CHAPTER IV. Xenophon

XENOPHON

Xenophon was a man of affairs, whose interests touched the practical life 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, 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 private estates, and believes with Plato and Ruskin that the same qualities are necessary for the successful handling of the affairs of either house or state.

VALUE

Xenophon insists strongly on utility or serviceableness as a necessary quality of property (χρήματα, κτήματα). 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 implied 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 fact that workmen tend to enter other fields of activity whenever any industry becomes unprofitable through an oversupply of its products.

WEALTH

The double standpoint of Xenophon is well illustrated in his doctrine of wealth. On the one hand, he values it highly, and tries to deduce practical rules for its increase and enjoyment. On the other hand, like Socrates and Plato, he makes derogatory comparisons between economic and spiritual wealth. As in the case of value, he offers no clear definition of economic wealth (κτῆσις). It is defined indiscriminately as “whatever is useful to life,” and “useful” is “everything that anyone knows how to use.” But, as seen above, this is a purely subjective notion, and is only one element in economic wealth. He also defines it (χρήματα) as “the excess of goods over needs,” making it a merely relative term: but here again the thought is ethical rather than economic, an attempt to teach the somewhat ascetic principle that a man’s riches are measured by the paucity of his wants. The hostile or indifferent attitude to wealth is also assumed in the comparison of it with so-called mental wealth and wisdom and in the implication that it involves many cares. The idea so prominent in Plato, however, that the acquisition or expenditure of great wealth is not consistent with justice, is not emphasized by Xenophon. He calls that man happiest who has best succeeded in just acquisition, 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 life, and economics had not become a separate science. The word ἐργασία, 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 ἡ ποιητικὴ τέχνη, “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 statement of Zimmern that the Greeks had no better word for “business” than ἀσχολία, “lack of leisure,” is hardly warranted.

Xenophon was far more interested than Plato or Aristotle in the problem of practical production. His shrewd discussion of agriculture, and his urgent appeal to Athens to increase her revenues by systematic exploitation of the mines, and by the encouragement of industry and commerce, reveal a mind awake to economic advantage. Though at times he seems almost to make war and agriculture the only true means of production, it is evident that he has a live interest in all means of acquisition. Toward the theory of production, however, his contribution is not large. In the Economics, he recognizes the importance of labor and natural resources in production, and in the Revenues, he sees the necessity of capital. But naturally, like Aristotle and the southern planter, he confuses capital with labor, in the person of the slave. The fable of the dog and the sheep reveals a knowledge of the machinery of production, and some insight into the proper relation between the employer and the laborer. Xenophon’s distinct contribution to future economic thought, however, consists in his appreciation of the fact that economic production has its definite limits; that the same ratio of profits cannot be increased indefinitely by the constant addition of more labor and capital, but that these must be proportioned to the greatest possible return. To be sure, he does not appreciate the scientific significance of the principle. His purpose is rather to emphasize the danger of overproduction, and he even fails to grasp the necessary application of this danger to the silver mines. However, as the enunciator of the principle, he may be called the forerunner of the doctrine of diminishing returns.

As seen above, special emphasis was laid by Xenophon upon natural resources as an element in production, both in land and in the mines. His great interest in and eulogy of agriculture as the basal industry, upon which all other sources of wealth depend, have caused him to be classed with the physiocrats of modern time but such an interpretation is hardly warranted. Without doubt, agriculture is, in his opinion, the supremely honorable occupation. It shares with war the right to be placed above all other vocations. It permits the maximum of leisure and physical development, and is not unworthy of the personal attention of a prince. It is the most pleasant, most productive,, most dignified, of callings; the best exercise for the athlete, the finest school for education in patriotism and justice, and it offers the greatest opportunity for the exercise of hospitality to men and reverence to gods. Indeed, it is the first of all occupations for an honorable and high-minded man to choose. Here we have the highest eulogy of agriculture in Greek literature. It is in essence a sound statement, and offers a needed message for today.

Though Xenophon recognized the practical importance of capital in industrial enterprises, he developed no theory of it in his writings. He appreciated, however, the value of being able to keep a surplus. The term ἀφορμή, as used by him of the provision of raw material for weaving, probably signified nothing more than it would have done to any Athenian business man of his time. The word originally meant a “starting-point,” especially in war. Later, it signified the “means” or “resources” with which one begins a project, especially in business. It was an easy step from this general business use to the meaning, “financial capital” of a banker. Other terms for capital were ἐνεργά, used of interest-bearing capital in antithesis to ἀργά, of goods merely for use; κάρπιμα, “goods that yield a produce,” as opposed to ἀπολαυστικά, “goods to be enjoyed,” which is suggestive of Mill’s definition, “that part of his possessions ... which he designs to employ in carrying on fresh production,” and of his two kinds of capital, “circulating” and “fixed”; ποιητικά, “things for further production,” as opposed to πρακτικά, “things merely for use”; κεφάλαιος, of capital as opposed to interest or income. The term ἔρανος, also, since it came to mean a “contribution of money,” was often used of a loan, and therefore approached the signification of “money capital.”

Xenophon is considerably more favorable to labor and the industrial life than are the other Socratics. He quotes Socrates with apparent approval, that to do something well is well-being, while he who does nothing well is neither good for anything nor beloved of God. Work is far better than idleness. It produces more happiness, makes the laborer more temperate and just, and is the sine qua non for the independent life. This is a strong plea for industry, and is especially significant, since it refers primarily, to manufacture rather than to agriculture. The reference, however, is to women workers, whose loss of leisure would not be an injury to the state. Each person is encouraged to provide for himself, and to do his work in the best possible manner, and the maxim of Epicharmus, “For labor, the gods sell all goods to us,” is heartily approved. All the foregoing passages are Hesiodic in their insistence upon the value of industry. But apart from his evident acceptance of the doctrine of Socrates, as quoted above, Xenophon exhibits a positive interest in labor. His attitude toward the advancement of industry and commerce is thoroughly modern, except that he does not contemplate the employment of free citizen labor. He emphasizes labor almost as strongly as natural resources as an important factor in production. He believes also that industrial thrift and prosperity are the best means of realizing a more quiet and orderly state.

Even the practical Xenophon, however, is not free from the moral-aristocratic prejudice against mechanical arts (βαναυσικαί) for the better class of citizens. He admits that they are justly spoken against, and held in ill-repute, since they tend to weaken the laborer both in body and in soul. The artisans have no leisure to give either to their friends or to the state, and in a warlike state the citizens cannot be thus employed. The artisan is also servile because of his ignorance of the higher moral sentiments (τὰ καλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ καὶ δίκαια). All this sounds like Plato, but Xenophon differs, in that he is in no wise opposed to the unlimited development of industry and commerce, provided the drudgery of it may be done by non-citizens.

The principle of the division of labor is clearly stated by him, but here again he differs from Plato in that his prime interest is practical and economic rather than moral. He presents it as the reason why royal dishes are superior in flavor to others, and makes the acute observation that the division of labor is not so fully applied in the small city, because there are not enough consumers to support a man in one trade. In the large city, on the other hand, the consumers are so numerous that even the trades themselves are divided and subdivided. Thus much greater skill is developed, and better results realized, for he who spends his time in work of the narrowest compass (βραχυτάτῳ) must accomplish this in the best manner. He does not specify the advantages of the division of labor to industry, except that it results in greater skill, but he reveals especial insight in stating so clearly the relation of the market to the development of the principle. In this, he is the forerunner of Adam Smith, who observes that a minute division of trades cannot exist except in the larger cities, especially in coast and river towns. The assertion of Haney, that the Greeks referred only to a “simple separation of employments,” is certainly unwarranted in the light of this passage, for Xenophon expressly distinguishes here the simple from the more complex subdivision. He says that some are employed on men’s shoes, others on women’s; some do the sewing (νευρορραφῶν), others do the cutting (σχίζων), and that the same also is true in the manufacture of clothing. This passage is also an evidence that the development of industry in fourth-century Athens must have been extensive. Xenophon also, like Plato, observed the fact that the diversity in the natures of men is the basis for the division of labor, though he did not follow him in his doctrine that men and women should have the same work.

Unlike Plato, the idealist, Xenophon, the practical man of affairs, takes the institution of slavery for granted, seemingly unconscious of any ethical or economic problems involved. However, as a matter of common-sense, he advises that slaves be treated with consideration. He would give them a proper degree of liberty, and arouse them to do their best by a fair system of rewards and punishments. In the case of those slaves who hold positions of trust, he advises that their affections should be won by kindly treatment, and even by making them sharers in the prosperity of the household. Slavery is, of course, a condition most irksome to the free-born. The unfortunate Eutheros would almost prefer starvation.

MONEY

In his treatise on the Revenues of Athens, Xenophon shows some appreciation of the theory of money. He appears to take for granted that money must have intrinsic value. At least, he understands that silver is a commodity whose value is affected by its use as such, as well as by its employment for currency. He also apprehends the value of a silver currency for international commerce. His naïvely enthusiastic argument for the indefinite increase of the stock of silver, however, is suggestive of the mercantile fallacy, which identified money with wealth. But perhaps he is merely using for practical purposes of argument the fact that the Athenians were accustomed to look upon silver as the metal for fixed and constant value. In any event, he sees that the increase of silver must be attended by a corresponding increase in business activity, if its value is not to depreciate, and he cannot be accused of the error of the mercantilists, that a country is impoverished by the export of money. He must also have understood clearly the importance of stability of value in a currency, since he deems it necessary to show that the increased output of silver will not decrease its value, and that silver is the least changeable of the monetary metals. Despite his enthusiasm for his thesis, which causes him to exaggerate the stability of silver, he does not fail to grasp the direct effect of supply and demand upon it, just as upon gold and other commodities. He shows also some understanding of the quantitative theory of the relation between gold and silver. It need hardly be added that, in strong contrast to Plato, his attitude toward the precious metals, especially silver, is very favorable.

EXCHANGE

Xenophon presents no theory of exchange, though he is frankly interested in the advance of commerce and trade. In his opinion, the greater their development, the better it is for the city of Athens. He is full of practical suggestions to stimulate commercial activity. So assured is he of the prime importance of extensive commerce to a nation, that, in the spirit of modern commercialism, he insists upon the necessity of peace for its sake. To his mind, increased trade means not only material advantage, but social and political as well, in that greater prosperity, more labor, and a better distribution will mean greater satisfaction, and hence less danger of revolution in the state. He entertains none of the prejudice of the other Socratics against the money-makers’ art, a fact which may well be a warning against the too ready acceptance of their attitude as the usual verdict of the Athenian citizens. In his practical suggestions for the development of commerce there is a hint of the protective principle. He advises that certain advantages be granted to shipowners so as to induce them to increase their shipping. But the purpose is not to limit the advantage to Athenian merchantmen, nor to restrict import trade. It is rather the opposite. He would enrich the city by tribute on both imports and exports, imposed for sumptuary and revenue purposes, and would also develop a public merchant-marine for rent to merchants, as a further source of income.

POPULATION

In antithesis to Plato and Aristotle, the problem of population has no difficulties for Xenophon. He does not deem it advisable to set a limit on the population of the state. On the contrary, he conceives it as one of the advantages of his plan in the Revenues, that thereby the city would become very populous, and thus land about the mines would soon be as valuable as that in the city itself.

DISTRIBUTION

Xenophon is far less concerned about the problem of distribution than Plato. He has no suggestions as to wages, profits, or prices, no ideal state where an equitable distribution shall be realized, no yearnings after equality, or complaints against the evils of extreme wealth or poverty. Like Plato, he would avoid civic discord in the state, but by the increase of production and exchange rather than by their limitation. In Socrates’ parable of the dog and the sheep, he presents a suggestion of a theory of profits, but his plea is for the employer instead of the laborer. The right of the former to share in the profits of the business is based on his service as overseer of the work, and as protector of the workmen.

Our author does not definitely reveal his attitude toward the poorer masses, but it seems probable that he had little interest in them, except in so far as their condition might affect the fortunes of the state. He was, of course, opposed to giving them full political rights, and would probably have preferred a system such as that in Plato’s Laws, where all free citizens have sufficient income so that they can give their time largely to the state, and where all laborers are slaves. He did not think of suggesting that the poorer citizens work in the mines, or even that aliens do so, but suggested rather that each citizen have the income from three state slaves.

While Xenophon is not usually considered among the socialists of Greece, he approaches perhaps even nearer than Plato to one phase of modern socialism. Like Plato, he opposes the extreme individualism of the political and private life of his day. He also reveals the Greek feeling of the social obligation of private property. Again, as do Plato and modern socialists, he magnifies the power of law to transform economic or social conditions. But in advocating the modern doctrine of the socialization of industry, with an economic, and not a moral or political, motive, he has advanced beyond either Plato or Aristotle, and approaches modern socialism. As seen above, however, his economic motive is not interest in the welfare of the masses, for by his scheme they would all be slaves. He desires only to abolish poverty among the citizens. He would have the state become entrepreneur, not merely in one, but in many branches of industry. State merchant shipping, public ownership of slaves, public exploitation of the mines, public buildings near the mines, for rental to strangers, are all in his plan. The rich must finance the scheme, but their profit will be 18, 36, or even 200 per cent. Companies are to be organized so as to obviate individual risk. Thus will poverty be no more, plenty for all will reign, and there will be an era of prosperity and security for the state.

His thesis is, in a word, that what private capital can accomplish for the enrichment of itself alone, state capital can accomplish to better advantage for the enrichment of the whole citizenship, a doctrine which strikes a truly modern socialistic note.

Footnote 375:

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

Footnote 376:

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

Footnote 377:

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

Footnote 378:

For some qualifications, cf. above, Introduction.

Footnote 379:

Econ. i. 2: οἰκονόμου ἀγοθοῦ εἶναι οἰκεῖν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ οἶκον; cf. 3: τὸν ἄλλου δὲ οἶκον. οἶκον is used of one’s entire property (5).

Footnote 380:

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

Footnote 381:

Econ. i. 7-15; cf. 10: ταύτα ἄρα ὄντα τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ χρῆσθαι αὐτῶν ἑκάστοισ χρήματα ἐστι, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ οὐ χρήματα. Cf. p. 23 and notes on Plato and Ruskin. H. Sewall (“Theory of Value before Adam Smith,” Publications of the American Economic Association, II, Part III, p. 1) says that the conception of value (ἀξία) as a quality inherent in the thing was not questioned, but Xenophon seems to question it here. As she observes, n. 1, the term originally meant “weight,” at first weight in money, as well as actual worth.

Footnote 382:

i. 11 f.

Footnote 383:

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

Footnote 384:

Econ. i. 2: ἀποδιδομένοις μὲν οἱ αὐλοὶ χρήματα, μὴ αποδιδομένοις δὲ ἀλλὰ κεκτημένοις οὔ, τοῖς μὴ ἐπισταμένοις αὐτοῖς χρῆσθαι. Brants (Xen. Econ., p. 8) overemphasizes this.

Footnote 385:

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

Footnote 386:

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

Footnote 387:

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

Footnote 388:

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

Footnote 389:

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

Footnote 390:

In Econ. ii. 2-8, Socrates’ comparison of himself with the wealthy Critoboulos; Hiero iv. 6-10; Mem. iv. 2. 37 f.; i. 6. 1-10, where Socrates defends his own simple life, especially 10: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐνόμιζον τὸ μὲν μηδενὸς δεῖσθαι θεῖον εἶναι. If meant in the economic sense, this would approach a definition of capital, as “excess of goods over needs.”

Footnote 391:

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

Footnote 392:

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

Footnote 393:

Econ. xi. 9.

Footnote 394:

Cyrop. viii. 2. 23.

Footnote 395:

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

Footnote 396:

Thuc. vii. 6. 2, of walls; Gorg. 449D, ἱματίων; Theaet. 146D, ὑποδημάτων; Xen. Econ. vii. 21, ἐσθῆτος.

Footnote 397:

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

Footnote 398:

Ar. Frogs 1034; Isoc. Areop. 30.

Footnote 399:

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

Footnote 400:

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

Footnote 401:

C.I.A. 3924: ἡ ἐργασία τῶν βαφέων.

Footnote 402:

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

Footnote 403:

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

Footnote 404:

Econ., especially chaps. v-vii; iv. 4; Mem. ii. 1. 6; Econ. v. 17: εὒ μὲν γὰρ φερομένης τῆς γεωργίας ἔρρωνται καὶ ἄλλαι τέχναι ἄπασαι, ὅπου δ᾽ ἂν ἀναγκασθῇ ἡ γῆ χερσεύειν, ἀποσβέννυνται καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι τέχναι σχεδόν τι καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν, a very true statement, which does not belittle other industries.

Footnote 405:

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

Footnote 406:

Pol. i. 8 and 9.

Footnote 407:

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

Footnote 408:

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

Footnote 409:

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

Footnote 410:

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

Footnote 411:

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

Footnote 412:

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

Footnote 413:

Econ. vi. 8.

Footnote 414:

Cf. Revenues.

Footnote 415:

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

Footnote 416:

Mem. ii. 7. 11 f.

Footnote 417:

Thuc. i. 90. 2.

Footnote 418:

Cf. n. 1, although Liddell and Scott cite the passage as having the meaning of “capital”; Mem. iii. 12. 4, where it need mean no more than wealth; Econ. i. 1. 16; Dem. xxxvi. 54: πίστις ἀφορμὴ πασῶν ἐστὶ μεγίστη πρὸς χρηματισμόν. Here πίστις is almost called capital. Cf. p. 106, n. 3.

Footnote 419:

Dem. xxxvi. 11: καίτοι εἰ ἢν ἰδία τις ἀφορμὴ τουτῳῖ πρὸς τῇ τραπέζῃ; xiv. 36; Lysias fr. 2. 2, p. 343, ed. Thalheim; Rev. iii. 9 and 12 and iv. 34 are also used of large financial undertakings; cf. Harpocration’s definition; ὅταν τις ἀργύριον δῷ ἐνθήκην, ἀφορμὴ καλεῖται ἰδίως παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς; for the term in Ar. Pol. vi. 1320a35-1320b17 cf. infra. Cf. Isoc. Areop. 146d for a similar passage.

Footnote 420:

Dem. xxvii. 8 and 13.

Footnote 421:

Ar. Rhet. i. 5. 7.

Footnote 422:

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

Footnote 423:

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

Footnote 424:

Plato Laws 742C; Dem. xxvii. 75.

Footnote 425:

Lycurg., p. 150, 22: τοὺς ἐράνους διενεγκεῖν; Dem. xxi. 184 f.; cf. Dem. lix. 8 for the interesting figurative use, τὸν αὐτὸν ἔρανον ἀποδοῦναι, “to pay him in his own coin”; also Lycurg., p. 168, 143.

Footnote 426:

Mem. iii. 9. 14 f.; cf. Brants, Xen. Econ., p. 10, for passages on Xenophon’s attitude to labor.

Footnote 427:

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

Footnote 428:

Mem. ii. 8. 1-5.

Footnote 429:

ii. 1. 20.

Footnote 430:

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

Footnote 431:

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

Footnote 432:

Rev. iv. 51.

Footnote 433:

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

Footnote 434:

iv. 3.

Footnote 435:

Mem. iv. 2. 22.

Footnote 436:

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

Footnote 437:

Cf. p. 70.

Footnote 438:

Op. cit., I, iii.

Footnote 439:

Op. cit., p. 40; cf. also Dühring, Kritische Geschichte der Nationalökonomie und des Socialismus, p. 22.

Footnote 440:

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

Footnote 441:

Mem. iii. 9. 3.

Footnote 442:

Econ. viii.

Footnote 443:

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

Footnote 444:

Econ. iii. 4.

Footnote 445:

v. 16; xiii.

Footnote 446:

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

Footnote 447:

Mem. ii. 8. 4.

Footnote 448:

Rev. iii. 2: ὅπου γὰρ ἂν πωλῶσιν αὐτὸ, πανταχοῦ πλεῖον τοῦ ἀρχαίου λαμβάνουσιν.

Footnote 449:

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

Footnote 450:

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

Footnote 451:

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

Footnote 452:

Rev. iv. 8.

Footnote 453:

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

Footnote 454:

Rev. iv. 5-11.

Footnote 455:

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

Footnote 456:

iv. 10: χρυσίον ὅταν πολὺ παραφανῇ, αὐτὸ μὲν ἀτιμότερον γίγνεται, τὸ δὲ ἀργύριον τιμιώτερον ποιεῖ.

Footnote 457:

iv. 5-7.

Footnote 458:

iv. 10.

Footnote 459:

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

Footnote 460:

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

Footnote 461:

Rev. iii., especially 5; Hiero ix. 9; ἐμπόρια ὠφέλει πόλιν.

Footnote 462:

iii. 3. 4. 12 f.

Footnote 463:

iii. 4; v-vi.

Footnote 464:

vi. 1.

Footnote 465:

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

Footnote 466:

Rev. iii. 4.

Footnote 467:

iii. 5.

Footnote 468:

iii. 14.

Footnote 469:

iv. 50.

Footnote 470:

Rev. vi. 1.

Footnote 471:

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

Footnote 472:

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

Footnote 473:

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

Footnote 474:

Mem. iv. 4. 16; ἄνευ δὲ ὁμονοίας οὐτ᾽ ἂν πόλις εῦ πολιτευθείν οὐτ᾽ οἶκος καλῶς, οἰκηθείν.

Footnote 475:

Econ. xi. 9, 13.

Footnote 476:

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

Footnote 477:

Rev. iii and iv.

Footnote 478:

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

Footnote 479:

iii. 14.

Footnote 480:

iv. 17.

Footnote 481:

iv.

Footnote 482:

iv. 49.

Footnote 483:

iii. 9 f.

Footnote 484:

iv. 30-32.

Footnote 485:

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

Footnote 486:

Cf. especially iv. 14: τῆς μέντοι πόλεως πάνυ ἄξιον θαυμάσαι τὸ αἰσθανομένην πολλοὺς πλουτιζομένους ἕξ αὐτῆς ἰδιώτας μὴ μιμεῖσθαι τούτους.