) as an “unnecessary” form of exchange. Its objective, he says, is not the satisfaction of need, but the acquisition of money which has no use in and of itself and is therefore not subject to a natural limit of desire, as he illustrates with the Midas legend ( Politics I 9 1257 b14–15). Further, this form of acquisition has “no limit to the end it seeks.” It “turns on the power of currency” and is thus unrelated to the satisfaction of needs. The “extreme example” of “unneces- sary” or “lower” form of exchange, and a still greater perversion of the exchange process, Aristotle says, is usury, for it attempts to “breed” money – “currency, the son of currency.” Usury “makes a profi t from currency itself (M-M ¢ -M″ ) instead of making it from the process which currency was meant to serve” ( Politics I 10, 1258 b5–9). From the Economics of the Oikos to the Economics of the Polis Sophists, who brought about a new movement of intellectuals in the middle of the fi fth century bc in Athens, taught how to be virtuous. The knowledge which Protagoras claims to teach the youth “consists of good judgement (euboulia) in his own affairs (peri ton oikeion), which shall enable him to order his own house (ten heautou oikian dioikein), as well as teach him how to gain infl uence in the affairs of the polis (ta tes poleus), in speech and action” (Plato, Protagoras 318E5–319A2). A similar formula occurs in Aristophanes’ Frogs (405 bc ), where Euripides in his great agon with Aeschylus boasts, in a Sophist’s manner, of having helped the Athenians “to manage all their household better than before (tas oikias dioikein)” ( Frogs , vv. 975ff), by teaching them to ask the “why” and “how” and “what” of even the smallest things. Both phrases are formed by reduplication and may, to a modern reader, sound somewhat clumsy. 38 37 The only goods which Aristotle exempts from diminishing utility are “goods of the soul,” physic goods. “The greater the amount of each of the goods of the soul,” he says, “the greater is its utility” (Aristotle, Politics 1323b). Cf. Lowry ( 1987c , p. 19). 38 Radermacher ( 1921 , pp. 284–286) and Spahn ( 1984 , p. 315). 20 C.P. Baloglou One can see clearly the subsequence of economic issues and problems of the Oikos and the Polis, in the dialog between Socrates and Nicomachides, as described by Xenophon 39 : “I mean that, whatever a man controls, if he knows what he wants and can get it he will be a good controller, whether he controls a chorus, an Oikos, a Polis or an army.” “Really Socrates,” cried Nicomachides, “I should never have thought to hear you say that a good businessman (oikonomos) would make a good general” (Xenophon, Memorabilia III IV, 6–7). The view of Socrates that the difference between the Oikos and the Polis lies in their size, only whereas they are similar to Nature and their parts, gets crystallized in the following passage from the same dialog between Socrates and Nicomachides, where Xenophon presents “the best lecture to a contemporary Minister of Finance,” according to A.M. Andreades (1876–1935) 40 : Don’t look down on businessmen (oikonomikoi andres), Nicomachides. For the manage- ment of private concerns differs only in point of number from that of public affairs. In other respects they are much alike, and particularly in this, that neither can be carried on without men, and the men employed in private and public transactions are the same. For those who take charge of public affairs employ just the same men when they attend to their own (hoi ta edia oikonomountes); and those who understand how to employ them are successful directors of public and private concerns, and those who do not, fail in both (Xenophon, Memorabilia III IV, 12). Plato was also of the opinion that “there is not much difference between a large household organization and a small-sized polis” and that “one science covers all these several spheres,” whether it is called “royal science, political science, or sci- ence of household management” (Plato, Statesman ( Politicus ) 259 b-e). These ideas of Xenophon and Plato are refuted by Aristotle in the Politics (I 1, 1252 a13–16). 41 A characteristically Xenophontean passage dealing with this generalization of the administrative process gives us a persuasive view of this practical art ancient as well as modern times. After the dialog between Socrates and Nicomachides in “Memorabilia,” Xenophon points out that the factor common to both is the human element. “They are much alike” he says, in that “neither can be carried out without men” and those “who understand how to employ them are successful directors of public and private concerns, and those who do not, fail in both.” 42 In Xenophon already, oikonomikos sometimes suggests being skilled or adept at fi nance, and this element in the idea grew in the popular Greek understanding of the concept (Xenophon, Agesilaus 10, 1 ) : “I therefore praise Agesilaus with regard to such qualities. These are not, as it were, characteristic of the type of man who, if he should fi nd a treasure, would be more wealthy, but in no sense wiser in business acumen.” 39 There are also other examples in the classical tragedy which seem quite interesting, because of the connection between the issue of managing the Oikos effectively and managing of the Polis. Cf. Euripides, Electra 386 ff. 40 Andreades ( 1992 , p. 250, not. 3). 41 Schütrumpf ( 1991 , pp. 175–176). 42 See Strauss ( 1970 , p. 87) for a discussion of this passage. 21 2 The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World… Aristotle had called someone managing the funds of a polis carefully “a steward of the polis ( t i V d i o i k ώ n o i k o n ό m o V )” (Aristotle, Politics V 9, 1314 b8). 43 The ancient recognition of the primary role of the human element in the success- ful organization of affairs is a facet we tend to ignore when we approach the ancient world from our modern market-oriented perspective. 44 They emphasized the impor- tance of the human variable, of one’s personal effectiveness in achieving a success- ful outcome in any venture. From this anthropocentric point of view, improving human skill in the management of an enterprise meant nothing less than increasing the effi ciency of production. In ancient Greece, the maximization of the human fac- tor was considered as important as that of any other resource. 45 Apart, however, from the skillful administrative control over men, the Ancient Greeks provided the fact that the ruler has to have an interest in the public fi nances. From the conversations of Socrates reported by Xenophon in his Memorabilia , we learn that the fi nances of the polis of Athens were a subject with which young men looking forward to political careers might well be expected to acquaint themselves (Xenophon, Memorabilia III VI). Management of public fi nance and administration of the Polis have extensively preoccupied Aristotle. In his letter to Alexander he adopts the term “oikonomein” to denote the management of the Polis fi nances. (I. Stobaeus, Anthologium ) (hence- forth Stob. I 36 p. 43, 15 –46, 2 ) In Rhetoric , he mentions that among the subjects concerning which public men should be informed is that of the public revenues. Both the sources and the amount of the receipts should be known, in order that nothing may be omitted and any branch that is insuffi cient may be increased. In addition to this, expenditures should be studied so that unnecessary items may be eliminated; because people become wealthier not only by adding to what they have, but also by cutting down their outlay (Aristotle, Rhetoric I 4, 1359 b21–23). A similar discussion is found in the Rhetoric for Alexander (II 2, 1423 a21–26 and XXXVIII 20, 1446 b31–36). It is also worth noting that Demosthenes (fourth century bc ) writes about the public fi nance. In his speech On Crown , he enumerates a politician’s activities in the fi nancial sector (Demosthenes, On Crown 309). In the Third and Fourth Philippics (IV 31–34, 35–37, 42–45, 68–69), the author makes particular proposals of a fi nancial character which provided the essentials of a plan of fi nance. 46 It is worth to note that in the period between 338 bc (Battle of Chaironeia) and 323 (Death of Ale xander) – where the orator Lycurg 47 was the Minister of Public Finance 43 Reuman ( 1980 , p. 377). 44 Lowry ( 1987a , p. 57, 1987c, 1995, 1998 ) . 45 Trever ( 1916 , p. 9) evidently had this point in mind when he observed that “Aristotle struck the keynote in Greek economic thought in stating that the primary interest of economy is human beings rather than inanimate property.” In a conversation between Cyrus and his father in the Cyropaedia (I VI 20–21), we are presented with the clearest kind of analysis of successful admin- istrative control over men. 46 Cf. Bullock ( 1939 , pp. 156–159). 47 Conomis ( 1970 ) . 22 C.P. Baloglou of the Athenian Democracy – specifi c proposals of fi nancial policy were provided by Aristotle, 48 Hypereides 49 , and the aforementioned Demosthenes. Their target was a redistribution of wealth inside the polis between the citizens: the best proposal was to advise the rich to contribute money in order to cultivate the poor land or give capital to the poor people to develop enterprises (Aristotle, Politics , VI 5, 1360 a36–40). 50 However, while the advice on the surface was to favor the commons, it was really a prudent suggestion to the wealthier citizens, appealing to the selfi sh interest to avoid by this method the danger of a discontented proletariat (Aristotle, Politics VI 5, 1320 a36). These proposals which set up on the idea that the richer citizens should help the poor is a common point in the Ancient Greek Thought. It is to underline that long before the Athenian philosophers and writers, the Pythagorean Archytas of Taras (governed 367–361 bc ), not only the philosopher-scientist and technician, 51 but also a skillful political leader both in war and in peace provided in his work P e r ί m a q h m ά t w n (On lessons) the fact that the wealthier citizens should help the poorer; by this method, the stasis and homonoia will be avoided, concord will come in the polis (Stob. IV 1, 139 H). 52 The programme of economic and social policy, which is provided by the afore- mentioned authors, is included in the fi eld of the policy of the redistribution of income which has been adopted by Welfare Economics. 53 The main difference between the proposal of the Ancients and the contemporary procedure lies in the intervention of the State in recent times, whereas in the Classical Times the richer people would play the role of the State. 54 In the latter part of the nineteenth century, when histories of economic thought began to be numerous, various writers discovered that what they called the science of economics was late in its development, and that in Ancient Times the prevalence of household industry, the low esteem in which manual labor was held, the slight growth of commerce, the lack of statistical data, and various other circumstances brought it about that materials were not provided for the scientifi c study of econom- ics and fi nance. 55 48 Aristotle, Politics VI 5, 1319 b33–1320 b18. For a comparison between Aristotle’s proposals and Xenophon’s program in Poroi, cf. Schütrumpf ( 1982 , pp. 45–52, esp. pp. 51–52) and Baloglou ( 1998d ) . 49 Hypereides, For Euxenippos , col. XXIII 1–13, col. XXXIX 16–26 (edit. by Jensen 1916 ) . 50 This advice is based on Isocrates’ account of the ways of the rich in Athens in the days of Solon and Cleisthenes. Isocrates, Areopagiticus 32. Cf. Newman ( 1887 , vol. IV, p. 535). 51 Cardini ( 1962 , p. 262) , quoted by Mattei ( 1995 , pp. 72–74). 52 Archytas’ proposal is set up on justice. The existence of justice will bring the welfare in the Oikos and in Polis. Iamblichus, De Vita Pythagorica , cap. XXX, 169. 53 Psalidopoulos ( 1997 , pp. 15–16) and Baloglou ( 2001a ) . 54 Baloglou ( 1998d , pp. 50–55). 55 For example, see Ingram ( 1888 [1967] , pp. 5, 8) and Eisenhart ( 1891 , pp. 2–3) . 23 2 The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World… Concerning the above argument, we would like to say that at any time prior to the twentieth century such proposals would have been universally recognized as a logi- cal and consistent plan of public fi nance, its parts well-balanced and nicely articu- lated with a view to securing the desirable fi nancial result by uniting all classes of citizens in support of it. The evidence that was mentioned establishes a way of thinking that overcomes the narrow boundaries of the Oikos and is not characterized by a simplistic empiri- cism. 56 Furthermore, we have to consider that the achievement of all the measures which have been proposed by the several programmes will lead in welfare of the citizens, which must be the target of each policy-maker. This economic and social policy would satisfy Wilhelm Roscher’s (1817–1894) statement: “Die hellenische Volkswirthschaftlehre hat niemals den grossen Fehler begangen, ueber dem Reichthume die Menschen zu vergessen, und ueber der Vermehrung der Menschenzahl, den Wohlstand der Einzelnen gering zu achten.” 57 This literature provides that the term “oikonomia” does no longer have a lexico- graphic identity and has been transferred to the Economics of the Polis. Economic Thought in Hellenistic Times The economic thought during the Hellenistic Period – which includes the three centuries between Alexander and Augustus (323–31 bc ) – has not been studied extensively. We show that several Hellenistic schools do refer to economic prob- lems. 58 We add that several post-Aristotelian texts on the topic of oikonomike sur- vive from the Hellenistic period: Xenocrates of Chalcedon (394–314), the Director of the Academy after Speusipp’s death, wrote two treatises entitled Oikonomikos (Diog. Laert. IV 12) and On Oikos (Cicero, De legibus I 21, 55). From the view survived informations, 59 we conclude that the work Oikonomikos continues the hesiodean tradition concerning Oikos. 60 Other works from this period are the three 56 Engels ( 1988 , pp. 90–134) for an evaluation of the proposals in the Lycurgean era. 57 Roscher ( 1861 , p. 7). 58 Glaser ( 1865 , p. 313) expressed the view that we do not fi nd any interesting economic topics during this period. Other works, though not extensively, are dealing with the economic thought in the Hellenistic period, such as Bonar ( 1896 , ch. III), Trever ( 1916 , pp. 125–145), Stephanidis ( 1948 , pp. 172–181), Tozzi ( 1955 , pp. 246–286, 1961 , pp. 209–242), and Spiegel ( 1971 , pp. 34–39) on the Cynics, Stoics and Epicureans (on p. 672 an interpretative bibliography); Baloglou and Constantinidis ( 1993 , pp. 163–177), Baloglou ( 1995 , ch. 11). The interesting paper by Natali ( 1995 ) is dealing with the term “oikonomia” in the Hellenistic period. In recent studies, Baloglou ( 1998a, 1998c, 1999a, 2002a, 2004a ) I dealt with the economic philosophy of the Early Stoics and Cynics. For the economic philosophy of the Cynic Crates of Thebes, see Baloglou ( 2000b ) . 59 Heinze ( 1892 , Fr. 92, 94, 98). 60 Hodermann ( 1896 , pp. 17–18) and Maniatis and Baloglou ( 1994 , p. 52). 24 C.P. Baloglou books of Oeconomica , 61 written by the member of the Peripatetic School, the treatise Peri Oikonomias written by the Epicurean Philodemus of Gadara, 62 the O i k o n o m i k ό V ( Oikonomikos ) of the Neopythagorean Bryson (Stob. V 28, 15 p. 680, 7–681, 14), and Callicratidas (Stob. V 28, 16, p. 681, 15–688, 8: Callicratidas, Peri oikon eudai- monias ( On the Wealth of Households )). Aside from the works entitled Oikonomikos , Diogenes Laertius informs us that sev eral authors wrote works, enti tled p e r ί p l o ύ t o u (On wealth). 63 From a later age, in Roman Times, there are the Oikonomikos of Dio of Prusa 64 and the Oikonomikos of Hierocles (Stob. V 28, 21 p. 696, 21–699, 15). 65 Plutarch deals also with economic ideas in his Conjuralia moralia , which even though it does not bear the name Oikonomikos yet, is similar in content to them. 66 In his essay “Peri philoploutias” ( De cupiditate divitiarum 3, 524 D), he moralizes on the folly of inordinate desire for wealth, in the Stoic vein. The New Meaning of the Term “Oikonomia” The Hellenistic authors use the term “oikonomia” in the fi rst place to designate household management; (1) in the most traditional sense, oikonomia means control of the household’s internal areas, which was left to the wife, as opposed to the exter- nal areas and political activity which was considered the man’s affairs (Theophrastus, Fragmenta , ed. Winner, Fr.112,152,158; Theophrastus, Characteres , Foreword 16; XI). Furthermore, (2) the term implies, in general, the man’s management of his property, as master of the house ( Oeconomica II, I), or (3) the philosopher’s man- agement of his own possessions. 67 The Hellenistic authors use the term oikonomia meaning in a fi gurative sense, any environment in which the capacity to manage a complex structure – big or small – well, can be applied with success. 68 The Greek historian Polybius, a distinguished fi gure of Roman Times, frequently uses the term oikonomia to specify the good organization of any kind of army equipment, such as supplies, sentries, and encam- pents [Polybius, Histories I 61, 8; III 32, 9; III 33, 9; I I I 100, 7; IV 65, 11; X 40, 2; VI 12, 5; VI 31, 10; VI 35, 11; C 16, 2; C 25, 2]. Another use of the term signifi es 61 Susemihl ( 1887 ) and Groningen and Wartelle ( 1968 ) . 62 Jensen ( 1907 ) and Hodermann ( 1896 , pp. 37–40) for a summary statement of his teaching (Maniatis and Baloglou 1994 ) . 63 Cf. Diog. Laert. IV 4: Speusippus; Diog. Laert. IV II: Xenocrates; Diog. Laert. V 22: Aristotle; Diog. Laert. V 47: Theophrastus; Diog. Laert. VI 80: Diogenes; Diog. Laert. VII 167: the Stoic Dionysius; Diog. Laert. VII 178: the Stoic Sphairos; Diog. Laert. X 24: the Epicurean Metrodorus. 64 Arnim ( 1992 , p. 309: Appendix II). 65 Baloglou ( 1992 ) . 66 See Hodermann ( 1896 , p. 43) and Trever ( 1916 p. 127). 67 Natali ( 1995 , p. 97). 68 Descat ( 1988 , p. 107). 25 2 The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World… the division of spoils [Polybius, Histories II 2, 9; IV 86, 4; V 16, 5; X 17, 6; C C 9, 5]. Elsewhere, oikonomia refers to the general handling of political affairs in a polis or region, of alliances, of religious festivals [Polybius, Histories , I 4, 3; I 8, 3; IV 26, 7; IV 67, 9; V 39, 6; V 40, 4; VI 26, 5; XIII 3, 8; C C I I 12, 8; C C C I I 7, 5; XXVII 1, 11; XXXVIII 11, 5]. In other cases, the term oikonomia is actually used to mean the organized handling of wealth in the Polis, and therefore, takes on a meaning closer to the modern concept of “political economy.” There is some evidence in Strabo and Polybius. The geographer Strabo of Pontos, when speaking of Egypt, says a good oikonomia generates business (Strabo, Geographica XVII 1 13). When he speaks about the administration of the Persian empire, he says “that in Susa each one of the kings built for himself on the acropolis a separate habitation, treasure-houses, and storage places for what tributes they each exacted, as memorials of his administra- tion (hypomnemata tes oikonomias)” ( Geographica XV 3 21). The same context of oikonomia, as in Strabo, we fi nd in Polybius ( Histories V 50, 5; X 1, 5; XVI 21, 44; XXIII 14, 5). It is also worth noting that many of these texts refer to Egypt, whose administration was compared to that of a huge Oikos, as M. Rostovtzeff says: “The king therefore ran the state in the same way as a simple Macedonian or Greek had run his own domestic affairs.” 69 This is why king’s administrators in the districts, regions, and subordinate territories were called oikonomoi . 70 In Dionysius of Halicarnassus (middle of the fi rst century bc ) the term “politike oikonomia” means a public civil administration as opposed to the handling of mili tary operations, and in particular, the management of trials and the resolution of controversies (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Roman Antiquities , XI 19, 5: “But since Cornelius endeavoured to show that his motion is impracticable, pointing out that the intervening period devoted to matters of civil administration (politikais oikonomiais) would be a long one…”). It is characteristically, too, as far as we know, has not been mentioned by the authors yet, that the several schools of the Hellenistic Age did occupy with eco- nomic issue – such as the distinction between “oikonomike” and “chrematistike” – and left a tradition which has been continued in the Arab-Islamic World and in the Renaissance. Lyceum (Peripatos) Two Aristoteleians of the late fourth and early third centuries deserve some notice. The fi rst was Demetrius of Phalerum, a pupil of Aristotle who governed Athens for the Macedonian Cassander from 317 to 307, and who sought to translate into law 69 Rostovtzeff ( 1941 , vol. I, pp. 278, 352). 70 Landvogt ( 1908 ) . 26 C.P. Baloglou many of Aristotle’s ideas. Expelled from Athens by another Demetrius – “the Besieger” – he ultimately made his way to Egypt, where he might have inspired the foundation of the Museum at Alexandria, by Ptolemy I, to serve as a center of learned research, and where he is also recorded to have been the head keeper of the library, – the greatest library in Antiquity, – that rose by the side of the Museum (Diod. Sic. XVIII 74, 2; Diog. Laert. V 75). The other Aristotelian, a contemporary of Demetrius of Phalerum, was Dichaearchus of Messana, a pupil of Aristotle. He was a polymath in the style of his master, and his writings were many and various. In his treatise “Tripolitikos,” he developed the perception that the best constitution is the mixture of the three known – monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. 71 In his work History of Greece, there was a history of the degeneration of Greek civilization from the primi- tive ideal. He divided the history of human civilization into seasons, infl uenced by Hesiod’s Works and Days . It is said to have begun with a study of the primitive life of man in the time of Cronus; to have gone on to a description of the culture of the East and its infl uence on Greece; and to have ended with an account of Greek cultural life as it stood in his time. 72 He introduced the idea that the introduction of private property was the cause for the arising of hate and strife among the citizens, 73 an idea which has been adopted by the Cynics and later by J.J. Rousseau (1712–1778) in his work Discours sur l’ origine et les dondements de l’ inegalité parmi les hommes . 74 The Work Oeconomica The Oeconomica consists of three books. The fi rst book of Oeconomica consists of six chapters. Most of the material is an imitation of Aristotle’s Politics and Xenophon’s Oeconomicus ; we fi nd few new ideas. In the fi rst chapter, it is said that politics is the government of the many and that the family community is structured like a monarchic government ( Oeconomic a A I, 1343a 3–4). This idea is found in Aristotle’s Politic s (I 7, 1255 b19–20) too. The author considers that the family (Oikos) is by nature prior to the Polis ( Oeconomica A I 1343 a14–15). The most distinctive point about the doctrine of the fi rst book is its separation of economics (oikonomike) from politics (politike) as a special sci- ence ( Oeconomica A I, 1343 a14, 15–18). The author agrees with Aristotle, however, that it is the function of economics, both to acquire and to use, though without Aristotle’s specifi c limitations upon acquisition ( Oeconomica A I, 1343 a7–9; however, II 1343 a25 implies the limitation of occupations attendant on our goods and chattels, “those come fi rst which are natural”). 71 Wehrli ( 1967 , pp. 28–29, Fr. 67–72). This idea may have been, at any rate indirectly, parent of the ideas of the mixed constitution expounded afterwards by Polybius and Cicero. Cf. Barker ( 1956 , pp. 49–50) and Aalders ( 1968 , pp. 78–81). 72 Wehrli ( 1967 , pp. 22–25, Fr. 47–49). 73 Varro, Rerum rustic . II 1, 3 in Wehrli ( 1967 , p. 22, Fr. 48). 74 Cf. Pöhlmann ( 1925 , vol. I, p. 88, n. 1). 27 2 The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World… The author describes extensively the four occupations for a good head of the house hold ( o i k o n ό m o V ): acquiring, guarding, using, and arranging in proper order ( Oeconomica A VI, 1344 b22–27). This idea is infl uenced by Xenophon’s Oeconomicus (VIII 31, 40 and VII 10). Agriculture is especially eulogized by the author, in the spirit of Xenophon and Aristotle. It is the primary means of natural acquisition, the others being mining and allied arts whose source of wealth is the land. It is the most just acquisition, since it is not gained from other men, either by trade, hired labor, or war (A II 1343 b 25–30), and it contributes most to many strength (A II 1343 b2–7). Retail trade and the banausic arts, on the other hand, are both contrary to nature ( Oeconomica A II, 1343 a28–30), since they render the body weak and ineffi cient ( Oeconomica A II, 1343 b3). The second book consists of two parts. The fi rst part (I) is purely theoretical. 75 The author devotes his attention to the question of acquisition relevant to the poleis and kings and makes an interesting classifi cation: There are four forms of economy – royal, provincial, political, and private. The author researches the kinds of revenue of each kind of economy ( Oeconomica B I 1345 b20–22; 1345 b28–31; 1346 a5–8; 1346 a10–13). For all four kinds of economy, the most important single rule is to keep expenditure within the limits set by revenue ( Oeconomica B I, 1346 a16). The distinction between these economies and their connection with the kind of government for the three kinds demonstrates originality of the author and a remark- able fact in the development of the economic thought of the Hellenes. The kind of government played a decisive role and described the economic structure of the polis. The passage 1345 b12–14 is famous, because we fi nd here the fi rst appearance of the modern term ‘political economy (politike oikonomia)’. The author characterizes with this term the revenues of a democratic polis. Andreas M. Andreades (1876–1935), who has been infl uenced by this work, saw in it the birth of modern Financial Science . 76 Another characteristic feature of this part of the book is that the author deals with the signifi cance of prediction for fi nancial purposes ( Oeconomica B I 1346 a21–25). This is an idea which we meet in Rhetorica (I 4, 1359 b24–28) and in Rhetorica on Alexander (II 33–35, 1425 b24–25, b24–28). 77 The second part of this second book (B II) is empirical and is clearly Hellenistic in character. It contains a collection of Strategemata, 78 “anecdotes,” 79 anecdotal references, 80 by which various rulers and governments fi lled their treasures. These references deal with fi nancial and monetary means, or others like city plan- ning reforms. 81 75 See for instance Wilcken ( 1901 , p. 187), Andreades ( 1915 , p. 27), and Kousis ( 1951 , p. 69). 76 Andreades ( 1930 ) . 77 The relation and connection of these three works have been pointed out. Cf. Riezler ( 1907 , pp. 37–43), Schlegel ( 1909 , pp. 6–7), and Ruggini ( 1966 , pp. 207–208). Cf. also Klever ( 1986 ). 78 Papalexandris ( 1969 , p. 12). 79 Wilcken ( 1901 , p. 187), Andreades ( 1915 , p. 27), and Armstrong ( 1935 , p. 323). 80 Lowry ( 1979 , p. 68). 81 Like Hippias’ reforms: Oeconomica B II 4, 1347 d4–8. See Sterghiopoulos ( 1944 [1948]). 28 C.P. Baloglou The author of the second part seems to have taken for granted the Cynic theory that money need have no intrinsic value, at least for local purposes. Coinage of iron ( Oeconomica B II 16, 1348 d17–34), tin ( Oeconomica B II 20, 1349 d33–37), bronze ( Oeconomica B II 23, 1350 d23–30), and the arbitrary stamping of drachmas with double value ( Oeconomica B II 20, 1349 d28–34) are all offered apparently as a proper means of escape from fi nancial diffi culty. Like Aristotle, he accepted monopoly as shrewd and legitimate principle of fi nance. 82 The third book has survived in two Latin translations and has the title “ N ό m o i a n d r ό V k a i g a m e t ή V .” It is of later origin and is of no economic interest. According to Laurenti, 83 this book contains a little that is Peripatetic and is closer to the Neopythagorean writings. 84 The Reception of the Work Oeconomica by the Authors of Middle Ages and Renaissance The work Oeconomica was a signifi cant part of the European intellectual corpus, stud- ied as relevant to current problems by rulers as well as by ordinary men of affairs. First of all, we have to mention that “Oeconomica” had a great acceptance in the Medieval Arab-Islamic World. There exists a translation of the fi rst book entitled Timar maqalat Arista fi tadbir al-manzil ( Extrait of the Treatise of Aristotle’s on Administration of the Household ) written by the philosopher and medicine man Abu-l-Farag Abdallah Ibn al-Tayyid (died in 1043), who lived in Bagdad. 85 In the thirteenth century, the study of practical philosophy and of moral theology took a radical turn, a more theoretical foundation with the invasion of Aristotle’s Ethics. The work of the Stagirite reached the Latin West in the company of Ibn Rushd’s theo- retical reworkings. Its intellectual impact provoked a break in the Latin translation. The work Oeconomica was translated and commented along with the other two Aristoteleian works, the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics . The work Oeconomica was translated by distinguished authors in West, like the Bishop of Lisieux Nicolaus Oresmius or Oresme (1320–1382), who translated and commented the work for King Charles V of France between 1370 and 1380. 86 A remarkable event of the reception and diffusion of the work in the West was the translation and commentary by the Italian humanist Leonardo Bruni (1370–1444). 8 2 Oeconomica B II 3, 1346 b24–25 on the citizens of Byzantium, who “the right of changing money sold to a single band….” Cf. Groningen ( 1925 , pp. 211–222) and Newskaja ( 1955 , pp. 54–56). 83 Laurenti ( 1968 , pp. 137–157). 84 Nails ( 1989 , pp. 291–297) and Natali ( 1995 , pp. 52–56). 85 Jackson ( 1982 –1983, p. 155) and Zonta ( 1996 , p. 550). 8 6 Brunner ( 1949 ) , Goldbrunner ( 1968 , pp. 210–212), and Soudek ( 1968 , p. 71). Cf. Menut ( 1940 ) for Oresme’s French translations with commentary. 29 2 The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World… Bruni’s translation of the work was the most widely read Renaissance translation of this work. 87 Bruni dedicated his translation of the work to Cosimo de Medici, 88 a man of wealth and culture who could afford to practice virtue and, as Bruni assured him, who could manage his riches in a praiseworthy fashion and enlarge them with honesty. To make the reading of the book easier for Cosimo, Bruni added to his ver- sion “an explanation of the more obscure passages.” 89 If the infl uence of Bruni’s translation was responsible for a marked increase in the popularity of Aristotle’s moral writings, this depended on a direct appeal to the aris- tocracy, a public which had hitherto shown little interest in complex ethical systems. Such men, who represented aristocracy, demanded neither a mere collection of “sen- tentiae,” nor a systematic philosophy; instead they looked for a practical handbook on how to best run their affairs. These requirements could, indeed, be met by Aristotle’s moral writings. Bruni attempted to provide a polished version which would elevate the reader by force of language. He simplifi ed Aristotle’s system for the benefi t of his patron: “Ethics,” he claimed, caught the moral basis for action, “Politics” the princi- ples of good government, and “Economics” the means of acquiring the wealth without which no prince may achieve greatness 90 – a model which was to provide material for many subsequent handbooks on the right government of princes. Bruni’s translation and commentary infl uenced the Italian humanists who wrote treatises on the household economy. In fact, three fi fteenth-century Venetian human- ists, Giovanni Caldiera (1400–1474), Francesco Barbaro (1390–1454), and Ermolao Barbaro (1453–1493), his grandson, provided in their treatises 91 – infl uenced by the Aristotelian works and Oeconomica – the best rules for the governance of the Oikos and the city. Leon Battista Alberti’s (1404–1472) dialog Trattato del governo della famiglia 92 – three books written between 1433 and 1434, and a fourth written in 1440 93 – was one of the most kindly disposed to the new economic spirit, which has been pro- vided by Bruni. In the historical transition, as experienced by the Italian Humanism, Alberti was a prestigious and leading rhetorician who advocated the effi cient use of one’s time in economic activities. He praised these as creative endeavors. With Xenophon’s Oeconomicus and Oeconomica as a model, Alberti’s dialog offered a penetrating analysis of the value confl ict between the traditional mould and the modern business spirit. Alberti’s message is well-balanced: enjoy the things of this world without being tied to them. 94 87 Soudek ( 1958 , p. 260, 1976 ) and Jackson ( 1992, 1995 ) . 88 Martines ( 1963 , pp. 326–327) and Jackson ( 1992 , pp. 236–237). 89 Baron ( 1928 , pp. 121, 8–10). 90 Baron ( 1928 , p. 120). 91 G. Galdiera, De oeconomia (1463); Fr. Barbaro, De re uxoria (1415), a work dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici; E. Barbaro, De coelibatu (1471–1472). Cf. King ( 1976 , pp. 22–48). 92 Alberti ( 1994 ) , cf. Bürgin ( 1993 , p. 212). 93 Furlan ( 1994 , pp. 438–439). 94 Burckhardt ( 1860 [1997], pp. 275–276). Ponte ( 1971 , pp. 306–308, quoted by Goldbrunner 1975 , pp. 114–115; Baeck 1997). 30 C.P. Baloglou The Oeconomica had also a considerable resonance among the Cameralists. 95 It is of great importance that A. de Montchrétien (1575–1621), who used the term “political economy” in his work Traité d’ économie politique (1615), and Louis de Mayerne Turquet (1550–1618), who introduced fi rst this term 4 years earlier than Montchrétien in his book La Monarchie aristodemocratique et le gouvernement compose et mesle des trois formes des legitimes republiques (1611), 96 seem to sup- port their ideas and arguments in the same tradition which goes back to Aristotle and the Oeconomica . 97 The use of the term “political economy” will rise again in the texts of the Cameralists. Cameralism, basically an economic doctrine, discussed in the so-called police science (Polizeywissenschaft) the public law aspects of an orderly common- wealth, including jurisdiction, taxation but also sanitation, poor laws, and the like, typically in some kind of interconnected treatment. 98 The procedure of analyzing the methods of rising the revenues for the “camerae” of the monarchs seems to have similarities with the second book of Oeconomica . The work Oeconomica – except from its popularity and signifi cance in Medieval Times and Renaissance – is therefore important in that it explains very simply and effectively two ideas fundamental in Antiquity. The agrarian economy and country life are considered superior since they respond to the ideal of self-suffi ciency, while trade not only makes a person dependent on others, but allows him to get rich only at the expense of others (according to the canon which belongs to the simple repro- duction economy). These two ideas were so deeply rooted in Antiquity that, through humanistic culture, they infl uenced modern thinking and they were often to be repeated up to the late 1700s. 99 The Economic Philosophy of Epicureans Epicurus (341–270) was born in Samos by Athenian colonists, migrated to Athens after the expulsion of the colony, studied philosophy, and set up his own school in about 307/6. 100 The central tenet of the Epicurean school was that in order to achieve happiness (eudaimonia) it is necessary to avoid trouble; the highest pleasure is the “absence of disturbance” (ataraxia). Epicurus’ elegantly expressed letter to Menoikeus, preserved by Diogenes Laertius (X 121–135), gives a good idea of this. Epicurus taught that psychic value is unlimited (cf. Aristotle, Politics Book VII) and that the wise are 95 Brunner ( 1949 , pp. 237–280, 300–312, 1952 ) . 96 It was King ( 1948 , pp. 230–231) who discovered Turquet’s work. Cf. Bürgin ( 1993 , p. 212). 97 Andreades ( 1933 , pp. 81–82). Cf. also Baloglou ( 1999b , pp. 34–35). 98 Backhaus ( 1989 , pp. 7–8, 1999 , p. 12). 99 Perrotta ( 2000 , p. 118). 100 Theodorides ( 1957 ) . 31 2 The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World… contented with things easy to acquire (Diog. Laert. X 130; 144, 146). Real wealth is only gained by limitation of wants, and he who is not satisfi ed with little will not be satisfi ed at all ( Kyriai Doxai XXIX). “Self-suffi ciency is the greatest wealth,” says Clement of Alexandreia ( Stromateis , VI 2, 42, 18) for Epicurus’ teaching. It is not increase of possessions but limitation of desires that makes one truly rich. 101 In accord with his teaching, he seems to have lived very simply. 102 However, he did not go the extreme of the Cynics, but taught that the wise will have a care to gain property, and not live as beggars (Diog. Laert. X 119). Many subsequent sources insist on the fact that the wise Epicurean should neither marry nor have children. But his did not forbid the wise man from exercising his own particular oikonomia , probably in common with other men of wisdom. 103 In fact, Epicurus confi rmed that one should laugh, philosophize, and oikonomein all together, with cheerful and unpersuasive management of one’s own property. 104 Epicuraenism gained advocates in Rome, especially among writers and intellectu- als. Lucretius (ca. 94–55 bc ), at the end of the fi fth book of his De rerum Natura (v. 925–1457), which was written about the middle of the fi rst century bc , 105 draws a picture of the development of human society, which is unique in Latin literature for its insight and originality. It is partly based on the ideas and teaching of Epicurus. Among Epicurus’ disciples was Metrodorus the Athenian (330–277) who wrote a treatise entitled P e r ί p l o ύ t o u (Peri ploutou, On Wealth) (cf. Diog. Laert. X 24). 106 He explains that tranquility cannot be achieved if we back away from all diffi culties. Admittedly, many things such as wealth produce some pain when they are present, but torment us more when they are not. In fact, the greedy man seeks opportunities to get rich and he specializes in this art; the wise man, on the other hand, is satisfied if he knows how to acquire and to preserve what he needs. 107 It might be possible that this work infl uenced Philodemus, who cited Metrodorus’ treatise (Philodemus, Peri oikonomias Col. XII 10). Philodemus Philodemus’ of Gadara (110–40 bc ) book On Household-economics 108 consists of three parts. In the fi rst part (col. I–VII), Philodemus gives us an extended discus- sion, almost a line-by-line critical commentary of Xenophon’s Oikonomikos . 101 Usener ( 1887 , p. 302 Fr. 473; p. 303, Fr. 476). 102 Trever ( 1916 , p. 130) and Shipley ( 2000 , p. 183). 103 Natali ( 1995 , pp. 109–110). 104 Barker ( 1956 , pp. 179–180). 105 Barker ( 1956 , p. 173, 181). For the description of his theory of the development of the Society. See Lovejoy and Boas, George 1973 . 106 Sudhaus ( 1906 ) . 107 Perrotta ( 2003 , p. 208). 108 For the text of the work see Jensen ( 1907 ) . For a systematic description of all editions and trans- lations of this work see Baloglou and Maniatis ( 1994 , pp. 139–140). 32 C.P. Baloglou In the second part (col. VII–IX), he offers also a critical commentary of the fi rst book of Oeconomica , which he attributes to Theophrastus (col. VII 6). In the third and last part of his work (col. XII–XXXVIII), Philodemus adds a whole section with economic and ethical instructions to the wise Epicurean. Philodemus outlined precisely the area of his operation and the thematic param- eters of his discussion: he does not intend to speak of right methods about organiz- ing life at home, but only of the attitude one should have regarding wealth, dividing this problem into three points: Acquisition Maintenance Acquisition suitable for the philosopher. 109 In this way, compared to the four specifi c areas of oikonomia which Aristotle sepa- rated out, Philodemus eliminates the section on social, affectionate, and hierarchical relationships within the household and restricts the “economic” discussion to the simple point of wealth. ‘I shall therefore discuss not’, writes Philodemus, ‘how one should rightly live in the house but how one should behave regarding the acquisition and preservation of wealth (chrematon kteseos te kai phylakes), points which specifi cally concern administration and the adminis- trator (ten oikonomian kai ton oikonomikon), without in any way opposing those who would put other points under the above headings; and also the acquisition of goods most suited’ to the philosopher, and not just to any citizen’ (Col. XII 10). The restriction laid down by Philodemus is not exactly a redefi nition of the fi eld of oikonomia. 110 He says that he does not want to change the scope of the study when he admits that others could put other points under the same headings (Col. XII, 12–15). He indicated, as far as economic practice is concerned, that he wishes to limit himself to examination of a point of direct interest to the philosopher and does not wish to take care of the question of internal family relations. The question is important methodologically, given that the need to determine the theoretical fi eld of a possible Epicurean art or science of “Economics” has been perceived. 111 The scope of Philodemus’ idea is to indicate the principle of an “aris- tos bios” (Col. XIII). Therefore, he gives advice for the determination of the real measurement of the philosopher’s wealth, of the determination of the ploutou met- ron, and this is something he deals with in another work: “There is a measurement of wealth for the philosopher, which I have illustrated according to our leaders in the book ‘On wealth,’ so as to show what the art of economics (oikonomiken) consists of with regards to its acquisition and preservation” (Col. XII 10). Philodemus declares that it is legitimate for an Epicurean to write on points of Economics and he cites the examples of Metrodorus (Col. XII; XXI; XXVII) and Epicharmus (Col. XXIV 24), who insists, according to Philodemus, on the predic tion 109 Hartung ( 1857 , p. 7), Baloglou and Maniatis ( 1994 , p. 125), and Natali ( 1995 , p. 110). 110 This is apparently Schoemann’s ( 1839 ) view. 111 Natali ( 1995 , p. 111). 33 2 The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World… of economic affairs (Col. XXV 24). From this point of view, Philodemus’ treatise is v ery important, because it gives information about the Epicurean economic thought. 112 In the section where Philodemus gives positive rules, he suggests that one should not concentrate too much on household management, overlooking external social relationships – it is the opposite of what Xenophon ( Oeconomicus XI) advises; he talks, instead, about concerning oneself with affability, generosity towards friends, and attentiveness to one’s most hard-up friends, even to the extent of remembering them in one’s will (Col. XXII; XXIII; XXVII). Stoic Economic Thought The Stoics gave to the ancient world, during the whole of the six centuries which lie between Alexander of Macedonia and the Emperor Constantine I, the system of philosophy, of ethics, and of religion, which was generally current among thinking men. The fact that “the philosophy of the Hellenistic world was the Stoa and all else was secondary,” 113 and that the Hellenistic world transmitted this philosophy to the Romans of the later Republic and the early Empire, with modifi cations to suit their genius, proves the signifi cance of this philosophical school. Stoics write explicitly of political matters. Zeno’s principal political work was entitled Politeia . Cleanthes wrote a treatise entitled Politikos ( Statesman ) (Diog. Laert. VII 175), Sphaerus wrote on the Spartan constitution, Politeia Lakonike (Diog. Laert. VII 178); Persaeus, Cleanthes, and Sphaerus wrote treatises on mon- archy and kingship (SVF I 435 (Persaeus), 481 (Cleanthes), and 620 (Sphaerus)). These treatises belong to the “mirror of princes” literature, 114 which will be found later in Byzantine and Arab-Islamic thought. The Stoics support the view that man is “naturally a political animal” (Stob. II, VII, 5 b1 , p. 59, 6) and that “Polis is the most perfect society,” which has been founded for the establishment of self-suffi ciency (Stob. II, VII, 26, p. 150, 4–6). The Stoics also recognized another dimension of man, as a member of the Oikos, the “economic animal” (zoon oikonomikon) according to the Aristotelian terminol- ogy ( Eudemeian Ethics , VIII 10, 1242a 22–23).The Stoics claim that the establish- ment of the Oikos is the “fi rst politeia” (Stob. II, VII, 26, p. 148, 5) and the Oikos constitutes the “beginning of the Polis” (Stob. II, VII, 26, p. 148, 7). They recog- nized the three relationships in the Oikos like Aristotle. From this point of view, Oikos is a small Polis, while Oikonomia is a “narrowed” Politeia; Polis, in contrast, is a great Oikos (SVF II 80). This is a clear statement of a microeconomic concept. The wise man is not only a citizen of the Polis where he lives, but he is a citizen of the Megalopolis of the universe, the cosmos, which follows a single administration and law (SVF III 79). 112 Baloglou and Maniatis ( 1994 , p. 130). 113 Tarn ( 1930 , p. 325). 114 Habicht ( 1958 , pp. 1–16) and Chroust ( 1965 , p. 173). 34 C.P. Baloglou The wise man, on the basis of his superior doctrine, is the best economist. In Arius Didymus’ Stoic anthology, the features of the wise man are described: “He sc. (the wise man) is fortunate, happy, blessed, rich, pious, a friend of divinity, worthy of distinction, and of being a king, a general, a politician kai oikonomikos (housekeeper) kai chrematisticos” (Stob. II, VII, 11 g , p. 100, 2). As far as the qualities of oikono- mikos and chrematistikos are concerned, Stoics appear to have considered with atten- tion what was implied by the use of these adjectives (Stob. II, VII, 11 d , p. 95, 9–23). In Arius Didymus’ anthology cited by Stobaeus (II, VII, 11 m , pp. 109, 10–110, 8 = SVF III 686), we fi nd that the wise man can gain from teaching. We view a different context of chrematistics than the Stoics which also differs from Aristotle’s ideas. The Stoics studied the phenomenon of value when they discussed the ethical subject of indifference. The value of things concerning which we should be indiffer- ent depends on the possibility of their right use (SVF II 240; III 117, 122, 123, 135). Among the meanings of value, there is in fact one tied to trade and to the market: that which is given in return for a good, when it has been valued by an expert, for example a load of wheat of barley for a mule (Diog. Laert. VII 105). We will recall that in Stobaeus the position of Diogenes of Babylon is cited – he construed doki- maston not as the valued object, but as the expert who values it; and that in Cicero ( De offi ciis II 50–55), the dispute between Diogenes of Babylon and Antipater of Tarsus on behavior in trade is cited: In deciding cases of this kind [sc. expediency vs. moral rectitude in business relations] Diogenes of Babylon, a great and highly esteemed Stoic, consistently holds on view; his pupil Antipater, a most profound scholar, holds another. According to Antipater, all the facts should be disclosed, that the buyer may not be uniformed of any detail that the seller knows; according to Diogenes of Babylon the seller should declare any defects in his wares, in so far as such a source is prescribed by the common law of the land; but for the rest, since he has goods to sell, he may try to sell then to the possible advantage, provided he is guilty of no misrepresentation. ‘I have improved my stock’, Diogenes’ merchant will say: ‘I have offered it for sale; I sell it at price no higher than my competitors- perhaps even lower, when the market is overstocked. Who is wronged?’ – ‘What say you?’, comes Antipater’s argument on the other side; ‘it is duty to consider the interest of your fellow-men and to serve society…’ The above passage seems the Stoic conception on trade. It is interesting to note that there is a similarity to Aristotle’s position. Like Aristotle – who had dealt with the problem of the market, not in the area of economics ( Politics I, ch. 8–11), but in the context of his study of the kinds of justice – the Stoics had occupied this subject in the context of justice. 115 Later Stoic Infl uences on the Field of Economics It is evident that the economic doctrines of the Early Stoics reappear later in the Roman Times. A stoic infl uence can be seen in some of Philo’s of Alexandreia (30 bc to ad 45) texts on oikonomia. In his treatise De Iosepho , which is also 115 Baloglou ( 2002a ) . 35 2 The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World… entitled The Statesman , he presents a view of “the Statesman” as in the nature of an arbitrator, and thus like Solon of Athens: however powerful the people may be, the statesman must give no more than its due, just as Solon had done in his day and for its generation. 116 Philo in dealing with the period Joseph spent as a steward (epitropos) in Egypt holds this was benefi cial for the future statesman (politician, politicos), who must first be trained and practiced in household management (ta kata oikonomian); for, he goes on, evidently quoting Chrysippus, “a household is a polis compressed into small dimensions, and household management (oikono- mia) is a sort of epitome of state government, just as a polis is also a great house ( w V k a i p ό l i V m e n o ί k o V m έ g a V ), and state management is a public household manage- ment of sorts. From these facts it is quite clear that the same man is both adept at household management (oikonomikon) and equipped for state administration, even though the magnitude and size of the objects under consideration differ” (Arnim 1963, SVF III 80, 13–16 , Fr. 323). Similarly, again following Chrysippus, he writes that household management is “a special instance of stratecraft on a small scale, since stratecraft and household management (oikonomia) are related virtues which, it would not be amiss to show, are, as, it were, interchangeable, both because strate- craft is house hold management in the state, and because household management is stratecraft in the home” (Philo, Problems and Solutions of the books of Genesis 4. 164, SVF III 160, 8–11 ). This passage, as Reumann 117 has pointed out, preserved in Armenian, is found in older Latin translations. In spite, therefore, of the old distinc- tion about size, “oikonomia” and “politeia” are related so that one can speak of household and state management as “the offspring of the same virtue, as equals in species yet unequals in magnitude, as house and state (ut domus et civitas).” (Philo, De animalibus adv. Alexandrum in Arnim 1963, SVF II, 209, 26–28 ). And thus the way was open for applying “oikonomia” to the care, administration, and man- agement of larger units in human society than an estate. 118 Joseph has been trained in the household of Potiphar, before he became Pharaoh’s minister; that is an alle- gory of the truth that the future politician must fi rst be trained and practiced in household management (oikonomia). This idea closely recalls Plato’s Politicus (Statesman), in which the distinction between household administration and civil administration is based solely on the different size of the two communities and not on their different natures. Musonius Rufus (ca. 30–100 ad ), Epictetus’ teacher, speaks in his treatise Whether Marriage is an Impediment to the Philosopher (Stob. IV 22, 20, p. 497, 19 – 501, 29 ) directly of the philosopher and asks for what reason marriage should be useful for the common man, but not for the philosopher: the philosopher is no worse than other men; indeed, he is better and juster than them, a guide and master of natu- ral activities like marriage (Stob. IV 22, 20 p. 498, 2–15 and p. 501, 13–16 ). Furthermore, Musonius supports in his diatribe entitled The Means of Acquiring Goods Most Suited to the Philosopher (Hense 124, 17 - 125, 11 ) the view that the form of livelihood 116 Barker ( 1956 , p. 157). See also Schofi eld ( 1991 , ch. 1). 117 Reumann ( 1980 , p. 370, n. 6). 118 Reumann ( 1980 , p. 370). 36 C.P. Baloglou and acquisition of goods preferable to all is “philosophein and georgein,” to till the soil and to philosophize. To live in the fi elds is more manly than to sit in the city like sophists, and it is more the mark of a free man to procure necessary items alone than to receive them from others (Stob. IV 15 a 18, p. 381, 10–15 ). The discourse then con- tinues outlining a kind of agricultural commune, in which the disciples should be worked hard under the master’s command and, as a reward, receive the master’s philosophical wisdom. All this is controversially aimed at the “sophists,” encourag- ing young people not to follow a master who teaches in the polis and not to stay to listen in a school (Stob. IV 15 a 18, p. 382, 12–13 ). It is clear enough that the argument was turned against views similar to those of Epicurus, Philodemus, and Chrysippus. Another theme that occurs in connection with praise of the rural life is the con- trast between life in the country and life in the town, when the former is seen in a positive light and the latter in a negative. This theme is also to be found in Musonius. In addition to excessive luxury, idleness, illhealth, and wickedness, he associates the city with the – in his eyes – inferior sophists. We observe similar ideas by Dio of Prusa, also known as Chrysostom (c. 40–120 ad ) 119 who lived in the period of the “Second Sophistic.” Among the 80 orations which have been survived, the seventh oration, the “Euboicus,” is the best of them, as a document illustrative of the social conditions and ideas current in the Greek world about ad 100, and especially the part of the oration which deals with urban conditions and the reform of urban life. 120 Dio praises the simple life in the country. A simple life is possible in the city too, but a life in the country is still to be preferred. The simple life does eventually lead to inner freedom (see Or. 7, § 11, § 66, § 103); and as we can see in other works, Dio believes that the person who is free is also good and in possession of arête (see Or. 15, § 32; Or. 6, § 34). Dio believes that it is easier for the poor to lead a good life in the country than in the city. This is why later in the treatise (Or. 7, § 107) he plays with the idea of, if need be, actually forcing the poor to settle in the country as farmers. He accordingly proceeds to ask what decent urban occupations can be found, to prevent the poor from being compelled, by the pressure of unemployment, to betake themselves to some low and degrading sort of trade (Or. 7, § 109). Unfortunately, he gives no clear or positive answer to the question. He confi nes himself to suggesting (1) what is the general nature of a decent urban occupation, and (2) what are the low and degrading forms of employment which ought not to be allowed in a city. 119 It is always diffi cult to know in which philosophical school Dio should be placed. He is consid- ered a Cynic by Paquet ( 1975 ) , Blumentritt ( 1979 ) , Schmitt ( 1972 ) , Long ( 1974 ) , and Dudley ( 1937 , pp. 148–157). Barker ( 1956 , p. 295), Jones ( 1978 ) , and Moles ( 1978 ) regard him a both a Cynic and a Stoic. They are of the opinion that Dio was especially attracted to Cynicism during his exile ( ad 82), but he rejected it during the last years of his life. Moles ( 1978 ) regards Dio as a person who throughout his life was a Cynic, a Stoic, and a Sophist. Jones ( 1978 ) fi nally prefers to see Dio as a Stoic. Brunt ( 1973 , pp. 210–211) and Hoven van den ( 1996 , p. 27) consider Dio to be a Stoic. 120 Barker ( 1956 , pp. 295–296), Triantaphyllopoulos and Triantaphyllopoulos ( 1974 , pp. 34–40), and Triantaphyllopoulos ( 1994 , p. 12). 37 2 The Tradition of Economic Thought in the Mediterranean World… It is worth noting that Dio’s eulogy of the country life fi ts in the tradition of, for example, Xenophon’s Oeconomicus and Cato’s De agricultura . For, like these two writers, Dio believes the hard life of the country breeds physically strong men who are able to defend their towns (Or. 7, § 49). 121 Dio goes further than the afore- mentioned authors, whereas he wants to convince his listeners that virtue is compat- ible with poverty, and that poverty is superior to wealth. Poverty in this context should be understood as the state of having to work for a living so that, for Dio, virtue is automatically compatible with labor (Or. 7, § 112–113). Out of ethical and pedagogic convictions, Dio exhorted people to work. From this point of view, it is not improper to support that one aim of Dio’s “Euboicus” was to obtain public sup- port for the so-called “poor policy” of the emperor Trajan among others. 122 After reading the conclusion that it is not practicable to resettle all the poor people from the city in the country, Dio goes on to list which city occupations could be practiced by these poor people in order to live in what he believes is the proper way (Or. 7, 109). What we must fi nally conclude is that the speech preaches the Stoic ideal of the simple life with important component parts, such as self-suffi ciency and dignifying tool. It should be noted that, certainly with reference to the last point, Dio takes an exceptional view for his time. The important representative of the Middle Stoa, Panaetius of Rhodes (185– 110 B.C.) – an aristocrat by birth and friend of Scipio Aemilianus – seems to have a preference for agriculture. We gather from Cicero’s De offi ciis (I 151) that Panaetius, – together with Cicero – is of the opinion that “there is no kind of gainful employment that is better, more fruitful, more pleasant and more worthy of a free man than agriculture.” His hommage to agriculture actually concerns only the landowner and the hard-working farmer, just like Xenophon’s. So, on this point, Panaetius cannot be compared with his two fellow Stoics, Musonius and Dio, of a later period, who in addition to praising agriculture in general, extol the diligent labor of the farmer and consider him virtuous for it. The Neopythagoreans A whole series of economic texts, surviving in Stobaeus, belongs to the tradition of texts written by the Neopythagoreans. These include Bryson, Oeconomicus (Stob. V 28, 15 pp. 680, 7 –681, 14 ); Callicratidas, Peri oikou eudaimonias (=On household 121 Compare Xenophon, Oeconomicus IV 24 – V 17. Cato, De agricultura , preface; Livy VIII 20, 4. Brunt ( 1973 , p. 213) remarks correctly with reference to Dio’s comment that farmers make such good soldiers: “He does not feel the irrelevance of this ancient platitude to the normal conditions of a Greek city under the Roman peace, nor (if he was speaking at Rome) to those which obtained in the capital itself or throughout Italy; under Trajan the whole peninsula now furnished few legionaries.” Cf. Garnsey ( 1980 , p. 37) who believes that the emergence and promotion of the myth of the peasant patriarch came just at a time when the process of peasant displacement and the concentration of estates in the hands of the rich was spending up. 122 Jones ( 1978 , p. 60) and Grassl ( 1982 , pp. 149–152). 38 C.P. Baloglou happiness) (Stob. V 28, 16 pp. 681, 15 –688, 8 ); Perictione, Peri gynaikos sophrosynas (Stob. IV 23, 61 and 61 a , pp. 588, 17 –593, 11 ). Among epistolary collections, there are letters attributed to Pythagorean women, which make reference to points about oikonomia. 123 The surviving fragment of Bryson’s Oeconomicus consists of two parts (Stob. V 28, 15 pp. 680, 8 –681, 3 and pp. 681 , 4–14 ). He dealt with specifi c issues of which we can give an overview: (a) The nature of economics (Stob. IV 28, 15 p. 680, 10–16 ). (b) The right methods of acquiring goods; the defi nition of wealth and economic welf are; agriculture and trade (Stob. IV 28, 15 p. 680, 15–18 ). © Relationships with slaves; types of slaves (douleia); the legitimacy of douleia (Stob. IV 28, 15 p. 681 , 4–14 ). In the fi rst part, he gives a catalog of vocations (Stob. V 28, 15 p. 680, 13–681, 2), similar to that of Xenophon ( Oecomonicus I 1–4) and Oeconomica (A II, 1343a 26–27). 124 In the Arabic text of Bryson’s treatise, we fi nd a strange theory about the fi xity of professions: he maintains that, since there is a need in a polis for all crafts, it is praiseworthy to remain within one’s own class (Plessner, 216, 12 –2
