



Produced by John Bickers





THE ECONOMIST

By Xenophon

Translation by H. G. Dakyns




     Xenophon the Athenian was born 431 B.C. He was a
     pupil of Socrates. He marched with the Spartans,
     and was exiled from Athens. Sparta gave him land
     and property in Scillus, where he lived for many
     years before having to move once more, to settle
     in Corinth. He died in 354 B.C.



     The Economist records Socrates and Critobulus in
     a talk about profitable estate management, and a
     lengthy recollection by Socrates of Ischomachus'
     discussion of the same topic.



PREPARER'S NOTE

     This was typed from Dakyns' series, "The Works of Xenophon," a
     four-volume set. The complete list of Xenophon's works (though
     there is doubt about some of these) is:

     Work                                   Number of books

     The Anabasis                                         7
     The Hellenica                                        7
     The Cyropaedia                                       8
     The Memorabilia                                      4
     The Symposium                                        1
     The Economist                                        1
     On Horsemanship                                      1
     The Sportsman                                        1
     The Cavalry General                                  1
     The Apology                                          1
     On Revenues                                          1
     The Hiero                                            1
     The Agesilaus                                        1
     The Polity of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians   2

     Text in brackets "{}" is my transliteration of Greek text into
     English using an Oxford English Dictionary alphabet table. The
     diacritical marks have been lost.







The Economist

by Xenophon

Translation by H. G. Dakyns




THE ECONOMIST [1]

A Treatise on the Science of the Household in the form of a Dialogue



INTERLOCUTORS

Socrates and Critobulus

At Chapter VII. a prior discussion held between Socrates and Ischomachus
is introduced: On the life of a "beautiful and good" man.

In these chapters (vii.-xxi.) Socrates is represented by the author
as repeating for the benefit of Critobulus and the rest certain
conversations which he had once held with the beautiful and good
Ischomachus on the essentials of economy. It was a tete-a-tete
discussion, and in the original Greek the remarks of the two speakers
are denoted by such phrases as {ephe o 'Iskhomakhos--ephen egio}--"said
(he) Ischomachus," "said I." (Socrates) To save the repetition of
expressions tedious in English, I have, whenever it seemed help to do
so, ventured to throw parts of the reported conversations into dramatic
form, inserting "Isch." "Soc." in the customary way to designate the
speakers; but these, it must be borne in mind, are merely "asides"
to the reader, who will not forget that Socrates is the narrator
throughout--speaking of himself as "I," and of Ischomachus as "he," or
by his name.--Translator's note, addressed to the English reader.




I

I once heard him [2] discuss the topic of economy [3] after the
following manner. Addressing Critobulus, [4] he said: Tell me,
Critobulus, is "economy," like the words "medicine," "carpentry,"
"building," "smithying," "metal-working," and so forth, the name of a
particular kind of knowledge or science?

 [1] By "economist" we now generally understand "political economist,"
    but the use of the word as referring to domestic economy, the
    subject matter of the treatise, would seem to be legitimate.

 [2] "The master."

 [3] Lit. "the management of a household and estate." See Plat. "Rep."
    407 B; Aristot. "Eth. N." v. 6; "Pol." i. 3.

 [4] See "Mem." I. iii. 8; "Symp." p. 292.

Crit. Yes, I think so.

Soc. And as, in the case of the arts just named, we can state the proper
work or function of each, can we (similarly) state the proper work and
function of economy?

Crit. It must, I should think, be the business of the good economist [5]
at any rate to manage his own house or estate well.

 [5] Or, "manager of a house or estate."

Soc. And supposing another man's house to be entrusted to him, he would
be able, if he chose, to manage it as skilfully as his own, would
he not? since a man who is skilled in carpentry can work as well for
another as for himself: and this ought to be equally true of the good
economist?

Crit. Yes, I think so, Socrates.

Soc. Then there is no reason why a proficient in this art, even if
he does not happen to possess wealth of his own, should not be paid a
salary for managing a house, just as he might be paid for building one?

Crit. None at all: and a large salary he would be entitled to earn if,
after paying the necessary expenses of the estate entrusted to him, he
can create a surplus and improve the property.

Soc. Well! and this word "house," what are we to understand by it? the
domicile merely? or are we to include all a man's possessions outside
the actual dwelling-place? [6]

 [6] Lit. "is it synonymous with dwelling-place, or is all that a man
    possesses outside his dwelling-place part of his house or estate?"

Crit. Certainly, in my opinion at any rate, everything which a man has
got, even though some portion of it may lie in another part of the world
from that in which he lives, [7] forms part of his estate.

 [7] Lit. "not even in the same state or city."

Soc. "Has got"? but he may have got enemies?

Crit. Yes, I am afraid some people have got a great many.

Soc. Then shall we say that a man's enemies form part of his
possessions?

Crit. A comic notion indeed! that some one should be good enough to add
to my stock of enemies, and that in addition he should be paid for his
kind services.

Soc. Because, you know, we agreed that a man's estate was identical with
his possessions?

Crit. Yes, certainly! the good part of his possessions; but the
evil portion! no, I thank you, that I do not call part of a man's
possessions.

Soc. As I understand, you would limit the term to what we may call a
man's useful or advantageous possessions?

Crit. Precisely; if he has things that injure him, I should regard these
rather as a loss than as wealth.

Soc. It follows apparently that if a man purchases a horse and does
not know how to handle him, but each time he mounts he is thrown and
sustains injuries, the horse is not part of his wealth?

Crit. Not, if wealth implies weal, certainly.

Soc. And by the same token land itself is no wealth to a man who so
works it that his tillage only brings him loss?

Crit. True; mother earth herself is not a source of wealth to us if,
instead of helping us to live, she helps us to starve.

Soc. And by a parity of reasoning, sheep and cattle may fail of being
wealth if, through want of knowledge how to treat them, their owner
loses by them; to him at any rate the sheep and the cattle are not
wealth?

Crit. That is the conclusion I draw.

Soc. It appears, you hold to the position that wealth consists of things
which benefit, while things which injure are not wealth?

Crit. Just so.

Soc. The same things, in fact, are wealth or not wealth, according as a
man knows or does not know the use to make of them? To take an instance,
a flute may be wealth to him who is sufficiently skilled to play upon
it, but the same instrument is no better than the stones we tread under
our feet to him who is not so skilled... unless indeed he chose to sell
it?

Crit. That is precisely the conclusion we should come to. [8] To
persons ignorant of their use [9] flutes are wealth as saleable, but as
possessions not for sale they are no wealth at all; and see, Socrates,
how smoothly and consistently the argument proceeds, [10] since it is
admitted that things which benefit are wealth. The flutes in question
unsold are not wealth, being good for nothing: to become wealth they
must be sold.

 [8] Reading {tout auto}, or if {tout au} with Sauppe, transl. "Yes,
    that is another position we may fairly subscribe to."

 [9] i.e. "without knowledge of how to use them."

 [10] Or, "our discussion marches on all-fours, as it were."

Yes! (rejoined Socrates), presuming the owner knows how to sell them;
since, supposing again he were to sell them for something which he does
not know how to use, [11] the mere selling will not transform them into
wealth, according to your argument.

 [11] Reading {pros touto o}, or if {pros touton, os}, transl. "to a
    man who did not know how to use them."

Crit. You seem to say, Socrates, that money itself in the pockets of a
man who does not know how to use it is not wealth?

Soc. And I understand you to concur in the truth of our proposition
so far: wealth is that, and that only, whereby a man may be benefited.
Obviously, if a man used his money to buy himself a mistress, to the
grave detriment of his body and soul and whole estate, how is that
particular money going to benefit him now? What good will he extract
from it?

Crit. None whatever, unless we are prepared to admit that hyoscyamus,
[12] as they call it, is wealth, a poison the property of which is to
drive those who take it mad.

 [12] "A dose of henbane, 'hogs'-bean,' so called." Diosc. 4. 69; 6.
    15; Plut. "Demetr." xx. (Clough, v. 114).

Soc. Let money then, Critobulus, if a man does not know how to use it
aright--let money, I say, be banished to the remote corners of the earth
rather than be reckoned as wealth. [13] But now, what shall we say of
friends? If a man knows how to use his friends so as to be benefited by
them, what of these?

 [13] Or, "then let it be relegated... and there let it lie in the
    category of non-wealth."

Crit. They are wealth indisputably, and in a deeper sense than cattle
are, if, as may be supposed, they are likely to prove of more benefit to
a man than wealth of cattle.

Soc. It would seem, according to your argument, that the foes of a man's
own household after all may be wealth to him, if he knows how to turn
them to good account? [14]

 [14] Vide supra.

Crit. That is my opinion, at any rate.

Soc. It would seem, it is the part of a good economist [15] to know how
to deal with his own or his employer's foes so as to get profit out of
them?

 [15] "A good administrator of an estate."

Crit. Most emphatically so.

