out it industry was limited by lack of motive, economic relations were simple, and economic thought largely restricted to promulgating the interests of the ruling body.

Closely related to this condition was the lack of a certain hardheaded materialism which has led the Occident to glorify the material basis for civilization, wealth. Instead of first deifying and then extolling discontent,-"divine discontent," and — continually striving to raise their standards of living, Orientals tended to limit and crystallize their standards, abolishing discontent. Their philosophy did not lead them to analyze happiness into different grades or planes of satisfaction; happiness with them was generally regarded as attained by decreasing wants. This general attitude is one which is not in harmony with the dominant note of our civilization, and it is probable that few Americans really believe that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, unless they be the poor. Between these ideals, as they find expression in Christianity, and Occidental civilization there has always been conflict, and they have become increasingly ignored in our practice.

(b) According to the Vedas, seeking after wealth leads to sin. Even large-scale commerce was frowned upon, and sometimes agriculture itself. The Hebrews, while sometimes decrying, sometimes also praise wealth, and on the whole by no means show the ascetic spirit of the Hindus; but as a generality the statement holds that compared with the Occident wealth and non-agricultural industry were regarded with relative disfavor or indifference. They saw that riches was not the end; but went further and overlooked its utility as a means.

(c) The element of passivity, or economic indifference, already referred to, is not in itself peculiar to Oriental thought. It is, however, unusually strong there, and its connection with a rather rigid body of philosophy-crystallized, as it were — is, if not unique, peculiar. There it found expression in written codes; there it was part of an effective, long-continued religious system; there it was actually applied to economic thought and practice. To what extent this is to be attributed to climate and

There was the tendency

tropical environment need not be said. to accept wealth or poverty without a struggle: it was God's will, or the reward for the acts of a previous life, etc. This might be termed economic fatalism.

5. Two further characteristics of Oriental thought, which were largely the result of points already touched upon, may be noted next. In the first place, there is its fixity and conservatism. The general aim of social regulation was to maintain the social equilibrium, and here, as elsewhere among ancient peoples, static ideals dominated. This finds expression in the caste system, and in the isolated national life. It is seen in the longstationary condition of their civilization.1

6. To say that the concept of society and social welfare was prominent may seem strange, yet the statement appears true. This concept, however, was but little like our own, for it went hand in hand with a lack of individual rights which sharply differentiates it from present-day ideas. Nor is this point made with the idea of drawing a distinction between Oriental thought and all Occidental thought. The Hindus' laws concerning weights and measures, adulteration, exchange, sanitary practice, and other matters show this concept. Among the Hebrews there were laws providing that broken glass should be buried, that water should not be thrown in the streets during the summer, and that there should be no chickens or dunghills within the city (Jerusalem). Streets were not to be blocked by débris or projecting houses. For encouraging free intercourse, the width of roads was prescribed, the width being greater in the case of highways between commercial centers. And there were regulations concerning weights and measures similar in spirit to those of the Hindus. Thus one may conclude that, though the point of view

1

1 Japan not long since, China even to-day, has just awakened from this point of view. These peoples, from Byzantium to Japan, have lived an isolated national life and shown a large measure of national conceit, tracing their origin to the sun, etc.

2 See Jewish Encyclopedia, article on "Police Laws." The strong family sense of the modern Jew and his remarkably persistent race sociality are noteworthy, though superficially he often seems a rather selfish individualist. The effect of centuries of abuse must be remembered.

was quite different, there was a sense of social solidarity expressing itself in regulatory measures which resemble in a way the legislation of recent times.

This fact may be regarded as a concomitant of their idealistic philosophy.

One writer on the history of the Hebrews has much emphasized what he calls the first appearance of Socialism.1 Socialism, however, is not the word to use. What we find in the Bible is, first, a careful provision for the poor, protecting them from exploitation, from permanent debt, and enjoining free loans and charity; and then numerous attacks by the prophets upon the injustice and oppression of the rich. It may be agreed that the aim of all this was a national solidarity which almost ignored the individual, and it seems that Moses had the prevention of inequality of wealth in mind in making his laws; but that does not make Socialism, and is certainly very far from social democracy. Had the Mosaic law been carried out, the result would rather have been, perhaps, like a sort of periodically enforced communism.

It remained for Christianity to put the Old Testament ideals on a broader and more democratic basis. Moses, by limiting blood revenge and legislating mercy and charity, took a step in advance; but he only prepared the way for the Golden Rule. Similarly the Old-Testament steps toward equality of property lay back of the more humane and democratic ideals of community held up by Christ and his disciples.

Enough has been said to give some more positive and comprehensive idea of the economic thought of the Hebrews and Hindus than is generally had; and in any case Cossa's dictum that Oriental economic thought "can all be reduced to a few moral precepts about the virtue of industry, temperance, and economy, and about the duty of only desiring wealth for the purpose of worship and charity," is clearly too narrow. It can only be so reduced at the expense of truth.

1 Renan, History of the People of Israel, Chap. XVI.

CHAPTER IV

THE ECONOMIC THOUGHT OF THE ATHENIAN

PHILOSOPHERS 1

1

It is natural to pass from the Orient to Greece. Both by geography and by the character of her people, Greece has been closely related to Asiatic civilization. However much scholars differ as to the extent of the contributions made by Asia and Africa to Greek culture, it may safely be said that such contributions were considerable. But, while certain similarities exist, there are important differences; and so directly essential has been the part played by Greek ideas in the development of modern thought that they demand no small share of attention.

Origin of the State; First Economic Interpretation of History. One of the striking facts about the philosophy of certain Greek thinkers is that it rests upon what may be truly called an economic interpretation of history. To be sure, the Athenian philosopher's conception of history was imperfect, and by an economic interpretation is not meant a materialistic one; but with these modifications, the statement is broadly true. Witness the following from Plato: "A State, . . . arises, as I conceive, out of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants. . . . Then, as we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for

"

1 Some of the most useful special references are: Boeckh, A., The Public Economy of the Athenians; Loos, I. A., Studies in the Politics of Aristotle and the Republic of Plato (Bul. of the University of Iowa, 1899); Ashley, 'Aristotle's Doctrine of Barter," Quarterly Journal of Economics, November, 1895; Simey, "Economic Theory among the Greeks and Romans," Econ. Rev., 1900; Oncken, Die Staatslehre des Aristoteles, 1870-1875; Marigny, Histoire de l'Économie Politique des Anciens Peuples; Dubois, Précis de l'Histoire des Doct. Econ., Chap. I, and bibliography there presented. The chief sources are the Politics and Ethics of Aristotle, and Plato's Republic and Laws; and these works are available in the excellent translations by Jowett and by Welldon.

one purpose and another for another; and when these partners and helpers are gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State . . . And they exchange with one another, and one gives, and another receives, under the idea that the exchange will be for their good." The origin of the state, then, is traced to the lack of individual self-sufficiency in the satisfaction of wants, and to the advantage of specialization and exchange. Such reasoning indicates an important step toward the development of economic analysis.

! On this point, Aristotle's doctrine is less purely rational. He ‹ assumes that an impulse to political association is innate in all men: "Man is naturally a political animal." The genesis of the state is found in the household, which, in its turn, rests upon the inability of male and female to exist independently, and upon the inequality among men which leads to slavery. The household is "the association naturally formed for the supply of everyday wants."2 Then came the village, and finally the state: "Lastly, the association composed of several villages in its complete form is the State, in which the goal of full independence may be said to be first attained." The state is formed to make

life possible.

... we

: Division of Labor. Plato's discussion of specialization and exchange clearly suggests the idea of "division of labor." Indeed, the Greek philosophers' concept of division of labor, while crude, is the ultimate father of the later discussions of Hutcheson, Hume, and Adam Smith. When, however, Plato says: must infer 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," he does not have in mind the complex modern questions connected with division of labor. The Greek philosophers refer rather to a simple separation of employments, and their treatment lacks the significance that comes from the connection of the subject with a system of economics.

1 Republic, Bk. II, pp. 369 ff. Ed. Steph.; Laws, Bk. III, pp. 678 ff. 2 Politics, Bk. I, Chap. II (Welldon, p. 3).

3 Republic, Bk. II, p. 370.