Oeconomica

OECONOMICA - 1920 -- W. D. Ross has read through the translation hot11 in manuscrip and in proof and has madc a number of valuable suggestions which have all bcen adoptcd. Of the two Rooks of Ocozotica which havc conle dowll to us in the Aristotelian Corpus neither can be regarded as the work of Aristotle himself. The First Book contains elements derived from Aristotle, but it also owes a good deal to the Occonoziczcs of Xenophon. It appears to be the work of a Peripatetic writer who tvas a pupil either of Aristotle himself or of a disciple of that philospher. The writer was clearly well acquainted with the writings of Aristotle and, though his doctrines are not purely Aristotelian he certainly, wrote at a date before the Pcripatetic school had become eclectic and coloured by Stoic influence in the sccond century B. c. The Second Book is evidently of a different character and the work of a different writer. It consists of an Introduction, vhich divides Economics into four kinds, Royal, Satrapic, Political, and Personal-a division quite ullknown to Aristotle-- and then proceeds to relate a series of anecdotes which have no logical conncsion with the introduction and arc mainly concerned with questionable methods of raising money. Several of those about whom the anccdotes arc related lived after the time of Aritotle, and the style of the writer is ccrtainljr Hellenistic. That thc author lived outside Greece proper is indicated by the fact that his esamples are mainly derived from Asia Minor, Syria, and lgypt. Susemihl in his edition adds as a Third Book a treatise l A list of parallels with Aristotles Pols and Xenophons OECO- romicrts is given by Susemihl, ol. cit., pp. v1 and vii.Possibly Eudemus, see Zeller, Anstofle mti the Later Zeriufetis Engl. Trans., vol. ii, p. 498. S e.g. Economics is regarded as a separate science from Politics. See Susemihl. of. cit., pp. xi and preserved only in Latin translations dealing with the position and duties of a wife in the household. The author of the original was certainly not Aristotlc, but it has becn conjectured by Rose1 that it is thc treatise cntitlcd N6p a yapcrijr, i which figurcs in the appendix of an anonylnous indcx of Aristotelian works extracted from Hesychius hiilesius. This treatise Ilas not been translated for the prescnt work. IS. S. F. Trre UNIVERSITY, SIIC IPEI.I. jltrzc 20, 1919. Avisloleles sezcdejzp-., p. I 80 ff. 10OK I. Ch. I. Econoinics and Iolitics. Ch. z The subject-matter of Economics. Chs. 3, 4. The position of the wife in the houseliold. Ch. j. The treatment of slaves. Ch. 6. The qualities of the Economist. nooIc 11. Royal, Satmpic, Iolitical, and lersonil Econony. Esnllples froin history. GECONOMICA ROOK I I TIIE sciences of politics and economids differ not only as 1343 videly as a household and a city the subject-matter with which they severally deal, but also in the fact that the science of politics involves a number of rulers, whereas the sphere of economics is a monarchy. NGIV celtain of the arts fall into sub-divisions, and it does j not pertain to the same art to manufacture and to use the article manufactured, for instance, a lyre or pipes but the function of political science is both to constitute a city in the beginning and also when it has come into being to make a right use of it. It is clear, therefore, that it must be the function of economic science too both to found a householdand also to make use of it. Now a city is an aggregate made up of households and land 10 and property, possessing in itself the means to a happy life. This is clear from the fact that, if nlen cannot attain this end, the community is dissolved...