The Economist | Page 4

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