Homepage
Login
Profile
BookClubs
dmBox
Read Ebook: A History of Greek Economic Thought by Trever Albert Augustus
Font size:
Background color:
Text color:
Add to tbrJar First Page Next Page
Ebook has 1736 lines and 69809 words, and 35 pages
Plato's attitude toward.
Division of labor.
Slavery.
Positive interest in its development.
Division of labor.
Slavery.
Negative attitude.
Division of labor.
Slavery.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 151
INDEX 157
For a complete list of scholars who have devoted more or less attention to the economic ideas of Greek thinkers, the reader is referred to the bibliography at the conclusion of this work. On the surface, the list appears to be reasonably extensive. It will be observed, however, that the majority of the works are not of recent date; that many of them deal largely with the practical phase of economics; that most of the larger works on economic history treat Greek economic and social theory in a merely incidental manner, and that nearly all are written from the general standpoint of the economist rather than with the more detailed analysis of the classicist. The work of Souchon, the most extensive, careful, and satisfactory discussion of the subject, is no exception to this latter rule, and since his standpoint is too exclusively that of the older English economists, his criticism of the Greek theories is not always sufficiently sympathetic. The monumental volumes of Poehlmann have treated Greek social theories thoroughly, but the chief interest of the author is rather in the actual social conditions, and his work is marred by a constant overemphasis of the analogy between ancient and modern capitalism and socialistic agitation. Moreover, there is no book in the English language, on Greek economic thought, that treats the subject in anything more than the cursory manner of Haney and Ingram. There is, thus, still a place for a work of this type in the English language, written from the standpoint of the classicist, but with a view also to the needs of twentieth-century students of economics.
The present work aims to fulfil such a need. Its scope differs quite essentially from all other accounts of Greek theory previously published, in that our purpose is not merely to consider the extent to which the Greek thinkers grasped the principles of the orthodox economy of Ricardo and Mill. We shall also endeavor to ascertain how far they, by the humanitarian and ethical tone of their thinking, anticipated the modern, post-Ruskin economy, which makes man, not property, the supreme goal, and recognizes the multiplicity of human interests and strivings that belie the old theory of the "economic man." Our verdict as to the importance of the Greek contribution to economic thought is thus likely to be somewhat more favorable than that which is usually rendered.
We purpose also to emphasize more than is often done the important fact that Greek theory is essentially a reflection of Greek economic conditions, and that a true interpretation of the thought depends upon a clear understanding of the economic history of Greece. However, as we shall see, this by no means implies that the anti-capitalistic theories of the Socratics are evidence of an undeveloped state of commerce and industry in fifth- and fourth-century Athens.
The method of presentation is primarily chronological. Thus the ideas of each thinker can be discussed in a more thorough and unitary manner, and more in relation to the contemporary economic conditions that gave rise to them. Moreover, despite some practical advantages of the topical method, it savors too much of an artificial attempt to force the Greek thinkers on the procrustean rack of the concepts of modern economy.
The general characteristics of Greek economic thought have often been enumerated. They may be restated with advantage, at this point, together with some additions and needed criticisms.
Footnote 1:
F. Wilhelm says: "Eine Geschichte der theoretischen Behandlung der Oekonomik bei den Griechen ist noch zu schreiben." The present work was undertaken in the year 1911.
Footnote 2:
Footnote 3:
Footnote 4:
Footnote 5:
Footnote 6:
Footnote 7:
Footnote 8:
Footnote 9:
Footnote 10:
Footnote 11:
Footnote 12:
Footnote 13:
Footnote 14:
Footnote 15:
Kautz goes to the extreme of saying that antiquity represents "die Negation der ?konomischen Interessen und der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit."
Footnote 16:
Footnote 17:
The Sophists, true to their character as philosophers of extreme individualism, developed a new theory of the origin of society. The already current term ?????, "nature," which had been accepted as a sufficient reason for the state's existence, was now opposed to "law," ?????, as natural to artificial. The Sophists argued that, in a primitive state of nature, perfect individualism was the rule. Men did injustice without restraint. The weaker, however, being in the majority, and finding it to their disadvantage to compete with the strong, agreed neither to do nor to suffer injustice, and constrained the stronger minority to co-operate in their decision. Thus arose the social contract whereby nature gave up its real instinct for an artificial convention , and thus society came into being. The theory, at first, though untrue, was not intended to be destructive of moral foundations, but was opposed rather to the traditional idea of the laws of a state as the "decrees of a divinely inspired lawgiver." In the hands of men like Thrasymachus and Callicles, however, it became a means of denying that the life according to nature was bound by any laws which the strong need observe, and that might was the only final law.
In line with their radical individualism, the Sophists were also pioneers in the more cosmopolitan spirit that characterized the Cynics and Stoics. They taught the doctrine of the fundamental worth and relationship of men, and thus, with the Cynics, started the attack upon the theory that upheld slavery as a natural institution. Little further is known of their other social or economic ideas. Protagoras wrote a work on "wages," but it was probably an argument relative to the acceptance of pay by Sophists. In any event, this fact that the Sophists were so ready to be enriched through their lectures is clear evidence that their teaching on wealth was not the negative doctrine of the other Greek philosophers. Prodicus seems to have scorned menial labor as morally degrading, though he agreed with Hesiod in his doctrine of the dignity of all work that is noble. He emphasized the necessity of labor in the production of material good, and, like Democritus, was the forerunner of the Socratics in his insistence upon right use as a criterion of wealth. Hippias prided himself on his accomplishment in many arts, and thus probably did not share the prejudice of the philosophers against manual labor.
Euripides, though markedly individualistic, like the Sophists, shows traces of the older use of nature to explain the necessity of the state. He draws a parallel between the social order and the order of nature, by which law and government are justified, and the right of the middle class of farmers to rule is upheld. He emphasizes the importance of agriculture, and the dignity of the peasant farmer , who works his own land, as the stay of the country. This latter accords well with his cosmopolitan spirit, which he shares with the Sophists. He opposes the artificial distinctions of birth, slavery, and the traditional Greek idea of the inferiority of woman. His attitude toward wealth is that of the moral philosopher rather than that of the Sophist.
Thucydides reveals considerable insight into economic problems, though he does not deal with them directly. Roscher declares that the Greek historian contributed as much as any other writer to give him the elements of his science, since he alone, of all Greek writers, did not confuse his economic ideas with ethics. He recognizes the place of labor in production, and the importance of material wealth as the basis for all higher development. He also has some appreciation of the true nature of capital. In his description of the undeveloped condition of early Greece, which lived from hand to mouth, he writes like a modern economist describing primitive conditions in Europe in contrast to the capitalism of his own day. Cornford's attempt to discredit Thucydides as a historian, and to show that he missed the true cause, economic, of the Peloponnesian War, is not convincing. Cornford both exaggerates the influence of commercial interests in fifth-century Athens and belittles the economic insight of Thucydides. The Greek writer is, however, like Herodotus, a historical source for the actual economic conditions in Greece, rather than an economic theorist.
Aside from the fragmentary hints presented above, Greek economic thought begins with the Socratics, Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle, and is continued, in a very incidental way, in the orators, and in the Stoics and their contemporaries. As we shall see, however, even in the Socratics, no real science of wealth is developed, in the modern sense. The reason for this lack, which is most commonly emphasized since it is closest at hand, is that the phenomena of actual production were but slightly developed. This explanation is well summarized by Haney as follows: that economic relations between individuals and states were far simpler than now; that international commerce was not encouraged by ancient states, whose ideal was rather national exclusion; that public finance was then very limited and unimportant; that division of labor was not extensive; that the relative lack of security of life and property discouraged exchange and saving; that in all these respects, the situation is analogous to that of mediaeval Europe.
There is certainly much force in this general reason. The development of economic thought must, of course, depend upon the actual conditions under which the thinkers live. We have already admitted also the vast difference between the present economic complexity and the simplicity in ancient Greece. The foregoing summary of Haney, however, is misleading. Though the ideal of Sparta was national exclusion, it was surely not that of Athens and some other Greek states. All extant records agree that Athens, at least, the home of the economic theorists, encouraged international commerce by every means in her power. The division of labor, while insignificant compared with the minute division of modern mechanical industry, was by no means inextensive, as is evidenced by the fact that this is a point on which Greek thinkers show especial insight. The notion that Greek industry was chiefly limited to household economy, and that the era of capitalism had not yet dawned, has long ago been refuted by Meyer and others. The alleged insecurity of life and property, while relatively true, is exaggerated for Athens, at least. Above all, the common attempt to draw an analogy between classical Greece and mediaeval Europe economically is due to an utter misconception. The period of Greek economic history, which corresponds to that of the Middle Ages, is rather the era of economic awakening, between the middle of the ninth and the end of the sixth century B.C.
Other reasons for the limited development of Greek economic thought are:
Footnote 18:
Footnote 19:
Footnote 20:
Footnote 21:
Footnote 22:
Footnote 23:
Footnote 24:
Footnote 25:
Footnote 26:
Add to tbrJar First Page Next Page