Chapter 23

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

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

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

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

851.Op. cit., p. 391.

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

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

854.Cic.De fin., iv. 18. 49; Plut.Adv. Stoicos, p. 1065: οἱ τοῦ Ξενοκράτους καὶ Σπευσίππου κατηγοροῦντες ἐτὶ τῷ μὴ τὴν ὑγείαν ἀδιάφοραν ἡγεῖσθαι μηδὲ τὸν πλοῦτον ἀνωφελές. On Crantor, cf.Ap. Sext. Emp.(Bekker, p. 538, ll. 4 ff.); on the above, cf. Heidel,Pseudo-Platonica(dissertation, Chicago, 1896), p. 60, n. 5; cf. alsoDef.140, of Speusippus (Mullach,op. cit., III, 80): πλοῦτος κτῆσις σύμμετρος πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν.

855.For discussion of all theEconomica, cf.infra.

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

857.περὶ πλούτου (Aspas. in Eth.451; and Cic.De officiisii. 16. 56).

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

859.Stob.Flor.iv. 283, No. 202, ed. Mein.: ὁ αὐτὸς (Theophrastus) ἔλεγεν ὀφείλομεν ἑαυτοὺς ἐθίζειν ἀπὸ ὀλίγων ζῆν, etc.

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

861.Theoph.Op.iii. 182. fr. 78: οὐδὲν πλέον ἔχουσιν οἱ πλούσιοι τῶν μέτρια κεκτημένων, etc. (Plut.Cupid. Divit.527).

862.Cic.De officiisii. 16. 56.

863.Porph.De abstin.iii. 25.

864.Cf. above on Xenophon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

871.Cf. hisConjugalia moralia, which, though it does not bear the nameEconomica, is similar in content to them. Cf. Hoderman,op. cit., p. 43; cf. also his essay, Περὶ Φιλοπλουτίας, which moralizes on the folly of inordinate desire for wealth, in the Stoic vein, e.g., ed. Bern., Vol. III, 524D, p. 357: πενία γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπληστία τὸ πάθος αὐτοῦ καὶ φιλοπλουτία.

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

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

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

875.Cf. Stob. iv. 25. 50; v. 28. 19 (ed. Wachs.): περὶ γυναικὸς ἁρμονίας and περὶ γυναικὸς σωφροσύνας; similar to Stoics.

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

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

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

879.1343a1-4, especially ἡ μὲν πολιτικὴ ἐκ πολλῶν ἀρχόντων ἐστίν, ἡ οἰκονομικὴ δὲ μοναρχία. Cf. also 14 f. Cf. Aristotle, above. Zeller (II, 2, 181, n. 6) points out thatEud. Eth.makes a similar distinction, in that he places economics between ethics and politics.

880.1343a8 f., though 25 ff. implies the limitation, κτήσεως δὲ πρώτη ἐπιμέλεια ἡ κατὰ φύσιν.

881.1344b22 ff.

882.ii. 1345b13 ff.

883.Ibid.20 ff.: νόμισμα, ἐξαγώγιμα, εἰσαγώγιμα, and ἀναλώματα.

884.1343a25-27.

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

886.1343b2 f.

887.Cf. preceding n. 8.

888.1343b3 f.

889.Ibid.26 ff.

890.1344b15 f.; 1344a23-1344b11.

891.1348b17 ff.

892.1349a33 ff.

893.1350a23 ff.

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

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

896.1346a14-16: τὸ τἀναλώματα μὴ μείζω τῶν προσόδων γίνεσθαι.

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

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

899.Cf. HoraceEp.i. 17, 23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

907.Diog. L. x. 130 f.

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

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

910.Usener, p. 303, and fragments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

917.Cf. preceding note, andinfra, on later ideal states.

918.Pol.i. 1253a1-4: ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον, etc.

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

920.Diog. L. vi. 104.

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

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

923.Xen.Symp.iv. 35

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

925.Diog. L. vi. 2, καὶ ὅτι ὁ πόνος ἀγαθὸν συνέστησε διὰ τοῦ μεγάλου Ἡρακλέους καὶ τοῦ κύρου. Heracles, the toiler, was their patron saint. Antisthenes is said to have written two dialogues called Heracles (Diog. L. vi. 2. 18), but Zeller, (op. cit., II, 1, 307, n. 4) thinks only one was genuine.

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

927.Cf.infraon Diogenes andEryxias; Ar.Pol.1257b10, probably Cynic.

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

929.Mullach,F.Ph.G., II, 326, fr. 276; cf. Diog. L. vi. 47: τὸν πλούσιον ἀμαθῆ, πρόβατον εἶπε χρυσόμαλλον.

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

931.Mullach, II, 316, fr. 168; Chrysost.Homil.lxiv in Matthew points to Paul’s parallel, I Tim. 6: 10: ῥἰζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία.

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

933.Ibid.fr. 66; 65.

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

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

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

937.Athen.iv. 159c; Διογένης δ᾽ ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ νόμισμα εἶναι νομοθετεῖ ἀστραγάλους.

938.Diog. L. vi. 72: ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ κοινὰς εἶναι δεῖν τὰς γυναῖκας, etc. Aristotle (Pol.ii. 7. 1266a34) names Plato as its sole advocate, but cf. Zeller,op. cit., II, 1, 321 f., n. 4, and Gomperz,op. cit., II, 132, though they think that he did not hold it in the extreme form stated by Diogenes Laertius.

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

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

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

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

943.The pseudo-AristotelianEconomicsis a possible exception. TheEconomicsof Xenophon has a broader theme, and theRevenuesis for practical purposes.

944.Pseudo-Platonica, p. 59.

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

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

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

948.Cf. preceding n. 3.

949.278E-282.

950.Cf. above,in loc.

951.For Stoics, cf.infra.

952.Xen.Mem.i. 6, especially end: ἐγὼ δὲ νομίζω τὸ μὲν μηδενὸς δεῖσθαι θεῖον εἶναι, etc.; cf. Schrohl,op. cit., pp. 26-28.

953.400E, 401A.

954.401A: ἀλλὰ ποῖα δὴ τῶν χρησίμων, ἐπειδή γε οὐ πάντα. Cf. also 400E.

955.401B, 401E.

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

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

958.399E.

959.Cf. 399E, where Eristratos defines πλοῦτος as τὰ χρήματα πολλὰ κεκτῆσθαι.

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

961.394D-E, 402E.

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

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

964.397E.

965.396C: ἂν μέν τι ἕχῃς, ἄξιός του, ἐὰν δὲ μή, οὐδενός. Cf.The Simple Life: “He who has nothing is nothing.” Cf. Eurip. fr. 328, Danae (Nauck): κακὸς δ᾽ ὁ μὴ ἔχων, οἱ δ᾽ ἔχοντες ὄλβιοι.

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

967.396E-397E, as above; 393A.

968.405D.

969.405E.

970.406B.

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

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

973.399E.

974.400A-E.

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

976.402B-C, 404A-B.

977.400E.

978.400C-E, especially ὅσα μέν ἄρα τυγχάνει χρήσιμα ὄντα ἡμῖν ταῦτα χρήματα, though at this point the term has been made to include all wealth; cf. also 402C: ἀλλὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἂν εἴν (χρήματα) οἷς τὰ χρήσιμα οἶοί τ᾽ ἐσμὲν ἐκπορίζεσθαι.

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

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

981.Fr. IV, A, p. 24: δι᾽ ἀνελευθερίαν καὶ ῥυπαρίαν.

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

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

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

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

986.P. 29, ll. 6 ff.

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

988.P. 26.

Back to Index Next