The Economist | Page 5

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
aright--let 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 conclusive--but 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 intention--quite 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, it may be, civil accomplishments,
which, however, they refuse to exercise, for the very reason, as I take it,
that they have no masters over them.
[18] "Eupatrids."
Soc. No masters over them! but how can that be if, in spite of their
prayers for prosperity and their desire to do what will bring them good,
they are still so sorely hindered in the exercise of their wills by those
that lord it over them?
Crit. And who, pray, are these lords that rule them and yet remain
unseen?
Soc. Nay, not unseen; on the contrary, they are very visible. And what
is more, they are the basest of the base, as you can hardly fail to note, if
at least you believe idleness and effeminacy and reckless negligence to
be baseness. Then, too, there are other treacherous beldames giving
themselves out to be innocent pleasures, to wit, dicings and profitless
associations among men.[19] These in the fulness of time appear in all
their nakedness even to them that are deceived, showing themselves
that they are after all but pains tricked out and decked with pleasures.
These are they who have the dominion over those you speak of and
quite hinder them from every good and useful work.
[19] Or, "frivolous society."
Crit. But there are others, Socrates, who are not hindered by these
indolences--on the contrary, they have the most ardent disposition to
exert themselves, and by every means to increase their revenues; but in
spite of all, they wear out their substance and are involved in endless
difficulties.[20]
[20] Or, "become involved for want of means."
Soc. Yes, for they too are slaves, and harsh enough are their
taskmasters; slaves are they