"The citizen must indeed be happy and good, and the legislator will seek to make him so; but very rich and very good at the same time he cannot be, not, at least, in the sense in which the many speak of riches. For they mean by 'the rich' the few who have the most valuable possessions, although the owner of them may quite well be a rogue. And if this is true, I can never assent to the doctrine that the rich man will be happy - he must be good as well as rich. And good in a high degree, and rich in a high degree at the same time, he cannot be. Some one will ask, why not? And we shall answer Because acquisitions which come from sources which are just and unjust indifferently are more than double those which come from just sources only; and the sums which are expended neither honourably nor disgracefully, are only half as great as those which are expended honourably and on honourable purposes. Thus, if the one acquires double and spends half, the other who is in the opposite case and is a good man cannot possibly be wealthier than he. The first I am speaking of the saver and not of the spender is not always bad; he may indeed in some cases be utterly bad, but, as I was saying, a good man he never is. For he who receives money unjustly as well as justly, and spends neither justly nor unjustly, will be a rich man if he be also thrifty. On the other hand, the utterly bad is in general profligate, and therefore, very poor; while he who spends on noble objects, and acquires wealth by just means only, can hardly be remarkable for riches, any more than he can be very poor. Our statement, then, is true, that the very rich are not good, and, if they are not good, they are not happy."

Aristotle also opposed extremes, though, quite consistently with his views as to communism, he was not opposed to reasonable inequalities. He dreaded more the encroachments of the rich than those of the people. "Many . . . make a mistake,” he says, "not only in giving too much power to the rich, but in attempting to overreach the people. There comes a time when out of a false good there arises a true evil, since the encroachments of the rich are more destructive to the State than those of the people." On the other hand he remarks, "Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime." 2

1

1 Jowett, The Politics of Aristotle, p. 131 (Politics, Bk. IV, 12, 6). Ser also ibid., p. 45 (II, 7, 13).

2 Ibid., p. 40 (II, 6, 13).

Ethics Dominant. — It is to be emphasized that the ideal of the ♦ Greek thinkers was highly ethical. To be happy one must be good, was a dominant note, and the interests of the soul were placed foremost. "For there are in all three things," Plato says,1 "about which every man has an interest; and the interest about money, when rightly regarded, is the third and lowest of ther midway comes the interest of the body; and, first of all, that the soul; and the state which we are describing will have beer rightly constituted if it ordains honours according to this scale." And Aristotle's dictum is: "But a state exists for the sake of a good life and not for the sake of life only."

If one could conceive of Plato making a definition of economics, one might imagine it would run somewhat as follows: 'Economics is the science which deals with the satisfaction of human wants through exchange, seeking so to regulate the industries of the state as to make its citizens good and happy and so promote the highest well-being of the whole." That would make it an applied science, in which ethical aims would play a great part.

Contrast with Hebrews and Hindus. As already observed, there are important differences between the economic ideas of the Hebrews, Hindus, and other Oriental peoples, and those of the Athenian philosophers. They were similar in emphasizing the state, and the ethical viewpoint. Neither differentiated economics from politics or morals. Both were conservative , and undemocratic. Moreover, with both, agriculture was the only industry in very good repute. But the Greeks were more concerned with the individual, going further in the analysis of ⚫ the state into its citizens. They were, too, possessed of some small degree of historic method, though it was quite abstract. 'They analyzed economic wants, and based the oikonomik and chrematistik of their philosophy upon this analysis. The Athenian philosophers were more appreciative of material wealth as an agency in furthering human happiness than were the sacred writers of the Hindus, at least. The well-known

1 Laws, Bk. V, 743 (Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato, Vol. V, p. 126). 2 Politics, Bk. III, chap. 9.

care for the body by the Greeks had its economic signifi.

cance.

1. Most important of all, the Greeks were more rational. Instead of forbidding interest in pursuance of some divine edict, they argued about it and reached the conclusion that it was unist. Thus the writings of Plato and Aristotle mark a great step

n advance in economic method, as well as in scope and depth of analysis.

CHAPTER V

THE ECONOMIC THOUGHT OF THE ROMANS

FROM Greece the scepter passed to Italy, and the glory of Greek thought became merged in the grandeur that was Rome's. No pause need be made to retail the very scanty information we have about early Roman thought, before the stimulus of Greek ideas had been received. Suffice it to say that aside from juris*prudence, the chief writings of the Romans were produced under the influence of Greek thought, and, as in the case of their art, a notable lack of freshness and originality is apparent.

The Athenians were thinkers, keen and analytic. The Ro• mans were men of action, warriors and statesmen. The former left a philosophy which profoundly affected the ethics and economics of later thinkers; the latter built institutions which as profoundly affected law and politics. The heritage of the former has been a direct and subjective force; the other, chiefly indirect and objective, conditioning the thought of the individual. As will appear in a moment, however, Roman thought has had more direct influence than its intrinsic depth would account for.

Of especial interest is the fact that the decay of Rome was well under way when her chief writers were engaged on their works. This fact colors their writings and conditions their economic ideas. The state of decay is at least half perceived by them, and remedies are pointed out for the evils discerned. The causes and remedies as they presented themselves say in the time of Cæsar were only in part economic; but the economic ideas of the Roman philosophers were largely palliatives for a declining state.

Roman economic ideas may be gathered from two main sources: (1) the jurists and writers on legal matters; (2) the philoso

phers.1 Of less importance are (3) a few writers on agriculture (de re rustica); their ideas were either purely technical or fall under the philosophical group.

Economic Thought of the Jurists. Among the jurists are found the most original Roman thinkers, and the laws express the best Roman thought. No system of economics is expressed or implied, and ethical or sociological considerations outweigh those economic; but the following brief generalizations are of economic significance.

1. Natural Law. The Roman jurists made a distinction' between human law and natural law which had much influence upon medieval and later thought. Thus their jus civile was a national law applicable to Roman citizens. On the other hand, a body of law known as jus gentium was developed for foreigners of whatever nationality. The latter was broader and less guided by arbitrary local customs. It was more rational. Yet, at the same time, being so founded on general principles, it contained within itself the capacity for abstract absolutism in thought. Later it was united with the Greek concept of the natural, and as a jus naturale colored succeeding thought.2

2. Private Property and Contract. In their ideas about two legal institutions, the jurists have had great effect in an objective way upon the development of economic thought; these are the institutions of property and of contract. Theirs was a somewhat. narrowly individualistic idea of property. Under the stimulus. of Stoic philosophy and the ideal of a jus naturale, the jurists moved away from the clan or family as a social unit, and clearlydefined individual rights replaced whatever community of property there had been.3 And a corollary of this movement was the development of freedom of contract, including the right of the individual to dispose of his property. The importance of these

1 Others, as religious or theological writers, no doubt influenced economic thought and institutions indirectly.

2 Cf. Maine, Ancient Law, pp. 56, 88; Carlyle (R. W., and A. J.), A History of Medieval Political Theory.

* The nature and scope of property rights changed at the same time, of

course.