the economist-第1部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



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。







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　'Iskhomakhosephen　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　throughoutspeaking　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　〃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　arightlet　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　conclusivebut　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　intentionquite　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；