The Development of Economic Doctrine: An Introductory Survey

CHAPTER I

GREECE AND ROME

HOWEVER recent in the history of human thought may be the development of a systematic body of economic doctrine, reflection, and to a certain extent speculation, on economic phenomena must be as old as human thought itself. For if we accept the most notable of recent definitions of economic science, which in its popular and abridged version tells us that economics is the study of mankind in the ordinary business of life, it is obvious that stray reflections falling within the almighty sweep of such a department of knowledge must have passed through the mind of man ever since he was capable of reflection at all.

The industrious gleaner may therefore collect from the oldest literature chance observations and stray remarks which the enthusiast may hail as containing in embryo a doctrine of Adam Smith or the kernel of the philosophy of the Physiocrats. Moreover—apart from the obiter dicta of poets and philosophers—all customs, institutions and laws must contain implicitly a certain measure of economic theory, even if it be never expressly propounded. An Act which forbids usury involves a denial of the legitimacy of interest, and inferentially an affirmation of the barrenness of money; customs with regard to inheritance (or its absence) imply views with regard to private property. The Code of Hammurabi, in fixing the price of the hire of boats and goats, and the wages of tailors, stone-cutters and other artisans, implied some sort of view with regard to the just price and the standard wage; the Mosaic Law, with its elaborate provision to secure all against poverty,represents, on the economic side, an extreme example of a State founded on a Poor Law.

Two conclusions follow from this. In the first place, economic doctrine, whether it be held in solution in the laws, customs, and practices of a society, or whether it be precipitated as a more or less muddy deposit in the works of the theorist, reflects the condition of the society to which it relates. In a sense, therefore, a study of comparative politics, meaning thereby an analysis of the changing structure of society, is a presupposition of a correct understanding of the development of economic doctrine. No less important is economic history as that term is generally understood. It is no accident that Malthus wrote on population at a time when population was rapidly increasing, or that Ricardo explored the intricacies of currency problems when the currency system was disorganized. In short, Political Economy throughout has been in large measure an attempt to explain, within the existing framework and assumptions of society, how and on what theory contemporary society is operating.

The second conclusion is perhaps at first sight somewhat pessimistic. It is that any body of economic doctrine can have only limited validity. The “economic laws” proper to a society resting on tradition, status and caste may be very different from those applicable to a modern industrial competitive society. The theoretical economist might arrive at different conclusions according as chance may have assigned him to a mediaeval society with the implications of feudalism and the manorial system; to the Greek city state, where the flower of culture was rooted in slave labour, or to the State of the Incas, based on the tyranny and the orderliness of the bee-hive. Economic science, therefore, if it be a science, differs from other sciences in this, that there is no inevitable advance from less to greater certainty; there is no ruthless tracking down of truth which, once unbared, shall be truth to all times to the complete confusion of any contrary doctrine. No absurdity in the history of economic doctrine was, in its time, quite so absurd as it now appears to our complacent eyes. Moreover it is very seldom, if ever, possible to write off a heresy as having been for all time irremediably discarded, demolished and exploded. Old doctrines never die; they only fade away, with a strange power of recuperation in an appropriate environment. The dominant opinion of any age, even if it has a flavour peculiarly its own, is, on analysis, a fricassee of the thoughts of all the ages, and the latest exponent of orthodox and accepted doctrine may to a later generation appear to have added at most one further ingredient or one choice condiment before passing it on.

Greece

It is in the Greek writers that theorizing on economic matters, even if it may scarcely be termed economic theory, first explicitly emerges. But the ancient world, even as represented by Athens, was in many ways but a poor soil for any kind of economic speculation; and consequently, unless to those who are fanatically determined to find everything in antiquity, adumbration of economic theory among the Greeks will rather appear in the form of incidental observations, thrown off in the pursuit of a more worthy end. Two general considerations, which in fact involve a multiplicity of other influences, explain the relatively meagre attainments in such matters even of Greece, contrasted with her lustre in all other fields of speculation and intellectual enterprise. In the first place, the ancient State was in general a strangely comprehensive institution. The man and the citizen were identified. Religion was a part of the machinery and the mystery of the State. Ethics and politics were thus inextricably intermingled. If the subject matter of economics could not be entirely eliminated or ignored, it was viewed merely as part of the general domain of ethical inquiry, as indeed happened more than two thousand years later, when Professor Adam Smith experimented with “The Wealth of Nations” on the Moral Philosophy Class in Glasgow. But the complete emancipation which Adam Smith conferred on economics could not be attained in Greece. Economics was not merely the attendant and the handmaiden of Ethics (as perhaps she should always be); she was crushed and blotted out by her more prosperous and pampered sister, and later excavators, in search of the origins of economic theory, can only dig out disconnected fragments and mangled remains.

The second reason for the absence of any connected system of economic theory goes even deeper. The ancient world, viewed as a whole, rested on a system of caste, and even Athens was not free from the hampering effects of such an inheritance. The city state was founded on slavery, and inevitably where a slave class exists, the work assigned to a slave falls into disrepute and becomes dishonourable. Throughout antiquity, and as markedly in Greece as anywhere, the work of the craftsman was regarded as incompatible with a “life of virtue.” To the Greek mind nearly all the activities of modern society would have appeared unworthy and debasing. When slaves are at hand to do the work, work becomes the mark of the slave. Agriculture almost alone, for a variety of reasons, escaped the contempt and the censure of Greek and Roman writers, and consequently classical writers made further progress in the exposition of agricultural economics than elsewhere. If the “ordinary business of life” was thus despised, it is hardly reasonable to expect that its study should be regarded as a subject worthy of sustained and independent investigation.

So far as economic theory is concerned, it is in Plato that Greek thought advances beyond the level of such wise saws as may be extracted from Hesiod and others, and arrives at some consecutiveness. Yet Plato is the supreme example of the classical tendency to regard economics as a minor subsection of ethics and politics. It is above all in The Republic, and to a lesser extent in The Laws, where he indulges in “an old man’s game,” that Plato turns to economic questions. The former is primarily a discussion on Justice, and it is because the essential nature of Justice may perhaps be most easily discerned in the State—since for the short-sighted the larger letters may be more easily read—that the disputants turn aside in the second book to discuss the State and its origin, and are thus led to construct from the foundation an ideal polity. It is noticeable that the origin of the State is attributed wholly to economic considerations: “A state arises out of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants,”1 and moreover, Plato indicates that no other origin of a state can be imagined. This line of argument, after a consideration of the essential needs of mankind, leads to Plato’s discussion of division of labour, which has so often been compared with the famous chapter in Adam Smith. The essential needs of mankind are food, dwelling and clothing, so that the barest notion of a state must include four or five men—a husbandman, a builder, a weaver, and perhaps a shoemaker or a representative of some other similar occupation. Each of these is, moreover, to confine himself to his own calling. The governing considerations in the application of the principle of division of labour, as conceived by Plato, are then, firstly, that there are “diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations,” and secondly, and as a consequence of this, that “all things are produced more plentifully and easily, and of a better quality, when one man does one thing which is natural to him and does it at the right time, and leaves other things.” It is in order that this principle may be satisfied that Plato then extends his State to include a considerable diversity of other crafts—sailors, traders, retailers and others.

It is interesting to compare this passage with the corresponding section in Adam Smith, and to note how different is Plato’s method of approach to this fundamental problem. The starting point here is ethical: there are diversities of natures among men, and each should do what is natural to him. Up to a certain point this may be a valid explanation of division into trades; under modern conditions, with such specialization as is presented in any large-scale system of production, it is, of course, absurd to speak of anyone’s work as being “natural” to him, or as satisfying diversity of nature. Adam Smith’s explanation of division of labour begins with an absurdity which he expands into something more tenable and comprehensible. Division of labour, he says, is due to the human propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another, as though men, like overgrown schoolboys, did different things for the sheer joy of subsequent “swopping.” But the following paragraph puts a different complexion on what, at the first blush, is a rather quaint theory. Man, says Smith, in words reminiscent of Plato, has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren; but—unplatonically—it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. Division of labour is therefore, for Smith, the effective means of driving a good bargain; it is a device whereby we can count on our dinner from the butcher, relying not on his benevolence, but on his regard for his own interest.

The contrast between Plato and Adam Smith on this point is striking. In Plato, division of labour is the basis of the social organization; the city is built up on division of labour, so that it almost reads as if there could be no State where every member of a community satisfied all his own needs. In Smith it is a device for the ultimate advantage of those who practise it, operating through an increase in their bargaining power. Also, although it is not explicit in Plato, there is in The Republic a curious reversal of Smith’s famous dictum that division of labour is limited by the extent of the market. In The Republic the extent of the market is imposed by the necessity of adopting division of labour. The city must be large enough to enable each to do what is natural to him. In other words, division of labour in Smith leads to diversity of occupation as its final result; in Plato it springs from diversity of endowment as its first impulse.

The point on which appeal has most often been made to Plato relates to his advocacy of communism in the ideal state. To appreciate the peculiar features of Plato’s communism it is necessary to consider (a) the scope, and (b) the object of these communistic institutions. These will best emerge by tracing the course of Plato’s argument, leading up to the memorable passage at the close of the third book in which the principle of communism is enunciated. We have seen the city swell out to allow for the application of the principle of division of labour, so as to include merchantmen, importers and exporters, the organization of a market with a system of currency, retailers and hirelings. At this point there is a pause in the argument; we have arrived at the State matured and perfected, and a dithyrambic hymn of praise is placed in the mouth of Socrates, descriptive of the simple life which the citizens will lead therein. It is only when Glaucon objects that this is but a “city of pigs,” devoid of the ordinary conveniences of life, that the argument acquires a new lease of life. What is now to be considered is the “luxurious state,” and though the subsequent discussion is ordinarily accepted as a description of the ideal state, Socrates explicitly says that “in my opinion the true and healthy constitution of the State is the one which I have described,” that is to say, Glaucon’s city of pigs. What is next to be discussed is, according to Socrates, a “state at fever-heat,” and the first result of Glaucon’s desire for “the ordinary conveniences of life” is a vast extension of the activities of the community by the addition of actors, dancers, barbers, confectioners, cooks et hoc genus omne—and rather satirically, more doctors. More relevant to the main line of argument is the contention that the State will now require a slice of the territory of its neighbours, who in return will be similarly covetous, since in the conditions supposed men will have exceeded the “limit of necessity,” and have given themselves up to the “unlimited accumulation of wealth.” This in turn leads to a further extension of the population, this time embracing a whole army.

Thus we arrive at the guardians, who practise an art which is not to be combined with any other occupation, since one man cannot practise many arts with success. The guardians require careful selection; likewise very careful education. They must combine apparently contradictory qualities, inasmuch as they must be dangerous to their enemies and gentle to their friends. We are not here concerned with the lengthy discussion of the education of the guardians, nor with the subsequent distinction between “guardians in the fullest sense” (the real rulers) and the auxiliaries, but the words in which communism is enacted are of importance in specifying both the scope and the purpose of the communism prescribed. The guardians are to look round for a spot where they can best suppress insurrections within and defend the State from enemies without, and they are to encamp there. Further, in order to ward off the danger that they may become enemies instead of friends of the citizens, their whole mode of life is to be such that they will not be tempted to prey upon the other citizens. Consequently they are devoted to an ascetic method of life; they are to have no property beyond what is necessary; they are to receive a fixed rate of pay, sufficient to meet expenses and no more: “Should they ever acquire homes or lands or moneys of their own, they will become housekeepers and husbandmen instead of guardians, enemies and tyrants instead of allies of the other citizens.”2

Firstly, as to the scope of Plato’s communism, it is clear from the whole argument that it is prescribed only for the limited class of the guardians, who are indeed throughout to live a semi-military life. It is, in fact, the communism of the camp. The contrary view has been argued along lines which need not here be indicated, and one authority has contended that “a superficial reading of The Republic gives the impression . . . that Plato recommends communism solely for these upper sections.”3 It is almost sufficient to note that Aristotle himself is one of these superficial readers; it is entirely sufficient that Plato expressly describes the regulations as “appointed by us for the guardians,” and even more conclusive is his statement that if the guardians depart from their communistic life, they will become housekeepers and husbandmen.

Then secondly, as to the purpose of the guardians’ communism, it is noticeable that Plato in his motives is poles asunder from other communistic dreamers. Elsewhere the cry for communism arises from an aggrieved sense of the injustice and monstrous inequality of the world. It is not so in Plato. For his guardians, communism is an act of ascetic renunciation; it is the condition on which alone they can efficiently discharge their duties. The work they have to do is so important that they may only do it properly on condition that they remain free of the snares and the entanglements of this world. In its motive therefore it is akin to the celibacy of the Roman Catholic priesthood. The object of Plato’s communism is in no way to establish a right to equal enjoyment; rather it is a part of the price that must be paid by a class on whom special responsibilities have been imposed. An interesting, if trivial sidelight, illustrative of the fact that the whole arrangements with regard to the guardians are designed to free them from the ordinary troubles of life, is furnished by the provision that when a woman guardian has a child, the process of suckling shall not be protracted too long: “the mothers will have no getting up at night or other trouble, but will hand over all this sort of thing to the nurses and attendants.”4

A slight glance at The Laws, as supplementing the teaching of The Republic, is almost essential. The Laws is the work of an old man whose fire is spent, and some have found in it the marks of the disillusionment of age. Yet here Plato still clings to the old ideal: “The first and highest form of the State and of the Government and of the Law is that in which there prevails most widely the ancient saying that ‘Friends have all things in common.’”5 But that is rather a State for gods and the sons of gods, and therefore he now outlines the State which “when created, will be nearest to immortality and the only one which takes the second place.”Such a state comprises 5,040 lots, since the city must not be too large and the citizens should be known to each other, and this figure is administratively convenient, as it is divisible by all numbers up to ten. There is no longer any question of communism, since “community of goods goes beyond their proposed origin, and nurture, and education.” The regulations throughout are to aim at a middle and contented condition of life, based on the doctrine that poverty is to be regarded as the increase of a man’s desires and not the diminution of his property. No one is to possess gold or silver except as coin for daily use, and the currency of the country is to be peculiar to it and not acceptable abroad. Inequality of condition cannot be avoided; but undue disparity, arising from extreme poverty or excessive wealth, is to be guarded against. For this purpose the population is to be divided into four classes, the limit of poverty being one lot which is to be guarded unimpaired, while the maximum possession is to be the equivalent of four lots, the surplus to be surrendered to the State.6 No money is to be lent at interest, and, more startling, there is to be no obligation to repay even the capital, a provision explicable on the ground that this is to be a society of half-brothers, if not of brothers, and that there is a definite restriction imposed on the amount of permissible wealth.7

Certain of the old restrictions remain. No citizen is to be occupied in handicraft arts; for citizenship is an “art which requires much study and many kinds of knowledge, and does not admit of being made a secondary occupation.” No one is to follow two crafts, and for the purposes of this regulation citizenship is to be regarded as a craft, and the study of virtue as a full-time occupation.

Among other points it is perhaps worthy of mention that the second best State is to enjoy free trade and complete immunity from import and export duties, subject only to the importation of unnecessary luxuries and the exportation of what is wanted in the country being prohibited.8 Retail trade is forbidden, and there is also a curious desire to preserve the virtues and the purity of the city by removing it to a safe distance from the sea, for “the sea is pleasant enough as a daily companion, but has indeed also a bitter and brackish quality; filling the streets with merchants and shopkeepers, and begetting in the souls of men uncertain and unfaithful ways.”9 But into the rather wearisome details of the State contemplated in The Laws, it is unnecessary here to enter.

When we turn to Aristotle, we are confronted with a writer who, by his analytical frame of mind, went further than any other thinker in antiquity in the direction of detaching a separate science of economics. This is not the place to consider his political theories, but his starting point that man is by nature a political animal enthroned for him the science of politics, so that ethics and economics alike were viewed by him from a political angle. Two points are of peculiar interest to the economist. The first is his destructive criticism of Plato’s communism in the second book of the Politics, and the other is his analysis of the household, leading to a discussion of the economic bases of society. On the former point, with the arguments of all the ages ringing in our ears, Aristotle’s contentions may appear hackneyed. What he says about the snares inherent in community of wives need not detain us; it never has been, and is not now (it may be hoped) an urgent question. But his arguments on the general question of community of property might date from the present year of grace. It is still true that “people pay most attention to their own private property and less to that in which they have but a part interest”10—as witness the carved hieroglyphics on the seats in any public park contrasted with the reverence paid to the domestic Chesterfield.

Aristotle’s arguments, in the main, are of a highly practical character; in short, that a system of communism would not work, and that it violates natural human instincts. There would be disputes between those who get less and work more, and those who get much and work little11—the old difficulty of distribution among frail, grudging and suspicious men. Unity built on communism is in fact a delusion; the common purse leads to quarrels arising out of trivial causes. Moreover there is an immense advantage in the sense of private property. It corresponds to natural instincts; “the love each individual bears to himself is not purposeless,” as he remarks in a phrase in which we seem to catch the tones of Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Again, in an argument which is still common, though of doubtful cogency, he urges that community of property would destroy the virtue of liberality. His own position is not, however, merely negative. As against reformers in a hurry in all ages, he contends that the evils are due, not to the institution which it is proposed to destroy (in this case private property), but to defects in human nature. Unless that is first amended, he would seem to say, there will be no advantage in abolishing something which in itself may be used for good or evil. “The existing system, if embellished by the moral tone of those who live under it and by a code of wise laws, would be far superior.”12 The ideal which Aristotle outlines is thus that of private possession with use in common, so far as that may be practicable—in modern language, private property mellowed by a sense of the responsibility of wealth, a position not so different from that of the Christian Socialists.

Apart from the dispute regarding communism, the main part of Aristotle’s economic teaching is to be found in the first book of the Politics. The place which this discussion occupies in his general treatment flows from his general theory of the State. The State has in all cases a natural existence; it is the complete development of the earlier associations, the household and the village, and Aristotle accordingly proceeds to consider, as the logical first step, the economy of the household. Here there are three fundamental relationships to be borne in mind, that of master and slave, of husband and wife, and of parent and children. The fourth and last of the parts of Domestic Economy is the art of finance, which is not to be confused with Domestic Economy, since it is the business of finance to provide and of Domestic Economy to use that which is provided.13

Under the section which deals with the relationship of master and slave14 occurs Aristotle’s celebrated defence of slavery, which sounds so oddly in modern ears. The principle of rule and subjection is, he says, inevitable and beneficent, and there are “natural slaves,” persons who are as far inferior to others as the body is to the soul, or a beast to a man. In these cases a life of slavish subjection is advantageous. Aristotle is not blind to the obvious objection that, as he puts it, it may happen “contrary to the intention of Nature that those who possess the bodies do not possess the souls of free men and vice versa”15 for even if there be those who are “slaves by nature,” it calls for supreme faith to believe that the accidents of life should at any time sort out the slaves and the non-slaves, in accordance with the definition of a “natural slave.” Hence he distinguishes between natural and legal slaves, and speaks of the law being a convention according to which all conquests in war are the property of the conqueror. The whole discussion is curious and unconvincing, and is perhaps best viewed as a reflection of the fact, not merely that many slaves were well-treated, but also that their position would have been worse but for the institution of slavery.

Coming to the question of acquisition or wealth-getting,16Aristotle is concerned to show how far it is or is not a part of Domestic Economy. Clearly part of wealth-getting must belong to Domestic Economy, since the household requires to be supplied with what is necessary, if this is not already provided. This leads to the rather curious distinction between true or genuine wealth to which there is a limit, and another unnatural kind of acquisition (finance in the bad sense) to which there is no limit. Nature supplies men with the means of subsistence which are gathered in various ways, so that men’s lives may be classified as those of the nomad, the husbandman, the brigand, the fisherman and the hunter. Property which so arises is “assigned by Nature,” and such property and such alone constitutes genuine wealth. Apart from the odd appearance of the brigand in this galley, this is merely, in the main, an anticipation of Physiocratic thought. Here also, so far as concerns real wealth, that is to say the acquisition of the means of subsistence, there is a definite limit assigned, since wealth in this sense must be limited by the needs and the purpose of the household and the State.

As against this, there is another kind of finance,17 which does not have a natural existence and which is ultimately based on the distinction, familiar long afterwards as that between value in use and value in exchange. Every object has two uses; the shoe has a use as a covering for the feet; it has also a use as an article of exchange. So long as we are in the region of primitive barter, we are still concerned with what is natural, but this has ceased when we come to retail trading, where exchange is “carried beyond the point of satisfying mere requirements.” Out of mere simple barter to satisfy a real need, the evil art of finance—retail trading—develops as a natural consequence after the introduction of a system of currency, the successive stages of which are noted with a fair approximation to the discussion in Jevons’s textbook. Finance, in the natural sense, is a part of Domestic Economy. Unnatural finance is not; it produces money merely by means of exchange, and here wealth is unlimited. The one, the healthy, might be described as the acquisition of the means of living, the securing of the “pre-requisites which Nature ought to provide”; the other is merely money-making. The one is laudable; the other enriches one party at the expense of the other. But of all evil forms of finance, the worst is usury, since here money produces the gain itself, and is diverted from the purpose for which it was devised.

In his final classification, apart from the healthy kind of finance which belongs to Domestic Economy and comprises primarily such things as stock-farming, husbandly and bee-keeping, and the unnatural which belongs to trade and comprises commerce, usury and hired labour, Aristotle allows for a third kind of finance which is intermediate and comprises something common to each of the others. This class is concerned with the products of the earth which, however, “do not yield fruit,” such as woodcutting and mining—those industries, indeed, which we should now describe as extractive.

Apart from the Politics, there is also a passage in the Nicomachcean Ethics (Book V, chaps. 7 and 8) which is of some economic interest. Aristotle is there concerned with justice in private dealings. Discarding the mathematical theory of proportion in which his doctrine is embedded, the central point of his teaching is that “when people get as the result of exchange exactly what they had at the beginning, neither more nor less, they are said to have what belongs to them and to be neither losers nor gainers.”18 How is this principle to be carried out? That things may be exchanged, they must in some sense be comparable, and hence money is invented. It measures all things, and consequently, in the case taken, that of a cobbler and a builder, it measures the number of shoes which are equivalent to a house. “As a builder then is to a cobbler, so must so many shoes be to a house or a meal.” It is the demand for mutual services which binds society together, and money is the recognized representative of this demand. Money, Aristotle says in this passage, has not a natural but a conventional (vóμω) existence, and for this reason it is called money (vóμlσμα):19 it is within our power to change it and make it useless, a doctrine which would seem to possess kinship with Knapp’s theory that money is a creature of the law. Money, he adds, is serviceable for future exchanges; it is a guarantee that if we do not desire a thing now, we shall be able to get it when we do want it. Though the value of money is not always the same, it tends to have a more constant value than anything else. Aristotle was obviously not unfamiliar with certain orthodox views regarding the nature and the functions of money.

One last point worthy of passing mention is that Aristotle’s attitude towards “mechanics” and their share in the State is in line with that of most writers in antiquity. It is summed up in the general statement that all who are indispensable to the existence of the State cannot be regarded as citizens, and that in the best State (whatever may happen elsewhere) citizenship will not be conferred upon any mechanic.20 There is here a striking similarity to the passage in the Book of Ecclesiasticus in praise of artificers: “Without these cannot a city be inhabited”; yet “they shall not be sought for in publick counsel.”21

Inasmuch as Aristotle comes nearest to a consistent body of doctrine it may be convenient to summarize how far he had reached. The starting point of his discussion regarding the relation of finance to Domestic Economy rests to a certain extent on a Physiocratic view of the superior place of Nature in the production of true wealth, wealth having here a somewhat ethical significance and being related to the satisfaction of needs actually felt. His condemnation of unnatural finance, or mere accumulation, is based on an acute analysis of the distinction between value-in-use and value-in-exchange. He analyses, in the main with justice, the development and the functions of money, and is commendably clear as to the distinction between money and wealth, though on the other hand money remains for him exclusively a medium of exchange, and it is to his adherence to this view that his condemnation of usury must be attributed. So, in the same way, the nature of capital escapes him; exchange in itself is barren, being ultimately and ideally merely an interchange of equivalents. Some of his observations on the unnatural kind of finance, viewed as the manifestation of an impulse to accumulation, are not without a certain suggestiveness of Marxian criticisms of the hunger of capital for surplus value. On the subject of value itself, Aristotle definitely ranges himself with those who seek a subjective explanation. It is in the demand for mutual services that value is rooted, and it is this principle of demand which binds society together. Such, summarily, are the main features of the Aristotelian approach to a body of economic doctrine.

The third Greek writer to contribute certain embryonic elements to an economic science is Xenophon, who approaches matters throughout in an entirely practical spirit. His achievement is perhaps greater than has generally been admitted, and even where his speculation is confused, it may at least be pleaded on his behalf that the man who gives a wrong answer to a question has at least made some progress, insofar as he realizes that a question exists. The pleasantly innocuous dialogue Œconomicus, devoted to a discussion of the principles of estate management, opens with an analysis of wealth in the manner of Ruskin. Wealth is only wealth to him who can use it, or, more epigrammatically, useful things are those things which one knows how to use; so also, even money is not wealth to him who does not know how to use it.22 Further, wealth is to be interpreted in relation to needs: the man of simple tastes and little substance is wealthy in comparison with the man of great possessions on whom excessive claims rest. All this is the stuff of which proverbial philosophy and the home-spun poetry of contentment are woven. Primarily, Xenophon is an agricultural writer, and it is of interest to note that he furnishes the motto to Quesnay and the Physiocratic school many centuries later: “When husbandry flourishes, all the other arts are in good fettle; but whenever the land is compelled to lie waste, the other arts of landsmen and mariners alike wellnigh perish.”23 His praise of agriculture is indeed of Physiocratic excess. It is the easiest of all things to learn; none gives quicker returns (to a careful man); it is the giver of all things; no art is “dearer to servants, or pleasanter to a wife, or more delightful to children, or more agreeable to friends.”24 Moreover, on Xenophon has been fathered an approach to the familiar agents of production, two—land and labour—being recognized; for though agriculture or the land supplies good things in abundance, “she suffers them not to be won without toil.”25 So also in a fumbling way he approaches, or seems to approach, the Law of Diminishing Returns: “the landowners could all tell you how many teams and how many labourers are required for their estates. If anyone employs hands in excess of requirements, it is reckoned as a loss.”26

It is, however, in the short essay on The Ways and Means to Increase the Revenues of Athens27 that Xenophon is most interesting, most enlightened and perhaps also most confused. Here he is concerned with finding a “remedy for the poverty of our citizens,” and the tract therefore resolves itself into an elementary discussion of public finance. Throughout, a more liberal view than customary is manifested. The foreign residents are seen as a source of revenue, and Xenophon argues for the abolition of all regulations that inflict disabilities on this class. He is indeed anxious to attract “more and better class foreigners to settle at Athens,” and in pursuance of this policy he would show favour to merchants—by free seats at festivals and invitations to banquets. No less significant is his suggestion to raise a capital sum to provide accommodation for merchants and shops and houses for retail dealers. Equally enlightened is his contention that it is the cities which have been longest at peace that have been most prosperous; despite the booty of war, it is in peace that wealth is accumulated; it is in war-time that it is spent.

More curious are the views expressed by Xenophon with regard to silver-mining. Here, with grotesque overstatement, is an industry following the Law of Increasing Returns; the greater the number of people employed, the more prolific becomes the ore. Elsewhere excess of entrepreneurs leads to their bankruptcy; excess of commodities leads to cheapness. But there is no limit to the demand for silver: “Silver ore will never give out, and silver will never lose its value.” Gold does not have this marvellous property; for “when an abundance of gold makes its appearance its value depreciates, and it sends up the price of silver.” Consequently the city should acquire slaves to be let out to work in the silver-mines, and in order to overcome the risks inherent in opening new cuttings, he suggests something approaching to a joint stock method of operation.

Even a brief survey of Xenophon would be incomplete without reference to a passage in the Cyropœdia which, being quoted by Marx and others, has become one of the curiosities of economic literature. It represents division of labour as applied to the kitchen, run mad, with one man to boil fish and another to bake them. Here, surely, the centuries have shown retrogression.28

Apart from these three main representatives of Greek thought, a passing reference is perhaps due to the dialogue called Eryxias, which is of interest as being devoted wholly to an analysis of wealth, and which clearly distinguishes between material and immaterial wealth, so that “in exchange for their art” men may obtain the necessaries of life;29 and to Aristophanes’ wholly diverting play Ecclesiazusœ, a skit on communism (not neglecting votes for women) which is full of the most modern thrusts.

Rome

Economic doctrine in Rome may be more summarily discussed. As a record of social struggle, the history of Rome is of the highest importance, but the specific contribution which Rome made to theory is meagre to the extent of being negligible. Moreover, such as it is, it is largely an echo of Greece. It is indeed in accordance with the genius of the Roman people that their theory should be implicit in their actions, their laws and their jurisprudence, rather than explicit in the works of professed theorists. It is a wise observation of Roscher’s that in Rome it was the most practical men who concerned themselves most with economic matters; and their most influential thought on economic questions, being in effect the economics of the Civil Service and the Law Courts, was never formally propounded.

Another characteristic of such economic fragments as Rome offers is that much of it dates from a time when the splendour was dimmed, and when the more far-sighted could see the hastening approach of the day of ruin. It is therefore mixed up with a good deal of head-shaking over evil times, and lamentations, doubtless sincere, over the departure of the days of primitive simplicity. It thus becomes on one side a criticism of the weaknesses of the times; and the praise of agriculture—a common feature of ancient thought—is in part also a sigh for a vanished simplicity and a censure of prevailing ostentation and greed.

The contribution of Rome to the discussion of economic topics—even if it may not amount to a theory—falls conveniently and traditionally under three groups: the philosophers, the agricultural writers and the jurists. A few points may be noted under each heading.

Of the philosophers (of whom Cicero, Seneca and Pliny may be taken as typical) it may be suggested that in so far as they merely censure luxury, or emphasize the beauty of simplicity and the right uses of wealth, they are primarily moral rather than economic teachers. To a considerable extent this exhausts their content. On other questions there is little that is new. One of the most illuminating passages in Cicero’s De Officiis is that in praise of agriculture, which is also and even more emphatically in dispraise of all other occupations.30 In itself this passage indicates why the spirit of antiquity could scarcely be expected to evolve a body of economic doctrine. As has been properly observed, Cicero is here concerned with the respectability of various occupations, not with their productiveness. Notable is his comparative tolerance towards wholesale trade, especially if it leads to a country estate. Usury naturally is condemned, in this passage on the feeble ground that it incurs people’s ill-will; but it is also to Cicero that we owe Cato’s terse comment: “How about murder?” to one who inquired: “How about money-lending?”31

Seneca’s views on economic matters are not in the main of great interest. Money (and not merely the love of money) is emphatically the root of most evils. Envy and greed are the sources of all injustice.32 But in the midst of much in this train of thought which, even if true and well-expressed, has ill-founded claims to originality, there is one thought that is significant, namely that the various quarters of the earth have been differently endowed in such a manner that the peoples of the world would appear to have been called to enter into intercourse with each other for the mutual satisfaction of their needs.33

In the tangled mass of Pliny’s Natural History there are certain interesting passages relating to money. There is more than a touch of Rousseau in his assertion that the worst crime against mankind was committed by him who was the first to put a ring (of gold) upon his finger.34 There is much vitriolic denunciation of gold “discovered only for the ruin of mankind.” How much more happy the age when things were bartered for one another! Yet despite this, he explains, not unreasonably, the causes which led to the pre-eminence of gold, as that it suffers no damage through fire, that it wears the least of all the metals by use, that no material is more malleable, that it is not subject to rust and so on.35 The other passage in Pliny which has been so frequently quoted is that which relates to the extent of the farm. He refers with approval to Vergil’s maxim “to praise a large farm, but cultivate a small one,” and adds in a celebrated and ominous phrase that the widespread domains had been the ruin of Italy: “latifundia Italiam perdidere.”36

The agricultural writers have but a slender claim to appear here. Their works are a striking testimony to the regard in which agriculture was held in antiquity, and at the same time it is here alone that we have a careful analysis of an industry. Yet these writers, of whom Cato, Varro and Columella are most noteworthy—with, of course, Pliny, who neglects nothing—are concerned above all with the technique of agriculture and only incidentally with the economics of agriculture. Moreover, it is in nearly all cases the management of an estate, self-contained and self-sufficing, that is the problem considered; in other words, agriculture here is viewed not as an industry run for profit; the problem, in Aristotelian phraseology, is one of Domestic Economy rather than of “chrematistics.” Lastly, it is difficult to resist the impression that the more important writers, in their praises of agriculture, were obliquely pointing to what they regarded as the salvation of Rome in degenerate times; and with a certain amount of force, an analogy has been drawn with the Physiocrats, who many centuries later also emphasized the importance of agriculture under the shadow of approaching evil.

Apart from dithyrambic praise of agriculture, as, for instance, when Columella says that husbandry is next to and near akin to wisdom, it is notable that the writers of this group condemn slave-labour as inefficient. Pliny may be taken as typical: “It is the very worst plan of all to have land tilled by slaves let loose from the house of correction, as indeed is the case with all work entrusted to men who live without hope.”37 Certain sayings of Cato, as on the superiority of an agricultural population, and his dictum that he has been a useful member of society who leaves more at his death than he inherited, passed into current wisdom. But in the main these writers are concerned with tips for the landowner (and his wife): hints on the pruning of trees, where to buy tunics, the medicinal effects of cabbage, the salting of gammon and the like.

To the third contributory stream derived from Rome, represented by the jurists, it is possible to make merely a vague reference, though indeed their influence on the world at large, and on the subsequent method of approach to economic questions, has been of the profoundest. It might indeed be argued that Roman Law represents the greatest legacy of Rome to the civilized world, inasmuch as a large portion of the daily transactions of the world are still regulated in accordance with the principles laid down by the Roman jurists and embodied in Roman Law. For our present purpose, influence along two different lines is notable. The progress of Rome from its earliest self-contained beginnings to its widest expansion was marked, on the one hand, by increasing contact with other nations and peoples, which were found to have laws of their own, and, on the other hand, by an advance to a state of considerable economic, financial and commercial complexity, in which men made contracts, and in which the art of banking and the mysteries of credit were not unknown. In response to the first of these lines of development, the Roman lawyers evolved the idea of a “jus gentium,” an idea not in itself of economic importance, though later it impinges on the development of economic ideas. The “jus gentium,” the body of law common to different nations, readily passes into the idea of natural law, that is to say, the idea of a body of law, which, being common to all peoples, is “natural “to them, and can therefore claim a higher sanction than that of any earthly legislature. It is an idea which, in the varying shades of meaning of which it is susceptible, never wholly faded out. In the eighteenth century it colours the doctrine that certain things are “natural,” which is so large a part of Smith, and which even more emphatically is the foundation-stone of the Physiocrats. The other development led, not indeed to economic doctrine, but to a careful analysis of certain economic conceptions, above all those relating to contract and the nature of property. Here the influence of Roman Law was in the direction of a rigid, and indeed a somewhat harsh individualism. To the influence of the Roman jurists must in large measure be attributed the prevailing tendency to consider that each one, in the common phrase, has a right to do what he likes with his own, that the conception of private property necessarily includes the right not merely to enjoy, but also arbitrarily to abuse and destroy, and logically likewise an untrammelled right of bequest. Here, in the two great principles of private property and complete freedom of contract, Rome left a bias towards unfettered and irresponsible individualism as against the possible claims of the family, the sept, or the nation.

 

___________

38 The Republic, Jowett’s translation, p. 49.

39 Ibid., Book III, p. 106.

40 Beer, Social Struggles in Antiquity, p. 97.

41 The Republic, Jowett’s translation, p. 154.

42 The Laws, Jowett’s translation, p. 121.

43 Ibid., p. 127.

44 Ibid., p. 124.

45 Ibid., p. 230.

46 Ibid., p. 87.

47 Politics, Book II, chap. 3, Welldon’s translation, p. 43.

48 Ibid., Book II, chap. 5, p. 48.

49 Ibid., Book II, chap. 5, p. 49.

50 Ibid., Book I, chaps. 3 and 8.

51 Ibid., Book I, chaps. 5 and 6.

52 Ibid., Book I, chap. 6, Welldon, p. 13.

53Ibid., Book I, chap. 8.

54 Ibid., Book I, chap. 9.

55Ethics, Book V, chap. 5, Welldon’s translation, p. 149.

56 Ibid., p. 153.

57 Politics, Book III, chap. 5, Welldon, p. 113.

58 Ecclesiasticus xxxviii. v. 32, 33. The corresponding passage on the same subject in Xenophon (Œconomicus IV, 2, 3) is interesting, inasmuch as the writer assigns reasons for the contempt of the illiberal arts: “They utterly ruin the bodies of workers and managers alike, compelling men, as they do, to lead sedentary lives and huddle indoors, or in some cases to spend the day before a fire. Then as men’s bodies become enervated, so their souls grow sicklier. And these vulgar crafts involve complete absence of leisure and hinder men from social and civic life; consequently men such as these are bad friends and indifferent defenders of their country. Moreover, in some states, particularly in those accounted warlike, no full citizen is permitted to practise the vulgar arts.” (As translated in Laistner’s Greek Economics, pp. 39, 40. See also Loeb edition, P. 391).

59 Loeb translation, pp. 367, 409.

60 Ibid., p. 405.

61 Ibid., p. 517.

62 Ibid., p. 401.

63 Laistner, Greek Economics, p. 16; Ways and Means, etc.

64 Printed in Laistner, Greek Economics.

65 “For just as all other arts are developed to superior excellence in large cities, in that same way the food at the king’s palace is also elaborately prepared with superior excellence. For in small towns the same workman makes chairs and doors and ploughs and tables, and often this same artisan builds houses, and even so he is thankful if he can only find employment to support him. And it is, of course, impossible for a man of many trades to be proficient in all of them. In large cities, on the other hand, inasmuch as many people have demands to make upon each branch of industry, one trade alone, and very often even less than a whole trade, is enough to support a man: one man, for instance, makes shoes for men, and another for women; and there are places even where one man earns a living by only stitching shoes, another by cutting them out, another by sewing the uppers together, while there is another who performs none of these operations but only assembles the parts. It follows, therefore, as a matter of course, that he who devotes himself to a very specialized line of work is bound to do it in the best possible manner. Exactly the same thing holds true in reference to the kitchen; in any establishment where one and the same man arranges the dining couches, lays the table, bakes the bread, prepares now one sort of dish and now another, he must necessarily have things go as they may; but where it is all one man can do to stew meats and another to roast them, for one man to boil fish and another to bake them, for another to bake bread and not every sort at that, but where it suffices if he makes one kind that has a high reputation—everything that is prepared in such a kitchen will, I think, necessarily be worked out with superior excellence.” (Cyropœdia, Book VIII, ii, 5-6; Loeb translation, PP- 333-335.)

66 Laistner, op. cit., p. 41.

67 “Now in regard to trades and other means of livelihood, which ones are to be considered becoming to a gentleman and which ones are vulgar, we have been taught, in general, as follows: First, those means of livelihood are rejected as undesirable which incur people’s ill-will, as those of tax-gatherers and usurers. Unbecoming to a gentleman, too, and vulgar, are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wages they receive is a pledge of their slavery. Vulgar we must consider those also who buy from wholesale merchants to retail immediately; for they would get no profits without a great deal of downright lying; and verily there is no action that is meaner than misrepresentation. And all mechanics are engaged in vulgar trades; for no workshop can have anything liberal about it. Least respectable of all are those trades which cater to sensual pleasures:

‘ Fishmongers, butchers, cooks, and poulterers, And fishermen,’

as Terence says. Add to these, if you please, the perfumers, dancers, and the whole corps de ballet.

But the professions in which either a higher degree of intelligence is required or from which no small benefit to society is derived—medicine and architecture, for example, and teaching—these are proper for those whose social position they become. Trade, if it is on a small scale, is to be considered vulgar; but if wholesale and on a large scale, importing large quantities from all parts of the world and distributing to many without misrepresentation, it is not to be greatly disparaged. Nay, it even seems to deserve the highest respect, if those who are engaged in it, satiated, or rather, I should say, satisfied with the fortunes they have made, make their way from the port to a country estate, as they have often made it from the sea into port. But of all the occupations by which gain is secured, none is better than agriculture, none more profitable, none more delightful, none more becoming to a freeman.” (De Officiis, Book I, xlii; Loeb translation, pp. 153-155.)

68 “Et cum ille, qui quæsierat, dixisset: ‘ Quid fænerari? ’, turn Cato: ‘ Quid hominem,’ inquit, ‘ occidere’” (De Officiis, Book II, xxv; Loeb, p. 266.)

69 De Ira, III, 32, 33.

70 Ad Helviam Matrem de Consolatione, chap. 9.

71 Pliny, Book XXXIII, chaps. 3, 4.

72 Pliny, Book XXXIII, chap. 19.

73 Pliny, Book XVIII, chap. 7.

74 Pliny, Book XVIII, chap. 7.

• 1The Republic, Jowett’s translation, p. 49.
• 2Ibid., Book III, p. 106.
• 3Beer, Social Struggles in Antiquity, p. 97.
• 4The Republic, Jowett’s translation, p. 154.
• 5The Laws, Jowett’s translation, p. 121.
• 6Ibid., p. 127.
• 7Ibid., p. 124.
• 8Ibid., p. 230.
• 9Ibid., p. 87.
• 10Politics, Book II, chap. 3, Welldon’s translation, p. 43.
• 11Ibid., Book II, chap. 5, p. 48.
• 12Ibid., Book II, chap. 5, p. 49.
• 13Ibid., Book I, chaps. 3 and 8.
• 14Ibid., Book I, chaps. 5 and 6.
• 15Ibid., Book I, chap. 6, Welldon, p. 13.
• 16Ibid., Book I, chap. 8.
• 17Ibid., Book I, chap. 9.
• 18Ethics, Book V, chap. 5, Welldon’s translation, p. 149.
• 19Ibid., p. 153.
• 20Politics, Book III, chap. 5, Welldon, p. 113.
• 21Ecclesiasticus xxxviii. v. 32, 33. The corresponding passage on the same subject in Xenophon (Œconomicus IV, 2, 3) is interesting, inasmuch as the writer assigns reasons for the contempt of the illiberal arts: “They utterly ruin the bodies of workers and managers alike, compelling men, as they do, to lead sedentary lives and huddle indoors, or in some cases to spend the day before a fire. Then as men’s bodies become enervated, so their souls grow sicklier. And these vulgar crafts involve complete absence of leisure and hinder men from social and civic life; consequently men such as these are bad friends and indifferent defenders of their country. Moreover, in some states, particularly in those accounted warlike, no full citizen is permitted to practise the vulgar arts.” (As translated in Laistner’s Greek Economics, pp. 39, 40. See also Loeb edition, P. 391).
• 22Loeb translation, pp. 367, 409.
• 23Ibid., p. 405.
• 24Ibid., p. 517.
• 25Ibid., p. 401.
• 26Laistner, Greek Economics, p. 16; Ways and Means, etc.
• 27Printed in Laistner, Greek Economics.
• 28“For just as all other arts are developed to superior excellence in large cities, in that same way the food at the king’s palace is also elaborately prepared with superior excellence. For in small towns the same workman makes chairs and doors and ploughs and tables, and often this same artisan builds houses, and even so he is thankful if he can only find employment to support him. And it is, of course, impossible for a man of many trades to be proficient in all of them. In large cities, on the other hand, inasmuch as many people have demands to make upon each branch of industry, one trade alone, and very often even less than a whole trade, is enough to support a man: one man, for instance, makes shoes for men, and another for women; and there are places even where one man earns a living by only stitching shoes, another by cutting them out, another by sewing the uppers together, while there is another who performs none of these operations but only assembles the parts. It follows, therefore, as a matter of course, that he who devotes himself to a very specialized line of work is bound to do it in the best possible manner. Exactly the same thing holds true in reference to the kitchen; in any establishment where one and the same man arranges the dining couches, lays the table, bakes the bread, prepares now one sort of dish and now another, he must necessarily have things go as they may; but where it is all one man can do to stew meats and another to roast them, for one man to boil fish and another to bake them, for another to bake bread and not every sort at that, but where it suffices if he makes one kind that has a high reputation—everything that is prepared in such a kitchen will, I think, necessarily be worked out with superior excellence.” (Cyropœdia, Book VIII, ii, 5-6; Loeb translation, PP- 333-335.)
• 29Laistner, op. cit., p. 41.
• 30“Now in regard to trades and other means of livelihood, which ones are to be considered becoming to a gentleman and which ones are vulgar, we have been taught, in general, as follows: First, those means of livelihood are rejected as undesirable which incur people’s ill-will, as those of tax-gatherers and usurers. Unbecoming to a gentleman, too, and vulgar, are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wages they receive is a pledge of their slavery. Vulgar we must consider those also who buy from wholesale merchants to retail immediately; for they would get no profits without a great deal of downright lying; and verily there is no action that is meaner than misrepresentation. And all mechanics are engaged in vulgar trades; for no workshop can have anything liberal about it. Least respectable of all are those trades which cater to sensual pleasures:
• 31“Et cum ille, qui quæsierat, dixisset: ‘ Quid fænerari? ’, turn Cato: ‘ Quid hominem,’ inquit, ‘ occidere’” (De Officiis, Book II, xxv; Loeb, p. 266.)
• 32De Ira, III, 32, 33.
• 33Ad Helviam Matrem de Consolatione, chap. 9.
• 34Pliny, Book XXXIII, chaps. 3, 4.
• 35Pliny, Book XXXIII, chap. 19.
• 36Pliny, Book XVIII, chap. 7.
• 37Pliny, Book XVIII, chap. 7.
• 38So far as economic theory is concerned, it is in Plato that Greek thought advances beyond the level of such wise saws as may be extracted from Hesiod and others, and arrives at some consecutiveness. Yet Plato is the supreme example of the classical tendency to regard economics as a minor subsection of ethics and politics. It is above all in The Republic, and to a lesser extent in The Laws, where he indulges in “an old man’s game,” that Plato turns to economic questions. The former is primarily a discussion on Justice, and it is because the essential nature of Justice may perhaps be most easily discerned in the State—since for the short-sighted the larger letters may be more easily read—that the disputants turn aside in the second book to discuss the State and its origin, and are thus led to construct from the foundation an ideal polity. It is noticeable that the origin of the State is attributed wholly to economic considerations: “A state arises out of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants,” and moreover, Plato indicates that no other origin of a state can be imagined. This line of argument, after a consideration of the essential needs of mankind, leads to Plato’s discussion of division of labour, which has so often been compared with the famous chapter in Adam Smith. The essential needs of mankind are food, dwelling and clothing, so that the barest notion of a state must include four or five men—a husbandman, a builder, a weaver, and perhaps a shoemaker or a representative of some other similar occupation. Each of these is, moreover, to confine himself to his own calling. The governing considerations in the application of the principle of division of labour, as conceived by Plato, are then, firstly, that there are “diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations,” and secondly, and as a consequence of this, that “all things are produced more plentifully and easily, and of a better quality, when one man does one thing which is natural to him and does it at the right time, and leaves other things.” It is in order that this principle may be satisfied that Plato then extends his State to include a considerable diversity of other crafts—sailors, traders, retailers and others.
• 39Thus we arrive at the guardians, who practise an art which is not to be combined with any other occupation, since one man cannot practise many arts with success. The guardians require careful selection; likewise very careful education. They must combine apparently contradictory qualities, inasmuch as they must be dangerous to their enemies and gentle to their friends. We are not here concerned with the lengthy discussion of the education of the guardians, nor with the subsequent distinction between “guardians in the fullest sense” (the real rulers) and the auxiliaries, but the words in which communism is enacted are of importance in specifying both the scope and the purpose of the communism prescribed. The guardians are to look round for a spot where they can best suppress insurrections within and defend the State from enemies without, and they are to encamp there. Further, in order to ward off the danger that they may become enemies instead of friends of the citizens, their whole mode of life is to be such that they will not be tempted to prey upon the other citizens. Consequently they are devoted to an ascetic method of life; they are to have no property beyond what is necessary; they are to receive a fixed rate of pay, sufficient to meet expenses and no more: “Should they ever acquire homes or lands or moneys of their own, they will become housekeepers and husbandmen instead of guardians, enemies and tyrants instead of allies of the other citizens.”
• 40Firstly, as to the scope of Plato’s communism, it is clear from the whole argument that it is prescribed only for the limited class of the guardians, who are indeed throughout to live a semi-military life. It is, in fact, the communism of the camp. The contrary view has been argued along lines which need not here be indicated, and one authority has contended that “a superficial reading of The Republic gives the impression . . . that Plato recommends communism solely for these upper sections.” It is almost sufficient to note that Aristotle himself is one of these superficial readers; it is entirely sufficient that Plato expressly describes the regulations as “appointed by us for the guardians,” and even more conclusive is his statement that if the guardians depart from their communistic life, they will become housekeepers and husbandmen.
• 41Then secondly, as to the purpose of the guardians’ communism, it is noticeable that Plato in his motives is poles asunder from other communistic dreamers. Elsewhere the cry for communism arises from an aggrieved sense of the injustice and monstrous inequality of the world. It is not so in Plato. For his guardians, communism is an act of ascetic renunciation; it is the condition on which alone they can efficiently discharge their duties. The work they have to do is so important that they may only do it properly on condition that they remain free of the snares and the entanglements of this world. In its motive therefore it is akin to the celibacy of the Roman Catholic priesthood. The object of Plato’s communism is in no way to establish a right to equal enjoyment; rather it is a part of the price that must be paid by a class on whom special responsibilities have been imposed. An interesting, if trivial sidelight, illustrative of the fact that the whole arrangements with regard to the guardians are designed to free them from the ordinary troubles of life, is furnished by the provision that when a woman guardian has a child, the process of suckling shall not be protracted too long: “the mothers will have no getting up at night or other trouble, but will hand over all this sort of thing to the nurses and attendants.”
• 42A slight glance at The Laws, as supplementing the teaching of The Republic, is almost essential. The Laws is the work of an old man whose fire is spent, and some have found in it the marks of the disillusionment of age. Yet here Plato still clings to the old ideal: “The first and highest form of the State and of the Government and of the Law is that in which there prevails most widely the ancient saying that ‘Friends have all things in common.’” But that is rather a State for gods and the sons of gods, and therefore he now outlines the State which “when created, will be nearest to immortality and the only one which takes the second place.”Such a state comprises 5,040 lots, since the city must not be too large and the citizens should be known to each other, and this figure is administratively convenient, as it is divisible by all numbers up to ten. There is no longer any question of communism, since “community of goods goes beyond their proposed origin, and nurture, and education.” The regulations throughout are to aim at a middle and contented condition of life, based on the doctrine that poverty is to be regarded as the increase of a man’s desires and not the diminution of his property. No one is to possess gold or silver except as coin for daily use, and the currency of the country is to be peculiar to it and not acceptable abroad. Inequality of condition cannot be avoided; but undue disparity, arising from extreme poverty or excessive wealth, is to be guarded against. For this purpose the population is to be divided into four classes, the limit of poverty being one lot which is to be guarded unimpaired, while the maximum possession is to be the equivalent of four lots, the surplus to be surrendered to the State. No money is to be lent at interest, and, more startling, there is to be no obligation to repay even the capital, a provision explicable on the ground that this is to be a society of half-brothers, if not of brothers, and that there is a definite restriction imposed on the amount of permissible wealth.
• 43A slight glance at The Laws, as supplementing the teaching of The Republic, is almost essential. The Laws is the work of an old man whose fire is spent, and some have found in it the marks of the disillusionment of age. Yet here Plato still clings to the old ideal: “The first and highest form of the State and of the Government and of the Law is that in which there prevails most widely the ancient saying that ‘Friends have all things in common.’” But that is rather a State for gods and the sons of gods, and therefore he now outlines the State which “when created, will be nearest to immortality and the only one which takes the second place.”Such a state comprises 5,040 lots, since the city must not be too large and the citizens should be known to each other, and this figure is administratively convenient, as it is divisible by all numbers up to ten. There is no longer any question of communism, since “community of goods goes beyond their proposed origin, and nurture, and education.” The regulations throughout are to aim at a middle and contented condition of life, based on the doctrine that poverty is to be regarded as the increase of a man’s desires and not the diminution of his property. No one is to possess gold or silver except as coin for daily use, and the currency of the country is to be peculiar to it and not acceptable abroad. Inequality of condition cannot be avoided; but undue disparity, arising from extreme poverty or excessive wealth, is to be guarded against. For this purpose the population is to be divided into four classes, the limit of poverty being one lot which is to be guarded unimpaired, while the maximum possession is to be the equivalent of four lots, the surplus to be surrendered to the State. No money is to be lent at interest, and, more startling, there is to be no obligation to repay even the capital, a provision explicable on the ground that this is to be a society of half-brothers, if not of brothers, and that there is a definite restriction imposed on the amount of permissible wealth.
• 44A slight glance at The Laws, as supplementing the teaching of The Republic, is almost essential. The Laws is the work of an old man whose fire is spent, and some have found in it the marks of the disillusionment of age. Yet here Plato still clings to the old ideal: “The first and highest form of the State and of the Government and of the Law is that in which there prevails most widely the ancient saying that ‘Friends have all things in common.’” But that is rather a State for gods and the sons of gods, and therefore he now outlines the State which “when created, will be nearest to immortality and the only one which takes the second place.”Such a state comprises 5,040 lots, since the city must not be too large and the citizens should be known to each other, and this figure is administratively convenient, as it is divisible by all numbers up to ten. There is no longer any question of communism, since “community of goods goes beyond their proposed origin, and nurture, and education.” The regulations throughout are to aim at a middle and contented condition of life, based on the doctrine that poverty is to be regarded as the increase of a man’s desires and not the diminution of his property. No one is to possess gold or silver except as coin for daily use, and the currency of the country is to be peculiar to it and not acceptable abroad. Inequality of condition cannot be avoided; but undue disparity, arising from extreme poverty or excessive wealth, is to be guarded against. For this purpose the population is to be divided into four classes, the limit of poverty being one lot which is to be guarded unimpaired, while the maximum possession is to be the equivalent of four lots, the surplus to be surrendered to the State. No money is to be lent at interest, and, more startling, there is to be no obligation to repay even the capital, a provision explicable on the ground that this is to be a society of half-brothers, if not of brothers, and that there is a definite restriction imposed on the amount of permissible wealth.
• 45Among other points it is perhaps worthy of mention that the second best State is to enjoy free trade and complete immunity from import and export duties, subject only to the importation of unnecessary luxuries and the exportation of what is wanted in the country being prohibited. Retail trade is forbidden, and there is also a curious desire to preserve the virtues and the purity of the city by removing it to a safe distance from the sea, for “the sea is pleasant enough as a daily companion, but has indeed also a bitter and brackish quality; filling the streets with merchants and shopkeepers, and begetting in the souls of men uncertain and unfaithful ways.” But into the rather wearisome details of the State contemplated in The Laws, it is unnecessary here to enter.
• 46Among other points it is perhaps worthy of mention that the second best State is to enjoy free trade and complete immunity from import and export duties, subject only to the importation of unnecessary luxuries and the exportation of what is wanted in the country being prohibited. Retail trade is forbidden, and there is also a curious desire to preserve the virtues and the purity of the city by removing it to a safe distance from the sea, for “the sea is pleasant enough as a daily companion, but has indeed also a bitter and brackish quality; filling the streets with merchants and shopkeepers, and begetting in the souls of men uncertain and unfaithful ways.” But into the rather wearisome details of the State contemplated in The Laws, it is unnecessary here to enter.
• 47When we turn to Aristotle, we are confronted with a writer who, by his analytical frame of mind, went further than any other thinker in antiquity in the direction of detaching a separate science of economics. This is not the place to consider his political theories, but his starting point that man is by nature a political animal enthroned for him the science of politics, so that ethics and economics alike were viewed by him from a political angle. Two points are of peculiar interest to the economist. The first is his destructive criticism of Plato’s communism in the second book of the Politics, and the other is his analysis of the household, leading to a discussion of the economic bases of society. On the former point, with the arguments of all the ages ringing in our ears, Aristotle’s contentions may appear hackneyed. What he says about the snares inherent in community of wives need not detain us; it never has been, and is not now (it may be hoped) an urgent question. But his arguments on the general question of community of property might date from the present year of grace. It is still true that “people pay most attention to their own private property and less to that in which they have but a part interest”—as witness the carved hieroglyphics on the seats in any public park contrasted with the reverence paid to the domestic Chesterfield.
• 48Aristotle’s arguments, in the main, are of a highly practical character; in short, that a system of communism would not work, and that it violates natural human instincts. There would be disputes between those who get less and work more, and those who get much and work little—the old difficulty of distribution among frail, grudging and suspicious men. Unity built on communism is in fact a delusion; the common purse leads to quarrels arising out of trivial causes. Moreover there is an immense advantage in the sense of private property. It corresponds to natural instincts; “the love each individual bears to himself is not purposeless,” as he remarks in a phrase in which we seem to catch the tones of Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Again, in an argument which is still common, though of doubtful cogency, he urges that community of property would destroy the virtue of liberality. His own position is not, however, merely negative. As against reformers in a hurry in all ages, he contends that the evils are due, not to the institution which it is proposed to destroy (in this case private property), but to defects in human nature. Unless that is first amended, he would seem to say, there will be no advantage in abolishing something which in itself may be used for good or evil. “The existing system, if embellished by the moral tone of those who live under it and by a code of wise laws, would be far superior.” The ideal which Aristotle outlines is thus that of private possession with use in common, so far as that may be practicable—in modern language, private property mellowed by a sense of the responsibility of wealth, a position not so different from that of the Christian Socialists.
• 49Aristotle’s arguments, in the main, are of a highly practical character; in short, that a system of communism would not work, and that it violates natural human instincts. There would be disputes between those who get less and work more, and those who get much and work little—the old difficulty of distribution among frail, grudging and suspicious men. Unity built on communism is in fact a delusion; the common purse leads to quarrels arising out of trivial causes. Moreover there is an immense advantage in the sense of private property. It corresponds to natural instincts; “the love each individual bears to himself is not purposeless,” as he remarks in a phrase in which we seem to catch the tones of Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Again, in an argument which is still common, though of doubtful cogency, he urges that community of property would destroy the virtue of liberality. His own position is not, however, merely negative. As against reformers in a hurry in all ages, he contends that the evils are due, not to the institution which it is proposed to destroy (in this case private property), but to defects in human nature. Unless that is first amended, he would seem to say, there will be no advantage in abolishing something which in itself may be used for good or evil. “The existing system, if embellished by the moral tone of those who live under it and by a code of wise laws, would be far superior.” The ideal which Aristotle outlines is thus that of private possession with use in common, so far as that may be practicable—in modern language, private property mellowed by a sense of the responsibility of wealth, a position not so different from that of the Christian Socialists.
• 50Apart from the dispute regarding communism, the main part of Aristotle’s economic teaching is to be found in the first book of the Politics. The place which this discussion occupies in his general treatment flows from his general theory of the State. The State has in all cases a natural existence; it is the complete development of the earlier associations, the household and the village, and Aristotle accordingly proceeds to consider, as the logical first step, the economy of the household. Here there are three fundamental relationships to be borne in mind, that of master and slave, of husband and wife, and of parent and children. The fourth and last of the parts of Domestic Economy is the art of finance, which is not to be confused with Domestic Economy, since it is the business of finance to provide and of Domestic Economy to use that which is provided.
• 51Under the section which deals with the relationship of master and slave occurs Aristotle’s celebrated defence of slavery, which sounds so oddly in modern ears. The principle of rule and subjection is, he says, inevitable and beneficent, and there are “natural slaves,” persons who are as far inferior to others as the body is to the soul, or a beast to a man. In these cases a life of slavish subjection is advantageous. Aristotle is not blind to the obvious objection that, as he puts it, it may happen “contrary to the intention of Nature that those who possess the bodies do not possess the souls of free men and vice versa” for even if there be those who are “slaves by nature,” it calls for supreme faith to believe that the accidents of life should at any time sort out the slaves and the non-slaves, in accordance with the definition of a “natural slave.” Hence he distinguishes between natural and legal slaves, and speaks of the law being a convention according to which all conquests in war are the property of the conqueror. The whole discussion is curious and unconvincing, and is perhaps best viewed as a reflection of the fact, not merely that many slaves were well-treated, but also that their position would have been worse but for the institution of slavery.
• 52Under the section which deals with the relationship of master and slave occurs Aristotle’s celebrated defence of slavery, which sounds so oddly in modern ears. The principle of rule and subjection is, he says, inevitable and beneficent, and there are “natural slaves,” persons who are as far inferior to others as the body is to the soul, or a beast to a man. In these cases a life of slavish subjection is advantageous. Aristotle is not blind to the obvious objection that, as he puts it, it may happen “contrary to the intention of Nature that those who possess the bodies do not possess the souls of free men and vice versa” for even if there be those who are “slaves by nature,” it calls for supreme faith to believe that the accidents of life should at any time sort out the slaves and the non-slaves, in accordance with the definition of a “natural slave.” Hence he distinguishes between natural and legal slaves, and speaks of the law being a convention according to which all conquests in war are the property of the conqueror. The whole discussion is curious and unconvincing, and is perhaps best viewed as a reflection of the fact, not merely that many slaves were well-treated, but also that their position would have been worse but for the institution of slavery.
• 53Coming to the question of acquisition or wealth-getting,Aristotle is concerned to show how far it is or is not a part of Domestic Economy. Clearly part of wealth-getting must belong to Domestic Economy, since the household requires to be supplied with what is necessary, if this is not already provided. This leads to the rather curious distinction between true or genuine wealth to which there is a limit, and another unnatural kind of acquisition (finance in the bad sense) to which there is no limit. Nature supplies men with the means of subsistence which are gathered in various ways, so that men’s lives may be classified as those of the nomad, the husbandman, the brigand, the fisherman and the hunter. Property which so arises is “assigned by Nature,” and such property and such alone constitutes genuine wealth. Apart from the odd appearance of the brigand in this galley, this is merely, in the main, an anticipation of Physiocratic thought. Here also, so far as concerns real wealth, that is to say the acquisition of the means of subsistence, there is a definite limit assigned, since wealth in this sense must be limited by the needs and the purpose of the household and the State.
• 54As against this, there is another kind of finance, which does not have a natural existence and which is ultimately based on the distinction, familiar long afterwards as that between value in use and value in exchange. Every object has two uses; the shoe has a use as a covering for the feet; it has also a use as an article of exchange. So long as we are in the region of primitive barter, we are still concerned with what is natural, but this has ceased when we come to retail trading, where exchange is “carried beyond the point of satisfying mere requirements.” Out of mere simple barter to satisfy a real need, the evil art of finance—retail trading—develops as a natural consequence after the introduction of a system of currency, the successive stages of which are noted with a fair approximation to the discussion in Jevons’s textbook. Finance, in the natural sense, is a part of Domestic Economy. Unnatural finance is not; it produces money merely by means of exchange, and here wealth is unlimited. The one, the healthy, might be described as the acquisition of the means of living, the securing of the “pre-requisites which Nature ought to provide”; the other is merely money-making. The one is laudable; the other enriches one party at the expense of the other. But of all evil forms of finance, the worst is usury, since here money produces the gain itself, and is diverted from the purpose for which it was devised.
• 55Apart from the Politics, there is also a passage in the Nicomachcean Ethics (Book V, chaps. 7 and 8) which is of some economic interest. Aristotle is there concerned with justice in private dealings. Discarding the mathematical theory of proportion in which his doctrine is embedded, the central point of his teaching is that “when people get as the result of exchange exactly what they had at the beginning, neither more nor less, they are said to have what belongs to them and to be neither losers nor gainers.” How is this principle to be carried out? That things may be exchanged, they must in some sense be comparable, and hence money is invented. It measures all things, and consequently, in the case taken, that of a cobbler and a builder, it measures the number of shoes which are equivalent to a house. “As a builder then is to a cobbler, so must so many shoes be to a house or a meal.” It is the demand for mutual services which binds society together, and money is the recognized representative of this demand. Money, Aristotle says in this passage, has not a natural but a conventional (vóμω) existence, and for this reason it is called money (vóμlσμα): it is within our power to change it and make it useless, a doctrine which would seem to possess kinship with Knapp’s theory that money is a creature of the law. Money, he adds, is serviceable for future exchanges; it is a guarantee that if we do not desire a thing now, we shall be able to get it when we do want it. Though the value of money is not always the same, it tends to have a more constant value than anything else. Aristotle was obviously not unfamiliar with certain orthodox views regarding the nature and the functions of money.
• 56Apart from the Politics, there is also a passage in the Nicomachcean Ethics (Book V, chaps. 7 and 8) which is of some economic interest. Aristotle is there concerned with justice in private dealings. Discarding the mathematical theory of proportion in which his doctrine is embedded, the central point of his teaching is that “when people get as the result of exchange exactly what they had at the beginning, neither more nor less, they are said to have what belongs to them and to be neither losers nor gainers.” How is this principle to be carried out? That things may be exchanged, they must in some sense be comparable, and hence money is invented. It measures all things, and consequently, in the case taken, that of a cobbler and a builder, it measures the number of shoes which are equivalent to a house. “As a builder then is to a cobbler, so must so many shoes be to a house or a meal.” It is the demand for mutual services which binds society together, and money is the recognized representative of this demand. Money, Aristotle says in this passage, has not a natural but a conventional (vóμω) existence, and for this reason it is called money (vóμlσμα): it is within our power to change it and make it useless, a doctrine which would seem to possess kinship with Knapp’s theory that money is a creature of the law. Money, he adds, is serviceable for future exchanges; it is a guarantee that if we do not desire a thing now, we shall be able to get it when we do want it. Though the value of money is not always the same, it tends to have a more constant value than anything else. Aristotle was obviously not unfamiliar with certain orthodox views regarding the nature and the functions of money.
• 57One last point worthy of passing mention is that Aristotle’s attitude towards “mechanics” and their share in the State is in line with that of most writers in antiquity. It is summed up in the general statement that all who are indispensable to the existence of the State cannot be regarded as citizens, and that in the best State (whatever may happen elsewhere) citizenship will not be conferred upon any mechanic. There is here a striking similarity to the passage in the Book of Ecclesiasticus in praise of artificers: “Without these cannot a city be inhabited”; yet “they shall not be sought for in publick counsel.”
• 58One last point worthy of passing mention is that Aristotle’s attitude towards “mechanics” and their share in the State is in line with that of most writers in antiquity. It is summed up in the general statement that all who are indispensable to the existence of the State cannot be regarded as citizens, and that in the best State (whatever may happen elsewhere) citizenship will not be conferred upon any mechanic. There is here a striking similarity to the passage in the Book of Ecclesiasticus in praise of artificers: “Without these cannot a city be inhabited”; yet “they shall not be sought for in publick counsel.”
• 59The third Greek writer to contribute certain embryonic elements to an economic science is Xenophon, who approaches matters throughout in an entirely practical spirit. His achievement is perhaps greater than has generally been admitted, and even where his speculation is confused, it may at least be pleaded on his behalf that the man who gives a wrong answer to a question has at least made some progress, insofar as he realizes that a question exists. The pleasantly innocuous dialogue Œconomicus, devoted to a discussion of the principles of estate management, opens with an analysis of wealth in the manner of Ruskin. Wealth is only wealth to him who can use it, or, more epigrammatically, useful things are those things which one knows how to use; so also, even money is not wealth to him who does not know how to use it. Further, wealth is to be interpreted in relation to needs: the man of simple tastes and little substance is wealthy in comparison with the man of great possessions on whom excessive claims rest. All this is the stuff of which proverbial philosophy and the home-spun poetry of contentment are woven. Primarily, Xenophon is an agricultural writer, and it is of interest to note that he furnishes the motto to Quesnay and the Physiocratic school many centuries later: “When husbandry flourishes, all the other arts are in good fettle; but whenever the land is compelled to lie waste, the other arts of landsmen and mariners alike wellnigh perish.” His praise of agriculture is indeed of Physiocratic excess. It is the easiest of all things to learn; none gives quicker returns (to a careful man); it is the giver of all things; no art is “dearer to servants, or pleasanter to a wife, or more delightful to children, or more agreeable to friends.” Moreover, on Xenophon has been fathered an approach to the familiar agents of production, two—land and labour—being recognized; for though agriculture or the land supplies good things in abundance, “she suffers them not to be won without toil.” So also in a fumbling way he approaches, or seems to approach, the Law of Diminishing Returns: “the landowners could all tell you how many teams and how many labourers are required for their estates. If anyone employs hands in excess of requirements, it is reckoned as a loss.”
• 60The third Greek writer to contribute certain embryonic elements to an economic science is Xenophon, who approaches matters throughout in an entirely practical spirit. His achievement is perhaps greater than has generally been admitted, and even where his speculation is confused, it may at least be pleaded on his behalf that the man who gives a wrong answer to a question has at least made some progress, insofar as he realizes that a question exists. The pleasantly innocuous dialogue Œconomicus, devoted to a discussion of the principles of estate management, opens with an analysis of wealth in the manner of Ruskin. Wealth is only wealth to him who can use it, or, more epigrammatically, useful things are those things which one knows how to use; so also, even money is not wealth to him who does not know how to use it. Further, wealth is to be interpreted in relation to needs: the man of simple tastes and little substance is wealthy in comparison with the man of great possessions on whom excessive claims rest. All this is the stuff of which proverbial philosophy and the home-spun poetry of contentment are woven. Primarily, Xenophon is an agricultural writer, and it is of interest to note that he furnishes the motto to Quesnay and the Physiocratic school many centuries later: “When husbandry flourishes, all the other arts are in good fettle; but whenever the land is compelled to lie waste, the other arts of landsmen and mariners alike wellnigh perish.” His praise of agriculture is indeed of Physiocratic excess. It is the easiest of all things to learn; none gives quicker returns (to a careful man); it is the giver of all things; no art is “dearer to servants, or pleasanter to a wife, or more delightful to children, or more agreeable to friends.” Moreover, on Xenophon has been fathered an approach to the familiar agents of production, two—land and labour—being recognized; for though agriculture or the land supplies good things in abundance, “she suffers them not to be won without toil.” So also in a fumbling way he approaches, or seems to approach, the Law of Diminishing Returns: “the landowners could all tell you how many teams and how many labourers are required for their estates. If anyone employs hands in excess of requirements, it is reckoned as a loss.”
• 61The third Greek writer to contribute certain embryonic elements to an economic science is Xenophon, who approaches matters throughout in an entirely practical spirit. His achievement is perhaps greater than has generally been admitted, and even where his speculation is confused, it may at least be pleaded on his behalf that the man who gives a wrong answer to a question has at least made some progress, insofar as he realizes that a question exists. The pleasantly innocuous dialogue Œconomicus, devoted to a discussion of the principles of estate management, opens with an analysis of wealth in the manner of Ruskin. Wealth is only wealth to him who can use it, or, more epigrammatically, useful things are those things which one knows how to use; so also, even money is not wealth to him who does not know how to use it. Further, wealth is to be interpreted in relation to needs: the man of simple tastes and little substance is wealthy in comparison with the man of great possessions on whom excessive claims rest. All this is the stuff of which proverbial philosophy and the home-spun poetry of contentment are woven. Primarily, Xenophon is an agricultural writer, and it is of interest to note that he furnishes the motto to Quesnay and the Physiocratic school many centuries later: “When husbandry flourishes, all the other arts are in good fettle; but whenever the land is compelled to lie waste, the other arts of landsmen and mariners alike wellnigh perish.” His praise of agriculture is indeed of Physiocratic excess. It is the easiest of all things to learn; none gives quicker returns (to a careful man); it is the giver of all things; no art is “dearer to servants, or pleasanter to a wife, or more delightful to children, or more agreeable to friends.” Moreover, on Xenophon has been fathered an approach to the familiar agents of production, two—land and labour—being recognized; for though agriculture or the land supplies good things in abundance, “she suffers them not to be won without toil.” So also in a fumbling way he approaches, or seems to approach, the Law of Diminishing Returns: “the landowners could all tell you how many teams and how many labourers are required for their estates. If anyone employs hands in excess of requirements, it is reckoned as a loss.”
• 62The third Greek writer to contribute certain embryonic elements to an economic science is Xenophon, who approaches matters throughout in an entirely practical spirit. His achievement is perhaps greater than has generally been admitted, and even where his speculation is confused, it may at least be pleaded on his behalf that the man who gives a wrong answer to a question has at least made some progress, insofar as he realizes that a question exists. The pleasantly innocuous dialogue Œconomicus, devoted to a discussion of the principles of estate management, opens with an analysis of wealth in the manner of Ruskin. Wealth is only wealth to him who can use it, or, more epigrammatically, useful things are those things which one knows how to use; so also, even money is not wealth to him who does not know how to use it. Further, wealth is to be interpreted in relation to needs: the man of simple tastes and little substance is wealthy in comparison with the man of great possessions on whom excessive claims rest. All this is the stuff of which proverbial philosophy and the home-spun poetry of contentment are woven. Primarily, Xenophon is an agricultural writer, and it is of interest to note that he furnishes the motto to Quesnay and the Physiocratic school many centuries later: “When husbandry flourishes, all the other arts are in good fettle; but whenever the land is compelled to lie waste, the other arts of landsmen and mariners alike wellnigh perish.” His praise of agriculture is indeed of Physiocratic excess. It is the easiest of all things to learn; none gives quicker returns (to a careful man); it is the giver of all things; no art is “dearer to servants, or pleasanter to a wife, or more delightful to children, or more agreeable to friends.” Moreover, on Xenophon has been fathered an approach to the familiar agents of production, two—land and labour—being recognized; for though agriculture or the land supplies good things in abundance, “she suffers them not to be won without toil.” So also in a fumbling way he approaches, or seems to approach, the Law of Diminishing Returns: “the landowners could all tell you how many teams and how many labourers are required for their estates. If anyone employs hands in excess of requirements, it is reckoned as a loss.”
• 63The third Greek writer to contribute certain embryonic elements to an economic science is Xenophon, who approaches matters throughout in an entirely practical spirit. His achievement is perhaps greater than has generally been admitted, and even where his speculation is confused, it may at least be pleaded on his behalf that the man who gives a wrong answer to a question has at least made some progress, insofar as he realizes that a question exists. The pleasantly innocuous dialogue Œconomicus, devoted to a discussion of the principles of estate management, opens with an analysis of wealth in the manner of Ruskin. Wealth is only wealth to him who can use it, or, more epigrammatically, useful things are those things which one knows how to use; so also, even money is not wealth to him who does not know how to use it. Further, wealth is to be interpreted in relation to needs: the man of simple tastes and little substance is wealthy in comparison with the man of great possessions on whom excessive claims rest. All this is the stuff of which proverbial philosophy and the home-spun poetry of contentment are woven. Primarily, Xenophon is an agricultural writer, and it is of interest to note that he furnishes the motto to Quesnay and the Physiocratic school many centuries later: “When husbandry flourishes, all the other arts are in good fettle; but whenever the land is compelled to lie waste, the other arts of landsmen and mariners alike wellnigh perish.” His praise of agriculture is indeed of Physiocratic excess. It is the easiest of all things to learn; none gives quicker returns (to a careful man); it is the giver of all things; no art is “dearer to servants, or pleasanter to a wife, or more delightful to children, or more agreeable to friends.” Moreover, on Xenophon has been fathered an approach to the familiar agents of production, two—land and labour—being recognized; for though agriculture or the land supplies good things in abundance, “she suffers them not to be won without toil.” So also in a fumbling way he approaches, or seems to approach, the Law of Diminishing Returns: “the landowners could all tell you how many teams and how many labourers are required for their estates. If anyone employs hands in excess of requirements, it is reckoned as a loss.”
• 64It is, however, in the short essay on The Ways and Means to Increase the Revenues of Athens that Xenophon is most interesting, most enlightened and perhaps also most confused. Here he is concerned with finding a “remedy for the poverty of our citizens,” and the tract therefore resolves itself into an elementary discussion of public finance. Throughout, a more liberal view than customary is manifested. The foreign residents are seen as a source of revenue, and Xenophon argues for the abolition of all regulations that inflict disabilities on this class. He is indeed anxious to attract “more and better class foreigners to settle at Athens,” and in pursuance of this policy he would show favour to merchants—by free seats at festivals and invitations to banquets. No less significant is his suggestion to raise a capital sum to provide accommodation for merchants and shops and houses for retail dealers. Equally enlightened is his contention that it is the cities which have been longest at peace that have been most prosperous; despite the booty of war, it is in peace that wealth is accumulated; it is in war-time that it is spent.
• 65Even a brief survey of Xenophon would be incomplete without reference to a passage in the Cyropœdia which, being quoted by Marx and others, has become one of the curiosities of economic literature. It represents division of labour as applied to the kitchen, run mad, with one man to boil fish and another to bake them. Here, surely, the centuries have shown retrogression.
• 66Apart from these three main representatives of Greek thought, a passing reference is perhaps due to the dialogue called Eryxias, which is of interest as being devoted wholly to an analysis of wealth, and which clearly distinguishes between material and immaterial wealth, so that “in exchange for their art” men may obtain the necessaries of life; and to Aristophanes’ wholly diverting play Ecclesiazusœ, a skit on communism (not neglecting votes for women) which is full of the most modern thrusts.
• 67Of the philosophers (of whom Cicero, Seneca and Pliny may be taken as typical) it may be suggested that in so far as they merely censure luxury, or emphasize the beauty of simplicity and the right uses of wealth, they are primarily moral rather than economic teachers. To a considerable extent this exhausts their content. On other questions there is little that is new. One of the most illuminating passages in Cicero’s De Officiis is that in praise of agriculture, which is also and even more emphatically in dispraise of all other occupations. In itself this passage indicates why the spirit of antiquity could scarcely be expected to evolve a body of economic doctrine. As has been properly observed, Cicero is here concerned with the respectability of various occupations, not with their productiveness. Notable is his comparative tolerance towards wholesale trade, especially if it leads to a country estate. Usury naturally is condemned, in this passage on the feeble ground that it incurs people’s ill-will; but it is also to Cicero that we owe Cato’s terse comment: “How about murder?” to one who inquired: “How about money-lending?”
• 68Of the philosophers (of whom Cicero, Seneca and Pliny may be taken as typical) it may be suggested that in so far as they merely censure luxury, or emphasize the beauty of simplicity and the right uses of wealth, they are primarily moral rather than economic teachers. To a considerable extent this exhausts their content. On other questions there is little that is new. One of the most illuminating passages in Cicero’s De Officiis is that in praise of agriculture, which is also and even more emphatically in dispraise of all other occupations. In itself this passage indicates why the spirit of antiquity could scarcely be expected to evolve a body of economic doctrine. As has been properly observed, Cicero is here concerned with the respectability of various occupations, not with their productiveness. Notable is his comparative tolerance towards wholesale trade, especially if it leads to a country estate. Usury naturally is condemned, in this passage on the feeble ground that it incurs people’s ill-will; but it is also to Cicero that we owe Cato’s terse comment: “How about murder?” to one who inquired: “How about money-lending?”
• 69Seneca’s views on economic matters are not in the main of great interest. Money (and not merely the love of money) is emphatically the root of most evils. Envy and greed are the sources of all injustice. But in the midst of much in this train of thought which, even if true and well-expressed, has ill-founded claims to originality, there is one thought that is significant, namely that the various quarters of the earth have been differently endowed in such a manner that the peoples of the world would appear to have been called to enter into intercourse with each other for the mutual satisfaction of their needs.
• 70Seneca’s views on economic matters are not in the main of great interest. Money (and not merely the love of money) is emphatically the root of most evils. Envy and greed are the sources of all injustice. But in the midst of much in this train of thought which, even if true and well-expressed, has ill-founded claims to originality, there is one thought that is significant, namely that the various quarters of the earth have been differently endowed in such a manner that the peoples of the world would appear to have been called to enter into intercourse with each other for the mutual satisfaction of their needs.
• 71In the tangled mass of Pliny’s Natural History there are certain interesting passages relating to money. There is more than a touch of Rousseau in his assertion that the worst crime against mankind was committed by him who was the first to put a ring (of gold) upon his finger. There is much vitriolic denunciation of gold “discovered only for the ruin of mankind.” How much more happy the age when things were bartered for one another! Yet despite this, he explains, not unreasonably, the causes which led to the pre-eminence of gold, as that it suffers no damage through fire, that it wears the least of all the metals by use, that no material is more malleable, that it is not subject to rust and so on. The other passage in Pliny which has been so frequently quoted is that which relates to the extent of the farm. He refers with approval to Vergil’s maxim “to praise a large farm, but cultivate a small one,” and adds in a celebrated and ominous phrase that the widespread domains had been the ruin of Italy: “latifundia Italiam perdidere.”
• 72In the tangled mass of Pliny’s Natural History there are certain interesting passages relating to money. There is more than a touch of Rousseau in his assertion that the worst crime against mankind was committed by him who was the first to put a ring (of gold) upon his finger. There is much vitriolic denunciation of gold “discovered only for the ruin of mankind.” How much more happy the age when things were bartered for one another! Yet despite this, he explains, not unreasonably, the causes which led to the pre-eminence of gold, as that it suffers no damage through fire, that it wears the least of all the metals by use, that no material is more malleable, that it is not subject to rust and so on. The other passage in Pliny which has been so frequently quoted is that which relates to the extent of the farm. He refers with approval to Vergil’s maxim “to praise a large farm, but cultivate a small one,” and adds in a celebrated and ominous phrase that the widespread domains had been the ruin of Italy: “latifundia Italiam perdidere.”
• 73In the tangled mass of Pliny’s Natural History there are certain interesting passages relating to money. There is more than a touch of Rousseau in his assertion that the worst crime against mankind was committed by him who was the first to put a ring (of gold) upon his finger. There is much vitriolic denunciation of gold “discovered only for the ruin of mankind.” How much more happy the age when things were bartered for one another! Yet despite this, he explains, not unreasonably, the causes which led to the pre-eminence of gold, as that it suffers no damage through fire, that it wears the least of all the metals by use, that no material is more malleable, that it is not subject to rust and so on. The other passage in Pliny which has been so frequently quoted is that which relates to the extent of the farm. He refers with approval to Vergil’s maxim “to praise a large farm, but cultivate a small one,” and adds in a celebrated and ominous phrase that the widespread domains had been the ruin of Italy: “latifundia Italiam perdidere.”
• 74Apart from dithyrambic praise of agriculture, as, for instance, when Columella says that husbandry is next to and near akin to wisdom, it is notable that the writers of this group condemn slave-labour as inefficient. Pliny may be taken as typical: “It is the very worst plan of all to have land tilled by slaves let loose from the house of correction, as indeed is the case with all work entrusted to men who live without hope.” Certain sayings of Cato, as on the superiority of an agricultural population, and his dictum that he has been a useful member of society who leaves more at his death than he inherited, passed into current wisdom. But in the main these writers are concerned with tips for the landowner (and his wife): hints on the pruning of trees, where to buy tunics, the medicinal effects of cabbage, the salting of gammon and the like.