THE ECONOMIST By Xenophon
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.
Soc. In fact, you need but use your eyes to see how many private
persons, not to say crowned heads, do owe the increase of their estates
to war.
Crit. Well, Socrates, I do not think, so far, the argument could be
improved on; [16] but now comes a puzzle. What of people who have got
the knowledge and the capital [17] required to enhance their fortunes,
if only they will put their shoulders to the wheel; and yet, if we are
to believe our senses, that is just the one thing they will not do, and
so their knowledge and accomplishments are of no profit to them? Surely
in their case also there is but one conclusion to be drawn, which is,
that neither their knowledge nor their possessions are wealth.
[16] Or, "Thanks, Socrates. Thus far the statement of the case would
seem to be conclusive--but what are we to make of this? Some
people..."
[17] Lit. "the right kinds of knowledge and the right starting-points."
Soc. Ah! I see, Critobulus, you wish to direct the discussion to the
topic of slaves?
Crit. No indeed, I have no such intention--quite the reverse. I want to
talk about persons of high degree, of right noble family [18] some of
them, to do them justice. These are the people I have in my mind's eye,
gifted with, it may be, martial or, it may be, civil accomplishments,
which, however, they refuse to exercise, for the very reason, as I take
it, that they have no masters over them.
[18] "Eupatrids."
Soc. No masters over them! but how can that be if, in spite of their
prayers for prosperity and their desire to do what will bring them good,
they are still so sorely hindered in the exercise of their wills by
those that lord it over them?
Crit. And who, pray, are these lords that rule them and yet remain
unseen?
Soc. Nay, not unseen; on the contrary, they are very visible. And what
is more, they are the basest of the base, as you can hardly fail to
note, if at least you believe idleness and effeminacy and reckless
negligence to be baseness. Then, too, there are other treacherous
beldames giving themselves out to be innocent pleasures, to wit, dicings
and profitless associations among men. [19] These in the fulness of time
appear in all their nakedness even to them that are deceived, showing
themselves that they are after all but pains tricked out and decked with
pleasures. These are they who have the dominion over those you speak of
and quite hinder them from every good and useful work.
[19] Or, "frivolous society."
Crit. But there are others, Socrates, who are not hindered by these
indolences--on the contrary, they have the most ardent disposition to
exert themselves, and by every means to increase their revenues; but in
spite of all, they wear out their substance and are involved in endless
difficulties. [20]
[20] Or, "become involved for want of means."
Soc. Yes, for they too are slaves, and harsh enough are their
taskmasters; slaves are they to luxury and lechery, intemperance and the
wine-cup along with many a fond and ruinous ambition. These passions
so cruelly belord it over the poor soul whom they have got under their
thrall, that so long as he is in the heyday of health and strong to
labour, they compel him to fetch and carry and lay at their feet the
fruit of his toils, and to spend it on their own heart's lusts; but as
soon as he is seen to be incapable of further labour through old age,
they leave him to his gray hairs and misery, and turn to seize on other
victims. [21] Ah! Critobulus, against these must we wage ceaseless
war, for very freedom's sake, no less than if they were armed warriors
endeavouring to make us their slaves. Nay, foemen in war, it must be
granted, especially when of fair and noble type, have many times ere now
proved benefactors to those they have enslaved. By dint of chastening,
they have forced the vanquished to become better men and to lead more
tranquil lives in future. [22] But these despotic queens never cease to
plague and torment their victims in body and soul and substance until
their sway is ended.
[21] "To use others as their slaves."
[22] Lit. "Enemies for the matter of that, when, being beautiful and
good, they chance to have enslaved some other, have ere now in
many an instance chastened and compelled the vanquished to be
better and to live more easily for the rest of time."
II
The conversation was resumed by Critobulus, and on this wise. He said: I
think I take your meaning fully, Socrates, about these matters; and for
myself, examining my heart, I am further satisfied, I have sufficient
continence and self-command in those respects. So that if you will only
advise me on what I am to do to improve my estate, I flatter myself I
shall not be hindered by those despotic dames, as you call them. Come,
do not hesitate; only tender me what good advice you can, and trust me I
will follow it. But perhaps, Socrates, you have already passed sentence
on us--we are rich enough already, and not in need of any further
wealth?
Soc. It is to myself rather, if I may be included in your plural "we,"
that I should apply the remark. I am not in need of any further wealth,
if you like. I am rich enough already, to be sure. But you, Critobulus,
I look upon as singularly poor, and at times, upon my soul, I feel a
downright compassion for you.
At this view of the case, Critobulus fell to laughing outright,
retorting: And pray, Socrates, what in the name of fortune do you
suppose our respective properties would fetch in the market, yours and
mine?
If I could find a good purchaser (he answered), I suppose the whole
of my effects, including the house in which I live, might very fairly
realise five minae [1] (say twenty guineas). Yours, I am positively
certain, would fetch at the lowest more than a hundred times that sum.
[1] 5 x L4:1:3. See Boeckh, "P. E. A." [Bk. i. ch. xx.], p. 109 f.
(Eng. ed.)
Crit. And with this estimate of our respective fortunes, can you still
maintain that you have no need of further wealth, but it is I who am to
be pitied for my poverty?
Soc. Yes, for my property is amply sufficient to meet my wants,
whereas you, considering the parade you are fenced about with, and the
reputation you must needs live up to, would be barely well off, I take
it, if what you have already were multiplied by three.
Pray, how may that be? Critobulus asked.
Why, first and foremost (Socrates explained), I see you are called upon
to offer many costly sacrifices, failing which, I take it, neither gods
nor men would tolerate you; and, in the next place, you are bound to
welcome numerous foreigners as guests, and to entertain them handsomely;
thirdly, you must feast your fellow-citizens and ply them with all
sorts of kindness, or else be cut adrift from your supporters. [2]
Furthermore, I perceive that even at present the state enjoins upon
you various large contributions, such as the rearing of studs, [3]
the training of choruses, the superintendence of gymnastic schools, or
consular duties, [4] as patron of resident aliens, and so forth; while
in the event of war you will, I am aware, have further obligations laid
upon you in the shape of pay [5] to carry on the triearchy, ship money,
and war taxes [6] so onerous, you will find difficulty in supporting
them. Remissness in respect of any of these charges will be visited upon
you by the good citizens of Athens no less strictly than if they caught
you stealing their own property. But worse than all, I see you fondling
the notion that you are rich. Without a thought or care how to increase
your revenue, your fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love, [7] as if
you had some special license to amuse yourself.... That is why I pity
and compassionate you, fearing lest some irremediable mischief overtake
you, and you find yourself in desperate straits. As for me, if I ever
stood in need of anything, I am sure you know I have friends who would
assist me. They would make some trifling contribution--trifling to
themselves, I mean--and deluge my humble living with a flood of plenty.
But your friends, albeit far better off than yourself, considering your
respective styles of living, persist in looking to you for assistance.
[2] See Dr. Holden ad loc., Boeckh [Bk. iii. ch. xxiii.], p. 465 f.
[3] Cf. Lycurg. "c. Leocr." 139.
[4] Al. "presidential duties."
[5] {trierarkhias [misthous]}. The commentators in general "suspect"
{misthous}. See Boeckh, "P. E. A." p. 579.
[6] See Boeckh, p. 470 f.; "Revenues," iii. 9, iv. 40.
[7] Or, "to childish matters," "frivolous affairs"; but for the full
import of the phrase {paidikois pragmasi} see "Ages." viii. 2.
Then Critobulus: I cannot gainsay what you have spoken, Socrates, it
is indeed high time that you were constituted my patronus, or I shall
become in very truth a pitiable object.
To which appeal Socrates made answer: Why, you yourself must surely be
astonished at the part you are now playing. Just now, when I said that
I was rich, you laughed at me as if I had no idea what riches were,
and you were not happy till you had cross-examined me and forced me to
confess that I do not possess the hundredth part of what you have; and
now you are imploring me to be your patron, and to stint no pains to
save you from becoming absolutely and in very truth a pauper. [8]
[8] Or, "literally beggared."
Crit. Yes, Socrates, for I see that you are skilled in one lucrative
operation at all events--the art of creating a surplus. I hope,
therefore, that a man who can make so much out of so little will not
have the slightest difficulty in creating an ample surplus out of an
abundance.
Soc. But do not you recollect how just now in the discussion you would
hardly let me utter a syllable [9] while you laid down the law: if a man
did not know how to handle horses, horses were not wealth to him at any
rate; nor land, nor sheep, nor money, nor anything else, if he did not
know how to use them? And yet these are the very sources of revenue from
which incomes are derived; and how do you expect me to know the use of
any of them who never possessed a single one of them since I was born?
[9] Cf. Aristoph. "Clouds," 945; "Plut." 17; Dem. 353; and Holden ad
loc.
Crit. Yes, but we agreed that, however little a man may be blest with
wealth himself, a science of economy exists; and that being so, what
hinders you from being its professor?
Soc. Nothing, to be sure, [10] except what would hinder a man from
knowing how to play the flute, supposing he had never had a flute of his
own and no one had supplied the defect by lending him one to practise
on: which is just my case with regard to economy, [11] seeing I never
myself possessed the instrument of the science which is wealth, so as to
go through the pupil stage, nor hitherto has any one proposed to hand
me over his to manage. You, in fact, are the first person to make so
generous an offer. You will bear in mind, I hope, that a learner of the
harp is apt to break and spoil the instrument; it is therefore probable,
if I take in hand to learn the art of economy on your estate, I shall
ruin it outright.
[10] Lit. "The very thing, God help me! which would hinder..."
[11] Lit. "the art of administering an estate."
Critobulus retorted: I see, Socrates, you are doing your very best
to escape an irksome task: you would rather not, if you can help
it, stretch out so much as your little finger to help me to bear my
necessary burthens more easily.
Soc. No, upon my word, I am not trying to escape: on the contrary, I
shall be ready, as far as I can, to expound the matter to you. [12] ...
Still it strikes me, if you had come to me for fire, and I had none in
my house, you would not blame me for sending you where you might get it;
or if you had asked me for water, and I, having none to give, had led
you elsewhere to the object of your search, you would not, I am sure,
have disapproved; or did you desire to be taught music by me, and I were
to point out to you a far more skilful teacher than myself, who would
perhaps be grateful to you moreover for becoming his pupil, what kind of
exception could you take to my behaviour?
[12] Or, "to play the part of {exegetes}, 'legal adviser,' or
'spiritual director,' to be in fact your 'guide, philosopher, and
friend.'"
Crit. None, with any show of justice, Socrates.
Soc. Well, then, my business now is, Critobulus, to point out [13] to
you some others cleverer than myself about those matters which you are
so anxious to be taught by me. I do confess to you, I have made it long
my study to discover who among our fellow-citizens in this city are the
greatest adepts in the various branches of knowledge. [14] I had been
struck with amazement, I remember, to observe on some occasion that
where a set of people are engaged in identical operations, half of them
are in absolute indigence and the other half roll in wealth. I bethought
me, the history of the matter was worth investigation. Accordingly I set
to work investigating, and I found that it all happened very naturally.
Those who carried on their affairs in a haphazard manner I saw were
punished by their losses; whilst those who kept their wits upon the
stretch and paid attention I soon perceived to be rewarded by the
greater ease and profit of their undertakings. [15] It is to these I
would recommend you to betake yourself. What say you? Learn of them: and
unless the will of God oppose, [16] I venture to say you will become as
clever a man of business as one might hope to see.
[13] Al. "to show you that there are others."
[14] Or, "who are gifted with the highest knowledge in their
respective concerns." Cf. "Mem." IV. vii. 1.
[15] Lit. "got on quicker, easier, and more profitably."
[16] Or, "short of some divine interposition."
III
Critobulus, on hearing that, exclaimed: Be sure, Socrates, I will not
let you go now until you give the proofs which, in the presence of our
friends, you undertook just now to give me.
Well then, [1] Critobulus (Socrates replied), what if I begin by showing
[2] you two sorts of people, the one expending large sums on money in
building useless houses, the other at far less cost erecting dwellings
replete with all they need; will you admit that I have laid my finger
here on one of the essentials of economy?
[1] Lincke [brackets as an editorial interpolation iii. 1, {ti oun,
ephe}--vi. 11, {poiomen}]. See his edition "Xenophons Dialog.
{peri oikonomias} in seiner ursprunglichen Gestalt"; and for a
criticism of his views, an article by Charles D. Morris,
"Xenophon's Oeconomicus," in the "American Journal of Philology,"
vol. i. p. 169 foll.
[2] As a demonstrator.
Crit. An essential point most certainly.
Soc. And suppose in connection with the same, I next point out to you
[3] two other sets of persons:--The first possessors of furniture of
various kinds, which they cannot, however, lay their hands on when the
need arises; indeed they hardly know if they have got all safe and sound
or not: whereby they put themselves and their domestics to much mental
torture. The others are perhaps less amply, or at any rate not more
amply supplied, but they have everything ready at the instant for
immediate use.
[3] "As in a mirror, or a picture."
Crit. Yes, Socrates, and is not the reason simply that in the first case
everything is thrown down where it chanced, whereas those others have
everything arranged, each in its appointed place?
Quite right (he answered), and the phrase implies that everything is
orderly arranged, not in the first chance place, but in that to which it
naturally belongs.
Crit. Yes, the case is to the point, I think, and does involve another
economic principle.
Soc. What, then, if I exhibit to you a third contrast, which bears on
the condition of domestic slaves? On the one side you shall see them
fettered hard and fast, as I may say, and yet for ever breaking their
chains and running away. On the other side the slaves are loosed, and
free to move, but for all that, they choose to work, it seems; they are
constant to their masters. I think you will admit that I here point out
another function of economy [4] worth noting.
[4] Or, "economical result."
Crit. I do indeed--a feature most noteworthy.
Soc. Or take, again, the instance of two farmers engaged in cultivating
farms [5] as like as possible. The one had never done asserting that
agriculture has been his ruin, and is in the depth of despair; the other
has all he needs in abundance and of the best, and how acquired?--by
this same agriculture.
[5] {georgias}. See Hartman, "An. Xen." p. 193. Hold. cf. Plat.
"Laws," 806 E. Isocr. "Areop." 32.
Yes (Critobulus answered), to be sure; perhaps [6] the former spends
both toil and money not simply on what he needs, but on things which
cause an injury to house alike and owner.
[6] Or, "like enough in the one case the money and pains are spent,"
etc.
Soc. That is a possible case, no doubt, but it is not the one that I
refer to; I mean people pretending they are farmers, and yet they have
not a penny to expend on the real needs of their business.
Crit. And pray, what may be the reason of that, Socrates?
Soc. You shall come with me, and see these people also; and as you
contemplate the scene, I presume you will lay to heart the lesson.
Crit. I will, if possibly I can, I promise you.
Soc. Yes, and while you contemplate, you must make trial of yourself and
see if you have wit to understand. At present, I will bear you witness
that if it is to go and see a party of players performing in a comedy,
you will get up at cock-crow, and come trudging a long way, and ply me
volubly with reasons why I should accompany you to see the play. But you
have never once invited me to come and witness such an incident as those
we were speaking of just now.
Crit. And so I seem to you ridiculous? [7]
[7] Or, "a comic character in the performance." Soc. "Not so comic as
you must appear to yourself (i.e. with your keen sense of the
ludicrous)."
Soc. Far more ridiculous to yourself, I warrant. But now let me point
out to you another contrast: between certain people whose dealing with
horses has brought them to the brink of poverty, and certain others who
have found in the same pursuit the road to affluence, [8] and have a
right besides to plume themselves upon their gains. [9]
[8] Or, "who have not only attained to affluence by the same pursuit,
but can hold their heads high, and may well pride themselves on
their thrift."
[9] Cf. Hom. "Il." xii. 114, {ippoisin kai okhesphin agallomenos}, et
passim; "Hiero," viii. 5; "Anab." II. vi. 26.
Crit. Well, then, I may tell you, I see and know both characters as well
as you do; but I do not find myself a whit the more included among those
who gain.
Soc. Because you look at them just as you might at the actors in a
tragedy or comedy, and with the same intent--your object being to
delight the ear and charm the eye, but not, I take it, to become
yourself a poet. And there you are right enough, no doubt, since you
have no desire to become a playright. But, when circumstances compel you
to concern yourself with horsemanship, does it not seem to you a little
foolish not to consider how you are to escape being a mere amateur in
the matter, especially as the same creatures which are good for use are
profitable for sale?
Crit. So you wish me to set up as a breeder of young horses, [10] do
you, Socrates?
[10] See "Horsemanship," ii. 1.
Soc. Not so, no more than I would recommend you to purchase lads and
train them up from boyhood as farm-labourers. But in my opinion there is
a certain happy moment of growth which must be seized, alike in man
and horse, rich in present service and in future promise. In further
illustration, I can show you how some men treat their wedded wives in
such a way that they find in them true helpmates to the joint increase
of their estate, while others treat them in a way to bring upon
themselves wholesale disaster. [11]
[11] Reading {e os pleista}, al. {e oi pleistoi} = "to bring about
disaster in most cases."
Crit. Ought the husband or the wife to bear the blame of that?
Soc. If it goes ill with the sheep we blame the shepherd, as a rule, or
if a horse shows vice we throw the blame in general upon the rider. But
in the case of women, supposing the wife to have received instruction
from her husband and yet she delights in wrong-doing, [12] it may be
that the wife is justly held to blame; but supposing he has never tried
to teach her the first principles of "fair and noble" conduct, [13] and
finds her quite an ignoramus [14] in these matters, surely the husband
will be justly held to blame. But come now (he added), we are all
friends here; make a clean breast of it, and tell us, Critobulus, the
plain unvarnished truth: Is there an one to whom you are more in the
habit of entrusting matters of importance than to your wife?
[12] Cf. "Horsemanship," vi. 5, of a horse "to show vice."
[13] Or, "things beautiful and of good report."
[14] Al. "has treated her as a dunce, devoid of this high knowledge."
Crit. There is no one.
Soc. And is there any one with whom you are less in the habit of
conversing than with your wife?
Crit. Not many, I am forced to admit.
Soc. And when you married her she was quite young, a mere girl--at
an age when, as far as seeing and hearing go, she had the smallest
acquaintance with the outer world?
Crit. Certainly.
Soc. Then would it not be more astonishing that she should have real
knowledge how to speak and act than that she should go altogether
astray?
Crit. But let me ask you a question, Socrates: have those happy
husbands, you tell us of, who are blessed with good wives educated them
themselves?
Soc. There is nothing like investigation. I will introduce you to
Aspasia, [15] who will explain these matters to you in a far more
scientific way than I can. My belief is that a good wife, being as
she is the partner in a common estate, must needs be her husband's
counterpoise and counterpart for good; since, if it is through the
transactions of the husband, as a rule, that goods of all sorts find
their way into the house, yet it is by means of the wife's economy and
thrift that the greater part of the expenditure is checked, and on the
successful issue or the mishandling of the same depends the increase or
impoverishment of a whole estate. And so with regard to the remaining
arts and sciences, I think I can point out to you the ablest performers
in each case, if you feel you have any further need of help. [16]
[15] Aspasia. See "Mem." II. vi. 36.
[16] Al. "there are successful performers in each who will be happy to
illustrate any point in which you think you need," etc.
IV
But why need you illustrate all the sciences, Socrates? (Critobulus
asked): it would not be very easy to discover efficient craftsmen of all
the arts, and quite impossible to become skilled in all one's self.
So, please, confine yourself to the nobler branches of knowledge as men
regard them, such as it will best befit me to pursue with devotion; be
so good as to point me out these and their performers, and, above
all, contribute as far as in you lies the aid of your own personal
instruction.
Soc. A good suggestion, Critobulus, for the base mechanic arts, so
called, have got a bad name; and what is more, are held in ill repute by
civilised communities, and not unreasonably; seeing they are the ruin
of the bodies of all concerned in them, workers and overseers alike, who
are forced to remain in sitting postures and to hug the loom, or else
to crouch whole days confronting a furnace. Hand in hand with physical
enervation follows apace enfeeblement of soul: while the demand which
these base mechanic arts makes on the time of those employed in them
leaves them no leisure to devote to the claims of friendship and the
state. How can such folk be other than sorry friends and ill defenders
of the fatherland? So much so that in some states, especially those
reputed to be warlike, no citizen [1] is allowed to exercise any
mechanical craft at all.
[1] "In the strict sense," e.g. the Spartiates in Sparta. See "Pol.
Lac." vii.; Newman, op. cit. i. 99, 103 foll.
Crit. Then which are the arts you would counsel us to engage in?
Soc. Well, we shall not be ashamed, I hope, to imitate the kings of
Persia? [2] That monarch, it is said, regards amongst the noblest
and most necessary pursuits two in particular, which are the arts of
husbandry and war, and in these two he takes the strongest interest |
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기