The Economist
X >>
Xenophon >> The Economist
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 Etext prepared by John Bickers, jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz.
The Economist
By Xenophon
Translation by H. G. Dakyns
Xenophon the Athenian was born 431 B.C. He was a
pupil of Socrates. He marched with the Spartans,
and was exiled from Athens. Sparta gave him land
and property in Scillus, where he lived for many
years before having to move once more, to settle
in Corinth. He died in 354 B.C.
The Economist records Socrates and Critobulus in
a talk about profitable estate management, and a
lengthy recollection by Socrates of Ischomachus'
discussion of the same topic.
PREPARER'S NOTE
This was typed from Dakyns' series, "The Works of Xenophon," a
four-volume set. The complete list of Xenophon's works (though
there is doubt about some of these) is:
Work Number of books
The Anabasis 7
The Hellenica 7
The Cyropaedia 8
The Memorabilia 4
The Symposium 1
The Economist 1
On Horsemanship 1
The Sportsman 1
The Cavalry General 1
The Apology 1
On Revenues 1
The Hiero 1
The Agesilaus 1
The Polity of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians 2
Text in brackets "{}" is my transliteration of Greek text into
English using an Oxford English Dictionary alphabet table. The
diacritical marks have been lost.
The Economist
by Xenophon
Translation by H. G. Dakyns
THE ECONOMIST[1]
A Treatise on the Science of the Household
in the form of a Dialogue
INTERLOCUTORS
Socrates and Critobulus
At Chapter VII. a prior discussion held between Socrates and
Ischomachus is introduced: On the life of a "beautiful and
good" man.
In these chapters (vii.-xxi.) Socrates is represented by the
author as repeating for the benefit of Critobulus and the rest
certain conversations which he had once held with the
beautiful and good Ischomachus on the essentials of economy. It
was a tete-a-tete discussion, and in the original Greek the
remarks of the two speakers are denoted by such phrases as
{ephe o 'Iskhomakhos--ephen egio}--"said (he) Ischomachus,"
"said I" (Socrates). To save the repetition of expressions
tedious in English, I have, whenever it seemed help to do so,
ventured to throw parts of the reported conversations into
dramatic form, inserting "Isch." "Soc." in the customary way
to designate the speakers; but these, it must be borne in
mind, are merely "asides" to the reader, who will not forget
that Socrates is the narrator throughout--speaking of himself
as "I," and of Ischomachus as "he," or by his name.--
Translator's note, addressed to the English reader.
I
I once heard him[2] discuss the topic of economy[3] after the
following manner. Addressing Critobulus,[4] he said: Tell me,
Critobulus, is "economy," like the words "medicine," "carpentry,"
"building," "smithying," "metal-working," and so forth, the name of a
particular kind of knowledge or science?
[1] By "economist" we now generally understand "policital economist,"
but the use of the word as referring to domestic economy, the
subject matter of the treatise, would seem to be legitimate.
[2] "The master."
[3] Lit. "the management of a household and estate." See Plat. "Rep."
407 B; Aristot. "Eth. N." v. 6; "Pol." i. 3.
[4] See "Mem." I. iii. 8; "Symp." p. 292.
Crit. Yes, I think so.
Soc. And as, in the case of the arts just named, we can state the
proper work or function of each, can we (similarly) state the proper
work and function of economy?
Crit. It must, I should think, be the business of the good
economist[5] at any rate to manage his own house or estate well.
[5] Or, "manager of a house or estate."
Soc. And supposing another man's house to be entrusted to him, he
would be able, if he chose, to manage it as skilfully as his own,
would he not? since a man who is skilled in carpentry can work as well
for another as for himself: and this ought to be equally true of the
good economist?
Crit. Yes, I think so, Socrates.
Soc. Then there is no reason why a proficient in this art, even if he
does not happen to possess wealth of his own, should not be paid a
salary for managing a house, just as he might be paid for building
one?
Crit. None at all: and a large salary he would be entitled to earn if,
after paying the necessary expenses of the estate entrusted to him, he
can create a surplus and improve the property.
Soc. Well! and this word "house," what are we to understand by it? the
domicile merely? or are we to include all a man's possessions outside
the actual dwelling-place?[6]
[6] Lit. "is it synonymous with dwelling-place, or is all that a man
possesses outside his dwelling-place part of his house or estate?"
Crit. Certainly, in my opinion at any rate, everything which a man has
got, even though some portion of it may lie in another part of the
world from that in which he lives,[7] forms part of his estate.
[7] Lit. "not even in the same state or city."
Soc. "Has got"? but he may have got enemies?
Crit. Yes, I am afraid some people have got a great many.
Soc. Then shall we say that a man's enemies form part of his
possessions?
Crit. A comic notion indeed! that some one should be good enough to
add to my stock of enemies, and that in addition he should be paid for
his kind services.
Soc. Because, you know, we agreed that a man's estate was identical
with his possessions?
Crit. Yes, certainly! the good part of his possessions; but the evil
portion! no, I thank you, that I do not call part of a man's
possessions.
Soc. As I understand, you would limit the term to what we may call a
man's useful or advantageous possessions?
Crit. Precisely; if he has things that injure him, I should regard
these rather as a loss than as wealth.
Soc. It follows apparently that if a man purchases a horse and does
not know how to handle him, but each time he mounts he is thrown and
sustains injuries, the horse is not part of his wealth?
Crit. Not, if wealth implies weal, certainly.
Soc. And by the same token land itself is no wealth to a man who so
works it that his tillage only brings him loss?
Crit. True; mother earth herself is not a source of wealth to us if,
instead of helping us to live, she helps us to starve.
Soc. And by a parity of reasoning, sheep and cattle may fail of being
wealth if, through want of knowledge how to treat them, their owner
loses by them; to him at any rate the sheep and the cattle are not
wealth?
Crit. That is the conclusion I draw.
Soc. It appears, you hold to the position that wealth consists of
things which benefit, while things which injure are not wealth?
Crit. Just so.
Soc. The same things, in fact, are wealth or not wealth, according as
a man knows or does not know the use to make of them? To take an
instance, a flute may be wealth to him who is sufficiently skilled to
play upon it, but the same instrument is no better than the stones we
tread under our feet to him who is not so skilled . . . unless indeed
he chose to sell it?
Crit. That is precisely the conclusion we should come to.[8] To
persons ignorant of their use[9] flutes are wealth as saleable, but as
possessions not for sale they are no wealth at all; and see, Socrates,
how smoothly and consistently the argument proceeds,[10] since it is
admitted that things which benefit are wealth. The flutes in question
unsold are not wealth, being good for nothing: to become wealth they
must be sold.
[8] Reading {tout auto}, or if {tout au} with Sauppe, transl. "Yes,
that is another position we may fairly subscribe to."
[9] i.e. "without knowledge of how to use them."
[10] Or, "our discussion marches on all-fours, as it were."
Yes! (rejoined Socrates), presuming the owner knows how to sell them;
since, supposing again he were to sell them for something which he
does not know how to use,[11] the mere selling will not transform them
into wealth, according to your argument.
[11] Reading {pros touto o}, or if {pros touton, os}, transl. "to a
man who did not know how to use them."
Crit. You seem to say, Socrates, that money itself in the pockets of a
man who does not know how to use it is not wealth?
Soc. And I understand you to concur in the truth of our proposition so
far: wealth is that, and that only, whereby a man may be benefited.
Obviously, if a man used his money to buy himself a mistress, to the
grave detriment of his body and soul and whole estate, how is that
particular money going to benefit him now? What good will he extract
from it?
Crit. None whatever, unless we are prepared to admit that
hyoscyamus,[12] as they call it, is wealth, a poison the property of
which is to drive those who take it mad.
[12] "A dose of henbane, 'hogs'-bean,' so called." Diosc. 4. 69; 6.
15; Plut. "Demetr." xx. (Clough, v. 114).
Soc. Let money then, Critobulus, if a man does not know how to use it
aright--let money, I say, be banished to the remote corners of the
earth rather than be reckoned as wealth.[13] But now, what shall we
say of friends? If a man knows how to use his friends so as to be
benefited by them, what of these?
[13] Or, "then let it be relegated . . . and there let it lie in the
category of non-wealth."
Crit. They are wealth indisputably, and in a deeper sense than cattle
are, if, as may be supposed, they are likely to prove of more benefit
to a man than wealth of cattle.
Soc. It would seem, according to your argument, that the foes of a
man's own household after all may be wealth to him, if he knows how to
turn them to good account?[14]
[14] Vide supra.
Crit. That is my opinion, at any rate.
Soc. It would seem, it is the part of a good economist[15] to know how
to deal with his own or his employer's foes so as to get profit out of
them?
[15] "A good administrator of an estate."
Crit. Most emphatically so.
Soc. In fact, you need but use your eyes to see how many private
persons, not to say crowned heads, do owe the increase of their
estates to war.
Crit. Well, Socrates, I do not think, so far, the argument could be
improved on;[16] but now comes a puzzle. What of people who have got
the knowledge and the capital[17] required to enhance their fortunes,
if only they will put their shoulders to the wheel; and yet, if we are
to believe our senses, that is just the one thing they will not do,
and so their knowledge and accomplishments are of no profit to them?
Surely in their case also there is but one conclusion to be drawn,
which is, that neither their knowledge nor their possessions are
wealth.
[16] Or, "Thanks, Socrates. Thus far the statement of the case would
seem to be conclusive--but what are we to make of this? Some
people . . ."
[17] Lit. "the right kinds of knowledge and the right starting-
points."
Soc. Ah! I see, Critobulus, you wish to direct the discussion to the
topic of slaves?
Crit. No indeed, I have no such intention--quite the reverse. I want
to talk about persons of high degree, of right noble family[18] some
of them, to do them justice. These are the people I have in my mind's
eye, gifted with, it may be, martial or, it may be, civil
accomplishments, which, however, they refuse to exercise, for the very
reason, as I take it, that they have no masters over them.
[18] "Eupatrids."
Soc. No masters over them! but how can that be if, in spite of their
prayers for prosperity and their desire to do what will bring them
good, they are still so sorely hindered in the exercise of their wills
by those that lord it over them?
Crit. And who, pray, are these lords that rule them and yet remain
unseen?
Soc. Nay, not unseen; on the contrary, they are very visible. And what
is more, they are the basest of the base, as you can hardly fail to
note, if at least you believe idleness and effeminacy and reckless
negligence to be baseness. Then, too, there are other treacherous
beldames giving themselves out to be innocent pleasures, to wit,
dicings and profitless associations among men.[19] These in the
fulness of time appear in all their nakedness even to them that are
deceived, showing themselves that they are after all but pains tricked
out and decked with pleasures. These are they who have the dominion
over those you speak of and quite hinder them from every good and
useful work.
[19] Or, "frivolous society."
Crit. But there are others, Socrates, who are not hindered by these
indolences--on the contrary, they have the most ardent disposition to
exert themselves, and by every means to increase their revenues; but
in spite of all, they wear out their substance and are involved in
endless difficulties.[20]
[20] Or, "become involved for want of means."
Soc. Yes, for they too are slaves, and harsh enough are their
taskmasters; slaves are they to luxury and lechery, intemperance and
the wine-cup along with many a fond and ruinous ambition. These
passions so cruelly belord it over the poor soul whom they have got
under their thrall, that so long as he is in the heyday of health and
strong to labour, they compel him to fetch and carry and lay at their
feet the fruit of his toils, and to spend it on their own heart's
lusts; but as soon as he is seen to be incapable of further labour
through old age, they leave him to his gray hairs and misery, and turn
to seize on other victims.[21] Ah! Critobulus, against these must we
wage ceaseless war, for very freedom's sake, no less than if they were
armed warriors endeavouring to make us their slaves. Nay, foemen in
war, it must be granted, especially when of fair and noble type, have
many times ere now proved benefactors to those they have enslaved. By
dint of chastening, they have forced the vanquished to become better
men and to lead more tranquil lives in future.[22] But these despotic
queens never cease to plague and torment their victims in body and
soul and substance until their sway is ended.
[21] "To use others as their slaves."
[22] Lit. "Enemies for the matter of that, when, being beautiful and
good, they chance to have enslaved some other, have ere now in
many an instance chastened and compelled the vanquished to be
better and to live more easily for the rest of time."
II
The conersation was resumed by Critobulus, and on this wise. He said:
I think I take your meaning fully, Socrates, about these matters; and
for myself, examining my heart, I am further satisfied, I have
sufficient continence and self-command in those respects. So that if
you will only advise me on what I am to do to improve my estate, I
flatter myself I shall not be hindered by those despotic dames, as you
call them. Come, do not hesitate; only tender me what good advice you
can, and trust me I will follow it. But perhaps, Socrates, you have
already passed sentence on us--we are rich enough already, and not in
need of any further wealth?
Soc. It is to myself rather, if I may be included in your plural "we,"
that I should apply the remark. I am not in need of any further
wealth, if you like. I am rich enough already, to be sure. But you,
Critobulus, I look upon as singularly poor, and at times, upon my
soul, I feel a downright compassion for you.
At this view of the case, Critobulus fell to laughing outright,
retorting: And pray, Socrates, what in the name of fortune do you
suppose our respective properties would fetch in the market, yours and
mine?
If I could find a good purchaser (he answered), I suppose the whole of
my effects, including the house in which I live, might very fairly
realise five minae[1] (say twenty guineas). Yours, I am positively
certain, would fetch at the lowest more than a hundred times that sum.
[1] 5 x L4:1:3. See Boeckh, "P. E. A." [Bk. i. ch. xx.], p. 109 f.
(Eng. ed.)
Crit. And with this estimate of our respective fortunes, can you still
maintain that you have no need of further wealth, but it is I who am
to be pitied for my poverty?
Soc. Yes, for my property is amply sufficient to meet my wants,
whereas you, considering the parade you are fenced about with, and the
reputation you must needs live up to, would be barely well off, I take
it, if what you have already were multiplied by three.
Pray, how may that be? Critobulus asked.
Why, first and foremost (Socrates explained), I see you are called
upon to offer many costly sacrifices, failing which, I take it,
neither gods nor men would tolerate you; and, in the next place, you
are bound to welcome numerous foreigners as guests, and to entertain
them handsomely; thirdly, you must feast your fellow-citizens and ply
them with all sorts of kindness, or else be cut adrift from your
supporters.[2] Furthermore, I perceive that even at present the state
enjoins upon you various large contributions, such as the rearing of
studs,[3] the training of choruses, the superintendence of gymnastic
schools, or consular duties,[4] as patron of resident aliens, and so
forth; while in the event of war you will, I am aware, have further
obligations laid upon you in the shape of pay[5] to carry on the
triearchy, ship money, and war taxes[6] so onerous, you will find
difficulty in supporting them. Remissness in respect of any of these
charges will be visited upon you by the good citizens of Athens no
less strictly than if they caught you stealing their own property. But
worse than all, I see you fondling the notion that you are rich.
Without a thought or care how to increase your revenue, your fancy
lightly turns to thoughts of love,[7] as if you had some special
license to amuse yourselef. . . . That is why I pity and compassionate
you, fearing lest some irremediable mischief overtake you, and you
find yourself in desperate straits. As for me, if I ever stood in need
of anything, I am sure you know I have friends who would assist me.
They would make some trifling contribution--trifling to themselves, I
mean--and deluge my humble living with a flood of plenty. But your
friends, albeit far better off than yourself, considering your
respective styles of living, persist in looking to you for assistance.
[2] See Dr. Holden ad loc., Boeckh [Bk. iii. ch. xxiii.], p. 465 f.
[3] Cf. Lycurg. "c. Leocr." 139.
[4] Al. "presidential duties."
[5] {trierarkhias [misthous]}. The commentators in general "suspect"
{misthous}. See Boeckh, "P. E. A." p. 579.
[6] See Boeckh, p. 470 f.; "Revenues," iii. 9, iv. 40.
[7] Or, "to childish matters," "frivolous affairs"; but for the full
import of the phrase {paidikois pragmasi} see "Ages." viii. 2.
Then Critobulus: I cannot gainsay what you have spoken, Socrates, it
is indeed high time that you were constituted my patronus, or I shall
become in very truth a pitiable object.
To which appeal Socrates made answer: Why, you yourself must surely be
astonished at the part you are now playing. Just now, when I said that
I was rich, you laughed at me as if I had no idea what riches were,
and you were not happy till you had cross-examined me and forced me to
confess that I do not possess the hundredth part of what you have; and
now you are imploring me to be your patron, and to stint no pains to
save you from becoming absolutely and in very truth a pauper.[8]
[8] Or, "literally beggared."
Crit. Yes, Socrates, for I see that you are skilled in one lucrative
operation at all events--the art of creating a surplus. I hope,
therefore, that a man who can make so much out of so little will not
have the slightest difficulty in creating an ample surplus out of an
abundance.
Soc. But do not you recollect how just now in the discussion you would
hardly let me utter a syllable[9] while you laid down the law: if a
man did not know how to handle horses, horses were not wealth to him
at any rate; nor land, nor sheep, nor money, nor anything else, if he
did not know how to use them? And yet these are the very sources of
revenue from which incomes are derived; and how do you expect me to
know the use of any of them who never possessed a single one of them
since I was born?
[9] Cf. Aristoph. "Clouds," 945; "Plut." 17; Dem. 353; and Holden ad
loc.
Crit. Yes, but we agreed that, however little a man may be blest with
wealth himself, a science of economy exists; and that being so, what
hinders you from being its professor?
Soc. Nothing, to be sure,[10] except what would hinder a man from
knowing how to play the flute, supposing he had never had a flute of
his own and no one had supplied the defect by lending him one to
practise on: which is just my case with regard to economy,[11] seeing
I never myself possessed the instrument of the science which is
wealth, so as to go through the pupil stage, nor hitherto has any one
proposed to hand me over his to manage. You, in fact, are the first
person to make so generous an offer. You will bear in mind, I hope,
that a learner of the harp is apt to break and spoil the instrument;
it is therefore probable, if I take in hand to learn the art of
economy on your estate, I shall ruin it outright.
[10] Lit. "The very thing, God help me! which would hinder . . ."
[11] Lit. "the art of administering an estate."
Critobulus retorted: I see, Socrates, you are doing your very best to
escape an irksome task: you would rather not, if you can help it,
stretch out so much as your little finger to help me to bear my
necessary burthens more easily.
Soc. No, upon my word, I am not trying to escape: on the contrary, I
shall be ready, as far as I can, to expound the matter to you.[12]
. . . Still it strikes me, if you had come to me for fire, and I had
none in my house, you would not blame me for sending you where you
might get it; or if you had asked me for water, and I, having none to
give, had led you elsewhere to the object of your search, you would
not, I am sure, have disapproved; or did you desire to be taught music
by me, and I were to point out to you a far more skilful teacher than
myself, who would perhaps be grateful to you moreover for becoming his
pupil, what kind of exception could you take to my behaviour?
[12] Or, "to play the part of {exegetes}, 'legal adviser,' or
'spiritual director,' to be in fact your 'guide, philosopher, and
friend.'"
Crit. None, with any show of justice, Socrates.
Soc. Well, then, my business now is, Critobulus, to point out[13] to
you some others cleverer than myself about those matters which you are
so anxious to be taught by me. I do confess to you, I have made it
long my study to discover who among our fellow-citizens in this city
are the greatest adepts in the various branches of knowledge.[14] I
had been struck with amazement, I remember, to observe on some
occasion that where a set of people are engaged in identical
operations, half of them are in absolute indigence and the other half
roll in wealth. I bethought me, the history of the matter was worth
investigation. Accordingly I set to work investigating, and I found
that it all happened very naturally. Those who carried on their
affairs in a haphazard manner I saw were punished by their losses;
whilst those who kept their wits upon the stretch and paid attention I
soon perceived to be rewarded by the greater ease and profit of their
undertakings.[15] It is to these I would recommend you to betake
yourself. What say you? Learn of them: and unless the will of God
oppose,[16] I venture to say you will become as clever a man of
business as one might hope to see.
[13] Al. "to show you that there are others."
[14] Or, "who are gifted with the highest knowledge in their
respective concerns." Cf. "Mem." IV. vii. 1.
[15] Lit. "got on quicker, easier, and more profitably."
[16] Or, "short of some divine interposition."
III
Critobulus, on hearing that, exclaimed: Be sure, Socrates, I will not
let you go now until you give the proofs which, in the presence of our
friends, you undertook just now to give me.
Well then,[1] Critobulus (Socrates replied), what if I begin by
showing[2] you two sorts of people, the one expending large sums on
money in building useless houses, the other at far less cost erecting
dwellings replete with all they need; will you admit that I have laid
my finger here on one of the essentials of economy?
[1] Lincke [brackets as an editorial interpolation iii. 1, {ti oun,
ephe}--vi. 11, {poiomen}]. See his edition "Xenophons Dialog.
{peri oikonomias} in seiner ursprunglichen Gestalt"; and for a
criticism of his views, an article by Charles D. Morris,
"Xenophon's Oeconomicus," in the "American Journal of Philology,"
vol. i. p. 169 foll.
[2] As a demonstrator.
Crit. An essential point most ceertainly.
Soc. And suppose in connection with the same, I next point out to
you[3] two other sets of persons:--The first possessors of furniture
of various kinds, which they cannot, however, lay their hands on when
the need arises; indeed they hardly know if they have got all safe and
sound or not: whereby they put themselves and their domestics to much
mental torture. The others are perhaps less amply, or at any rate not
more amply supplied, but they have everything ready at the instant for
immediate use.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9