A History of Greek Economic Thought. Albert Augustus Trever
sense as they do with us today. The life of the Greek citizen was lived far more for the state, and was more absolutely at the disposal of the state, than is true in any modern democracy. In Greece, politics was thus the social science of first importance, and the supreme purpose of all human activity was to make good citizens. State interference or regulation was thus accepted as a matter of course, and the setting of prices, rigid regulation of grain commerce, exploitation of the rich in the interest of the poor, and public ownership of great material interests such as mines were not revolutionary ideas, but common facts in Greek life.[16] The tendency of the theorists was therefore naturally toward centralization of power in the hands of the state, and an exaggerated idea of the omnipotence of law.[17] Yet despite the error inherent in it, this socialistic tendency of Greek economic thought had its basal truth, which is becoming an axiom of modern economics and statesmanship—the belief that private property is not a natural right, but a gift of society, and hence that its activities should be controlled by society, and made to minister to public welfare. Indeed, we have by no means escaped the error of the Greek thinkers, for one of the most common mistakes of statesmen and political theorists today is an overestimate of the effectiveness of law.
CHAPTER II
ECONOMIC IDEAS BEFORE PLATO, AND REASONS FOR THE UNDEVELOPED CHARACTER OF GREEK ECONOMICS
As stated above, the economic ideas of the Greeks were unsystematized and inextensive.[18] The extant literature previous to Plato presents only incidental hints on matters economic. Hesiod, in interesting antithesis to classical thinkers, emphasizes the dignity and importance of manual labor.[19] The contrast, however, is not so great as it appears, for the labor which he dignifies is agricultural. He constantly urges its importance as the chief source of wealth.[20] On the other hand, he opposes the commercial spirit that was beginning to be rife in his age, and decries the evil of unjust gains.[21] His mention of the fact of competition between artisans of the same trade is of interest for the development of industry in Greece.[22] His Erga was, in a sense, the forerunner of the later Economica in Greek literature.
Solon proved by his reforms that he had some sane economic ideas as to the importance of labor, industry, commerce, and money in the development of the state. He also showed some insight into the solution of the problem of poverty. His ideas, however, are not definitely formulated in his extant fragments, and belong rather to economic history.[23] The Elegies of Theognis are full of moral utterances on wealth, emphasizing its temporary nature as compared with virtue.[24] Pythagoras and his followers have often been given a prominent place in the history of communism, but this is probably due to a false interpretation.[25] It is likely, however, that he opposed the evils of luxury, and moralized on the relation between wealth and virtue.[26] Democritus wrote a work on agriculture.[27] Like the other philosophers, he taught that happiness was to be sought in the gold of character, rather than in material wealth.[28] To his mind, poverty and wealth alike were but names for need and satiety (κόρου).[29] Wealth without understanding was not a safe possession, depending for its value on right use.[30] The amassing of wealth by just means, however, was good,[31] though unjust gains were always a source of evil.[32] Excessive desire for wealth was worse than the most extreme poverty.[33] It is possible also that Democritus held to a mild form of the social contract theory of the origin of society.[34] Heraclitus complained bitterly of the unwisdom of the masses and their merely material view of life.[35] He made the common antithesis between material and spiritual wealth,[36] and observed the fact that gold is a universal medium of exchange.[37] Hippodamas of Miletus and Phaleas of Chalcedon proposed new plans for the distribution of wealth, but we have the barest outline of their theories from Aristotle.[38] Their systems will be discussed in a following chapter.
The Sophists, true to their character as philosophers of extreme individualism, developed a new theory of the origin of society. The already current term φύσις, “nature,” which had been accepted as a sufficient reason for the state’s existence, was now opposed to “law,” νόμος, 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 (συνθήκη), and thus society came into being.[39] 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.”[40] In the hands of men like Thrasymachus[41] and Callicles,[42] 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,[43] and thus, with the Cynics, started the attack upon the theory that upheld slavery as a natural institution.[44] 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.[45] 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.[46] 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.[47] He emphasized the necessity of labor in the production of material good,[48] and, like Democritus, was the forerunner of the Socratics in his insistence upon right use as a criterion of wealth.[49] Hippias prided himself on his accomplishment in many arts,[50] 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.[51] He emphasizes the importance of agriculture, and the dignity of the peasant farmer (αὐτουργός), who works his own land, as the stay of the country.[52] This latter accords well with his cosmopolitan spirit, which he shares with the Sophists. He opposes the artificial distinctions of birth,[53] slavery,[54] and the traditional Greek idea of the inferiority of woman.[55] His attitude toward wealth is that of the moral philosopher rather than that of the Sophist.[56]
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.[57] He recognizes the place of labor in production, and the importance of material wealth as the basis for all higher development.[58] 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.[59] Cornford’s attempt[60] 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