyavov efirpvxov) conducive to Kfe (jpds ^o)r]v).'^ He is just as necessary to the best life of the citizen as are inanimate instruments, and will be, until all tools work auto- matically, Hke the mythical figures of Daedalus or the tripods of Hephaestus.^ The slave is a servant in the realm of action (irpa^Ls) , not of production (irolrjcns) . He is not a producer of commodities ' Cf. above, p. i6, n. 6; p. 17, n. i. ^ 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. 1253620-23. Barker {pp. 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 suprem- acy, by which Greek freemen had become slaves and Greek slaves had become free. Cf. Pol. i255(Z ff., especialty 17 f. and 21-23, for the two theories. 3 The locus classicus for his theory is Pol. i. 4-7. 12535145.; 13. 12596215. For good criticisms, cf . Wallon, Histoire de Vesclavage dans Vantiquite, 2d ed., pp. 372 ff.; and Barker, op. cit., i. Cf. also Newman, op. cit., I, 143 ff. * Pol. i. 8. 1256636; 1253632. 5 Ibid. 33-39. Aristotle would have been satisfied with electricity. 98 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT (ttoitjtikos) , but of services (irpaKTLKos),^ and just as property is merely a part or member (jxbpLov) belonging wholly to something else, so the slave, as property, belongs entirely to his master, and has no true existence apart from him.^ From these facts, the whole nature and power of the slave are evident. One who, though a human being, is merely property is a natural slave, since he is naturally not his own master, but belongs to another, in whom he finds his true being.^ As Barker has observed, this con- clusion of the first part of Aristotle's argument is inevitable if we admit his premises of the identity of "instruments" and property, but this is an unreal identity/ "Natural" (cf>vaei) is the saving word in his argument, but "human" {avBpoiiros) refutes it, as the philosopher practically admits later. He now proceeds to ask the question whether this "natural" slave of his hypothesis actually exists, for whom such a relation is just, or whether all slavery is contrary to nature, as some allege. He answers in the affirmative. The principle of rule and subjec- tion he declares to be a foundation law of all fife.' Men are con- stituted for either condition from birth, and their development follows this natural bent.^ This law may be observed in inanimate things,' in the natural subordinate relation of the body to the soul, of domestic animals to man, of female to male, of child to parent, and of subjects to rulers.* Thus all who are capable only of physical service hold the same relation to higher natures as the body holds to the soul, and are slaves by nature.' This is the only relation for which the slave is naturally fitted, since he can appre- hend reason without himself possessing it, being midway between animals and truly rational men.^° Usually also nature differen- ' 125408, 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 indus- try is manned by slaves. Cf. iv (vii). 1330025-31. ^ Pol. 125409-13; cf. Eud. Eth. 1241617-24. 31254013-17. '<0/>. «7., p. 362, 5 1254028-31; 1254615. As Wallon {op. cit., p. 391) points out, his radical error is a constant confusion of hypothesis with reality. ^ * 1254023-24. ^Ibid.ssf. ^Ibid. 30-40; 1254&10-13; 1253&7; 18 f., cf. End. Eth. 1241J17 ff. 91254616-19. ^'' Ibid. 20-26. ARISTOTLE 99 tiates both the bodies and the souls of freemen and slaves, suiting them to their respective spheres and functions.^ This relation of slavery, Aristotle argues, is not only natural and necessary, but also beneficial for those who are so constituted.^ Just as the body is benefited by the rule of the soul, and domestic animals by the rule of man, so it is distinctly to the advantage of the "natural slave" to be ruled by a rational master. This is universally true, wherever one class of persons is as inferior to another as is the body to the soul.^ The philosopher's frank admissions, in which he opposes the doctrine that slavery is founded on mere force, are fatal to his first argument on the natural slave. He admits that nature does not always consummate her purpose; that the souls of freemen are sometimes found in the bodies of slaves, and vice versa;'' that it is difficult to distinguish the quahty of the soul, in any event ;5 that the claim that slavery is neither natural nor beneficial has in it a modicum of truth, as there are sometimes merely legal slaves, or slaves by convention f that slavery based on mere might without virtue is unjust;^ that captives of war may be wrongly enslaved;^ that only those who actually deserve it, should meet this fate;' that the accidents of Hfe may bring even the noblest of mankind into slavery;"* and that only non- Greeks are ignoble and worthy of it." He even insists that the terms "slave-master," "freeman," "slave," when rightly used, imply a certain virtue or the lack of it, and therefore that to be justly a master, one must be morally ' Ibid. 26 S. ' 1254021 f. 3 1254&6-10; II f.; 16-20; 125566-15; 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. " 1254&32-34; 125565 ff. 5 1254638 f. "^ Ihid. 19-21 and next note. '125503-7. ^Ibid.24i. ^ Ibid. 25 f. : Kal rbv dvd^iov Soi/Xei^etv ovdafiQs &v fi^o\ov rijs iWayrjs) it is a medium of exchange and a measure of value (Rep. 371B; Laws 742A-B, 918B). ^ V. 8. 1133018-1133628. ^1133029. ^Ibid.$-ig; 25; 27 f.; ii33iio,etc. " 1133019-22, 25 f.; 1133616; 22; ix. 116401 f.; Pol. i2sSbi-s, fiera^oX^i x^P**"' 12570305. Stewart (op. cit., I, 416 ff.) thinks that the author meant to apply the corrective (diopduriKdv) function of justice also to money, in that it makes exchange more fair and uniform. As evidence, he points to N. Eth. 113 10 18 jEf. and 1 133019-22, 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 dis- tribution. ARISTOTLE 103 The other important function of money recognized is as a guar- anty (iy'Yvr]Tr]s) of future exchange. It represents the abiding, rather than the temporary, need, and is thus a standard of deferred payments.^ The importance of money in the fulfihnent of these functions is great, in the opinion of Aristotle. The possibility of fair exchange, or indeed the very existence of organized society depends upon it.^ He is also clearer than Plato and Xenophon in his definition of the relation between money and wealth. He severely criticizes the current mercantilistic theory of his day, which identified wealth with a quantity of current coin {voiuayLaros ttXtjOos).^ He immediately follows this, however, with a more extended pres- entation of the opposite error of the Cynics, that money is mere trash (Xrjpos), depending for its value entirely upon convention {vofjicc). This theory, he points out, is based on the fact that, if money ceased to be recognized as legal tender, it would be useless; that it satisfies no direct necessity; and that one might starve like Midas, though possessed of it in superabundance."* Aristotle is here somewhat ambiguous as to his own attitude toward this doctrine. He fails to object that money does not necessarily become valueless when it ceases to be legal tender, and that a similar argument might be used to prove that clothing is not wealth. Instead, he uses the idea as a means of refuting the opposite error, which is more obnoxious to him, and on the basis of it he plunges into his discussion of the true and false finance^ This, together with a passage in the Ethics, might point to the con- clusion that he agreed with the doctrine of the Cynics on money. He states that it was introduced by agreement (/card (xvvdriKrjp); that, owing to this, it is called vbixtaixa, because its value is not natural but legal ; and that it may, at any time, be changed or made ' 1133610-13. ' Ibid. 15-18: oi/re 7d/3 hv fii] oiari^ dX\o7'^s KOivwviafiv, etc. ^Pol. I2S7&8 f. 4 1257610-18; 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. 5 1257&19 ff.; cf. the transitional sentence, 18, a slight hint that he acceDts the theory. I04 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT useless.^ In the light of other evidence, however, it seems probable that he here meant to emphasize merely the fact that the general agreement of a community is necessary before anything can be used as a symbol of demand. In stating that it may be made useless, he probably referred to money itself, rather than the material of it, which is, of course, true. His determined oppo- sition to the mercantile theory of money, as the basis of false finance, caused him to appear to subscribe to the opposite error. That, in actual fact, he did recognize the necessity of intrinsic value as an attribute of money is clearly evidenced by another passage, where he specifies it. He says that the material chosen as money was a commodity and easy to handle.^ This can mean only that it is subject to demand and supply, like any other object of exchange. This inference is substantiated by another passage, which declares that the value of money fluctuates, like that of other things, only not in the same degree.^ Moreover, in his enumeration of the diverse kinds of wealth, money is regularly included.'* It seems evident, therefore, that he did not fall a victim of either error, but recognized that, though money is only representative wealth, yet it is itself a commodity, whose value changes with supply and demand, Hke other goods.^ Since he understood the use of money as a standard of deferred payments, he also saw clearly the necessity of a stable monetary standard.^ Though Aristotle defines money as representative wealth, like Plato, he fails to apprehend its meaning as representative, and therefore productive capital.' In his eyes, such a use of money is ^ N. Elh. V. 5. ii33fl29-3i; cf. ii33J2of., i^ ywoWcrews; cf. infra, where the psendo-Economica takes it for granted. = Pol. i2S7a36 f., cited on p. 102. 3 N. Eth. V. 5. 1 1336 13 f.: ov ykp ad taov Svvarai • 8/xui di ^ovXerai ixiveiv fiaXKov. " Cf. p. 86, n. I, for passages. 5 Blanqui {op. ciL, pp. 36, 88), Ingram {op. cit., p. 18), DuBois {op. cit., p. 51 and n. i), 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. 1 10 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. *Cf. N. Elh. V. 5. ii33Z»i3f. T Pol. 125765-8, and the whole of 12575; 125861-5. ARISTOTLE 105 unjust and contrary to nature. He counts usury (roKicrjuos) to be a large part of that false finance, which turns money from its true function to be made an object of traffic/ Those who lend small sums at a high rate of interest are contemptible.^ and petty usury (17 o^oKoffTarLKr]) is the most unnatural and violent form of chrematistik, since it makes money reproduce money .^ It is to be observed, however, that his criticism is directed chiefly against petty interest, and that he does not appear to be thinking of "heavy loans on the security of a whole cargo, but of petty lendings to the necessitous poor, at heavy interest."'' Though his entire account of false finance exhibits an animus against the precious metals, as its basal cause, and as the source of indi- vidual and national degeneration ,s yet he clearly appreciates their necessary function in the state, and his hostihty is actually directed against the spirit of commercialism. Money, the means, has usurped the place of the end, until domestic and public economy alike have come to mean only the vulgar art of acquisition.^ The usual explanation of the fact that the Greek theorists failed to grasp the fact of the productive power of money is that loans were almost entirely for consumption, and hence seemed like an oppression of the poor."' This explanation, however, does not accord with the facts of Athenian life, at least for Aristotle's day. It is clear from the Private Orations of Demosthenes that there did exist an extensive banking and credit system for productive ' 1258625. = N. Eth. 1 1 21634: KoL roKKTTal Kara /xt/cpd Koi iirl iroWip. Cf. Zell's translation. 3 Pol. 1 2586 1-8; 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. 4 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. sPol. 1257655. * Ibid. 33 ff.; for further discussion of chrematistik, cf. infra. 1 Cf. Haney, op. cit., p. 49: "In Athens, the circulation of capital was inconsider- able, and money was not lent for productive purposes as often as for the purpose of reheving distress"; Souchon, op. cit., p. 93, though (pp. 106 f.) he recognizes the other side. io6 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT purposes in the Athens of his time.^ Moreover, the hostility to interest and credit was not the rule, but the exception, for Demos- thenes and not the philosophers should be accepted as voicing pubHc opinion on this point. He considered credit to be of as much importance as money itself in the business world,^ and declared one who ignored this elementary fact to be a mere know- nothing.3 Indeed, the money-lenders were, to him, the very foundation of the prosperity of the state.'' The prejudice of Plato and Aristotle represent merely the exceptional attitude of the pure moraHst, who because of the questionable tactics of m^oney- lenders, and the injustice and greed in some phases of contemporary business Hfe, became critics of all money-making operations.^ EXCHANGE Aristotle, in both the Politics and the Ethics, deals at con- siderable length with the subject of exchange.^ He states that it arose out of the natural situation (Kara 4)vat.v) and defines this as "the fact that men had more of some commodities and less of others than they needed. "^ At first, all exchange was by barter (dXXa7i7) and there was no trading except for specific need.^ The development of an international commerce of import and export was made possible by the invention of money. It is this significant fact that furnishes the fine of division between the old natural ' Cf. Paley and Sandys ed., especially Or. xxxvi; Isoc. Trapeziticus; Boeckh, op. cit., I, i6off.; V. Brants, "Les operations de banque dans la Grece antique," Le Museon, I, 2, 196-203; Koutorga, Le trapezites, (Paris, 1859); cf. also E. Meyer, Kleine Schriflen. ^ Or. XX. 25. ■3 Or. xxxvi, 44: «' Si toGt'' dyvoeis, 8ti vLcttis aopy.ri tQv vacrQiv ijrl fieylffTi] Trpbs XpillJ^TLffixbv, Trap Ay dyvo'jfiffeias. ^Ibid. 57 ff. s Cf. p. 105, n. 7, on Souchon; E. Boehm von Bawerk {Capital und Capitalzins, [1900] I, 17 f. says: "Die Geschaftsleute und Praktiker standen sicher auf der zins- freundlichen 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 super- fluous, and to oppose it was useless. Poehlmann exaggerates both the degree of credit operations, and the prejudice of Aristotle. * For the Greek terms, cf. p. 40. T Pol. 1257015-17 ^ Ibid. 22-28; N. Eth. v. 5. 1133626-28. ARISTOTLE 107 economy and the era of commerce and finance, when exchange and money have become the tools for unlimited individual enrich- ment.^ His theory of exchange and just price grows out of his appH- cation to exchange of his definition of corrective justice, as a mean between two extremes of injustice.^ Trade is just when each party to it has the exact equivalent {laov) in value with which he began. Exchange is a mean between profit and loss, which themselves have no proper relation to its true purpose. ^ This does not mean that the traders must receive the same in return (to avTtTrerrovdds Kar' 'uroTTjTa), but an equivalent, or proportional requital (to avTi- T€Trovd6s Kar' d;'aXo7tai') .'' It is this fact of proportional requital that makes exchange, and indeed human society, possible.^ The meaning is illustrated by a proportion in which the producers bear the same relation to each other as their products.^ By joining means and extremes, the exchangers are brought to a basis of pro- portional equahty (to KaTO. ttjv avdXoyiav laov).'' Thus is deter- mined how many shoes, the shoemaker's product, must be given for a house, the builder's product, and the prices of the two commodi- ties are justly settled, with relation to each other.^ It is very necessary for just exchange, that such proportional equality be effected before the requital or actual transfer takes place. Other- wise one will gain both superiorities (dju^orepas ras vTrepoxa-s), and ^ Pol. 12570305. These two periods of oiKovofxiK-fi and xP'niJ^'''t. 369C, 370B; Ar. Po/. 1261022 for a similar idea. Stewart {op. cit., I, 464 f.), following Jackson, interprets, on the basis of 1132033, 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. 3 1133015 f.: dvTipovvTo yap &v, el /jlt] <5> iwolei rh ttoiovv ko.! 6(rov Kal olov, Kal rb TrdtTxeivfTfaffxtrovTOKaiTocrovTovKalToiovTov. 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 fif.) thinks it is an interpolation or note, referring merely to the mechanical fact in the arts that material is receptive to the impression. •* 1133018 f.; 25-28; 113356-8; 19 f.; d. Rep. 2>6()C. ' 5 1 133019-29; cf. Stewart's excellent comments, op. cit., I, 459 ff. * 1133&14-16; 20-22: Todro yap iravra Troiei avufiirpa; e.g., if a house is equal to five minae and a bed is worth one, five beds equal one house (23-26). ' Handworterbuch der Staatswwissenschajl, art. "Geld," 2d ed., Bd. IV, 82 f. ARISTOTLE 109 trary, men trade only when they expect to better their economic condition. ''Um ihres economischen Vortheils willen, nicht um gleiches gegen gleiches hinzugeben; sondern um ihre Bediirfnisse so vollstandig als unter den gegebenen Verhaltnissen dies zulassig ist zu befriedigen." Each gives the other only so much of his own goods as is necessary to secure this end, and it is this competition in open market that fixes prices. Barker^ also criticizes Aristotle on the ground that he takes no account of demand in his theory of just price. He states that if the cost of production were the only element to be considered, the doctrine might be correct, but with the entrance of demand, one may buy at a low price and sell at an advance without injustice. Of course, the bald theory that, in exchange, one necessarily loses what the other gains, is untenable. Yet there is still some- thing to be said for Aristotle. He recognized, as well as Menger, that exchange, as pursued by the retailers, did not square with his idea of just price. This is the very reason why he objects to retail trade. He is presenting exchange, not as it is, but as he believes it should be pursued. His doctrine, in a nutshell, is that the pri- mary purpose of exchange is profit, defined as economic satisfaction of mutual needs, not profit in dollars and cents. The equality that he seeks, too, is not so much an equality of value in obols and drachmas, but that each shall receive an equal quantum of eco- nomic satisfaction. This is the true standpoint at bottom, and when, as is common, the mere purpose of money-making domi- nates in the pursuit of exchange, the profit is too often at the expense of the other party. Such exchange certainly does not mean economic advance or general prosperity. It merely makes possible an increase in the inequalities of wealth and poverty. There is much of fallacy in the prevalent idea that business neces- sarily increases the wealth of a state. Ruskin, though Kke Aris- totle extreme and one-sided in his view, struck at the root of this error. He also declared that the result of exchange should be advantage, not profit, and repudiated the idea that the mere fact that goods change hands necessarily means general enrichment.^ ' Op. ciL, p. 384. ' Cf. citations above, p. 42, n. 7, and p. 44, n. 2. Cf. DuBois, op. ciL, p. 46. no GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT The central truth in their protest needed to be spoken, though both erred in not sufficiently recognizing that the labor involved in exchange creates an added time and place value, and therefore has a right to be called productive. They also failed to observe the fact of the necessary risk involved in the business of exchange, which should be repaid with a fair additional profit. For the cornering of markets and the manipulation of prices, for the sake of individual enrichment, modem economists and statesmen, with Aristotle and Ruskin, are fast coming to have only words of protest. Moreover, contrary to Barker's assertion, demand, as an ele- ment of price, is prominent throughout this discussion of Aristotle. He objects, however, to allowing the effect of demand to overcome unduly the cost of production, thus causing inequality and injustice. According to his idea, each receives the equivalent in value of what he gives, in the sense that it is a resultant of the proportionate influence of both cost and need.' We may, nevertheless, observe an excellent example of inconsistency in the fact that, despite his insistence upon just exchange, he appears to treat monopoly as a legitimate principle of finance for both men and states,* though his intention in the passage may have been to discuss actual con- ditions, rather than to ideahze. Naturally, the philosopher shows no concern for a tax on imports as a means of building up the industry and commerce of his state, since he is especially desirous of limiting both. How- ever, he is not blind to the advantages of export and import trade for a nation ,3 but would regulate them with an ethical, rather than an economic purpose.'' His doctrine of exchange as a form of production has been discussed above, ^ and will be touched upon further in the following pages. His general criticism of what he terms ''false finance" or " chrematistik " {xpntJ^o-rKXTiKri) remains for more extended treatment. We have seen that he recognizes the necessity of a hmited form of exchange, free from the purpose of gain, and considers such ' Cf. Haney, op. ciL, p. 48. ^ Pol. 125902 f.; 33-35. ^iy (vii). 6. 1327025-30. ^ Rhet. i. 4. 7 : irepl tQiv eiffayoij.ivun' Kai i^ayo/xivuv, as among the subjects for a statesman's consideration; cf. also 11. 5 Pp. 89 and notes. ARISTOTLE ill trading to be natural and in accord with that interdependence which nature demands/ He calls it the very bond of the social organization,* and even considers international commerce to be necessary for the prosperity of a state. ^ We have also seen that he goes so far as to advise the rich in a democracy to give the poor a start in business/ but that exchange, in its prevalent form, is to him a method of cheatery, in which one gains what the other loses.^ " On the basis of this prejudice, he builds his argument for domestic economy (oUoponLKr)) as opposed to false finance.*^ We will therefore consider his entire theory of this relation at this point, for the term "chrematistik," though more inclusive than exchange (iieTa^XrjTLKr]) , has trade in either goods or money (/caTny- Xlkt}) as its predominating element, and the two terms are often used by him as synonyms. He employs the word xP'JMaTto'TtKi; in several significations — usually of unnatural finance, or the art of money-making by exchange of goods or money; sometimes as synonymous with KTTjn/ciy, the general term for the entire business of acquisition, including both natural and unnatural finance ;7 again, of the natural finance, which is a part of domestic economy. His confusion results partly from his futile attempt to separate landed property from general industry and commerce. His main contention is that there is a vital distinction between domestic economy, whether of householder (ot/cow/xos) or states- man, and the art of acquisition or finance, as usually pursued. ^Pol. 1257528-30; vi (iv). 4. 129104-6; I29i5i9f.; vii (vi).;. i32ia6, 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, 1328^24 ff.; 5 ff.; cf. also 13290402?. Of course the citizens are not to engage in it (1328&37 ff.). ' N. Eth. V. 8. 1132&4 f.; 1133027; all of chap. 8; cf. above, on just exchange. 3 Pol. iv (vii). 6. 1327025-28. ^ vii (vi). 5. 1320039: d(popiJ.riv ifiiroplas. Cf. p. 96. s Cf . discussion above of just exchange. ' Pol. i. chaps. 8-1 1. 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. "> Pol. 1 25601 1 f . ; cf . p. 40 on Plato's terms for trade. For the word xRVfJ^arurriKr^, cf. Rep. 415E, contrasted to soldiers; Gorg. 477E, the art that frees from poverty; 45 2C; Euthyd. 304C, of the Sophists; Xen. Econ. ii. 18, where no prejudice is implied. 112 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT The primary function of the art of finance is to provide, while that of domestic economy is to use what is provided/ There are, however, many methods of acquisition (/crryri/cT;; xP^Maricrn/CT;), some of which truly belong to the sphere of domestic economy.^ The provision of all that is furnished by nature herself, as neces- sary to human existence, then, if not already at hand (vrapx^t-v) , belongs properly to domestic economy.^ It both uses and pro- vides genuine wealth, such as is limited in amount {ovk aTretpos) yet sufficient for independence {avTapKeia) and the good hfe.'* But the use of such wealth is its chief business.^ The other kind of acquisition, which is unHmited, or chrematistik, is contrary to nature, and is not in the province of domestic economy."^ This unnatural finance, since it deals chiefly in the exchange of money and other commodities, may be termed retail trade (/caTrr/Xt/cT;) J Though itself false, it is a logical outgrowth (Kara \byov) of the true form of exchange that is limited to actual needs^ as a result of the invention of money.' But the real reason for its pursuit is to satisfy an evil and unlimited desire for material things." It produces money merely through the exchange of money (Sict XPVl^o.TCOp ju€Ta/3oX^s," and its beginning and end is unHmited currency." ' Pol. i. 8. 1256010-12; but cf. N. Eth. i. i. 109409: riKos oIkovohikti^ Sk tXoOtos; and Pol. iii. 4. 1277624 f.: iirel koX oUovoula er^pa a.v5p6i Kal yvvaiKbv rod fikv yAp KTaffdai Tfjs 5k opTr]yia), and shop-trade, {irapaaTacns).^ It also comprises usury {toklcixos) and liired labor, both skilled and unskilled {jiiadapvla rj p.ev T(hv ^avaixroiv rex^oiP ij be drexv^v).^'^ Aristotle also distinguishes a third type of finance {xpwo-- TiCTLKT}) which shares in the nature of both those above described. It deals with natural resources and their products, but with things ' Ibid. 35 f. The two uses overlap (^iraXXdrret). ''Ibid. 36-39. 3 I2s8ai6-i8. *Ibid. 19 ff. The other function is secondary {vireperiKri). ^Ibid. 39 f. . * Ibid. 37 f. 7 1258&12-21. ^ Ibid. I f.; cf. 1256040 ff., where nainiXela is opposed to avr6(pvTov exov(7i tt/i' ipya(rlav. ' 1258520-23. " Ibid. 25-27. This contrasted yet overlapping relation between the two kinds of finance is well represented by Haney, op. cit., 46, by two circles, as follows: Cf. also Ashley, op. cit., p. 340, for a synopsis of the divisions of KT-qriK-fj. 114 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT which, though useful, are not fruits (dKcipTrijua) , such as wood- cutting (vXoToula) and mining in all its branches (jucTaXXeurtKi?).^ The meaning may be best apprehended if, with Ashley,* we observe that oiKovoixiKT] is characterized, not only by direct acquisition of nature's products, but also by a personal use of the same, while the unnatural finance has neither of these qualities.' The medium kind, then, is Hke the former, in that it involves direct acquisition of natural resources, but like the latter, in that it does not acquire for directly personal use, but for exchange. It consists, therefore, not so much in the arts themselves, as in the exchange that is based on them. In the discussion of the so-called false finance, Aristotle thus reveals a markedly hostile attitude to any extensive development of exchange. The middleman is considered to be a parasite and necessarily degenerate by the very fact of his business.^ As seen above, his criticism was doubtless directed chiefly against the mean and dishonest spirit in the actual retail trade and money-loaning of his day."* Yet here also, just as in the Ethics passage above discussed, his prejudice blinds him to the fact that exchangers may be real producers, and that, after all, even the alleged false finance is not unlimited, but that it is distinctly bounded by economic demand.5 Still worse, he includes hired labor of every kind under unlimited acquisition, merely because it has some of the other qualities of that type of economy, though it certainly does not tend to unlimited enrichment even as much as agriculture.*^ How- ever, he should be given credit of being a forerunner of the modern ' 1258^27-33. ' Op. cit., pp. 333 ff., more satisfactory than Jowett's idea that the intermediate- ness 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 New- man'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, dfcdpirw;', wood-cutting, and mining are so prominent, if their relation to the thought is only incidental. 3 Pol. iv (vii). 1328639 ff.; 1327029-31. * This was a common Greek feeling (Dem. xxv. 46). 5 But he seems to recognize it elsewhere {N. Eth. v. 8). « Cf. DuBois, op. ciL, p. 48. ARISTOTLE "5 humanitarian economy, which insists that the final goal of all economics should be proper consumption, and that acquisition must be relegated to its true place as a means, the supreme end being human welfare.^ POPULATION Aristotle exhibits an interest in the problem of population in relation to subsistence in his criticism of Plato for limiting the amount of property and making it indivisible, while failing to provide against a too high birth-rate.^ He states the principle that, if property is to be limited, there must be a corresponding Hmitation on the increase of population,^ and that the let-alone policy must be followed by increased poverty." He therefore criticizes the Spartan law, for encouraging the largest possible families.5 It is evident, however, that, as in the case of Plato, his interest in the problem is prompted chiefly by a moral and political motive. It arises merely from his desire to hmit individual acquisition, in a small state, artificially constructed, and is to him in no sense a question of world food-supply.^ DISTRIBUTION In the Ethics passage discussed above,7 Aristotle approaches a scientific theory of distribution. He observes that just distri- bution will be a mean between two extremes of unfairness.^ UnHke some moderns, however, he reahzes that this will not mean equal shares for all. There must be the same ratio between the persons, or services, and the things.^ In the "mutual exchange of ' Cf. the entire criticism of chrematistik, and especially 12S7&40-42, the contrast between f^y and eC ^v. On this point, cf. above, pp. 109 f. and 87 ff. Zmavc {Zeit- schrift, etc., p. 52), rightly states that even Adam Smith made his economic theory a subordinate part of his practical philosophy. ^ An unfair criticism, as seen above. ^ 1265^6-12. i Pol. 1266&8-14; iv (vii). 1335622 ff. s 1270040 ff. * Cf . iv (vii). 4. 1326025-30, especially, tuv yovv 8oKovcrQv TroXiTeveadat koXws oidefilav opQuev odcrav dveifiivrjv irpbs rb TrX^dos. Cf. entire chapter. 'ii3o6ff.; cf. under value, money, and exchange. The terms are Stavo/x-i^ or i] rQ)v koivCjv diavo/j.^. * 1131011. 9 Ibid. 21 : Kal 7] avrr; (arai Iffdr-qs, oTs Kal iv oh. Cf. above, pp. 55 f. and 60 f., on Plato's idea of equality; cf. infra for further comments on Aristotle. ii6 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT services," the law must be proportional requital.^ In other words, each should receive an equivalent to what he contributes.^ Dis- tribution must thus proceed according to a certain standard of worth or desert (Kar' a^lav tlvcl).^ If the individuals are unequal, their shares cannot be equal, and it is a proUfic source of dispute, whenever equals receive unequal shares, or unequals receive equal.'' On the other hand, Aristotle recognizes that it is a difficult matter to determine this standard, by which just distribution is to proceed.^ At this point, again, he shows clearly that his paramount interest in the problem is not economic. He names four possible stand- ards — freedom, wealth, noble birth, and general excellence — all of which are distinctly poUtical in their reference.*^ Though he insists on a fair distribution of wealth to the citizens, he can hardly be said to exhibit as much interest in the welfare of the common people as does Plato. He had not a very ideal conception of human nature in general. He would have thought it not only impracticable, but undesirable to give his doctrine of leisure any extensive appHcation. As seen above, he includes all hired labor under false finance, and relegates all industry, including agriculture, to the slaves and strangers. The life of mechanic and commercial alike is to him ignoble.'' He advises that measures be taken to hold the workers in submission and obedience.^ His unfair criticism of Plato's Republic, however, on the ground that it fails to emphasize sufficiently the welfare of the parts of the state, and that it does not distinguish clearly enough the status of the commons, reveals a spirit that does not entirely disregard the masses.' His demand that no citizen shall lack subsistence," his ' 1132^32 f.; cf. pp. 107 ff. and notes for a more detailed discussion, and for Greek expressions. * 1131627-32: ij diavofiT] ((TTai Kard. rbv \6yov rbv avrbv 8virep ex°^'^'- ""pdj S.Wr]\a TO. eiffevexO^vra. Cf. Mag. mor. i. 33. 11936365. Stewart (op. cit., I, 432) says that the expression i) tQv koivQv diavofiri, must mean more than distribution by some cen- tral authority, for the most important form of it is the distribution of wealth, oper- ating under economic laws that regulate wages and profits. 3 1131^24-26. ^ Ibid.; Pol. iii. 1280^7 ff.; 1282623 ff. * Ibid. 22-24. For Plato, cf. pp. 55 f. ^ Cf. above, pp. 113, and 93 ff. on labor, s Ibid. 26-29. * -f^^- ^- 4- 126262 f, » 1264011-17; 36-38; 1264611-13, all discussed above under Plato. "iv (vii). 1 3 2964 1 ff. ARISTOTLE ii? « provision of the sussitia for all," his insistence that, in the market, mere economic self-interest shall not rule,^ and his emphasis on the importance of a strong middle class in the state,^ all show that, in the interest of the perpetuity of the state at least, he had some regard for the economic well-being of all classes. It would be wrong to infer from his suggestions for the aid of the masses in a democracy, that he would offer similar advice for the ideal state. Moreover, his chief emphasis in the passage is upon the idea of Mill, that mere hand-to-mouth help of the poor is wasteful, and that what is needed is to aid them to become economically inde- pendent.4 Nevertheless his suggestion does show that he saw clearly the relation that exists in a democracy between the eco- nomic condition of the masses and the stability of the state.s He says that the genuine friend of the people (oKv^ivw drjuoriKos) will see that the masses are not very poor, for the best assurance of the abiding welfare of the state is the solid prosperity of the great majority of the population. He therefore advises the rich to con- tribute money for furnishing plots of land or capital for small business enterprises to the needy poor.^ However, while the advice seems, on the surface, to favor the commons, it is really a prudent suggestion to the upper classes, appeahng to their selfish interest to avoid by this method the danger of a discontented pro- letariat."' Nevertheless, the general economic attitude of Aristotle would warrant including him, with the other Greek thinkers, in the statement of Roscher: "Die hellenische Volkswirtschaftslehre hat niemals den grossen Fehler begangen, uber dem Reichtume die Menschen zu vergessen, und tiber der Vermehrung der Men- schenzahl, der Wohlstand der einzelnen gering zu achten."^ ' 1271029-37; 1272012-21. ^ N. Eth. V. chaps. 4-5, discussed above. ' Pol vi (iv), 1295635 ff, ^v (vi). 1320033 ff.; cf. pp. 95 f.; cf. especially 35: Texyas iroXlras. 120 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT of material advantage brought men into social union and keep them in it."' Each citizen, he held, is not his own master, but all belong to the state. Each is a member {ixbpiov) of the social body, and the concern of each is naturally relative to the good of the whole.'' Aristotle's further criticisms, of minor significance, on the sugges- tions of Phaleas and Plato for equality of possessions are as follows : They have taken no precautions to regulate population accordingly .^ They set no proper limit between luxury and penury for individual possessions." Plato's system is not thoroughgoing, since it allows inequalities in personal property, a criticism also vaHd against his own proposals.^ Phaleas failed to include personal property in his system of equality.'' Such strictures seem to proceed from his pedantic desire to criticize inconsistency. However, he may have apprehended more clearly than did Plato the danger of the press of poverty that must eventually result from a system like that of the Laws J Our author is also strong in his denial of either the wisdom or feasibility of the communism in the Republic.^ He argues that Plato's proposed family communism is based upon the false prin- ciple that a state must be composed of Hke elements,' and shows that it must fail to accompHsh its end of harmony, for Plato's "all" must mean all collectively.'" But this must result, if real- ized, in a decrease of devotion," and thus in a lack of the very har- mony sought," since one of the chief sources of attachment in the world is exclusive ownership.'^ He would deem such a measure, • Op. cit., II, 304. 2 Pol. V (viii). I. 1337027-30, 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 (12956- 13 ff.), for he beheves with the author of Eud. Eth. vii. 10. 1242a, that man is not only a TToXtTtKiv, but also an oUovofJiLKdv fi\la; Pol. 1252629; 1280(125; cf. Xen. Laced. Pol. vi. 3-4. ' Cf. preceding note, and 1261632 ff. * 1263622 f. ' 1261030 f. N. Eth. V. 5. ' 37-42. But Plato used both methods. " 1263627-29; e.g., besides the personal satisfaction (1263040 f.), the opportunity for liberality (i 26361 1-13). 122 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT is certainly little to impel the great mass of people to industry under an individualistic system, except the proverbial wolf at the door. But Aristotle is not thinking of the masses. The objection that the evils result from human nature, not from the economic system, may well be pondered by modern socialists and doctrinaire reformers, yet this very fact is an additional reason why the system should be reformed so as to curb such wrong tendencies. The emphasis upon education as a cure for the existing ills is wise, and it might well be more fully recognized by modern socialists, though both Aristotle and later critics of proposed social reforms are wrong in implying that the two methods are mutually exclusive. The warning that, by giving up the regime of private property, we should not only be rid of its evils, but also lose its advantages, should be pondered by agitators against the existing economic system. Modern socialists might also learn much from Aristotle and the other Greek thinkers in regard to the true social ideal, as not primarily materialistic and selfish, but moral and social. On the whole, it may be observed that Aristotle's criticism of Plato's alleged communism in the Republic would be far more applicable against modern socialism. As to the sussitia, Aristotle proposes a system similar to that of Plato's Laws.'' He harshly criticizes the Spartan method, which required every citizen, rich and poor alike, to contribute to the common meals on pain of loss of citizenship.^ He praises, on the other hand, the Cretan system, which permitted the entire citizen- ship, including women and children, to be nourished at the common table, at pubHc expense.^ We have seen that Plato, in the Laws, while apparently granting private property in land, really denies this, since he makes the product of the land practically pubHc property.'' Aristotle, despite his strictures against communism, advocates a system of land tenure quite similar. His limitation of the freedom of donation or testament, purchase or sale; his demands that the lot shall ' iv (vii). lo. 133005 ff. He would make part of the land public. In the Laws, the expense is met by making the product public. ^ 1271029-37. 3 Ibid. 28 f.; 1272012-21. * Cf. above on socialism in the Laws. ARISTOTLE 123 never leave the family, that it shall always be handed down by legitimate succession, and that no citizen shall ever be allowed to hold more than one allotment, are all Platonic, and make him unquestionably an advocate of family, rather than of private ownership of land.' His collectivism is more direct than that of the Laws, since he makes part of the land entirely pubHc, to defray the expense of worship and the common meals.^ The assignment of lots to the citizens is on the same terms as in the Laws, with the exception that the owners are masters of the product of their lots.^ Despite his criticism of Plato's division of homesteads, he has the same plan.-* As in the Laws, only citizens are landowners, and this includes only the governing and mihtary classes,s while all hus- bandmen are to be pubUc or private slaves.^ Unlike Plato, how- ever, Aristotle does not attempt to avoid undue inequahties in personal property J He sets no maximum above which limit goods must be confiscated, nor does he, as Plato, establish a rigorous system of laws to hamper trade and to make money-making oper- ations practically impossible. He recognizes that such regulations are not feasible, and his legislation is therefore more considerate of human nature, despite the fact that his hostility to the ideal of commerciaUsm is even more pronounced than is that of Plato. It is evident from the preceding outhne of Aristotle's negative and positive doctrine on the matter of private property that his system is in substantial agreement with that of Plato's second state." Besides the points of similarity noted above, he agrees with his predecessor in emphasizing strongly the power of the state over the life of the citizens. Both insist that the citizen belongs, not ^Pol. ii. 1270021 f.; viii (v). 1309023-25, though rather a measure for an oli- garchy; vii (vi). 131908-13, for a democracy, also against mortgage on land; cf. Guiraud, La Prop, fonc, p. 591 • Like Plato, he opposes free disposal of dowries (1270023-25). => Cf. p. 122, n. I. 3 133009-23. " 1265624-26. 5 iv (vii). 1329018-21. 6 1330025-31; 1328&40; 132902; cf. Souchon, op. cit., pp. 169 f., on his system as compared with that of the Laws. 7 Cf. p. 120, n. s; but cf. viii (v). 1308&16-19 for a recognition of the desirability of such a regulation. 8 Cf. above, his criticism of chrematistik, Pol. i. chaps. 8-10. 9 So Souchon, op. cit., p. 167; cf. above for differences in detail. 124 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT to himself, but to the state, and can realize his best life only through the state/ Thus Aristotle is far from being a defender of private property in the absolute sense. On the other hand, his emphasis upon the social obligation of individual possession is, if not social- istic, at least very modern. He is certainly a much better socialist than the alleged communist of the Republic, whom he criticizes so severely. Like the Plato of the Laws, he is a semi-collectivist. As Barker has observed,^ Aristotle thought in terms of land, while modern sociaHsm thinks in terms of capital and labor. Both standpoints involve social ownership and the limitation of the indi- vidual, and in this respect the Greek thinker was sociaHstic in tendency. But despite their social spirit and their trend toward nationalism, which is so strong in all progressive countries today, neither he nor Plato was a socialist, in the modern sense, in spirit or in aim.3 Any attempts at direct comparison with modern social- ism, therefore, are likely to be fanciful and confusing. Whatever analogy there is between them is of a very general nature and should not be pressed. "• ' Cf. pp. 119 f.; 1280J3S ff. He does not overlook the complement of this prin- ciple, that the prosperity of the whole involves that of the parts (iv [vii]. 13 28637 ff-> i329ai8-2i), 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. 2 Op. ciL, p. 391. 3 Francotte {Ultidustrie, II, 250) strongly emphasizes their extreme limitation of the individual. Souchon {op. cii., p. 170) refers to them as precursors of Marx, though he recognizes the difference in their aim. 4 Poehlmann is an example of such exaggerated analogy. Cf. I, 599, where he makes Aristotle's theory of interest the source of the Marxian theory of value, and unduly presses the analogy between his chapter on chrematistik and modem criti- cisms of capital. For further Greek communistic theories after Aristotle, cf. infra. CHAPTER VII MINOR PHILOSOPHERS, CONTEMPORARIES OR SUCCESSORS OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE The minor philosophers, contemporaries or successors of the Socratics, present in their extant fragments some ideas on wealth and other economic problems that are worthy of note. For pur- poses of convenience, we shall group them all here, though some of them would chronologically precede one or both of the greater philosophers. The successors of Plato in the Academy, Speusippus, Xenocrates, and Grantor,^ carried forward the teaching of the Socratics on wealth, as opposed to the more extreme doctrine of the Cynics and Stoics.^ There was, however, probably less emphasis on matters economic in their writings, since their prime interest was in practical individual ethics rather than in the political moral- ity of Plato and Aristotle, though Xenocrates is known to have written an Economicus.^ Theophrastus,'* the first and greatest successor of Aristotle in the Peripatetic school, was the author of a treatise on wealth, of which we know only the name.^ He also probably dealt somewhat with economic subjects in his Ethics and Politics, but only slight fragments of either work are extant. He reveals slightly greater regard for the importance of external goods than Aristotle, perhaps because of his special love for the quiet and leisure of the scholar's life.^ There is, however, no evidence that he went so far as to ' Third century B.C.; cf. Zeller, op. cit., II, i, 986 ff. ^ Cic. De fin., iv. 18. 49; Plut. Adv. Sioicos, p. 1065: ol rod 'SevoKpdrovs Kal STreu- ffiirirov KaTrjyopovvTes irl rtp fjLT) ttjv vyeiav ddidcpopav 7]yet(r0at. fj.r]d^ rhv irXovrov dvoi- ' "' irXotJcrioi tCjv /xirpia KeKTrj- fjiivwv, etc. (Plut. Cupid. Divit. 527). 4 Cic. De officiis ii. 16. 56. 5 Porph. De ahstin. iii. 25. ' Cf . above on Xenophon. 7Cf. injra on Cynics; Diog. L. vi. i. 16; not extant. * Diog. L. iv. 12; not extant. 9 Trepi oiKovofilas; for fragments, cf. ed. Jensen (Teubner). He was an Epi- curean; cf. M. Hoderman, "Quaestionum Oeconomicarum Specimen," Berliner Stiidien f. Class. Phil., XVI, 4 (1896), 38 f., for a summary statement of his teaching. MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 127 Metrodorus of Lampsacus,^ Hierocles,' Dio Chrysostom,^ Plutarch/ and the New-Pythagoreans, ^ Bryson/ Callicratidas/ Periktione,^ and Phintys.' The pseudo-AristoteHan Economical" require no extended dis- cussion, since most of the material that is of interest in them is an imitation of Aristotle's Politics and Xenophon's Economics. Book i ' Diog. L. X. II. 24: ire/ji ttXoi^toi/; probably opposed to the Cynic ideas on wealth. Cf. Hoderman, op. cit., 37 and note. ^For the few fragments, cf. Stob. kxxv. 21 (Vol. Ill, p. 150, ed. Mein.), of Stoic tendency. Cf. F. Wilhelm, "Die Oeconomica der Neupythagoreer," Rhein. Mus., XVII, 2 (1915), 162. 3 For frag., cf. Stob. Flor. xlii. 12 (Vol. II, p. 78, ed. Mein.); 46 (Vol. II, p. 366) ; Ixxiv. 59 (Vol. Ill, p. 362); Ixxxv. 12 (Vol. Ill, 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 • 4 Cf. his Conjugalia tnoralia, 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, Hept *tXoTrXouT^ai, which moralizes on the foUy of inordinate desire for wealth, in the Stoic vein, e.g., ed. Bern., Vol. Ill, 524D,P- 35?: ■^«''^« y^P "'^'^ *<^''"' '^^^' o'TXijcrrfa rb irdOoj aiiTov Kal ^iXoirXovrla. 5 Jambhchus {Vit. Pyth. 72. 89. 169 f.) says that among the followers of Pythag- oras were those who were called oUovo/mkoI. They date from about the middle to . the end of the second century B.C. Cf. Wilhebn, op. cit., pp. 161-224. ^Cf. Stob. V. 28. IS (p. 680, 7ff., ed. Wachs.; called olKovofUKbi. Wilhehn {pp. 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 Kara (piffiv and nark vbfiov; viz., Kara, rplmov ras i/'uxai. 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. 7Cf. Stob. V. 28. 16 (p. 681, 15 ff.); iv. 22. loi (p. 534, 10 ff.); v. 28. 17 (p. 684, i6ff.); V. 28. i8(p. 686, i6ff.,ed. Wachs.): veplTasTwv oiK'^iuvevSaifiovias- composed largely of negative utterances on the rich, and of observations on the relations of the sexes; Platonic and Stoic m tendency. Cf. Wilhehn, op. cit., pp. 177, 222. 8Cf. Stob. iv. 25. so; v. 28. 19 (ed. Wachs.): irepl ywaiK^s apixovlai and irtpl yvvaLKbs (xuKppoff-uvas; similar to Stoics. 9 Cf. Stob. iv. 23. 61 f. (p. 588, 17 £f., 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. " 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 (ZeUer, 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). 128 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT is largely a repetition of some of Aristotle's theories of domestic economy, the marriage relation, and slavery, with a few unim- portant additions and slight differences/ Book ii is almost entirely composed of practical examples of how necessary funds have been provided by states and rulers. The most distinctive point about the doctrine of the first book is its separation of olKovoiiiKri from ttoKitikt] as a special science.^ The author agrees with Aristotle, however, that it is the function of economics both to acquire and to use, though without his specific limitations upon acquisition.^ He distinguishes four forms of economy — acquiring, guarding, using, and arranging in proper order.'' Elsewhere, he makes a different classification on another basis — imperial, provincial, public, and private.^ These are each further subdivided, the first including finance, export and import commerce, and expenditures.*^ Agriculture is especially eulogized by the author, in the spirit of Xenophon and Aristotle. It is the primary means of natural acquisition, the others being mining and allied arts whose source of wealth is the land.^ It is the most just acquisition, since it is not gained from men, either by trade, hired labor, or war,* and it con- tributes most to manly strength.' Retail trade and the banausic arts, on the other hand, are both contrary to nature,'" since they render the body weak and inefficient (dxpeta)." The work agrees with Aristotle, against Plato, in his doctrine that m^en and women are essentially different in nature, and hence that their work should be distinct." No attempt is made to justify ' Cf. Susemihl, op. cit., p. v, n. i, for a list of parallel passages from Xenophon and Aristotle. ' 134301-4, especially v m^'' ToXtTt/c?; ix voWQv apxbmujv iarlv^ ij qIkovoiiik^ 5i fwvapxia. Cf. also 14 f. Cf. Aristotle, above. Zeller (II, 2, 181, n. 6) points out that Etui. Eth. makes a similar distinction, in that he places economics between ethics and politics. 3 134308 f., though 25 ff. implies the limitation, Acrijo-ews 5k irpihTrj iirin^Xeia ij Kard, (piffLV. *■ 1344622 ff. ' Ibid. 20 ff.: v6fj.i(TiJia, i^ayd^yiixa, eiaayijjyina, and dt-aXw/aara. s ii. 1345*13 ff- ^ i343a2S-27. * Ibid. 28-30. Cf . Aristotle, who makes war a natural pursuit. » 134362 f. " Cf. preceding n. 8. " 134363 f. " Ibid. 26 ff. MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 129 slavety, though Aristotle is followed in his advice to grant eman- cipation, as a special reward for faithfulness.^ The author of Book ii seems to have taken for granted the Cynic theory that money need have no intrinsic value, at least for local purposes. Coinage of iron,"" tin,^ bronze,'' the arbitrary stamping of drachmas with a double value ,s are all offered apparently as a proper means of escape from financial difficulty. Like Aristotle, he accepts monopoly as a shrewd and legitimate principle of finance.^ Else- where, however, in striking contrast to such uneconomic sugges- tions, the author states the important economic principle that expenditures should not exceed income.'^ In accord with Greek usage, he is familiar with a tax on exports for revenue and as a means of guarding against depletion of supply.^ CYKENAICS The Cyrenaics were the forerunners of the Epicureans in their more liberal attitude toward wealth. Aristippus,' the founder of the school, was a man of the world, who believed in enjoying Hfe as it came.^" He held that pleasure was always a good, and that all else was of value only as a means of reahzing this end." If con- sistent, therefore, he must have valued highly moderate wealth. His principle that one should aim to realize the highest degree of pleasure with the least economic expenditure is somewhat analo- gous to the modem economic doctrine of the smallest means." Bion of Borysthenes became a Cyrenaic in his later life, but his satires are almost entirely lost.^^ 'I3446i5f.; 1344(123-1344611. 3 1349033 ff. ^ i$/^8biy S. 4 1350023 £f. 5 1349&3 1 ff . Debasement of the currency was common in the time of the author. ^ 1346624 ff.; 134763 ff.; cf. Ar. Pol. 125906-35. 7 1346014-16: t6 rdvoKdiixara /xtj nel^w twv irpocrbSuv ytyeffdai. * 135 20 16 ff.; cf. above on the Socratics, under exchange. ' Of Cyrene (435 B.C.) , a pupil of Socrates. No genuine fragments of his writings are extant. Cf. Zeller, II, i, 346 ff. '" Cf. Horace Ep. i. 17, 23. " Cf. Zeller, II, i, 346, n. 2, and Xen. Mem. ii. i. 9. " 2^11er II, I, 346, n. 2; cf. Oncken, op. cit., p. 47, a basal principle of hedonism. '3 Cf. Hor. Ep. ii. 2. 60. 130 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT EPICURUS AND HIS SCHOOL Epicurus, though the apostle of hedonism, and heir of the Cyrenaics, taught a doctrine of wealth somewhat similar to that of the Stoics.^ His ''happiness" consisted in living a simple and prudent Hfe. He taught that spiritual wealth is unlimited, and that the wise are contented with things easy to acquire (euTropicrra) ;^ that external wealth, on the other hand, is limited,^ and that it is not increase of possessions but limitation of desires that makes truly rich.'' He believed the simplest food to be best,^ both for pleasure and for health, that many wealthy find no escape from ills,^ that he who is not satisfied with Httle will not be satisfied with all,' and that contented poverty is the greatest wealth.^ In accord with his teaching, he seems to have lived very simply.' However, he did not go to the extreme of the Cynics and Stoics, but taught that the wise will have a care to gain property, and not live as beggars.'" He exhibits no tendency toward commimism, but rather toward the extreme individualism of the Sophists, and was in sympathy with their social contract theory." Later Epicurean- ism degenerated by taking the hedonistic principle of its founder too literally. Like the Sophists, the school has influenced modern economic thought through its conception of justice, as a mere convention for mutual advantage." ' 342-270 B.C. His theory was far different than the Cyrenaic doctrine of the pleasure of the moment. *Diog. L. X. 130, 144, 146; Stob. Flor. xvii. 23. 3 Usener, Epicurea (1887), pp. 300-304, wpitrrai. *IUd., p. 302, fr. 473; p. 303, fr. 476. 5 Diog. L. X. 130 f. * Usener, p. 304, fr. 479. T Ibid., p. 302, fr. 473 f.; cf. Stob. Flor. xvii. 30. * Usener, p. 303, and fragments. > Stob. xvii. 34; Seneca Ep. 25. 4 f.; Cic. Tttsc. disp. v. 31. "Diog. L. X. 119; Philod. De vit. ix. cols. 12 ff., 27, 40. " Cf . Barker, op. cit., p. 37; cf. above on Sophists; also Dunning, Political Theories Ancient and Mediaeval (1913), pp. 103 f. " Cf. Hasbach, ^//gewezwe philosophische Grundlagen der Fol. Econ. {iSgo),pp. 76 and 36 f.; Dunning, as above. MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 131 CYNICS The Cynics developed the negative attitude of the Socratics toward wealth to its extreme in asceticism. Their doctrine was sub- versive of all economic interest. Antisthenes, the founder of the school, was a contemporary of Plato, a Sophist in his youth, but later associated with the Socratic circle. He appears prominently in the Symposium of Xenophon.^ He urged a return to nature in the literal sense. ^ His book on the nature of animals xept ^icoiv opnr)) of all effeminacy and luxury for men.s Material wealth was, to him, if not an absolute evil, something about which men should be entirely indifferent, for in essence, good and evil could have only a moral reference.^ The craving for wealth or power was a vain illusion. Nothing was good for a man except what was actually his own,' and this was to be found only in the soul.^ Wealth without virtue was not only worthless, but a fruitful source of evil,' and no lover of money could be either virtuous or free.^** He thus advanced ' For his life, cf. Zeller, II, i, 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. ^Diog. L. vi. I. 15; cf. Gomperz, op. cit., II, 117 and note, with citations from Dio of Prusa; also Zeller, op. cit., II, i, 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. 3 Cf. preceding note, and infra, on later ideal states. * Pol. i. 1253(11-4: dvOpwiros (f>ii For Stoics, cf. infra. *Xen. Mem. i. 6, especially end: <7««» 5^ vofii^w rb /xiv firidevbs SeTffdai OeTop elvai, etc.; cf. Schrohl, op. cit., pp. 26-28. 9 400E, 401A. " 401 A: dXXo, iroTa 5tj tCiv XP'JO'^M'*"'? ^"'etS'^ ye ov irdvra. Cf. also 400E. MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 13 5 states tentatively that it is with respect to bodily needs,' an idea suggestive of the organon theory of Aristotle. By this, he doubtless means food, clothing, and shelter, which have the quality of rarity. This, however, is only a step in the argument, which has for its goal the thesis that intellectual attainments constitute the most important part of one's wealth, and possess a very real economic value.^ The author thus agrees with Plato, Xenophon, the Cynics, and the Stoics, in his emphasis upon spiritual goods. The dis- tinction between value in use and value in exchange and the neces- sary dependence of the latter upon the former are also suggested in the statement that nothing can have economic value except as there is a demand for it. The money that passes current in one state may be valueless in another, as also would be the mansion of the wealthy Polytion to Scythian nomads, since there would be no demand for them.^ The Eryxias has no clear or satisfactory definition of wealth. It is recognized that wealth must be defined before its character as good or evil can be determined, but the final answer nowhere appears.'^ In this vagueness of result, one is strongly reminded of some of Plato's minor dialogues. There is also a certain ambiguity throughout the work, similar to that observed in Plato,^ between wealth in its strict economic sense and excessive wealth. We may gather from the course of the argument, however, that the author would define wealth as consisting of things that possess utility, and are subjects of economic demand, whether external, physical, or intellectual goods. The attitude of the Eryxias toward wealth is an extreme ver- sion of that with which we have become familiar in the Socratics, and is best characterized as Cynic. As seen above, the author considers external wealth to be an absolute second to wisdom,^ ' 401B, 401E. » 402E, 393E-394E, and the general thesis that the wisest are richest. 3400A-E, 394D, arguing that economic demand might make a man's wisdom more valuable than another's house. 4 399E. s Cf. 399E, where Eristratos defines ^rXoOros as to. xPVfJ-o-ra ttoXXA /ceKr^cr^ac. * 393A, 393D-394A; cf. above, pp. 24 ff. and notes for Plato and others. 136 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT since tvisdom is not only itself a means of providing material needs,* but also and especially because through it alone does any material wealth become truly valuable.^ When the latter is made the summum honum, it becomes the greatest evil. Like Plato, Jesus, and Ruskin, he insists that the kingdom of wisdom be given the first place,^ for things derive their good or evil quaHty from the character or knowledge of the user.'' The ironical account of how the Greek fathers, even of the best classes {to)v ixeylaroiv boKovvTU)v) urge their boys to seek wealth, since without this they are of no account, is almost in the language of Pastor Wagner's condemna- tion of the extreme commercialism of this age.^ Material goods, when unwisely used, are a fruitful source of ills,^ and excessive wealth is always evil.^ However, the pohtical motive, which prompted the hostiUty of Plato and Aristotle to excessive wealth, is absent from the Eryxias. Thus far the attitude of the author does not dififer very essen- tially from that of the Socratics, but toward the end of the dialogue the doctrine is distinctly taught that wealth is an evil per se. He argues that one's needs are most numerous in a state of sickness, when he is in his worst condition.* One is at his best, on the other hand, when he has fewest and simplest needs.' But those who have most property are sure to need the largest provision for the service of the body."* Thus the richest, as being the most needy, are the most depraved (/iox^^porara dtaKelfxevoi) and the most unhappy, and therefore external wealth is essentially evil." Such a characteristically Cynic doctrine is essentially ascetic, and sub- versive of the very foundations of economics. ' 394D-E, 402E. ^ 393E, 396E-397E, 403E, the insistence upon ability to use, so common in Plato, Xenophon, and Ruskin. , 3 394D-E, which reads like a passage from the New Testament. '' 397E. 5396C: &" iJ-iv ri €XT?^ li^iis Tov, iav di /xtJ? ovdevdi. Cf. The Simple Life: "He who has nothing is nothing." Cf. Eurip. fr. 328, Danae (Nauck): KUKbs 5' 6 ^lr] fX'^''^ *•' ^' ex°'''''^^ 6Xj3tot. ^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 Euthydenms; cf. Schrohl, op. cit., p. 34. 7 396E-397E, as above; 393A. * 40SD. » 405E. " 406B. " Ihid., but cf. 134, n. 8, where Socrates approaches this asceticism. MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 137 The Eryxias hints at a definition of capital in the distinction between the direct consumption of wealth and its use for further production.' But it is far from the author's purpose to define capital, and he makes nothing of the distinction. The relation of money to wealth is also dealt with incidentally. Like Aristotle, he criticizes the definition of wealth as "the possession of much money, "^ on the ground that the money of one country may not pass current in another, and hence cannot be true wealth.^ This is suggestive of the Cynic theory of fiat money, since the examples used are those of the worthless currency of Carthage, Sparta, and Ethiopia.'' But the argument proves too much, since it would be equally as effective against counting the house of Polytion as true wealth. There is, moreover, a peculiar shift in this part of the dialogue between money and property. The theory of the author is further upheld by the argument that a condition can be conceived in which our bodily needs might be supplied without silver or gold, in which case these metals would be worthless.^ However, the necessity of intrinsic value for international currency is recognized,* and it seems hardly probable that the purpose of the dialogue was to contend that money is never wealth, since the very implication of the argument is that current money is wealth.'' TELES The fragments of Teles exhibit the same extreme asceticism of the Cynics in relation to wealth.^ His main thesis is that the pos- session of money does not free from want and need.' Many who ' 403E, distinguishing the materials of a house, the tools by which they are pro- vided, and the tools for building. Cf. Plato and Aristotle, in loc, for a like distinction. 2 399E. 3 400A-E. ■t 400A-B. Heidel {op. cit., p. 61) points to his "ostentatious display of learning" here. 5402B-C, 404A-B. ^4ooE. '' 400C-E, especially Sera fiiv &pa rvyx^vei xpTjo-tyua 6vTa T]fuv ravra x/ST^/iara, though at this point the term has been made to include all wealth; cf. also 402C: aXKa TttOr' &i> elr] {xP'fifJ-ara) oh to. xP'^'^ '■t^'"' o^"/ t' i 6avfia^ofj.^vq iroXirda rod .... Z-^vovos. He says that it agreed in principle with the states of Plato and Lycurgus. Cf. Poehl- mann, op. cit., II, 341 ff., but cf. infra, p. 140 f. Cf. n. 2, above. Ar. Pol. ii. 4. 1266(1: elffl Si Tives TToXiTeiai Kal fiXXat, etc., shows that a series of ideal states had preceded his, though he says Plato's was the most radical. 5 Plut. De Alex. Fort. i. 6. * Diog. L. vii. 33, 131 ; cf. nn. 3 and 5 above. * Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 342, n. i. ' Diog. L. vii. 131; 33. 9 Cf. above, n. 5; Athen. xiii. 561c. MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 141 content to the narrow individualism of the C5mics.^ Moreover, as seen above, their ideal undoubtedly contained some communistic elements. However, according to the fundamental tenet of Stoi- cism, as expressed by Zeno,^ that only the wise can be free and citizens, we are still faced with the old duality and anti-socialistic ideal. The Stoics, like the Cynics, were after all essentially indi- vidualistic, and were probably believers in private ownership, though they dreamed of a future golden age of altruism, when pri- vate property would be no longer necessary.^ Chrysippus, the greatest of the Stoics,'' continued and expanded the principle that virtue is the only absolute good, and that all other things are indififerents, depending for their worth upon right use.5 But since the wise alone are capable of right use of externals, they alone are truly wealthy .*' They are wealthy, even though beg- gars, and noble though slaves.'^ They are not eager for wealth^ yet they are good economists, since they know the proper source,' time, method, and extent of money-making. The worthless, on the other hand, are most needy, even though wealthy.^" Chrysippus seems to have advanced still farther, in teaching the negative doctrine that wealth is an evil, since it may come from an evil source," an idea sug- gestive of the modern theory of "tainted money. "Naturally, he with the other Stoics, was in sympathy with the Socratics, in objecting to the use of one's knowledge for purposes of money-making." ' Cf. Poehlmann, op. ciL, I, 11, n. 8; also 346. = Diog. L. vii. 33. 3 On this double tendency in the Stoics, and reasons therefor, cf. Souchon [op. ciL, pp. 173 f.); Poehlmann {op. cit., II, 342 f., and I, iii) and Wolf {op. ciL, pp. 1 16 fif .) exaggerate their socialistic tendency. For further discussion, cf . infra. Cf. L. Stein, Soc. Frage, pp. 171-80. 4 280-206 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. ^ Ibid., II, 79, fr. 240; III, 28, fr. 117; p. 29, frs. 122, 123; p. 32, fr. 135. ^Ibid., Ill, 156, fr. 598; p. 159, fr. 618; p. 155, fr. 593. i Ibid., p. 155, fr. 597. * Ibid., p. 160, fr. 629, "Lucro autem numquam sapiens studet." ^ Ibid., p. 169, fr. 623: tibvov 6^ t6v '0»' opjovo-fjaeiv, also 153; for an idealized picture of early Athenian life, cf. Paneg. 79; Areop. 31; 32, 35, 44, 83; cited by Poehlmann, op. cit., 1, 136 f. 9 Cf. Polybius vi. 45, and Poehlmann's note (I, 122). " Book vi. 10; 48; etc.; cf. Poehlmann, as above. " Cf. his Lycurgus, especially 8, 9, 10, 3, 25, 30, 31. 144 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT many other thinkers whose works are no longer extant/ They ideahzed the ancient Spartan society, as a model of complete com- munism, which provided full equality and freedom for the citizens. It was free from the evils of luxury, excessive wealth, poverty, civic strife, commerce, and money-greed, a condition where all the citizens were wise, and where the Stoic ideal of independence (aurdp/ceta) was fully realized.^ It was but a step from this to the projection of these bizarre idealizations of the past and of primitive Hfe into the present and future. They took the form of ideal Utopias such as that of Zeno,^ or of romantic descriptions, purporting to portray ideal conditions as actually existing, such as found their model in Plato's Atlantis.* For a full discussion of this type of literature, the reader may consult Poehlmann's work.s We need give it only cursory notice here. Theopompus, a pupil of Socrates, described a "Meropian" land.^ His aim, however, was probably the entertainment of the reader, rather than social reform, as is evidenced by the fantastic nature of his stories. They picture not only ideal communistic conditions, but also a state of the wicked {irovqpoTroXLs), and crassly emphasize the alleged free-love of the Etruscans.^ The Cimmerian state of Hecataeus, an idealization of the king- dom of the Pharaohs, had a more serious social purpose.* It describes a state in which all conquered lands are equally divided among the citizens, and where landed property cannot be sold. The people are free from greed of gain, civic strife, and all the ills that follow it. The ideal is not the greatest increase of wealth, but the development of the citizens to the highest social ideal.' Euhemerus wrote a ''Sacred Chronicle" {lepa avay pa(f>r]y'' of an ideal society on an island near India, ruled by a priestly aris- ' Cf. Poehlmann, I, 122 and n. 3. ^ Cf. above, p. 140. " Cf. above, notes p. 143, nn. 4-6. especially 6. * Cf. above, p. 62, n. 6. 5 Op. ciL, II, 359 flf., though he has been too ready to see in them a direct analogy to modern socialism. * Book viii of his Philipp. Histories {Athen. xii. s^7d ff-)- 7 Cf. Poehlmann, I, 362 fif. 8 Mueller, F.H.G., II, 392, fr. 13; cf. 386 ff. ' Diod. i. 6. 93; 4, a platonic ideal. " Ibid. v. 45. 3 ff. MINOR PHILOSOPHERS 145 tocracy. Here, labor was held in high regard. The artisans were in the priestly class, the farmers were second, and the herdsmen were on an equahty with the soldiers.^ All land and other means of production were common, except the house and garden (ktitov).'^ The land was not worked collectively, but farmers and herdsmen ahke brought their products to a common storehouse for common consumption.^ Thus neither money nor commercial class was necessary. Jambulus, in his "Sun State,""* outdoes even Euhemerus in his communistic ideas. He describes a sort of paradise of sun- worshipers at the equator. Here the trees never fail of ripe fruit, and the citizens never lose their strength and beauty. The whole social and economic Hfe is under communistic regime. There is collective ownership of all the means of production, and each must take his turn at each kind of work.^ The communism extends also to the family.^ Thus Greek economic and social speculation, which always contained socialistic elements, ends in a communism for the whole citizenship, so thorough as to include both products and means of production, and to demand a leveling even of the natural inequaHties that result from the different kinds of work. ' Ibid. 45. 3. ^ Diod. V. 45. 5; 46. I shows that the artisans were included in the communism. 3 Ibid. 45. 4: Toi>s Kdpirovs dva4pov(np eU rb koiv6v, etc.; though prizes were given for excellence in farming. * Ibid. ii. 55-60. ^ Ibid. 59.6: ivaWcL^ di avroiis roiis /jl^v dXXiyXots diaKoveiv, Toi>s 8i aXieieiv, rois d^ irepl tAj t^x''"* fivai, &\\ovs 8i irepl SiWa tQv xpTjo-^/xwi' d^xof^eiaOai, roiis 5' iK ir€pi6dov kvkXik^s XeiTovpyeiv, irXrjy tQv ijdri yeyrjpaKdruv. Cf. p. 34, n. i, above, on Ruskin's idea that aU 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 distin- guished 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 meas- ures ever suggested in the history, of communism. « Diod. V. 58,1. CHAPTER VIII GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE OF GREEK ECONOMICS Our conclusions as to the importance and influence of Greek economic thought have been fully presented in the previous dis- cussion. A brief summary of the results, however, may be of advantage now, at the close of our survey. As seen above, despite the fact that Greek thought in this field was incidental to moral and political speculation, and despite a certain philosophic prejudice and limited economic vision, the contribution is by no means merely negative. We have seen that it included a recognition by one or more Greek thinkers of such important principles as the following: that society finds its origin in mutual need, and in the natural development of clan and family, not in the artificial social contract ; that the state is a great business association, in which about the same economic laws apply as in private economy; that the final goal of economics is not property but human welfare; that the criteria of economic value are intrinsic utihty, economic demand, and cost of production; that wealth must possess the quaUty of storableness ; that true wealth consists only of commodities that minister to human welfare; that the three factors in production are land, labor and capital; that money originated in necessary exchange; that it serves as a medium of exchange, a standard of value, and a ticket of deferred payments; that it should possess intririsic value, which is more stable than that of other commodi- ties; that it should not be confused with wealth, but should be understood in its true function as representative wealth; that credit must play an exceedingly important part in business opera- tions as representative capital; that agriculture is the basal indus- try, on which all others must depend; that the division of labor is the fundamental principle at the foundation of all exchange; that it results in certain important economic advantages, and that its extensive application depends upon large commercial develop- ment; that reciprocity is the fundamental principle in exchange, 146 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 147 as also in the social structure; that exchange performs a legitimate social function in creating time and place values; that industrial expansion is limited by a law of diminishing returns; ; that the pri- mary purpose of exchange should not be profit, but satisfaction of economic need ; that commerce merely for its own sake does not necessarily increase the national store, but may produce only economic inequalities; that extremes of wealth and poverty cause industrial inefficiency, social strife, and crime; that excessive individual wealth is not usually compatible with just acquisition or just expenditure; that it also necessarily implies corresponding extremes of poverty; that the commercial spirit in nations is the chief cause of international differences; that the goal of economics is consumption rather than production, and that foolish consump- tion results in great economic waste; that all economic problems are moral problems; that private property is not a natural right, but a gift of society, and therefore that society may properly con- trol its activities; that there is a certain unity in human nature, which is opposed to the doctrine of natural slavery; that the individual should have opportunity for personal development in accord with his capacities, aside from the mere struggle for physical existence; that true economic equality does not demand equal shares for all, but shares proportioned to capacities and services; and that gifts of charity merely for consumption are fruitful causes of poverty and indolence. Besides the recognition of such principles, we have seen that many practical suggestions for the amelioration of economic and social conditions, which are being seriously presented today, were first proposed by Greek thinkers. Measures for the divorce of government from big business, state control of natural monopolies, conservation of natural resources, state supervision of trade and commerce, including regulation of prices and rates, publicity in business, pure food laws, and the socialization of industry and its products were all first proposed by Greeks. On the other hand, we have seen that practically all the modern stock arguments against sociahsm were long ago presented by Aristotle, and that the ideal of the Greek socialist was not primarily materialistic and selfish, as the modern, but moral and social. 148 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT Such a list of positive economic principles and practical sug- gestions should surely give the Greeks some claim to recognition in the field of economic thought. But they should be judged primarily, not by their positive contribution to economic theory or by the practical nature of their suggestions for legislation, but rather by the extent to which they realized the existence of the great economic and social problems, which are still crying for a solution. From this standpoint, we have seen that Plato and Aristotle especially reveal remarkable economic insight. More- over, there still remains the outstanding fact that the Greeks v/ere the forerunners of the moral, humanitarian, and social emphasis in present-day economy. This alone should give to them a distinct place in the evolution of economic thought, and should make it impossible for Souchon to conclude: "Ces mepris [of G. B. Say] sont pour nous apparaitre plus justifies que les admirations de Roscher."^ The influence of Greek thought upon later economic theory, however, seems not to have been very direct or extensive, probably owing to the incidental nature of their speculation. To be sure, mediaeval economic thought presents, in many respects, an unbroken continuity with the Greek. In their emphasis on the moral, in their doctrines on usury, just price, importance of agri- culture, exchange for profit, and in their general conservative atti- tude toward money and commercial development, mediaeval thinkers are very similar to the Socratics.^ Doubtless much of this similarity may be traced to the direct influence of Aristotle, as is especially evident in the work of Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas Oresme.^ To a considerable extent, however, the economic ideas of the Middle Ages were a direct outgrowth of the economic and religious conditions under which the writers lived.'' In the following ' Op. cit., p. 195; Roscher is, of course, extreme in his appreciation. ^ Cf. Brants, Les theories icon, au XII I^ et XI V^ Steele; Espinas, Histoire des doc- trines economiques, pp. 72 ff.; Haney, op. cit., pp. 69 ff. 3 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 Archivf. d. Gesch. der Phil., 1899, 407 ff. ■• Cf. Souchon, pp. 199 f., who observes that the Greeic moral goal was perfection of the individual through the state, while that of the Middle Ages was individual salvation to another world. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 149 centuries, some Greek influence may be traced in Adam Smith, in the physiocrats,'' in Utopian writers such as More, and in eighteenth- century thinkers Hke Rosseau. It is usually asserted that the economic thought of the past century has been practically unaffected by Greek ideas. But our previous discussion has clearly shown that Plato and Xenophon, at least, dominated the economic thinking of Ruskin. If further evidence is needed, it is necessary only to turn to the names of Greek thinkers in the index to the monumental new edition of his works, which we have frequently cited above. He frankly and enthusiastically presents himself as an apostle of a "Greek theory of economics."^ But despite some of his Utopian and extravagant ideas, he is being ever more recognized by authorities in economics as having been one of the chief factors in the development of poHtical economy to its present moral and humanitarian emphasis.^ His repudiation of the abstract "economic man," his insistence upon human, moral, and social ideals in economics, his attempt to broaden the definition of economic value and wealth by emphasizing true utihty, his constant stress upon proper consumption rather than upon production, his demand that all have opportunity up to their capacity, his opposition to the laissez-faire policy in economics ^ Cf. Oncken, op. cit., p. 38. ^ 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. 3 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 modem economists on the subject; e.g., the notable address in 1885, in recog- nition 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 modem 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." I50 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT and politics, his emphasis upon right education, all have borne rich and abiding fruit in the last few decades, and these are all dis- tinctively Greek ideas, as we have seen above. Thus indirectly, through Ruskin, Greek economic thought has exerted a potent influence upon the evolution of nineteenth-century economics, and thus there is much truth in the words of Wagner, as quoted by Oncken,' not merely for German, but for all modern economy: "Es ist im Grunde uralter wahrhaft classischer Boden, auf den jetzt die deutsche okonomische und soziale Theorie und Praxis sich bewusst wieder stellen." Souchon's characterization of Greek economy as "morale etatisme"^ could well be appHed to much in the economic thought of today. ' P. 46, n. 3 (Wagner, Die Akad. Nat.-oek. und der Socialistnus, 1895). 'Op. cit., p. 201. BIBLIOGRAPHY The following bibliography includes: {a) histories of economic thought; almost all of these have only a cursory chapter on Greek theory, and several of them deal largely with economic conditions; (b) histories of socialism and social theory, to which the foregoing statement applies to a large extent ; (c) chapters in works on differ- ent phases of Greek economic history; (d) other works of a more general type, which deal more or less extensively with Greek eco- nomic or social ideas; (e) articles and dissertations; (/) editions of Greek authors that are of special interest for our subject. It is manifestly impossible to name many of these latter, and we shall content ourselves with the mention of a few that have proved especially helpful. The works are Hsted in alphabetical order, for greater convenience in reference, and those of chief interest are starred. Adam, James (The Republic of Plato, 1902). Adler, G. Geschichte des Socialismus und Kommunismus von Plato bis zur Gegenwart (1899), pp. 6-52. On Greek. Alesio. "Alcune reflessione intorno ai concetti del valore nell' antichita classica," Archivio Giuridico, 1889. Ashley, W. J. "Aristotle's Doctrine of Barter," Quarterly Journal of Econ- omy, 1895. An interpretation of Ar. Pol. i. 12 58^2 7 £f. Barker, E. Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle (1906), pp. 357-404.* Blanqui, M. Histoire de I'economie politique en Europe (1842; 4th ed., i860), I) 33~92- Somewhat indiscriminate in appreciation of Greek thinkers. Bonar. Philosophy and Political Economy (1893).* Brants, V. Xenophon Economiste, reprint from Revue Catholique de Louvain, 1881.* Bussy, M. Histoire et Refutation du Socialisme depuis I'antiquite, jusqu' d nos jours (1859). Superficial and prejudiced. Cossa, L. Histoire des doctrines economiques (1899) (trans, from the Italian of 1876), pp. 144-50-* . "Di alcuni studii storici siille teorie economiche dei Greci," Saggi di Economia Politica, 1878, pp. 3-14. De Sam-Cognazzi. Analisi dell economia publica e privata degli antichi (1830). Du Mesnill-Marigny. Histoire de Veconomie politique des anciens peuples (1878, 3 vols.). Superficial. 151 152 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT De Villeneuve-Bargemont. Eistoire de Veconomie politique (Paris, 1841, 2d ed.), I. Chiefly on the facts. Dietzel. "Beitrage zur Geschichte des Socialismus und des Konimunismus," Zeitschrift fiir Liter atur und Geschichte der Staatswissenschaften, I (1893), 373 ff.* Doring, A. Die Lehre des Socrates als soziales Reform-System (1895). DuBois, A. Precis de Vhistoire des doctrines iconomiques dans leurs rapports avec les faits et avec les institutions (1903), pp. 23-53. A good partial bibliography. * Diihring, E. Kritische Geschichte der N ationalokonomie und des Socialismus (3d ed., 1879), pp. 19-25. Dunning, W. A. Political Theories Ancient and Mediaeval (New York, 1913). Economic material only incidental. Eisenhart, H. Geschichte der N ationalokonomie (2d ed., 1891). Mostly on economic history. Espinas. Eistoire des doctrines iconomiques (1891), chap, i.* . "L'art economique dans Platon," Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVI (1914), 105-29, 236-65.* Ferrara, J. " L'economica politica degli antichi," Journal de Statis. de Palerme, 1836. Fontpertuis, F. de. "Filiation des idees economiques, dans I'antiquite," Journal des Scon., September, 187 1 ff.* Francotte, H. L' Industrie dans la Grece ancienne (Brussels, 1900). Sec- tions on Greek theories of labor and socialism.* Glaser. "De Aristotehs doctrina de divitiis" (dissertation, 1850), Jahrb. fiir Gesellschafts- und Staatswissenschaft, 1865. Gottling. De Notione servitutis apud Aristotelem (dissertation, Jena, 1821). ^^Grote, G. Plato (4 vols.). V . Aristotle (2 vols.). Guiraud, P. La main-d'ceuvre industrielle dans V ancienne Grece (1900), pp. 36-50. On theory.* . La propriete fonciere en Grece jusqu'd la conquete Romaine (1893), PP- 573~6i2. On socialistic ideas.* . Etudes economiques sur I'antiquite (1905), chap. i. On the impor- tance of economic questions in Greece.* Hagen. Observationum oeconomico politicarum in Aeschinis dialogum qui Eryxias inscribitur (dissertation, 1822). Haney, L. W. Eistory of Economic Thought (1911), pp. 39-52.* Heidel, W. A. Pseudo-Platonica (dissertation, Chicago, 1896), pp. 59-61. On Eryxias. Herzog, C. "Communismus und Socialismus in Alterthum," Beilage zur allgemeine Zeitung, 1894, No. 166. Conservative on the influence of socialism in the ancient world. BIBLIOGRAPHY 153 Hildebrandj B. Xenophontis et Aristot. de oeconomia puhlica doctrinae illus- trantur (dissertation, Marburg, 1845). Part on Aristotle not published. Hoderman, M. " Quaestionum oeconomicarum specimen," (dissertation, Berlin, 1896), Berlin Siudien fiir class. Philol. und Arch., XVI, No. 4. On the so-called Economica. V Ingram, J. K. History of Political Economy (1907), pp. 7-26.* Jowett and Campbell. Republic of Plato (3 vols., 1894). Kaulla, R. Die geschichtliche Entwickelung der modernen Werttheorien (1906), pp. 3 f. On Aristotle. Kautsky, K. Die Geschichte des Socialismus in Einzeldarstellungen (1897), 1,1. Kautz. Theorie und Geschichte der national Oekonomie (Wien, 2d ed., i860), pp. 102-43).* Knies, Karl. Die politische Ecohomie vom geschichtlichen Standpunkt (1883). Of but slight interest for ancient theory. v/ Loos, I. A. "Studies in the Politics of Aristotle and the Republic of Plato," Bull, of the University of Iowa, 1899. Mabille. " Le commimisme et le feminisme a Athenes." Memoires de I'academie de Dijon, 4 serie, t. 7, pp. 317 ff. (Paris, 1900). Martiis, S. de. Cognetti (SociaUsmo antico, Turin, 1899).* Menger, Karl. Art. "Geld," Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaft (2d ed.), IV, 82 ff. '"^ Newman. The Politics of Aristotle (Oxford, 1877, 4 vols.).* Oncken, A. Geschichte der Nationalokonomie (1902), I, 27-49. Palgrave's Dictionary. Art. "Aristotle." This and the above-named article on "Geld" will serve as sufficient notice of the several Dictionaries of Political Economy, to which other references might be made. Platon, G. "Le socialisme en Grece," Devenir Social., January, 1897 ff. Poehlmann, R. Geschichte des antiken Socialismus und Kommunismus (Miin- chen, 1893-1901, 2 vols.; 2d ed., 1912, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Socialismus in der antiken Welt). A thorough treatment of Greek socialistic tendencies both in theory and in practice, though it exagger- ates the development of capitalism in Greece, and draws analogies too freely between ancient and modern socialism. Our citations are from the second edition.* . "Die Anfange des Sozialismus in Europa," Sybel's Hist. Zeitschrift, Bd. 79, H. 3, pp. 385-451. Rambaud, J. Histoire des Doctrines economiques (Paris, 1902). Regnier, M. V economic politique et rurale des Grecs. Robin, L. "Platon et la science sociale," Revue de metaphysique et de morale, March, 1913 (reprint by Armand Colin, Paris).* Roscher. "Ueber das Verhaltniss der national Oekonomik zum klassischen Alterthume," Ansichten der Volkswirtschaft, I (1878), 1-50.* 154 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT Roscher. De doctrinae oeconomico politicae apud Graecos primordiis (Leipzig, 1866). Salvio, G. Salomo. // concetto delta schiavitu secundo Aristotile (Rome, 1881). . Communismo nella Grecia antiqua (Padua, 1883). Schneider. Die staatswirtschaftlichen Lehren des Aristotles (dissertation, Neu Puppin, 1873). Schrohl, 0. De Eryxias qui fertur Platonis (dissertation, igoi). Chiefly on the authorship of the Eryxias. Schulte, J. Quomodo Plato in legibus publica Atheniensium instituta respex- erit (dissertation, 1907). Sewall, H. "Theory of Value before Adam Smith," Publication of American Economic Association, II, Part 3. Four pages on Aristotle. Shorey. Paul ("Plato's Laws," Classical Philology, October, 1914. Simey, Miss E. "Economic Theory among the Greeks and Romans," Eco- nomic Review, October, 1900. Souchon, A. Les Theories economiques dans la Grhce antique (1898; a 2d ed. in 1906, but slightly changed).* Stein, Ludwig. Das erste Aufiauschen der sozialen Frage bei den Griechen (dissertation, Bern, 1896). . Die soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophic (Stuttgart, 1903, 2d ed.), pp. 150-82. . "Die staatswissenschaftliche Theorie der Griechen vor Arist. und V Platon," Zeitschrift fiir die gesammte Wissenschaft, 1853, pp. 115-82 (Tubingen). Stewart. Notes to Ar., Nic. Ethics (2 vols.).* St. Hilaire, B. Preface to translation of the Politics of Arist. Thill, J. Die Eigenthumsfrage im klassischen Alterthum (Luxembourg, 1892). Thomissen. Histoire du socialisme depuis I'antiquite jusqu'd la constitution franqaise du 14 Jan., 1852. Trinchera, F. Storia critica dell' economia publia {epoca antica) (Naples, 1873) . Vanderkindere, L. "Le Socialisme dans la Grece antique," Revue de I'Uni- versite de Brussels, I, 4, pp. 241-46. Vogel, G. Die Oekonomik des Xenophon; eine Vorarbeit filr die Geschichte der griechischen Oekonomik (Erlangen, 1895). Walcker, K. Geschichte der N ationalokonomie und des Socialismus (Leipzig, 1902). Wallon, Histoire de I'esclavage dans Vantiquite (Paris, 1879, 2d ed.). One chapter on theories of slavery. Wolf, H; Geschichte des antiken Sozialismus und Individualismus (1909). A merely popular treatment. Wilhelm, F. "Die Oeconomica der Neupythagoreer," Rhein. Mus., XVII, No. 2 (1915), 162 ff. Zmavc, J. "Die Werttheorie bei Arist. und Thos. Aquino," Archiv filr die Geschichte der Philosophic (Berlin, 1899), pp. 407 ff.* BIBLIOGRAPHY 15 5 Zmavc, J. "Die Geldtheorie und ihre Stellung innerhalb der Wirtschaft und staatswissenschaftliche Anschauungen des Arist., Zeitschrift fur die ges. Staatswissenschaft, 1902, pp. 48-79-* As stated, a large number of the foregoing list deal chiefly with actual conditions, rather than with theory. Besides these, many other works on phases of Greek economic history are cited in the course of our discussion, the names of which, with page-references, may be found in the index. All other works that are incidentaUy cited are also listed there. For an excellent pres- entation of the poUtical economy of John Ruskin, and a selected bibliography on his work as a social and economic reformer, cf. the Library Edition of his works, from which we have often cited (George AUen, London, Introduction to Vol. XVII, 1905; bibliography, p. cxii). INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS Acquisition, 25, 27, 29, 59, 66, 78, 88, 89, 90, 93, 105, 111-15,128, 138, 144, 147. See also Chrematistik; Exchange. Adam, 36, 96, 151. Adler, 55, 151. Aeschines, 62. Agriculture, 14 f., 18, 29 f., 31, 34, 38, 59, 63, 66-68, 79, 89-91, 93, 96, 114, 116, 128, 145 f., 148. Alcaeus, 14. Alcidamas, 17. Alesio, 151. Antisthenes, 65, 126, 131 f., 134. Apollodonis, 91. Aquinas, 148. Ardaillon, 75. Aristippus, 129. Aristo, 141. Aristophanes, 57, 66, 93, 119, 138. Aristotle, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21 f., 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 39, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 5i, 52, 53, 54, 56, 66, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 79, 81- 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, ^33, 136, 137, 140, 142, 143, 147, 148. Ashley, 113 f., 151. Athenaeus, 133, 140. Aulus Gellius, 52. Barker, 9, 15, 16, 17, 84, 85, 90, 97, 98, 100, loi, 104, 105, 108, no, 124, 130, 149, 151. Barter, 35, loi, 106, 108, 113. Bawerk, E. Boehm von, 106. Bebel, 145. Beloch, 9, 20, 45. Bergk, 14. Blanqui, 29, 48, 68, 82, 104, 151. Boeckh, 9, 41, 47, 106, 134. Bonar, 26, 28, 32, 36, 37, 48, 84, 90, 118, 134, 151- Bright, 149. Bryson, 126. Biicher, 20. Biichsenschutz, 65, 93. Bussy, 48, 151. Callicles, 16. Callicratidas, 126, Capital, 18, 30, 35, 47, 65, 67, 68 f ., 91-93, 104, 117, 124, 137, 146. See also the Greek index for term. Capitalism, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 47, 62, 96, 106, 112. Carlyle, 25, 44, 99, loi. Caste system in Plato's Republic, 37, 48 f. Charetides, 91. Chrematistik, 105, no, in, 112, 113, 115, 123, 124. See also Acquisition; Exchange. Christ, W., 63, 81. Chrysippus, 141 f. Cicero, 125, 126, 130, 139, 142. Civic strife, 13, 25, 26, 54, 55, 62, 74, 78, 79, 87, 118, 144, 147. Cleanthes, 141. Clement Alex., 15, 140. Cognazzi, De, 151. Collectivism, 31, 61, 123, 124. Columella, 91. Commerce. See Exchange. Communism, See Socialism. Communism of family, 18, 54, 55, 56, 117, 120, 133, 140, 142, 143, 145. Competition, 14. Conservation, 30, 147. Consumption, 27, 46, 68, 91, 92, 105, 113, 114, 137, 145, 147, 149- Cope, 83, 93. Cornford, 14, 18, 41, 53. Cossa, 67, 82, 134, 151. Crantor, 125. Crates, 133, 138, 139. Credit, 39, 105, 106, 146. See the Greek index for term. Croiset, 17, 63, 81. Cynics, 16, 97, 103, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131-33, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141. Cyrenaics, 129, 130. • 157 iS8 GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT Decharme, i8. Democritus, 15, 17, 23. Demosthenes, 13, 45, 62, 66, 68, 69, 77 f., 105, 106, 114. Dichaearchus, 143. Dials, IS, 17. Dietzel, 32, 57, 152. Diminishing returns, 67, 146. Dio Chrysostom, 13, 126, 130, 131, 132. Diodorus, 145. Diogenes, 131, 132 f., 138. Diogenes Laertius, 17, 52, 100, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142. Distribution, 12, 46 f., 51, 57, 74, 84, 102, 1 15-17, 118, 140. See also the Greek index for term. Distributive justice, 102, 107. Dobbs, 16, 25. Doering, 69, 152. Droysen, 45. Drumann, 29, 57. DuBois, 28, 35, 55, 82, 92, 104, 109, 114, 152. Diihring, 71, 82, loi, 152. Dummler, 17. Dunning, 130, 152. Economica, 9, 14, 63, 69, 81, 94, 125, 126 f., 127-29, 131, 133. Economic demand, 34, 64, 70, 72, 82, 83, 84, 86, 104, 108, 109, no, 135, 146. See also the Greek index. Economy: and asceticism, 12, 25, 60, 65, 131, 136, 137, 139; and ethics, 10, 18, 21, 29,63,81,90, 146, 148, 149; domes- tic and public, 9, 63, 81 f.. Ill, 112, 113, 126, 146; influence of Greek, 8, 146-50; mediaeval, 39, 148; modem, 8, 11 f., 27, 44, 115; Ricardian, 8, 10, 11, 50. Education, 50, 54, 95, 118, 121, 122, 149. Eisenhart, 32, 152. Ely, II. Ephorus, 143. Epictetus, 133. Epicurus, Epicurean, 52, 126, 129, 130. Equality, 55 f., 60 f., 62, 79 f., 83, 109, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 145, 147. Eryxias, 17, 103, 132, 133-37. Esmein, 52. Espinas, 9, 28, 29, 38, 43, 60, 61, 63, 65, 142, 148, 152. Eudemian ethics, 81, 83, 87, 98, 107, 112, 120, 125, 128. Eudemus, 127. Euhemerus, 144 f. Euripides, 17 £., 96, 136. Exchange: Greek attitude toward, 14,32, 33, 41-45, 56, 59, 66, 70, 73 £., 77, 79, 82, 91, 92, 94, 105, 109, no, 111-15, 116, 123, 128, 140, 143, 145, 147, 148; regulations for, 43, 1 23 ; theory of, 35 f ., 38, 40, 41, 83, 84, 89, 102, 104, 106-110, lis, 119, 128, 146, 147. See also Chre- matistik; Acquisition; and the Greek index for terms. Ferrara, 152. Fontpertuis, 64, 67, 68, 96, 152. Francotte, 20, 29, 32, 55, 57, 62, 124, 134, 152. Gernet, 45. Gilliard, 14. Glaser, 152. Gottling, 152. Gold, 15, 40, 54, 133, 137, Gomperz, 17, 49, 131, 133, 137. Grain supply, 45. Grote, 13, 49, 152. Grundy, 45. Guiraud, 29, 37, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 69, 123, 152. Hagen, 134, 152. Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaft, 108. Haney, 7, 11, 19, 20, 21, 35, 48, 71, 72, 82, 84, 89, 105, no, 113, 119, 148, 152. Harpocration, 68. Hasbach, 130. Hecataeus, 144. Heidel, 125, 133, 134, 137, 152. Hense, 137. Heraclitus, 15. Hermann, 43. Herodotus, 19, 45, 63, 66. Herzog, 152. Hesiod, 14, 17, 30, 33. Hesychius, 93. Hierocles, 126. Hildebrand, 153. Hippias, 16, 17. INDEXES 159 Hippodamas of Miletus, 15, 52; the Pythagorean, 52. Hippolytus, 52. Hobbes, 16. Hoderman, 126, 127, 134, 153. Homer, 14, 52. Horace, 129. Individualism, 16, 56, 57, 75, 79, 119, 122, 130, 140 f., 142, 143. Industry, 14, 29, 32, 35, 36, 47, 66, 69 f., 79, 90, 92, 95, III, 116. See also Labor; Production. Ingram, 7, 10, 72, 89, 104, 149, 153. Interest, 31, 39 f., 59 U 78, 92, 93, io5, 106, 148. See also Capital; Capital- ism; and the Greek index for terms. Isocrates, 13, 66, 68, 77-80, 88, 106, 143. Jackson, 108. Jamblichus, 15, 52, 127. Jambulus, 145. Jesus, 26, 49, 87, 136. Jowett, 60, 95, 114, 153. Just price, 23, 107, 108, 140. KauUa, 65, 153. Kautsky, 153. Kautz, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 31, 48, 65, 67, 70, 72, 89, 107, 134, 153. Knies, 153. Koutorga, 106. Labor: attitude toward, 14, 17, 20, 29, 31-34, 37, 59, 69 f., 77, 79, 89, 91, 93" 96, 116, 128, 132, 142; division of, 19, 29, 33, 34-47, 38, 41., 70 f-, 73, 79, 96, 145, 146; in production, 18, 31, 47, 67, 83, 84, 96, 108, no, 146. See also Pro- duction; Laborer; and the Greek in- dex. Laborer, attitude toward, 47-5°, 74, loi, 116, 117, 145. Lamb, 18. Land tenure: in Aristotle's state, 122 f.; in Greece, 51; in Plato's Laws, 58 f., 62, 122; in other writers, 133, i44- Law, overestimate of, 13, 51, 56, 61, 75. Laws, historical basis of Plato's, 43 f. Leisure, 29,87,94,95, loi, 116. See also the Greek index. Lenormant, 72. Liberality, 87, 121. Loos, 153. Lychophron, 16, 17, 119. Lycurgus, 69, 140, 143. Lysias, 45, 68. Mabille, 153. Macaulay, 103. Magna Moralia, 81, 84, 87, 88, 125. Malthus, 45 f. Malon, 55. Martiis, De, 52, 57, 153. Marx, 84, 124. Menger, 108 £., 153. Mercantilism, 41, 72, 86, 103, 104. Mesnil-Marigny, Du, 151. Metrodorus, 127. Meyer, 9, 20, 21, 106. Mill, 8, 27, so, 68, 85, 86, 92, 117, 149. Mines, mining, 13, 66, 67, 74, 75, 128. Money: and wealth, 72, 86, 103, io4,fi3S, 137, 146; attitude toward, 73, 106, 105, 140, 141, 145, 148; functions, 15, 38 f., 41, 84, loi f., 103, 106, 108, 113, 115, 146; history of, 35, 38, loi f., 112, 146; intrinsic value of, 40, 72, 102, 103, 104, 135, 137, 146; materials, 40, 60, 72, 105, 129; stability, 72, 104, 146. See also Inteiest; Gold; Silver; Mercantil- ism; and the Greek index. Monopoly, no, 129, 147. More, 149. Mueller, 143. Mullach, 15, 125, 131, 132, 133. Nationalism, 62, 124. Nauck, 17 f. Nearing, 40. Nettleship, 37. Newman, 17, 86, 89, 91, 97, loi, 103, 112, 114, 132, 153- New Pythagoreans, 127. Nic. Damasc, 143. Oncken, 37, 48, 55, 129, 134, 140, 149. 150, 153- Oresme, 148. Paley-Sandys, 106. Palgrave's Dictionary, 104, 153. Pericles, 12. Periktione, 126. Peters, 108. i6o GREEK ECONOMIC THOUGHT Phaleas, i6, 53, 118, 120, 142. Philodemus, 126, 127, 130. Phintys, 126, Photius, 52. Physiocratic tendencies, 28 f., 30, 41, 89, no, 140, 149. See also Exchange; Production. Pindar, 83. Plato, 9, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22-62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 8s, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 9S» 96, 97. 99) 100, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, III, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, 134, 13s, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 144, 14s, 148, 149- Platon, G., 153. Plutarch, 125, 126, 127, 140, 143 f. Poehlmann, 7, 20, 21, 29, 32, 2,3, 36, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, S3, 54, 55, S6, 57, 58, 01, 62, 74, 75, 76, loi, 105, 106, 112, 117, 119, 120, 124, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 153- Pohlenz, 53, 56, 57. Pollux, 93. Polybius, 143 f. Population, 45 f., 59, 74, 115, 120. Porphyry, 52, 126, 143. Poverty, 14, 15, 27, 47, 48, 50, 55, 56, 59, 0°, 74, 75, 78, 79, 87, 109, IIS, 120, 130, 132, 133, 138, 139, 140, 144, 147- Prices, regulation of, 43, 45, 47, 108, no, 147. Private property. See Socialism. Prodicus, 17. Production, 27-37, 66-69, 74, 83, 88-93, 96, 146, 149. See also Industry; Physi- ocratic tendencies; and the Greek in- dex. Profits, 46, 74, 109, no, 116. Protagoras, 17. Publicity, 4s, 60, 61, 147. Pythagoras, 15, 52. Quesnay, 89. Rambaud, 153. Rassow, 108. Reciprocity, 34, 41, 96, 146. Regnier, 153. Ricardo. See Ricardian economy. Ritchie, 83. Robin, 22, 27, 28, 37, 43, 52, 153. Rodbertus, 20. Roscher, 9, 18, 32, 72, 148, 153. Rousseau, 131, 143, 149. Ruskin, 9, 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 55, 61, 63, 64, 67, 87, 92, 93, 95, 99, 100, loi, 105, 109, no, in, 13s, 137, 138, 145,149, 150, 154- Salvio, 154. Sappho, 14. Say, 148. Schaeffle, 112. Schneider, 154. Schoenberg, n. Schrohl, 134, 136, 154. Schulte, 43 f., 154. , Seligraan, n. Seneca, 130, 139, 141. Sewall, 64, 83, 154. Shorey, 18, 28, 36, 55, 56, 58, 62, 99, 154. Silver, 40, 54, 65, 72, 133, 137. Simey, 72, 134, 154. Slavery, 16, 18, 21, 32, 37 f., 62, 67, 70, 86, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97-101, 123, 126, 128, 129, 132, 133, 142, 147- Smith, Adam, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 64, 71, 75, 82, 86, 91, 92, 93, 115, 149. Social contract, 15, 16, 22, 119, 130, 146. Social origins, 22, 34, 119 f., 146. Sociahsm and communism, 12 f., 45, 51, 53, 79, 147, 151; in Aristotle, 96, 105, 118-24; in Greece, 12 f., 51, 143; in Laws, 58-62; in Republic, 48, 49, 50, 54-58; in Xenophon, 75 f.; in other writers, 15, 52-54, 79 f., 130, 140 f., 142-45- Socrates, 22, 26, 31, 57, 63, 67, 69, 73, 74, 129, 134, 136, 144. Solon, 13, 14. Sophists, 16, 17, 18, 22, 36, 73, 97, III, 119, 130, 131, 142. Souchon, 7, 10, 17, 31, 36, 37, 41, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 57, 61, 62, 72, 82, 88, 89, 93, 104, 106, 123, 124, 141, 142, 143, 148, 150, 154- Spencer, 35. Speusippus, 125. Stein, 55, 140, 154. Steinhart-Mueller, 134. Stewart, 83, 84, 92, 94, 95, 102, 107, 108, 116, 119, 154. INDEXES i6i St. Hilaire, 8i, 82, 154. Stimson, 149. Stobaeus, 15, 52, 126, 127, 130, 137, 139, 141. Stoics, 16, 19, 125, 126, 127, 130, 134, 13s, 136, 139-42, 143, 144- St. Paul, 49, 120, 132. Strabo, 132, 143. Susemihl, 81, 89, 96, 127, 128. Sussitia, 60, 117, 122 f. Tariff, 41, 73, no, 129. Teles, 132, 133, 137-39- Theocritus, 143. Theognis, 14. Theophrastus, 91, 125, 126, 127. Theopompus, 144. Thill, 154. Thomissen, 154. Thoreau, 12, 25, 26. Thrasymachus, 16. Thucydides, 10, 12, 18, 45, 66, 68, 69. Timaeus, 52. Trinchera, 154. Usener, 130. Utility, 22 f., 64, 65, 83, 88, 134, 135, 138, 146, 149. Value, 22 f., 64 f., 82-84, 85, 96, 115, 134 f., 149. See also the Greek, index. Vanderkindere, 154. Varro, 91. Vnieneuve-Bargemont, De, 152. Vogel, 154. von Arnim, 133, 139, 140, 141, 142. Wages, 17, 46, 47, 74, 116. Wagner (Pastor), 136. Wagner, 150. Walcker, 154. Walker, 86. Wallon, 97, 98, 154. War, 25, 27, 36, 37, 66, 67, 70, 73, 79, 128, 147. Wealth: attitude toward, 15, 17, 18, 24- 27, 48, 50, 55, 56, 60, 65 f., 77, 78, 79, 81, 86-88, 109, 125 f., 127, 129, 130, 131 f-, 133-37, 138 f., 139 f-, 141, 144, 146, 147; defined, 24, 27, 65, 85 f., 91, 112, 133, 146, 149. See also the Greek index. Wilhelm, 7, 127, 154. Wolf, 57, 141, 154. Xenocrates, 125, 126. Xenophon, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 30, 38, 42, 46, 63-76, 81, 84, 89, 91, 96, 97, III, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 133, 134, 13s, 136, 138, 149- Zell, 105. Zeller, 15, 17, 32, 34, 48, 49, 52, 81, 97, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 139. Zeno, 139 f., 141, 142, 144. Zimmern, 9, 14, 29, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44 f-, 45, 66. Zmavc, 9, 81, 82, 84, 90, 104, 115, 124, 148, 154. INDEX OF GREEK TERMS iL-yopaariK-fi, 40. ddid^opa, 125, 139. airlas, 28. dWayv, 38, 39, 40, 41, 89, 106, 140. a^la, 23, 64, 84, 86. dweipos, 25, 85, 112. diroXavffTiK'/i^ 40, 68. dpyvpiov, 24, 72. dffxoXfa, 66. avrctpjceta (avrdpKTji) ^ 34, 112, 138, 144. a^oTwXiK^, 40. o^TOD/376s, 18, 40, 89, 96. a'ur6opfi-^, 68, 79, 92, 96, 106, III, 131. ^dvavffos (^avavffiKal, PavavffLa), 70, 93, 95, 113, 140. drifuovpyds, 23, 36, 48, 93. diavop.^, 115, 116. diopOuTiKdVj 102. iyyvTjTi^s, 103. elffaydiyifia (ivturaywyLfiwv) , 35, no, 128. tfivopos {ip.iropt.K-f), ifiTTopla),^^, 41, 42, 73, III, 113- Ivepyd, 69. (dpyd, 68.) (^ayd)yip.a (i^ayonivwv) , no, 128. tpavos, 68. ipyaala, 66, 89, 90, 1 13. evjieTaxfipiffTOVj I02. dr]aavpi