Chapter VI: Aristotle (2)

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.[770] He states the principle that, if property is to be limited, there must be a corresponding limitation on the increase of population,[771] and that the let-alone policy must be followed by increased poverty.[772] He therefore criticizes the Spartan law, for encouraging the largest possible families.[773] 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 limit individual acquisition, in a small state, artificially constructed, and is to him in no sense a question of world food-supply.[774]

DISTRIBUTION

In the _Ethics_ passage discussed above,[775] Aristotle approaches a scientific theory of distribution. He observes that just distribution will be a mean between two extremes of unfairness.[776] Unlike some moderns, however, he realizes that this will not mean equal shares for all. There must be the same ratio between the persons, or services, and the things.[777] In the “mutual exchange of services,” the law must be proportional requital.[778] In other words, each should receive an equivalent to what he contributes.[779] Distribution must thus proceed according to a certain standard of worth or desert (κατ᾽ ἀξίαν τινά).[780] If the individuals are unequal, their shares cannot be equal, and it is a prolific source of dispute, whenever equals receive unequal shares, or unequals receive equal.[781] On the other hand, Aristotle recognizes that it is a difficult matter to determine this standard, by which just distribution is to proceed.[782] At this point, again, he shows clearly that his paramount interest in the problem is not economic. He names four possible standards—freedom, wealth, noble birth, and general excellence—all of which are distinctly political in their reference.[783]

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 application. 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.[784] He advises that measures be taken to hold the workers in submission and obedience.[785] 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.[786] His demand that no citizen shall lack subsistence,[787] his provision of the _sussitia_ for all,[788] his insistence that, in the market, mere economic self-interest shall not rule,[789] and his emphasis on the importance of a strong middle class in the state,[790] 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 independent.[791] Nevertheless his suggestion does show that he saw clearly the relation that exists in a democracy between the economic condition of the masses and the stability of the state.[792] He says that the genuine friend of the people (ἀληθινῶς δημοτικός) 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 contribute money for furnishing plots of land or capital for small business enterprises to the needy poor.[793] However, while the advice seems, on the surface, to favor the commons, it is really a prudent suggestion to the upper classes, appealing to their selfish interest to avoid by this method the danger of a discontented proletariat.[794] 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, über dem Reichtume die Menschen zu vergessen, und über der Vermehrung der Menschenzahl, der Wohlstand der einzelnen gering zu achten.”[795]

Aristotle makes clear his attitude toward the institution of private property and other related questions, both in his criticism of other thinkers, and in his own positive suggestions for the ideal state. Through his objections to the systems of Phaleas and Plato, he has acquired the reputation of being the great defender of private property in Greece. We shall see the extent to which this interpretation of him is correct. Our consideration of his theory may be summarized under certain topics which are fundamental to the problem of distribution.

He admits that the doctrine of economic equality may have some wisdom in it.[796] The attempt to equalize possessions may tend slightly to prevent civic discord.[797] Yet it is liable to arouse sedition on the part of the exploited classes,[798] and such relief measures will satisfy the masses only for a time, for they are notoriously insatiate.[799] In his opinion, therefore, the saner remedy is equalization of desires rather than of property,[800] which must be realized by proper education and a right constitution, whereby the upper classes shall not oppress, and the masses shall be held in check. We have here still a valid argument against the more radical type of socialism. It is suggestive of the modern doctrine of private property as a public trust,[801] and presents clearly the antithesis between the attitude of Greek thinkers and that of the modern social democracy.[802]

Aristotle argues further that equalization of property would be powerless to prevent anything more than the merely petty crimes, for the grossest ones are the result of inordinate desire, rather than of inability to provide life’s necessities.[803] Moreover, there are many other natural inequalities of life what would remain to arouse discontent.[804] This is a sensible observation that has often been overlooked by modern radical socialists, though its author might have objected further that such personal diversities would also render an abiding equality of property impossible. His previous argument, however, that immorality and crimes are the result of inordinate desire, rather than of economic need, might be answered today by the results of investigations upon the relation of wages to morality.

The doctrine of communistic equality, as preached by some theorists in fifth- and fourth-century Greece, and as satirized by Aristophanes,[805] had no appeal for Aristotle. It was, to him, merely a thinly veiled individualism. He saw through the selfish partisanship of both oligarchs and democrats, and recognized that all men are poor judges in matters that concern themselves.[806] The excessive individualism of the radical democrat of his day, which permitted the majority to confiscate the property of the minority in the name of a false equality, was as hateful to him as it was to Plato.[807] As seen above, he insisted that economic or political equality should not be demanded, except on the basis of equality of service.[808] Exploitation by the radical democracy was, in his eyes, as bad as the rule of a tyrant,[809] and the ruthless individualism of the classes was no better.[810] Like Plato, he would oppose to both of these the common interest, and would unite both masses and classes in the aim to realize the highest moral life for the individual through the state.[811] He refuted the Sophist’s theory of social contract and of justice as a mere convention.[812] As Stewart has observed he realized that “more powerful causes than the mere perception of material advantage brought men into social union and keep them in it.”[813] Each citizen, he held, is not his own master, but all belong to the state. Each is a member (μόριον) of the social body, and the concern of each is naturally relative to the good of the whole.[814]

Aristotle’s further criticisms, of minor significance, on the suggestions of Phaleas and Plato for equality of possessions are as follows: They have taken no precautions to regulate population accordingly.[815] They set no proper limit between luxury and penury for individual possessions.[816] Plato’s system is not thoroughgoing, since it allows inequalities in personal property, a criticism also valid against his own proposals.[817] Phaleas failed to include personal property in his system of equality.[818] 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_.[819]

Our author is also strong in his denial of either the wisdom or feasibility of the communism in the _Republic_.[820] He argues that Plato’s proposed family communism is based upon the false principle that a state must be composed of like elements,[821] and shows that it must fail to accomplish its end of harmony, for Plato’s “all” must mean all collectively.[822] But this must result, if realized, in a decrease of devotion,[823] and thus in a lack of the very harmony sought,[824] since one of the chief sources of attachment in the world is exclusive ownership.[825] He would deem such a measure, therefore, more fitting for the third class, since a weakening of their ties of affection might result in greater submission to the rulers,[826] another striking evidence of the gulf that separates the ideal of Greek political thought from the spirit of modern democracy.

Moreover, he considers Plato’s assumption that a state, to be a unity, must be devoid of all private interests, to be gratuitous,[827] and argues that the common possession of anything is more likely to cause strife than harmony.[828] In his opinion, the present system of private property, if accompanied by a right moral tone and proper laws, combines the advantages of both common and individual ownership.[829] The tenure of property should therefore be private, but there should be a certain friendly community in its actual use.[830] Thus will be avoided the double evil of strife and neglect, which must result from dissatisfaction and lack of personal interest under communism.[831] He offers as a substitute for the Platonic doctrine, then, his own ideal of reciprocal equality (τὸ ἴσον τὸ ἀντιπεπονθός) as the real cement of society.[832] In any event, he asserts, the present evils do not result from private property, but from the depravity of human nature (μοχθηρίαν),[833] and the aim should be to improve this by moral and intellectual culture, rather than to attempt amelioration by the establishment of an entirely new system.[834] The latter method would result, even if successful, not only in escape from some of the present evils, but also in the loss of the present advantages of private tenure.[835]

The foregoing arguments all show remarkable practical insight, and have been common in the modern criticism of socialism. The objection that individual effort and industry would be paralyzed if bereft of the stimulus of personal interest and ownership, while a general fact of human nature, need not be valid against a system where each has opportunity to develop up to his capacity. There 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 régime of private properly, 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_.[836] 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.[837] He praises, on the other hand, the Cretan system, which permitted the entire citizenship, including women and children, to be nourished at the common table, at public expense.[838]

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 public property.[839] 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 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.[840] His collectivism is more direct than that of the _Laws_, since he makes part of the land entirely public, to defray the expense of worship and the common meals.[841] 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.[842] Despite his criticism of Plato’s division of homesteads, he has the same plan.[843] As in the _Laws_, only citizens are landowners, and this includes only the governing and military classes,[844] while all husbandmen are to be public or private slaves.[845] Unlike Plato, however, Aristotle does not attempt to avoid undue inequalities in personal property.[846] 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 operations 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 commercialism is even more pronounced than is that of Plato.[847]

It is evident from the preceding outline 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.[848] 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 to himself, but to the state, and can realize his best life only through the state.[849] 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 socialistic, 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,[850] Aristotle thought in terms of land, while modern socialism thinks in terms of capital and labor. Both standpoints involve social ownership and the limitation of the individual, and in this respect the Greek thinker was socialistic 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.[851] Any attempts at direct comparison with modern socialism, 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.[852]

Footnote 517:

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

Footnote 518:

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

Footnote 519:

Zmavc (_ibid_, and also _Zeitschr. f. d. gesammt. Staatswiss._ [1902],
pp. 48 ff.) emphasizes this fact.

Footnote 520:

_Pol._ i. 1. 1252_a_7-13, cited on p. 9, n. 5, a criticism of Plato’s
_Politics_ 258E-259C; on the truth in this confusion, cf. p. 10. Even
Adam Smith said: “What is wise with a family can hardly be foolish
with a great kingdom.”

Footnote 521:

Besides St. Hilaire and Zmavc, cited above, among those favorable are
Cossa, _Hist. des doctrines economiques_, p. 149; Blanqui, _op. cit._,
I, 49, 86. More reserved are Souchon, _op. cit._, p. 127; DuBois, _op.
cit._, p. 50; Haney, _op. cit._, pp. 47 f.; unfair interpretation,
Dühring, _op. cit._, pp. 20 f.

Footnote 522:

i. 9. 1257_a_6-9: ἑκάστου γὰρ κτήματος διττὴ ἡ χρῆσίς ἐστιν ἀμφότεραι
δὲ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ μὲν ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁμοίως καθ᾽ αὑτό, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ μὲν οἰκεία ἡ δ᾽ οὐκ
οἰκεία τοῦ πράγματος οἱον ὑποδήματος ἥ τε ὑπόδεσις καὶ ἡ μεταβλητική.

Footnote 523:

_Wealth of Nations_, I, chap. iv.

Footnote 524:

Cf. Souchon, _op. cit._, p. 127; Haney, _op. cit._, p. 47.

Footnote 525:

Unless this is implied in κτήματος, 1257_a_6, as ἔστι γὰρ ἡ
μεταβλητικὴ πάντων (14 f.) might seem to indicate. Zmavc (_Archiv._,
etc., p. 410) points to 1253_b_33-39, on the automatic tripods of
Hephaestus, as implying it, but if so it was unintended by Aristotle.
But cf. _infra_, pp. 84 and 86, n. 4, where it is recognized.

Footnote 526:

1257_a_11; 5-19, but not specifically stated, and the term χρεία does
not occur here.

Footnote 527:

i. 7. 14: καὶ τὸ σπανιώτερον τοῦ ἀφθόνου, οἷον χρυσὸς σιδήρου
ἀχρηστότερος ὤν· ἄλλον δὲ τρόπον τε ἄφθονον τοῦ σπανίου, ὅτι ἡ χρῆσις
ὑπερέχει· τὸ γὰρ πολλάκις τοῦ ὀλιγάκις ὑπερέχει· ὅθεν λέγεται ἄριστον
μὲν ὕδωρ. Cf. Pind. _Ol._ i. 1 and Cope-Sandys ed. of Ar. _Rhet._ (I,
pp. 130 f., 1877).

Footnote 528:

_Ibid._

Footnote 529:

V, v. 8-14. 1133_a_5-1133_b_10 ff.

Footnote 530:

E.g., Stewart.

Footnote 531:

1133_a_5-12; 15 f.; 18; cf. _Eud. Eth._ vii. 10. 1243_b_28-38.

Footnote 532:

_N. Eth._ 1133_a_5-12, etc., 12 f.: οὐθὲν γὰρ κωλύει κρεῖττον εἶναι το
θατέρου ἔργον ἢ τὸ θατέρου. The emphasis seems to be on quality of
labor, as suggested by κρεῖττον. Cf. both ὅσον and οἷον (15) and p. 84
n. 3.

Footnote 533:

_Ibid._ 7-10; by joining means and extremes together, the
proportionate exchange is effected. Cf. also 1133_b_4 ff.; 1133_a_32
f. As observed by Ritchie (Palgrave’s _Dictionary_, art. “Aristotle”)
and H. Sewall (_op. cit._, p. 3, n. 2), the proportion is clearer to
moderns if we make our standard one hour of labor of each workman
instead of the men themselves.

Footnote 534:

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

Footnote 535:

1133_a_25-27; 1133_b_6 f. Cf. p. 34, n. 5, for Plato’s use of the
term.

Footnote 536:

_Op. cit._, pp. 47 f.

Footnote 537:

Cf. the discussion and notes above; also 1133_a_15 f., where both
elements seem to be recognized, though the meaning of the passage is
disputed. Cf. _infra_, p. 108, n. 3.

Footnote 538:

1133_a_19 ff.; 29; 1133_b_10 ff., cited _infra_, on money. It clearly
distinguishes the quality of exchangeableness. Cf. iv. 1. 1119_b_26
f., cited _infra_, n. 7. Cf. pp. 38 f. for Plato’s theory.

Footnote 539:

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

Footnote 540:

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

Footnote 541:

Bonar (_op. cit._, p. 40) criticizes him for this. The words ἀξία and
τίμη are not used in the passage, but for the former in a very dear
economic sense, cf. iv. 1. 1119_b_26-27; χρήματα δὲ λέγομεν πάντα ὅσων
ἡ ἀξία νομίσματι μετρεῖται.

Footnote 542:

For further discussion of this _Ethics_ passage, cf. _infra_ on money,
exchange, and distribution. _Mag. mor._ i. 33. 1193_b_19-1194_b_2
repeats the idea, citing Plato _Rep._ on the exchange of the four
producers in his primitive state.

Footnote 543:

i. 8. 1256_b_28-32. The term ἄπειρος, as applied to wealth, is used by
Plato and Aristotle of undue love of money (_Rep._ 373D, 591D; _Laws_
870A); for Aristotle, cf. passage above and _infra_. There is a sense,
even from the economic standpoint, in which wealth is not unlimited.

Footnote 544:

_Prin. of Pol. Econ._, preliminary remarks, and Book I, chap. iii, 3.

Footnote 545:

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

Footnote 546:

_Op. cit._, p. 374; cf. _infra_ on the moral attitude of Aristotle to
wealth.

Footnote 547:

His unfair criticism of Plato seems to argue otherwise (_Rep._ 369C
ff.; _Pol._ 1291_a_12-19), but cf. _infra_.

Footnote 548:

ii. 7. 1267_b_10 ff.; 1254_a_16 f.; _Rhet._ i. 5. 1361_a_12 ff.

Footnote 549:

_Pol._ 1254_a_16 ff.: κτῆμα δὲ ὄργανον πρακτικὸν καὶ χωριστὸν, similar
to Walker’s term “transferability” (_Pol. Econ._, 3d ed., p. 5); cf.
Mill, _op. cit._, preliminary remarks on the term.

Footnote 550:

_N. Eth._ iv. 1. 1119_b_26 f., cited on p. 84, n. 7.

Footnote 551:

Cf. the discussion above on value; cf. Mill, _op. cit._, Book I, chap,
iii, 3, on the quality of “storableness” as an attribute of wealth.
Newman (_Pol. of Ar._, II, note to 1256_b_26 ff.) asks if θησαυρισμός
can be applied to slaves and cattle, and if the definition can include
land. These are all included; cf. n. 1, above.

Footnote 552:

_Pol._ i. 9. 1257_a_6 and 14 f., and the discussion above of _N. Eth._
1133_a_5 ff.

Footnote 553:

Cf. n. 3.

Footnote 554:

Cf. Smith, _op. cit._, IV, for criticism of this basal confusion of
the mercantile theory.

Footnote 555:

_Rhet._ B. 16. 1390-91.

Footnote 556:

_Pol._ i. 8. 1256_b_31 f.; _N. Eth._ i. 8. 1099_a_31-33, especially
ἁδύνατον γὰρ ἢ οὐ ῥάδιον τὰ καλὰ πράττειν ἀχορήγητον ὄντα; 1101_a_14
f., in the definition of the εὐδαίμων man.

Footnote 557:

_Pol._ iii. 6. 1265_a_32 f.: ἐλευθέρως; _N. Eth._ iii., chaps. 13-14
on σωφροσύνη, and iv, chaps. 1, 2, on ἐλευθεριότης and ἀσωτία; but
display of wealth is vulgar (iv. 2. 1123_a_19-22). Ruskin (_Stones of
Venice_, VIII, 69 [Vol. X, 389]) refers to Aristotle on liberality.

Footnote 558:

ἡ δὲ πενία στάσιν ἐμποιεῖ καί κακουργίαν.

Footnote 559:

v. 1. 1129_b_3; so _Mag. mor._ B. 3. 1199_b_6-9, 14-35; cf. _N. Eth._
i. 8. 1098_b_31 ff. for a similar distinction between habit (ἕξις) and
practice (χρῆσις) of virtue.

Footnote 560:

v. 1. 1129_b_4-6; cf. _Pol._ i. 10. 1258_a_23-27 on the duty of the
weaver or statesman; iv (vii). 15. 1334_a_36 f.; 13. 1332_a_22 f.

Footnote 561:

_Pol._ 1332_a_25 f.

Footnote 562:

_Pol._ iv (vii). 13. 1332_a_26 f.

Footnote 563:

_N. Eth._ i. 8. 1098_b_12-15; cf. _Pol._ 1323_a_25 f.; _Rhet._ i. 5.
1360_b_25 ff.; also _Mag. mor._ A. 3. 1184_b_1-5 and _Eud. Eth._ ii.
1. 1218_b_32.

Footnote 564:

_Pol._ 1323_a_40 f.; cf. Jesus’ sentence, “Seek ye first,” etc.; cf.
also 1323_b_19 f.; also pp. 24 ff., Plato.

Footnote 565:

_Pol._ 1323_b_, 1-6.

Footnote 566:

_N. Eth._ i. 5. 1096_a_5 f.: ὁ δὲ χρηματιστὴς βίαιος τίς ἐστιν. Cf.
also _Pol._ 1256_b_28-32, discussed above, and i., chaps. 8 and 9,
discussed under exchange.

Footnote 567:

Cf. n. 2.

Footnote 568:

_Pol._ 1323_b_7-11, and discussion above.

Footnote 569:

1256_b_36; _N. Eth._ i. 5. 1906_a_6 f.; χρήσιμον γὰρ καὶ ἄλλου χάριν;
7. 1097_a_27: δῆλον ὡς οὔκ ἐστι πάντα τέλεια.

Footnote 570:

_Pol._ i. 9. 1258_a_2 ff.; cf. also _Mag. mor._ B. 3. 1200_a-b_.

Footnote 571:

1258_a_10-14, similar to Plato _Rep._ i. on the arts and their
function; cf. a similar passage from _Isocrates_ (_Paneg._ 76) on the
virtues of the Persian War heroes.

Footnote 572:

_Pol._ iii. 9. 1280_a_25-32; the chief ambition of a state is not τῶν
κτημάτων χάριν, but εῦ ζῆν. Cf. above on the similar preachments of
Plato, for their relation to modern economic ideas and conditions. Cf.
Plato _Crito_ 48B: οὐ τὸ ζῆν περὶ πλείστου ποιητέον, ἀλλὰ τὸ εῦ ζῆν.

Footnote 573:

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

Footnote 574:

i. 10. 1258_a_19-38; 4. 1254_a_7: ὁ δὲ βίος πρᾶξις, οὐ ποίησις ἐστιν.

Footnote 575:

10. 1258_a_33 ff., τῆς ὑπερετικῆς, impossible for the economist, but
true, for the moralist; cf. p. 69 for his distinction (1254_a_1 ff.)
between ὄργανα ποιητικά and κτῆμα πρακτικόν.

Footnote 576:

i. 2.; on both the above, cf. Newman, _op. cit., in loc._

Footnote 577:

Cf. especially 1258_a_34 ff.: μάλιστα δὲ, καθάπερ εἴρεται πρότερον,
δεῖ φύσει τοῦτο ὑπάρχειν. Cf. Susemihi and Hicks, _Pol. of Ar._, I
(1894), Intro., p. 30.

Footnote 578:

1256_a_40 ff., αὐτόφυτος, “self-existent,” with ἔργασία, as here,
equals αὐτουργία, “agriculture.”

Footnote 579:

1258_b_9-27.

Footnote 580:

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

Footnote 581:

_Pol._ 1258_b_21 ff.; probably implied also in 1256_a_40 ff.; but cf.
vi (iv). 4. 1291_a_1 ff., where the mechanic and hired laborer are
counted among the necessary parts of the state.

Footnote 582:

1256 ff.; 1256_b_23 f. To him, production is a branch of acquisition.
Cf. p. 28, on Plato’s use of the terms.

Footnote 583:

1258_a_19-38; 1254_a_7, cited on p. 88, n. 10.

Footnote 584:

_Op. cit._, pp. 358, 375 f.

Footnote 585:

_Op. cit._, p. 39, on the basis of _Pol._ 1258_b_34 f.: τὸ δὲ κατὰ
μέρος ἀκριβολογεῖσθαι χρήσιμον μὲν πρὸς τὰς ἐργασίας, φορτικὸν δὲ τὸ
ἐνδιατρίβειν. φορτικόν may mean merely “tiresome,” not “vulgar.”

Footnote 586:

Cf. Zmavc, _Archiv._, etc., p. 431; cf. passages cited _infra_, on the
attitude of Aristotle to labor; cf. vi (iv). 4. 1291_a_1 ff.,
especially ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο τὸ περὶ τὰς τέχνας ὧν ἄνευ πόλιν ἀδύνατον
οἰκεῖσθαι.

Footnote 587:

_Pol._ 1258_a_34-38, cited on p. 89, n. 2.

Footnote 588:

1258_b_9-21.

Footnote 589:

_Ibid._ 40 ff.; cf. Newman, _op. cit._, II, 204, on the statements of
Varro _De re rustica_ i. 1. 8 and _Columella_ i. 1. 7 that Aristotle
and Theophrastus wrote on agriculture. Cf. also (Plato) _Axiochus_
368C.

Footnote 590:

_Pol._ iv (vii). 9. 1329_a_1 f.

Footnote 591:

1254_a_1 ff.; cf. pp. 68 and 88 for Greek terms.

Footnote 592:

1254_a_2-4.

Footnote 593:

_Op. cit._, ii, chap. i.

Footnote 594:

_Pol._ 1254_a_7; cf. p. 88, n. 10.

Footnote 595:

_Pol._ 1254_a_8 ff. He thinks chiefly of the domestic slave.

Footnote 596:

_Unto This Last_, p. 61, an unjust criticism of Mill; _ibid._, IV, 78:
“Production is primarily for the mouth, not for the granary.”

Footnote 597:

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

Footnote 598:

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

Footnote 599:

For his term ἀφορμή cf. p. 68, n. 8, and _infra_. It probably was a
mere business word to him. DuBois (_op. cit._, p. 38) thinks that he
had a very clear idea of its significance.

Footnote 600:

_Pol._ 1258_b_12-21; cf. 1258_a_37 f.

Footnote 601:

_Ibid._ 21-27, and entire chaps., 8-11. For terms, cf. _infra_.

Footnote 602:

iv. 1121_a_29; 1122_a_14 f.; cf. the stress on δόσις and χρῆσις rather
than on κτῆσις and λῆψις, 1120_a_8-13; _b_14-16, and Stewart’s notes,
I, 323.

Footnote 603:

_Rep._ 552B, discussed above.

Footnote 604:

Souchon (_op. cit._, p. 121) seems to think it was.

Footnote 605:

_Pol._ 1258_b_8, but cf. p. 39 and _infra_ on this word τόκος. Cf.
also Ar. _Clouds_ 20; 1285 ff.; A. Smith, _op. cit._, II, chap. iv.

Footnote 606:

Souchon (_op. cit._, p. 97) is hardly fair to Aristotle on this point,
but cf. also p. 96, n. 1; cf. Ruskin, _Time and Tide_, XV, 81 (Vol.
XVII, 388); _Mun. Pul._, Pref., 21 (Vol. XVII, 144); _ibid._, VI, 139
(p. 264); _ibid._, 153 and note (p. 277), which cites _Laws_ 743C, on
the doctrine that the just are neither rich nor poor.

Footnote 607:

_Pol._ v (viii). 2. 1337_b_8-11. The terms for mechanical labor are
τέχνη, of ability through practice; δημιουργός, of one who works for
the people, rather than for himself or one other; βάναυσος, originally
of work by the fire, but later the common term for mechanical labor,
usually with a derogatory sense in the philosophers; cf. βαναυσία,
“vulgarity,” _N. Eth._ iv. 4. 1122_a_31; βάναυσος, “vulgar man,”
_ibid._ 1123_a_19; _Etymol. mag_; Schol. to Plato _Rep._ 495E; Pollux
i. 64. 50; Hesychius, _s.v._ The Greeks did not clearly distinguish
the finer from the mechanical arts; cf. Büchsenschütz, _op. cit._, p.
266; _Pol._ vi (iv). 4. 1291_a_1 ff., where all are included under
βάναυσον. Cf. Cope-Sandys, _Ar. Rhet._, 2d ed., I, 9, 27, note. Cf.
above, p. 33, n. 7, for Ruskin’s attitude.

Footnote 608:

_Pol._ 1337_b_12; 1258_b_37.

Footnote 609:

1337_b_13 f.

Footnote 610:

1258_b_38 f.

Footnote 611:

vii (vi). 4. 1319_a_26-28.

Footnote 612:

v (viii). 2. 1337_b_5-7.

Footnote 613:

iv (vii). 9. 1328_b_37-41; cf. iii. 5. 1277_b_33 ff.

Footnote 614:

1329_a_1; 1330_a_25-31.

Footnote 615:

1330_a_25-31; cf. also the pseudo-_Econ._ i. 2. 1343_a_26 ff.

Footnote 616:

i. 3. 1260_a_40 ff.; cf. _infra_ for discussion of this idea.

Footnote 617:

1258_b_25-27; _Rhet._ i. 9. 27, 1367_a_; ἐλευθέρον γὰρ τὸ μὴ πρὸς
ἄλλον ζῆν. His entire argument for the slave as a mere “instrument”
(cf. _infra_) shows the same attitude. Stewart (_op. cit._, II, 316)
says that he failed to see that labor is “an essential function of the
social organism, something καλόν and not merely ἁναγκαῖον.”

Footnote 618:

_Pol._ iv (vii). 4. 1326_a_22-24.

Footnote 619:

1328_b_19-23; vi (iv). 1291_a_1-3.

Footnote 620:

1329_a_1; i. 11. 1258_b_38 f.

Footnote 621:

v (viii). 2. 1337_b_15-22, especially 17 f.: ἔχει δὲ πολλὴν διαφορὰν
καὶ τὸ τίνος ἕνεκεν πράττει τις ἣ μανθάνει.

Footnote 622:

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

Footnote 623:

Aristotle also has the aristocratic idea of labor as robbing a freeman
of his independence, _Pol._ v (viii). 1337_b_15-22; _Rhet._ 1367_a_,
cited on p. 94, n. 9.

Footnote 624:

_Pol._ iv (vii). 9. 1328_b_39 ff.; _N. Eth._ x. 7. 1177_b_4; cf.
Jowett, _Ar. Pol._, I, 144, cited by Stewart, _op. cit._, II, 446.

Footnote 625:

_Pol._ ii 3. 1261_b_33-38.

Footnote 626:

1325_a_31-33.

Footnote 627:

1258_b_12-20.

Footnote 628:

_Rhet._ ii. 4. 9. 1381_a_, where the word αὐτουργοί is used; cf. above
on Euripides.

Footnote 629:

Cf. above on value, and _N. Eth._ v. 8-9. 1133_a_5-18.

Footnote 630:

_Pol._ vii (vi). 6. 1320_a_38 ff.; cf. p. 92, n. 6.

Footnote 631:

i. 12. 1259_b_1 ff.

Footnote 632:

1252_b_1 ff.; cf. Adam’s note to _Rep._ 370B; Susemihl and Hicks’s
note to _Pol._ 1252_b_3, for an exception to the rule (_De part.
Anim._ iv. 6. 11. 683_a_22). ἀλλ᾽ ὅπου μὴ ἐνδέχεται καταχρῆται τῷ αὐτῷ
ἐπὶ πλείω ἔργα.

Footnote 633:

_Pol._ ii 1261_a_30 f.; _N. Eth._ v. 5.

Footnote 634:

_Pol._ 1261_a_37-39; 1328_b_ ff. Fontpertuis (_op. cit._, p. 359)
accounts for the comparative superficiality of the Greek theory of
labor by the fact that their political constitution diminished its
importance, but cf. our introduction. Capitalistic employment of free
labor was probably not extensive.

Footnote 635:

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

Footnote 636:

On the theory of the Sophists, cf. above, pp. 16 f. On the Cynics, cf.
_infra_; also Zeller, _op. cit._, II, 2, 376; Ar. _Pol._ 1253_b_20-23.
Barker (_op. cit._, p. 359), who has a very clear and discriminating
criticism of Aristotle’s theory of slavery, also states that slavery
had been attacked by the “logic of events”—e.g., the enslavement of
Athenians in Sicily, and the freeing of Messenian Helots, during the
Theban supremacy, by which Greek freemen had become slaves and Greek
slaves had become free. Cf. _Pol._ 1255_a_ ff., especially 17 f. and
21-23, for the two theories.

Footnote 637:

The _locus classicus_ for his theory is _Pol._ i. 4-7. 1253_b_14 ff.;
13. 1259_b_21 ff. For good criticisms, cf. Wallon, _Histoire de
l’esclavage dans l’antiquité_, 2d ed., pp. 372 ff.; and Barker, _op.
cit._, 1. Cf. also Newman, _op. cit._, I, 143 ff.

Footnote 638:

_Pol._ i. 8. 1256_b_36; 1253_b_32.

Footnote 639:

_Ibid._ 33-39. Aristotle would have been satisfied with electricity.

Footnote 640:

1254_a_8, cited on p. 88, n. 10. This relieves the severity of the
doctrine, since it shows that he thinks chiefly of domestic slavery.
But in his proposed state, all industry is manned by slaves. Cf. iv
(vii). 1330_a_25-31.

Footnote 641:

_Pol._ 1254_a_9-13; cf. _Eud. Eth._ 1241_b_17-24.

Footnote 642:

1254_a_13-17.

Footnote 643:

_Op. cit._, p. 362.

Footnote 644:

1254_a_28-31; 1254_b_15. As Wallon (_op. cit._, p. 391) points out,
his radical error is a constant confusion of hypothesis with reality.

Footnote 645:

1254_a_23-24.

Footnote 646:

_Ibid._ 33 f.

Footnote 647:

_Ibid._ 30-40; 1254_b_10-13; 1253_b_7; 18 f., cf. _Eud. Eth._
1241_b_17 ff.

Footnote 648:

1254_b_16-19.

Footnote 649:

_Ibid._ 20-26.

Footnote 650:

_Ibid._ 26 ff.

Footnote 651:

1254_a_21 f.

Footnote 652:

1254_b_6-10; 11 f.; 16-20; 1255_b_6-15; 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.

Footnote 653:

1254_b_32-34; 1255_b_5 ff.

Footnote 654:

1254_b_38 f.

Footnote 655:

1255_a_3-7.

Footnote 656:

_Ibid._ 19-21 and next note.

Footnote 657:

_Ibid._ 24 f.

Footnote 658:

_Ibid._ 25 f.: καὶ τὸν ἀνάξιον δουλεύειν οὐδαμῶς ἂν φαίη τις δοῦλον
εἶναι.

Footnote 659:

_Ibid._ 26-28.

Footnote 660:

_Ibid._ 33 ff.

Footnote 661:

1255_b_20-22. Barker (_op. cit._, p. 369, n. 1) well observes that
this is a challenge of the right of slavery, not an argument for it,
and that it may have impressed his contemporaries so. Cf. Ruskin: “So
there is only one way to have good servants; that is to be worthy of
being well served.” (_Letters on Servants and Houses_, Vol. XVII,
5-18, App. V); cf. also pp. 520 ff.

Footnote 662:

1259_b_26-28.

Footnote 663:

_Ibid._ 36-38.

Footnote 664:

_Ibid._ 39-41.

Footnote 665:

1260_a_2-4; 14-16; cf. 33 ff., which sets a limit on the slave’s
virtue.

Footnote 666:

1260_a_39-42; 1260_b_2 f. Cf. Ruskin, _Fors Clav._, III, Letter 28,
14, on the virtue of the “menial” condition.

Footnote 667:

Cf. Barker, _op. cit._, p. 370.

Footnote 668:

_N. Eth._ 1161_b_1-10, especially 5: ᾗ μὲν οῦν δοῦλος, οὔκ ἐστι φιλία
πρὸς αὐτόν, ᾗ δ᾽ ἄνθρωπος.

Footnote 669:

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

Footnote 670:

Cf. Barker, _op. cit._, p. 370.

Footnote 671:

_Sesame and Lilies_, end of lecture on “Kings’ Treasuries”; cf. _Fors
Clav._, VII, 9 (Vol. XXIX, 230); _Mun. Pul._, 130, note; cf. _Fors
Clav._, III (Vol. XXVII, 515 f.). Lett. 28, 13 ff., on the workman as
a serf.

Footnote 672:

Barker, _op. cit._, 368.

Footnote 673:

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

Footnote 674:

_Pol._ 1257_a_31 ff., praised for its exactness and insight. Cf.
Poehlmann, _op. cit._, I, 585; Dühring (_op. cit._, p. 23) belittles
it. Newman (_op. cit._, II, 184) points to ξενικωτέρας as implying
that the increased distance between buyers and sellers also caused the
origin of money.

Footnote 675:

_N. Eth._ v. 5. 1133_b_26-28.

Footnote 676:

_Pol._ 1257_a_31-36; ξενικωτέρας γὰρ γενομένης τῆς βοηθείας τῷ
εἰσάγεσθαι ὦν ἐνδεεῖς καὶ ἐκπέμπειν ὦν ἐπλεόναζον, ἐξ ἀνάνκης ἡ τοῦ
νομίσματος ἐπορίσθη χρῆσις, etc.

Footnote 677:

_Ibid._ 36-38; εὐμεταχείριστον could mean “malleability,” but probably
not, since he considers coinage to be an afterthought.

Footnote 678:

_Ibid._ 38 f.

Footnote 679:

_Ibid._ 39-41.

Footnote 680:

1257_b_1-5.

Footnote 681:

As a symbol of exchange (ξύμβολον τῆς ἀλλαγῆς) it is a medium of
exchange and a measure of value (_Rep._ 371B; _Laws_ 742A-B, 918B).

Footnote 682:

v. 8. 1133_a_18-1133_b_28.

Footnote 683:

1133_a_29.

Footnote 684:

_Ibid._ 5-19; 25; 27 f.; 1133_b_10, etc.

Footnote 685:

1133_a_19-22, 25 f.; 1133_b_16; 22; ix. 1164_a_1 f.; _Pol._
1258_b_1-5, μεταβολῆς χάριν; 1257_a_30 ff. Stewart (_op. cit._, I, 416
ff.) thinks that the author meant to apply the corrective
(διορθωτικόν) function of justice also to money, in that it makes
exchange more fair and uniform. As evidence, he points to _N. Eth._
1131_a_18 ff. and 1133_a_19-22, where the functions of justice and
money are defined in similar terms. Cf. also his interesting remarks
on the dianemetic function, which prompts exchange and distribution.

Footnote 686:

1133_b_10-13.

Footnote 687:

_Ibid._ 15-18: οὔτε γὰρ ἂν μὴ οὔσης αλλαγῆς κοινωνία ἦν, etc.

Footnote 688:

_Pol._ 1257_b_8 f.

Footnote 689:

1257_b_10-18; 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_.

Footnote 690:

1257_b_19 ff.; cf. the transitional sentence, 18, a slight hint that
he accepts the theory.

Footnote 691:

_N. Eth._ v. 5. 1133_a_29-31; cf. 1133_b_20 f., ἐξ ὑποθέσεως, cf.
_infra_, where the pseudo-_Economica_ takes it for granted.

Footnote 692:

_Pol._ 1257_a_36 f., cited on p. 102.

Footnote 693:

_N. Eth._ v. 5. 1133_b_13 f.: οὐ γὰρ ἀεὶ ἴσον δύναται· ὅμως δὲ
βούλεται μένειν μᾶλλον.

Footnote 694:

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

Footnote 695:

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

Footnote 696:

Cf. _N. Eth._ v. 5. 1133_b_13 f.

Footnote 697:

_Pol._ 1257_b_5-8, and the whole of 1257_b_; 1258_b_1-5.

Footnote 698:

1258_b_25.

Footnote 699:

_N. Eth._ 1121_b_34: καὶ τοκισταὶ κατὰ μικρὰ καὶ ἐπὶ πολλῷ. Cf. Zell’s
translation.

Footnote 700:

_Pol._ 1258_b_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.

Footnote 701:

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

Footnote 702:

_Pol._ 1257_b_5 ff.

Footnote 703:

_Ibid._ 33 ff.; for further discussion of chrematistik, cf. _infra._

Footnote 704:

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

Footnote 705:

Cf. Paley and Sandys ed., especially _Or._ xxxvi; Isoc.
_Trapeziticus_; Boeckh, _op. cit._, I, 160 ff.; V. Brants, “Les
operations de banque dans la Grèce antique,” _Le Muséon_, I, 2,
196-203; Koutorga, _Le trapézites_, (Paris, 1859); cf. also E. Meyer,
_Kleine Schriften_.

Footnote 706:

_Or._ xx. 25.

Footnote 707:

_Or._ xxxvi. 44: εἰ δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἀγνοεῖς, ὅτι πίστις ἀφορμὴ τῶν πασῶν ἐστὶ
μεγίστη πρὸς χρηματισμόν, πᾶν ἂν ἀγνοήσειας.

Footnote 708:

_Ibid._ 57 ff.

Footnote 709:

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

Footnote 710:

For the Greek terms, cf. p. 40.

Footnote 711:

_Pol._ 1257_a_15-17.

Footnote 712:

_Ibid._ 22-28; _N. Eth._ v. 5. 1133_b_26-28.

Footnote 713:

_Pol._ 1257_a_30 ff. These two periods of οἰκονομική and χρηματιστική
correspond well to the German terms _Naturalwirtschaft_ and
_Geldwirtschaft_. Kautz (_op. cit._, p. 137, n. 4) says that this
antithesis was about as dear to Aristotle as it is to moderns. For the
terms, cf. _infra._

Footnote 714:

_N. Eth._ v. 4. 1132_b_11-1133_b_28; cf. also under value and money,
above; cf. _Mag. mor._ i. 33. 1193_b_19 ff.

Footnote 715:

1132_b_11-20; cf. _Rep._ 369B-C; 370B, for a similar idea of Plato.

Footnote 716:

1132_b_33.

Footnote 717:

_Ibid._ 32-34, especially τῷ ἀντιποιεῖν ἀνάλογον συμμένει ἡ πίλις; 17
f.; Stewart, _op. cit._, I, 449.

Footnote 718:

1133_a_5-10, cited on p. 83, nn. 2-7; cf. _Eud. Eth._ vii. 10.
1243_b_28-38.

Footnote 719:

1133_a_10 f.

Footnote 720:

Cf. p. 83, n. 7. The less valuable product must make up in quantity
what it lacks in quality. The proportion thus becomes, γεωργός :
σκυτοτόμος : : _x_ pairs of shoes : a quantity of grain of equal value
(1133_a_32 f.). Cf. other methods of statement, 1133_b_4 f., 22
Stewart, _op. cit._, I, 453 f.

Footnote 721:

1133_b_1-4.

Footnote 722:

1133_a_11 f.; 16-18: ἑτέρων καὶ οὐκ ἴσων. Cf. _Rep._ 369C, 370B; Ar.
_Pol._ 1261_a_22 for a similar idea. Stewart (_op. cit._, I, 464 f.),
following Jackson, interprets, on the basis of 1132_a_33, 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.

Footnote 723:

1133_a_15 f.: ἀνῃροῦντο γὰρ ἄν, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐποίει τὸ ποιοῦν καὶ ὅσον καὶ
οἷον, καὶ τὸ πάσχειν ἔπασχε τοῦτο και τοσοῦτον καὶ τοιοῦτον. I follow
Jackson, note, pp. 97 f.; Rassow, _Forsch._, p. 18 (Peters’ trans., p.
154, n. 2), in accepting this difficult passage as an integral part of
its context, and in interpreting it as above, though aside from the
context, it would hardly bear this meaning. Stewart (_op. cit._, I,
455 ff.) thinks it is an interpolation or note, referring merely to
the mechanical fact in the arts that material is receptive to the
impression.

Footnote 724:

1133_a_18 f.; 25-28; 1133_b_6-8; 19 f.; cf. _Rep._ 369C.

Footnote 725:

1133_a_19-29; cf. Stewart’s excellent comments, _op. cit._, I, 459 ff.

Footnote 726:

1133_b_14-16; 20-22: τοῦτο γὰρ πάντα ποιεῖ σύμμετρα; e.g., if a house
is equal to five minae and a bed is worth one, five beds equal one
house (23-26).

Footnote 727:

_Handwörterbuch der Staatswwissenschaft_, art. “Geld,” 2d ed., Bd. IV,
82 f.

Footnote 728:

_Op. cit._, p. 384.

Footnote 729:

Cf. citations above, p. 42, n. 7, and p. 44, n. 2. Cf. DuBois, _op.
cit._, p. 46.

Footnote 730:

Cf. Haney, _op. cit._, p. 48.

Footnote 731:

_Pol._ 1259_a_2 f.; 33-35.

Footnote 732:

iv (vii). 6. 1327_a_25-30.

Footnote 733:

_Rhet._ i. 4. 7: περὶ τῶν εἰσαγομένων καὶ ἐξαγομένων, as among the
subjects for a statesman’s consideration; cf. also 11.

Footnote 734:

Pp. 89 and notes.

Footnote 735:

_Pol._ 1257_a_28-30; vi (iv). 4. 1291_a_4-6; 1291_b_19 f.; vii (vi).
7. 1321_a_6, 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_b_24 ff.; 5 ff.; cf. also 1329_a_40 ff. Of
course the citizens are not to engage in it (1328_b_37 ff.).

Footnote 736:

_N. Eth._ v. 8. 1132_b_4 f.; 1133_a_27; all of chap. 8; cf. above, on
just exchange.

Footnote 737:

_Pol._ iv (vii). 6. 1327_a_25-28.

Footnote 738:

vii (vi). 5. 1320_a_39: ἀφορμὴν ἐμπορίας. Cf. p. 96.

Footnote 739:

Cf. discussion above of just exchange.

Footnote 740:

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

Footnote 741:

_Pol._ 1256_a_11 f.; cf. p. 40 on Plato’s terms for trade. For the
word χρηματιστική, cf. _Rep._ 415E, contrasted to soldiers; _Gorg._
477E, the art that frees from poverty; 452C; _Euthyd._ 304C, of the
Sophists; Xen. _Econ._ ii. 18, where no prejudice is implied.

Footnote 742:

_Pol._ i. 8. 1256_a_10-12; but cf. _N. Eth._ i. 1. 1094_a_9: τέλος
οἰκονομικῆς δὲ πλοῦτος; and _Pol._ iii. 4. 1277_b_24 f.: ἐπεὶ καὶ
οἰκονομία ἑτέρα ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ κτᾶσθαι τῆς δὲ
φυλάττειν ἔργον ἐστίν. An American economist would hardly make the
latter distinction. Newman (_op. cit._, II, 166) thinks that in these
two passages he states the actual condition, but cf. _infra_, where
Aristotle admits a degree of acquisition in domestic economy.

Footnote 743:

1256_a_15 ff.

Footnote 744:

1256_b_26-39.

Footnote 745:

_Ibid._ 30-37; cf. above on the definition of wealth.

Footnote 746:

1258_a_19 ff. He would combat the common idea that the first business
of economics is to provide unlimited revenue (1259_a_35; 1254_a_1 f.)

Footnote 747:

1256_b_40-42; 1257_a_4 f.; 17 f.; cf. _Eud. Eth._ iii. 4. 1232_a_6-9.

Footnote 748:

1257_b_1 f.; 9 f.

Footnote 749:

1257_a_18 f., 28-30; 1257_b_19 f.; 31 ff.

Footnote 750:

1257_a_31 ff. Poehlmann (_op. cit._, I, 599) cites Schaeffle, _Bau und
Leben des sozialen Körpers_, I, 256, that this analysis of the change
from natural to capitalistic economy holds “im Kern die ganze moderne
Kritik des Kapitals,” but the standpoint of the two is essentially
different.

Footnote 751:

1258_a_1-14. Extreme desire demands superfluity (ὑπερβολή).

Footnote 752:

1257_b_20 f.

Footnote 753:

_Ibid._ 23 ff.

Footnote 754:

_Ibid._ 35 f. The two uses overlap (ἐπαλλάττει).

Footnote 755:

_Ibid._ 36-39.

Footnote 756:

1258_a_16-18.

Footnote 757:

_Ibid._ 19 ff. The other function is secondary (ὑπερετική).

Footnote 758:

_Ibid._ 39 f.

Footnote 759:

_Ibid._ 37 f.

Footnote 760:

1258_b_12-21.

Footnote 761:

_Ibid._ 1 f.; cf. 1256_a_40 ff., where καπηλεία is opposed to
αὐτόφυτον ἔχουσι τὴν ἐργασίαν.

Footnote 762:

1258_b_20-23.

Footnote 763:

_Ibid._ 25-27. This contrasted yet overlapping relation between the
two kinds of finance is well represented by Haney, _op. cit._, 46. Cf.
also Ashley, _op. cit._, p. 340, for a synopsis of the divisions of
κτητική.

Footnote 764:

1258_b_27-33.

Footnote 765:

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

Footnote 766:

_Pol._ iv (vii). 1328_b_39 ff.; 1327_a_29-31.

Footnote 767:

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

Footnote 768:

But he seems to recognize it elsewhere (_N. Eth._ v. 8).

Footnote 769:

Cf. DuBois, _op. cit._, p. 48.

Footnote 770:

Cf. the entire criticism of chrematistik, and especially 1257_b_40-42,
the contrast between ζῆν and εὐ ζῆν. On this point, cf. above, pp. 109
f. and 87 ff. Zmavc (_Zeitschrift_, etc., p. 52), rightly states that
even Adam Smith made his economic theory a subordinate part of his
practical philosophy.

Footnote 771:

An unfair criticism, as seen above.

Footnote 772:

_Pol._ 1266_b_8-14; iv (vii). 1335_b_22 ff.

Footnote 773:

1265_b_6-12.

Footnote 774:

1270_a_40 ff.

Footnote 775:

Cf. iv (vii). 4. 1326_a_25-30, especially, τῶν γοῦν δοκουσῶν
πολιτεύεσθαι καλῶς οὐδεμίαν ὁρῶμεν οὖσαν ἀνειμένην πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος. Cf.
entire chapter.

Footnote 776:

1130_b_ ff.; cf. under value, money, and exchange. The terms are
διανομή or ἡ τῶν κοινῶν διανομή.

Footnote 777:

1131_a_11.

Footnote 778:

_Ibid._ 21: καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ ἔσται ἱσότης, οἷς καὶ ἐν οἶς. Cf. above, pp. 55
f. and 60 f., on Plato’s idea of equality; cf. _infra_ for further
comments on Aristotle.

Footnote 779:

1132_b_32 f.; cf. pp. 107 ff. and notes for a more detailed
discussion, and for Greek expressions.

Footnote 780:

1131_b_27-32: ἡ διανομὴ ἔσται κατὰ τὸν λόγον τὸν αὐτὸν ὅνπερ ἔχουσι
πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ εἰσενεχθέντα. Cf. _Mag. mor._ i. 33. 1193_b_36 ff.
Stewart (_op. cit._, I, 432) says that the expression ἡ τῶν κοινῶν
διανομή must mean more than distribution by some central authority,
for the most important form of it is the distribution of wealth,
operating under economic laws that regulate wages and profits.

Footnote 781:

1131_a_24-26.

Footnote 782:

_Ibid._ 22-24. For Plato, cf. pp. 55 f.

Footnote 783:

_Ibid._ 26-29.

Footnote 784:

_Ibid._; _Pol._ iii. 1280_a_7 ff.; 1282_b_23 ff.

Footnote 785:

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

Footnote 786:

_Pol._ ii. 4. 1262_b_2 f.

Footnote 787:

1264_a_11-17; 36-38; 1264_b_11-13, all discussed above under Plato.

Footnote 788:

iv (vii). 1329_b_41 ff.

Footnote 789:

1271_a_29-37; 1272_a_12-21.

Footnote 790:

_N. Eth._ v. chaps. 4-5, discussed above.

Footnote 791:

_Pol._ vi (iv). 1295_b_35 ff.

Footnote 792:

v (vi). 1320_a_33 ff.; cf. pp. 95 f.; cf. especially 35: τεχναστέον
οὖν ὅπως, ἂν εὐπορία γένοιτο χρόνιος, and 1267_b_3 ff. on the
insatiety of the masses. He believed that the state doles for mere
consumption aggravated the evil—a very sane doctrine which our city
charity organizations are prone to overlook.

Footnote 793:

Cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, II, 339 f., on this passage.

Footnote 794:

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

Footnote 795:

1320_a_36: ἐπεὶ δὲ συμφέρει τοῦτο καὶ τοῖς εὐπόροις, and 34, τοῦτο γὰρ
αἴτιον τοῦ μοχθηρὰν εἶναι τὴν δημοκρατίαν; viz., undue poverty of the
masses.

Footnote 796:

_Op. cit._, p. 7; cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, I, 600, on this point.

Footnote 797:

_Pol._ ii. 7. 1266_b_14-25, as advocated by Phaleas; cf. above. Cf.
_infra_ for Aristotle’s advocacy of equality in landed property.

Footnote 798:

1267_a_37-39.

Footnote 799:

_Ibid._ 39-41.

Footnote 800:

1267_b_1-4; vii (vi). 1320_a_31; cf. p. 117 on this idea. He does not
consider the rise in the cost of living.

Footnote 801:

1266_b_28-30.

Footnote 802:

Cf. Bonar, _op. cit._, p. 45.

Footnote 803:

Aristotle, like Plato, strongly emphasizes education as a great cure
for the ills of the state (1310_a_15 ff.). It should be common to all
citizens, and be publicly supervised (1336_a_22 ff.).

Footnote 804:

1267_a_13-17.

Footnote 805:

1266_b_38-1267_a_2.

Footnote 806:

_Ecclesiazusae._ Poehlmann (_op. cit._, I, 403) argues that such ideas
were widespread in Greece.

Footnote 807:

_Pol._ iii. 9. 1280_a_14-21: σχεδὸν δ᾽ οἱ πλεῖστοι φαῦλοι κριταὶ περὶ
τῶν οἰκείων. Cf. 7-31, his discriminating remarks on equality in
general.

Footnote 808:

vii (vi). 5; iii. 10; cf. Haney _op. cit._, p. 45.

Footnote 809:

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

Footnote 810:

vi (iv). 4. 1292_a_4-38.

Footnote 811:

vii (vi). 3. 1318_b_1-5, especially οἱ δὲ κρατοῦντες οὐδὲν
φροντίζουσιν; cf. iii. 9. 1280_a_, especially 22-30, on the false idea
of equality on both sides.

Footnote 812:

i. 1: ζῷον πολιτικόν; 1280_a_31 ff.; 1252_b_30 f.; cf. all of chap. 9
to 1281_a_10.

Footnote 813:

1280_b_10-12, against Lycophron; cf., above, p. 16; καὶ ὁ νόμος
συνθήκη καὶ ... ἐγγυητὴς ἀλλήλοις τῶν δικαίων, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οἵος ποιεῖν
ἀγαθοὺς καὶ δικαίους τοὺς πολίτας.

Footnote 814:

_Op. cit._, II, 304.

Footnote 815:

_Pol._ v (viii). 1. 1337_a_27-30, 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 (1295_b_13 ff.), for he believes with
the author of _Eud. Eth._ vii. 10. 1242_a_, that man is not only a
πολιτικόν, but also an οἰκονομικόν ζῷον. Cl. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, I,
276 ff.

Footnote 816:

1266_b_8-14; 1265_a_38-42; unfair to Plato, as seen above.

Footnote 817:

1266_b_24-28; 1265_a_28-38.

Footnote 818:

1265_b_22 ff.

Footnote 819:

1267_b_9-13.

Footnote 820:

Cf. his criticism of the Spartan system, 1270_a_40 ff.

Footnote 821: