economist.pdf

The Economist

____________________

Xenophon

Translated by H. G. Dakyns

This classical e-book and more can be found at

http://www.textkit.com

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 once heard him[2] discuss the topic of economy[3] after

the following manner. Addressing Critobulus,[4] he said: Tell

me, Critobulus, is "economy," like the words "medicine,"

"carpentry," "building," "smithying," "metal-working," and so

forth, the name of a particular kind of knowledge or science?

[1] By "economist" we now generally understand "policital

economist," but the use of the word as referring to domestic

economy, the subject matter of the treatise, would seem to be

legitimate.

[2] "The master."

[3] Lit. "the management of a household and estate." See Plat.

"Rep." 407 B; Aristot. "Eth. N." v. 6; "Pol." i. 3.

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

Crit. Yes, I think so.

Soc. And as, in the case of the arts just named, we can state

the proper work or function of each, can we (similarly) state the

proper work and function of economy?

Crit. It must, I should think, be the business of the

good economist[5] at any rate to manage his own house or estate

well.

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

Soc. And supposing another man's house to be entrusted to him,

he would be able, if he chose, to manage it as skilfully as his

own, would he not? since a man who is skilled in carpentry can

work as well for another as for himself: and this ought to be equally

true of the good economist?

Crit. Yes, I think so, Socrates.

Soc. Then there is no reason why a proficient in this art, even if

he does not happen to possess wealth of his own, should not be paid

a salary for managing a house, just as he might be paid for

building one?

Crit. None at all: and a large salary he would be entitled to earn

if, after paying the necessary expenses of the estate entrusted to

him, he can create a surplus and improve the property.

Soc. Well! and this word "house," what are we to understand by it?

the domicile merely? or are we to include all a man's possessions

outside the actual dwelling-place?[6]

[6] Lit. "is it synonymous with dwelling-place, or is all that a man

possesses outside his dwelling-place part of his house or estate?"

Crit. Certainly, in my opinion at any rate, everything which a man

has got, even though some portion of it may lie in another part of

the world from that in which he lives,[7] forms part of his estate.

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

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

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

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

his possessions?

Crit. A comic notion indeed! that some one should be good enough

to add to my stock of enemies, and that in addition he should be

paid for his kind services.

Soc. Because, you know, we agreed that a man's estate was

identical with his possessions?

Crit. Yes, certainly! the good part of his possessions; but the

evil portion! no, I thank you, that I do not call part of a

man's possessions.

Soc. As I understand, you would limit the term to what we may call

a man's useful or advantageous possessions?

Crit. Precisely; if he has things that injure him, I should

regard these rather as a loss than as wealth.

Soc. It follows apparently that if a man purchases a horse and

does not know how to handle him, but each time he mounts he is

thrown and sustains injuries, the horse is not part of his wealth?

Crit. Not, if wealth implies weal, certainly.

Soc. And by the same token land itself is no wealth to a man who

so works it that his tillage only brings him loss?

Crit. True; mother earth herself is not a source of wealth to us

if, instead of helping us to live, she helps us to starve.

Soc. And by a parity of reasoning, sheep and cattle may fail of

being wealth if, through want of knowledge how to treat them, their

owner loses by them; to him at any rate the sheep and the cattle are

not wealth?

Crit. That is the conclusion I draw.

Soc. It appears, you hold to the position that wealth consists

of things which benefit, while things which injure are not wealth?

Crit. Just so.

Soc. The same things, in fact, are wealth or not wealth, according

as a man knows or does not know the use to make of them? To take

an instance, a flute may be wealth to him who is sufficiently skilled

to play upon it, but the same instrument is no better than the stones

we tread under our feet to him who is not so skilled . . . unless

indeed he chose to sell it?

Crit. That is precisely the conclusion we should come to.[8]

To persons ignorant of their use[9] flutes are wealth as saleable, but

as possessions not for sale they are no wealth at all; and see,

Socrates, how smoothly and consistently the argument

proceeds,[10] since it is admitted that things which benefit are

wealth. The flutes in question unsold are not wealth, being good for

nothing: to become wealth they must be sold.

[8] Reading {tout auto}, or if {tout au} with Sauppe, transl. "Yes,

that is another position we may fairly subscribe to."

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

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

Yes! (rejoined Socrates), presuming the owner knows how to sell

them; since, supposing again he were to sell them for something

which he does not know how to use,[11] the mere selling will not

transform them into wealth, according to your argument.

[11] Reading {pros touto o}, or if {pros touton, os}, transl. "to a

man who did not know how to use them."

Crit. You seem to say, Socrates, that money itself in the pockets of

a man who does not know how to use it is not wealth?

Soc. And I understand you to concur in the truth of our proposition

so far: wealth is that, and that only, whereby a man may be

benefited. Obviously, if a man used his money to buy himself a

mistress, to the grave detriment of his body and soul and whole

estate, how is that particular money going to benefit him now?

What good will he extract from it?

Crit. None whatever, unless we are prepared to admit

that hyoscyamus,[12] as they call it, is wealth, a poison the property

of which is to drive those who take it mad.

[12] "A dose of henbane, 'hogs'-bean,' so called." Diosc. 4. 69; 6.

15; Plut. "Demetr." xx. (Clough, v. 114).

Soc. Let money then, Critobulus, if a man does not know how to

use it aright--let money, I say, be banished to the remote corners of

the earth rather than be reckoned as wealth.[13] But now, what

shall we say of friends? If a man knows how to use his friends so as

to be benefited by them, what of these?

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: