{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_1173/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_1173","id":"gutenberg_1173","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1173","summary":null,"tags":["Administration of estates -- Greece -- Early works to 1800","Category: Classics of Literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Classical literature","Dialogues, Greek -- Translations into English","Greece -- Economic conditions -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by John Bickers\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE ECONOMIST\n\nBy Xenophon\n\nTranslation by H. G. Dakyns\n\n\n\n\n     Xenophon the Athenian was born 431 B.C. He was a\n     pupil of Socrates. He marched with the Spartans,\n     and was exiled from Athens. Sparta gave him land\n     and property in Scillus, where he lived for many\n     years before having to move once more, to settle\n     in Corinth. He died in 354 B.C.\n\n\n\n     The Economist records Socrates and Critobulus in\n     a talk about profitable estate management, and a\n     lengthy recollection by Socrates of Ischomachus'\n     discussion of the same topic.\n\n\n\nPREPARER'S NOTE\n\n     This was typed from Dakyns' series, \"The Works of Xenophon,\" a\n     four-volume set. The complete list of Xenophon's works (though\n     there is doubt about some of these) is:\n\n     Work                                   Number of books\n\n     The Anabasis                                         7\n     The Hellenica                                        7\n     The Cyropaedia                                       8\n     The Memorabilia                                      4\n     The Symposium                                        1\n     The Economist                                        1\n     On Horsemanship                                      1\n     The Sportsman                                        1\n     The Cavalry General                                  1\n     The Apology                                          1\n     On Revenues                                          1\n     The Hiero                                            1\n     The Agesilaus                                        1\n     The Polity of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians   2\n\n     Text in brackets \"{}\" is my transliteration of Greek text into\n     English using an Oxford English Dictionary alphabet table. The\n     diacritical marks have been lost.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Economist\n\nby Xenophon\n\nTranslation by H. G. Dakyns\n\n\n\n\nTHE ECONOMIST [1]\n\nA Treatise on the Science of the Household in the form of a Dialogue\n\n\n\nINTERLOCUTORS\n\nSocrates and Critobulus\n\nAt Chapter VII. a prior discussion held between Socrates and Ischomachus\nis introduced: On the life of a \"beautiful and good\" man.\n\nIn these chapters (vii.-xxi.) Socrates is represented by the author\nas repeating for the benefit of Critobulus and the rest certain\nconversations which he had once held with the beautiful and good\nIschomachus on the essentials of economy. It was a tete-a-tete\ndiscussion, and in the original Greek the remarks of the two speakers\nare denoted by such phrases as {ephe o 'Iskhomakhos--ephen egio}--\"said\n(he) Ischomachus,\" \"said I.\" (Socrates) To save the repetition of\nexpressions tedious in English, I have, whenever it seemed help to do\nso, ventured to throw parts of the reported conversations into dramatic\nform, inserting \"Isch.\" \"Soc.\" in the customary way to designate the\nspeakers; but these, it must be borne in mind, are merely \"asides\"\nto the reader, who will not forget that Socrates is the narrator\nthroughout--speaking of himself as \"I,\" and of Ischomachus as \"he,\" or\nby his name.--Translator's note, addressed to the English reader.\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nI once heard him [2] discuss the topic of economy [3] after the\nfollowing manner. Addressing Critobulus, [4] he said: Tell me,\nCritobulus, is \"economy,\" like the words \"medicine,\" \"carpentry,\"\n\"building,\" \"smithying,\" \"metal-working,\" and so forth, the name of a\nparticular kind of knowledge or science?\n\n [1] By \"economist\" we now generally understand \"political economist,\"\n    but the use of the word as referring to domestic economy, the\n    subject matter of the treatise, would seem to be legitimate.\n\n [2] \"The master.\"\n\n [3] Lit. \"the management of a household and estate.\" See Plat. \"Rep.\"\n    407 B; Aristot. \"Eth. N.\" v. 6; \"Pol.\" i. 3.\n\n [4] See \"Mem.\" I. iii. 8; \"Symp.\" p. 292.\n\nCrit. Yes, I think so.\n\nSoc. And as, in the case of the arts just named, we can state the proper\nwork or function of each, can we (similarly) state the proper work and\nfunction of economy?\n\nCrit. It must, I should think, be the business of the good economist [5]\nat any rate to manage his own house or estate well.\n\n [5] Or, \"manager of a house or estate.\"\n\nSoc. And supposing another man's house to be entrusted to him, he would\nbe able, if he chose, to manage it as skilfully as his own, would\nhe not? since a man who is skilled in carpentry can work as well for\nanother as for himself: and this ought to be equally true of the good\neconomist?\n\nCrit. Yes, I think so, Socrates.\n\nSoc. Then there is no reason why a proficient in this art, even if\nhe does not happen to possess wealth of his own, should not be paid a\nsalary for managing a house, just as he might be paid for building one?\n\nCrit. None at all: and a large salary he would be entitled to earn if,\nafter paying the necessary expenses of the estate entrusted to him, he\ncan create a surplus and improve the property.\n\nSoc. Well! and this word \"house,\" what are we to understand by it? the\ndomicile merely? or are we to include all a man's possessions outside\nthe actual dwelling-place? [6]\n\n [6] Lit. \"is it synonymous with dwelling-place, or is all that a man\n    possesses outside his dwelling-place part of his house or estate?\"\n\nCrit. Certainly, in my opinion at any rate, everything which a man has\ngot, even though some portion of it may lie in another part of the world\nfrom that in which he lives, [7] forms part of his estate.\n\n [7] Lit. \"not even in the same state or city.\"\n\nSoc. \"Has got\"? but he may have got enemies?\n\nCrit. Yes, I am afraid some people have got a great many.\n\nSoc. Then shall we say that a man's enemies form part of his\npossessions?\n\nCrit. A comic notion indeed! that some one should be good enough to add\nto my stock of enemies, and that in addition he should be paid for his\nkind services.\n\nSoc. Because, you know, we agreed that a man's estate was identical with\nhis possessions?\n\nCrit. Yes, certainly! the good part of his possessions; but the\nevil portion! no, I thank you, that I do not call part of a man's\npossessions.\n\nSoc. As I understand, you would limit the term to what we may call a\nman's useful or advantageous possessions?\n\nCrit. Precisely; if he has things that injure him, I should regard these\nrather as a loss than as wealth.\n\nSoc. It follows apparently that if a man purchases a horse and does\nnot know how to handle him, but each time he mounts he is thrown and\nsustains injuries, the horse is not part of his wealth?\n\nCrit. Not, if wealth implies weal, certainly.\n\nSoc. And by the same token land itself is no wealth to a man who so\nworks it that his tillage only brings him loss?\n\nCrit. True; mother earth herself is not a source of wealth to us if,\ninstead of helping us to live, she helps us to starve.\n\nSoc. And by a parity of reasoning, sheep and cattle may fail of being\nwealth if, through want of knowledge how to treat them, their owner\nloses by them; to him at any rate the sheep and the cattle are not\nwealth?\n\nCrit. That is the conclusion I draw.\n\nSoc. It appears, you hold to the position that wealth consists of things\nwhich benefit, while things which injure are not wealth?\n\nCrit. Just so.\n\nSoc. The same things, in fact, are wealth or not wealth, according as a\nman knows or does not know the use to make of them? To take an instance,\na flute may be wealth to him who is sufficiently skilled to play upon\nit, but the same instrument is no better than the stones we tread under\nour feet to him who is not so skilled... unless indeed he chose to sell\nit?\n\nCrit. That is precisely the conclusion we should come to. [8] To\npersons ignorant of their use [9] flutes are wealth as saleable, but as\npossessions not for sale they are no wealth at all; and see, Socrates,\nhow smoothly and consistently the argument proceeds, [10] since it is\nadmitted that things which benefit are wealth. The flutes in question\nunsold are not wealth, being good for nothing: to become wealth they\nmust be sold.\n\n [8] Reading {tout auto}, or if {tout au} with Sauppe, transl. \"Yes,\n    that is another position we may fairly subscribe to.\"\n\n [9] i.e. \"without knowledge of how to use them.\"\n\n [10] Or, \"our discussion marches on all-fours, as it were.\"\n\nYes! (rejoined Socrates), presuming the owner knows how to sell them;\nsince, supposing again he were to sell them for something which he does\nnot know how to use, [11] the mere selling will not transform them into\nwealth, according to your argument.\n\n [11] Reading {pros touto o}, or if {pros touton, os}, transl. \"to a\n    man who did not know how to use them.\"\n\nCrit. You seem to say, Socrates, that money itself in the pockets of a\nman who does not know how to use it is not wealth?\n\nSoc. And I understand you to concur in the truth of our proposition\nso far: wealth is that, and that only, whereby a man may be benefited.\nObviously, if a man used his money to buy himself a mistress, to the\ngrave detriment of his body and soul and whole estate, how is that\nparticular money going to benefit him now? What good will he extract\nfrom it?\n\nCrit. None whatever, unless we are prepared to admit that hyoscyamus,\n[12] as they call it, is wealth, a poison the property of which is to\ndrive those who take it mad.\n\n [12] \"A dose of henbane, 'hogs'-bean,' so called.\" Diosc. 4. 69; 6.\n    15; Plut. \"Demetr.\" xx. (Clough, v. 114).\n\nSoc. Let money then, Critobulus, if a man does not know how to use it\naright--let money, I say, be banished to the remote corners of the earth\nrather than be reckoned as wealth. [13] But now, what shall we say of\nfriends? If a man knows how to use his friends so as to be benefited by\nthem, what of these?\n\n [13] Or, \"then let it be relegated... and there let it lie in the\n    category of non-wealth.\"\n\nCrit. They are wealth indisputably, and in a deeper sense than cattle\nare, if, as may be supposed, they are likely to prove of more benefit to\na man than wealth of cattle.\n\nSoc. It would seem, according to your argument, that the foes of a man's\nown household after all may be wealth to him, if he knows how to turn\nthem to good account? [14]\n\n [14] Vide supra.\n\nCrit. That is my opinion, at any rate.\n\nSoc. It would seem, it is the part of a good economist [15] to know how\nto deal with his own or his employer's foes so as to get profit out of\nthem?\n\n [15] \"A good administrator of an estate.\"\n\nCrit. Most emphatically so.\n\nSoc. In fact, you need but use your eyes to see how many private\npersons, not to say crowned heads, do owe the increase of their estates\nto war.\n\nCrit. Well, Socrates, I do not think, so far, the argument could be\nimproved on; [16] but now comes a puzzle. What of people who have got\nthe knowledge and the capital [17] required to enhance their fortunes,\nif only they will put their shoulders to the wheel; and yet, if we are\nto believe our senses, that is just the one thing they will not do, and\nso their knowledge and accomplishments are of no profit to them? Surely\nin their case also there is but one conclusion to be drawn, which is,\nthat neither their knowledge nor their possessions are wealth.\n\n [16] Or, \"Thanks, Socrates. Thus far the statement of the case would\n    seem to be conclusive--but what are we to make of this? Some\n    people...\"\n\n [17] Lit. \"the right kinds of knowledge and the right starting-points.\"\n\nSoc. Ah! I see, Critobulus, you wish to direct the discussion to the\ntopic of slaves?\n\nCrit. No indeed, I have no such intention--quite the reverse. I want to\ntalk about persons of high degree, of right noble family [18] some of\nthem, to do them justice. These are the people I have in my mind's eye,\ngifted with, it may be, martial or, it may be, civil accomplishments,\nwhich, however, they refuse to exercise, for the very reason, as I take\nit, that they have no masters over them.\n\n [18] \"Eupatrids.\"\n\nSoc. No masters over them! but how can that be if, in spite of their\nprayers for prosperity and their desire to do what will bring them good,\nthey are still so sorely hindered in the exercise of their wills by\nthose that lord it over them?\n\nCrit. And who, pray, are these lords that rule them and yet remain\nunseen?\n\nSoc. Nay, not unseen; on the contrary, they are very visible. And what\nis more, they are the basest of the base, as you can hardly fail to\nnote, if at least you believe idleness and effeminacy and reckless\nnegligence to be baseness. Then, too, there are other treacherous\nbeldames giving themselves out to be innocent pleasures, to wit, dicings\nand profitless associations among men. [19] These in the fulness of time\nappear in all their nakedness even to them that are deceived, showing\nthemselves that they are after all but pains tricked out and decked with\npleasures. These are they who have the dominion over those you speak of\nand quite hinder them from every good and useful work.\n\n [19] Or, \"frivolous society.\"\n\nCrit. But there are others, Socrates, who are not hindered by these\nindolences--on the contrary, they have the most ardent disposition to\nexert themselves, and by every means to increase their revenues; but in\nspite of all, they wear out their substance and are involved in endless\ndifficulties. [20]\n\n [20] Or, \"become involved for want of means.\"\n\nSoc. Yes, for they too are slaves, and harsh enough are their\ntaskmasters; slaves are they to luxury and lechery, intemperance and the\nwine-cup along with many a fond and ruinous ambition. These passions\nso cruelly belord it over the poor soul whom they have got under their\nthrall, that so long as he is in the heyday of health and strong to\nlabour, they compel him to fetch and carry and lay at their feet the\nfruit of his toils, and to spend it on their own heart's lusts; but as\nsoon as he is seen to be incapable of further labour through old age,\nthey leave him to his gray hairs and misery, and turn to seize on other\nvictims. [21] Ah! Critobulus, against these must we wage ceaseless\nwar, for very freedom's sake, no less than if they were armed warriors\nendeavouring to make us their slaves. Nay, foemen in war, it must be\ngranted, especially when of fair and noble type, have many times ere now\nproved benefactors to those they have enslaved. By dint of chastening,\nthey have forced the vanquished to become better men and to lead more\ntranquil lives in future. [22] But these despotic queens never cease to\nplague and torment their victims in body and soul and substance until\ntheir sway is ended.\n\n [21] \"To use others as their slaves.\"\n\n [22] Lit. \"Enemies for the matter of that, when, being beautiful and\n    good, they chance to have enslaved some other, have ere now in\n    many an instance chastened and compelled the vanquished to be\n    better and to live more easily for the rest of time.\"\n\n\n\nII\n\nThe conversation was resumed by Critobulus, and on this wise. He said: I\nthink I take your meaning fully, Socrates, about these matters; and for\nmyself, examining my heart, I am further satisfied, I have sufficient\ncontinence and self-command in those respects. So that if you will only\nadvise me on what I am to do to improve my estate, I flatter myself I\nshall not be hindered by those despotic dames, as you call them. Come,\ndo not hesitate; only tender me what good advice you can, and trust me I\nwill follow it. But perhaps, Socrates, you have already passed sentence\non us--we are rich enough already, and not in need of any further\nwealth?\n\nSoc. It is to myself rather, if I may be included in your plural \"we,\"\nthat I should apply the remark. I am not in need of any further wealth,\nif you like. I am rich enough already, to be sure. But you, Critobulus,\nI look upon as singularly poor, and at times, upon my soul, I feel a\ndownright compassion for you.\n\nAt this view of the case, Critobulus fell to laughing outright,\nretorting: And pray, Socrates, what in the name of fortune do you\nsuppose our respective properties would fetch in the market, yours and\nmine?\n\nIf I could find a good purchaser (he answered), I suppose the whole\nof my effects, including the house in which I live, might very fairly\nrealise five minae [1] (say twenty guineas). Yours, I am positively\ncertain, would fetch at the lowest more than a hundred times that sum.\n\n [1] 5 x L4:1:3. See Boeckh, \"P. E. A.\"  [Bk. i. ch. xx.], p. 109 f.\n    (Eng. ed.)\n\nCrit. And with this estimate of our respective fortunes, can you still\nmaintain that you have no need of further wealth, but it is I who am to\nbe pitied for my poverty?\n\nSoc. Yes, for my property is amply sufficient to meet my wants,\nwhereas you, considering the parade you are fenced about with, and the\nreputation you must needs live up to, would be barely well off, I take\nit, if what you have already were multiplied by three.\n\nPray, how may that be? Critobulus asked.\n\nWhy, first and foremost (Socrates explained), I see you are called upon\nto offer many costly sacrifices, failing which, I take it, neither gods\nnor men would tolerate you; and, in the next place, you are bound to\nwelcome numerous foreigners as guests, and to entertain them handsomely;\nthirdly, you must feast your fellow-citizens and ply them with all\nsorts of kindness, or else be cut adrift from your supporters. [2]\nFurthermore, I perceive that even at present the state enjoins upon\nyou various large contributions, such as the rearing of studs, [3]\nthe training of choruses, the superintendence of gymnastic schools, or\nconsular duties, [4] as patron of resident aliens, and so forth; while\nin the event of war you will, I am aware, have further obligations laid\nupon you in the shape of pay [5] to carry on the triearchy, ship money,\nand war taxes [6] so onerous, you will find difficulty in supporting\nthem. Remissness in respect of any of these charges will be visited upon\nyou by the good citizens of Athens no less strictly than if they caught\nyou stealing their own property. But worse than all, I see you fondling\nthe notion that you are rich. Without a thought or care how to increase\nyour revenue, your fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love, [7] as if\nyou had some special license to amuse yourself.... That is why I pity\nand compassionate you, fearing lest some irremediable mischief overtake\nyou, and you find yourself in desperate straits. As for me, if I ever\nstood in need of anything, I am sure you know I have friends who would\nassist me. They would make some trifling contribution--trifling to\nthemselves, I mean--and deluge my humble living with a flood of plenty.\nBut your friends, albeit far better off than yourself, considering your\nrespective styles of living, persist in looking to you for assistance.\n\n [2] See Dr. Holden ad loc., Boeckh  [Bk. iii. ch. xxiii.], p. 465 f.\n\n [3] Cf. Lycurg. \"c. Leocr.\" 139.\n\n [4] Al. \"presidential duties.\"\n\n [5] {trierarkhias  [misthous]}. The commentators in general \"suspect\"\n    {misthous}. See Boeckh, \"P. E. A.\" p. 579.\n\n [6] See Boeckh, p. 470 f.; \"Revenues,\" iii. 9, iv. 40.\n\n [7] Or, \"to childish matters,\" \"frivolous affairs\"; but for the full\n    import of the phrase {paidikois pragmasi} see \"Ages.\" viii. 2.\n\nThen Critobulus: I cannot gainsay what you have spoken, Socrates, it\nis indeed high time that you were constituted my patronus, or I shall\nbecome in very truth a pitiable object.\n\nTo which appeal Socrates made answer: Why, you yourself must surely be\nastonished at the part you are now playing. Just now, when I said that\nI was rich, you laughed at me as if I had no idea what riches were,\nand you were not happy till you had cross-examined me and forced me to\nconfess that I do not possess the hundredth part of what you have; and\nnow you are imploring me to be your patron, and to stint no pains to\nsave you from becoming absolutely and in very truth a pauper. [8]\n\n [8] Or, \"literally beggared.\"\n\nCrit. Yes, Socrates, for I see that you are skilled in one lucrative\noperation at all events--the art of creating a surplus. I hope,\ntherefore, that a man who can make so much out of so little will not\nhave the slightest difficulty in creating an ample surplus out of an\nabundance.\n\nSoc. But do not you recollect how just now in the discussion you would\nhardly let me utter a syllable [9] while you laid down the law: if a man\ndid not know how to handle horses, horses were not wealth to him at any\nrate; nor land, nor sheep, nor money, nor anything else, if he did not\nknow how to use them? And yet these are the very sources of revenue from\nwhich incomes are derived; and how do you expect me to know the use of\nany of them who never possessed a single one of them since I was born?\n\n [9] Cf. Aristoph. \"Clouds,\" 945; \"Plut.\" 17; Dem. 353; and Holden ad\n    loc.\n\nCrit. Yes, but we agreed that, however little a man may be blest with\nwealth himself, a science of economy exists; and that being so, what\nhinders you from being its professor?\n\nSoc. Nothing, to be sure, [10] except what would hinder a man from\nknowing how to play the flute, supposing he had never had a flute of his\nown and no one had supplied the defect by lending him one to practise\non: which is just my case with regard to economy, [11] seeing I never\nmyself possessed the instrument of the science which is wealth, so as to\ngo through the pupil stage, nor hitherto has any one proposed to hand\nme over his to manage. You, in fact, are the first person to make so\ngenerous an offer. You will bear in mind, I hope, that a learner of the\nharp is apt to break and spoil the instrument; it is therefore probable,\nif I take in hand to learn the art of economy on your estate, I shall\nruin it outright.\n\n [10] Lit. \"The very thing, God help me! which would hinder...\"\n\n [11] Lit. \"the art of administering an estate.\"\n\nCritobulus retorted: I see, Socrates, you are doing your very best\nto escape an irksome task: you would rather not, if you can help\nit, stretch out so much as your little finger to help me to bear my\nnecessary burthens more easily.\n\nSoc. No, upon my word, I am not trying to escape: on the contrary, I\nshall be ready, as far as I can, to expound the matter to you. [12] ...\nStill it strikes me, if you had come to me for fire, and I had none in\nmy house, you would not blame me for sending you where you might get it;\nor if you had asked me for water, and I, having none to give, had led\nyou elsewhere to the object of your search, you would not, I am sure,\nhave disapproved; or did you desire to be taught music by me, and I were\nto point out to you a far more skilful teacher than myself, who would\nperhaps be grateful to you moreover for becoming his pupil, what kind of\nexception could you take to my behaviour?\n\n [12] Or, \"to play the part of {exegetes}, 'legal adviser,' or\n    'spiritual director,' to be in fact your 'guide, philosopher, and\n    friend.'\"\n\nCrit. None, with any show of justice, Socrates.\n\nSoc. Well, then, my business now is, Critobulus, to point out [13] to\nyou some others cleverer than myself about those matters which you are\nso anxious to be taught by me. I do confess to you, I have made it long\nmy study to discover who among our fellow-citizens in this city are the\ngreatest adepts in the various branches of knowledge. [14] I had been\nstruck with amazement, I remember, to observe on some occasion that\nwhere a set of people are engaged in identical operations, half of them\nare in absolute indigence and the other half roll in wealth. I bethought\nme, the history of the matter was worth investigation. Accordingly I set\nto work investigating, and I found that it all happened very naturally.\nThose who carried on their affairs in a haphazard manner I saw were\npunished by their losses; whilst those who kept their wits upon the\nstretch and paid attention I soon perceived to be rewarded by the\ngreater ease and profit of their undertakings. [15] It is to these I\nwould recommend you to betake yourself. What say you? Learn of them: and\nunless the will of God oppose, [16] I venture to say you will become as\nclever a man of business as one might hope to see.\n\n [13] Al. \"to show you that there are others.\"\n\n [14] Or, \"who are gifted with the highest knowledge in their\n    respective concerns.\" Cf. \"Mem.\" IV. vii. 1.\n\n [15] Lit. \"got on quicker, easier, and more profitably.\"\n\n [16] Or, \"short of some divine interposition.\"\n\n\n\nIII\n\nCritobulus, on hearing that, exclaimed: Be sure, Socrates, I will not\nlet you go now until you give the proofs which, in the presence of our\nfriends, you undertook just now to give me.\n\nWell then, [1] Critobulus (Socrates replied), what if I begin by showing\n[2] you two sorts of people, the one expending large sums on money in\nbuilding useless houses, the other at far less cost erecting dwellings\nreplete with all they need; will you admit that I have laid my finger\nhere on one of the essentials of economy?\n\n [1] Lincke  [brackets as an editorial interpolation iii. 1, {ti oun,\n    ephe}--vi. 11, {poiomen}]. See his edition \"Xenophons Dialog.\n    {peri oikonomias} in seiner ursprunglichen Gestalt\"; and for a\n    criticism of his views, an article by Charles D. Morris,\n    \"Xenophon's Oeconomicus,\" in the \"American Journal of Philology,\"\n    vol. i. p. 169 foll.\n\n [2] As a demonstrator.\n\nCrit. An essential point most certainly.\n\nSoc. And suppose in connection with the same, I next point out to you\n[3] two other sets of persons:--The first possessors of furniture of\nvarious kinds, which they cannot, however, lay their hands on when the\nneed arises; indeed they hardly know if they have got all safe and sound\nor not: whereby they put themselves and their domestics to much mental\ntorture. The others are perhaps less amply, or at any rate not more\namply supplied, but they have everything ready at the instant for\nimmediate use.\n\n [3] \"As in a mirror, or a picture.\"\n\nCrit. Yes, Socrates, and is not the reason simply that in the first case\neverything is thrown down where it chanced, whereas those others have\neverything arranged, each in its appointed place?\n\nQuite right (he answered), and the phrase implies that everything is\norderly arranged, not in the first chance place, but in that to which it\nnaturally belongs.\n\nCrit. Yes, the case is to the point, I think, and does involve another\neconomic principle.\n\nSoc. What, then, if I exhibit to you a third contrast, which bears on\nthe condition of domestic slaves? On the one side you shall see them\nfettered hard and fast, as I may say, and yet for ever breaking their\nchains and running away. On the other side the slaves are loosed, and\nfree to move, but for all that, they choose to work, it seems; they are\nconstant to their masters. I think you will admit that I here point out\nanother function of economy [4] worth noting.\n\n [4] Or, \"economical result.\"\n\nCrit. I do indeed--a feature most noteworthy.\n\nSoc. Or take, again, the instance of two farmers engaged in cultivating\nfarms [5] as like as possible. The one had never done asserting that\nagriculture has been his ruin, and is in the depth of despair; the other\nhas all he needs in abundance and of the best, and how acquired?--by\nthis same agriculture.\n\n [5] {georgias}. See Hartman, \"An. Xen.\" p. 193. Hold. cf. Plat.\n    \"Laws,\" 806 E. Isocr. \"Areop.\" 32.\n\nYes (Critobulus answered), to be sure; perhaps [6] the former spends\nboth toil and money not simply on what he needs, but on things which\ncause an injury to house alike and owner.\n\n [6] Or, \"like enough in the one case the money and pains are spent,\"\n    etc.\n\nSoc. That is a possible case, no doubt, but it is not the one that I\nrefer to; I mean people pretending they are farmers, and yet they have\nnot a penny to expend on the real needs of their business.\n\nCrit. And pray, what may be the reason of that, Socrates?\n\nSoc. You shall come with me, and see these people also; and as you\ncontemplate the scene, I presume you will lay to heart the lesson.\n\nCrit. I will, if possibly I can, I promise you.\n\nSoc. Yes, and while you contemplate, you must make trial of yourself and\nsee if you have wit to understand. At present, I will bear you witness\nthat if it is to go and see a party of players performing in a comedy,\nyou will get up at cock-crow, and come trudging a long way, and ply me\nvolubly with reasons why I should accompany you to see the play. But you\nhave never once invited me to come and witness such an incident as those\nwe were speaking of just now.\n\nCrit. And so I seem to you ridiculous? [7]\n\n [7] Or, \"a comic character in the performance.\" Soc. \"Not so comic as\n    you must appear to yourself (i.e. with your keen sense of the\n    ludicrous).\"\n\nSoc. Far more ridiculous to yourself, I warrant. But now let me point\nout to you another contrast: between certain people whose dealing with\nhorses has brought them to the brink of poverty, and certain others who\nhave found in the same pursuit the road to affluence, [8] and have a\nright besides to plume themselves upon their gains. [9]\n\n [8] Or, \"who have not only attained to affluence by the same pursuit,\n    but can hold their heads high, and may well pride themselves on\n    their thrift.\"\n\n [9] Cf. Hom. \"Il.\" xii. 114, {ippoisin kai okhesphin agallomenos}, et\n    passim; \"Hiero,\" viii. 5; \"Anab.\" II. vi. 26.\n\nCrit. Well, then, I may tell you, I see and know both characters as well\nas you do; but I do not find myself a whit the more included among those\nwho gain.\n\nSoc. Because you look at them just as you might at the actors in a\ntragedy or comedy, and with the same intent--your object being to\ndelight the ear and charm the eye, but not, I take it, to become\nyourself a poet. And there you are right enough, no doubt, since you\nhave no desire to become a playright. But, when circumstances compel you\nto concern yourself with horsemanship, does it not seem to you a little\nfoolish not to consider how you are to escape being a mere amateur in\nthe matter, especially as the same creatures which are good for use are\nprofitable for sale?\n\nCrit. So you wish me to set up as a breeder of young horses, [10] do\nyou, Socrates?\n\n [10] See \"Horsemanship,\" ii. 1.\n\nSoc. Not so, no more than I would recommend you to purchase lads and\ntrain them up from boyhood as farm-labourers. But in my opinion there is\na certain happy moment of growth which must be seized, alike in man\nand horse, rich in present service and in future promise. In further\nillustration, I can show you how some men treat their wedded wives in\nsuch a way that they find in them true helpmates to the joint increase\nof their estate, while others treat them in a way to bring upon\nthemselves wholesale disaster. [11]\n\n [11] Reading {e os pleista}, al. {e oi pleistoi} = \"to bring about\n    disaster in most cases.\"\n\nCrit. Ought the husband or the wife to bear the blame of that?\n\nSoc. If it goes ill with the sheep we blame the shepherd, as a rule, or\nif a horse shows vice we throw the blame in general upon the rider. But\nin the case of women, supposing the wife to have received instruction\nfrom her husband and yet she delights in wrong-doing, [12] it may be\nthat the wife is justly held to blame; but supposing he has never tried\nto teach her the first principles of \"fair and noble\" conduct, [13] and\nfinds her quite an ignoramus [14] in these matters, surely the husband\nwill be justly held to blame. But come now (he added), we are all\nfriends here; make a clean breast of it, and tell us, Critobulus, the\nplain unvarnished truth: Is there an one to whom you are more in the\nhabit of entrusting matters of importance than to your wife?\n\n [12] Cf. \"Horsemanship,\" vi. 5, of a horse \"to show vice.\"\n\n [13] Or, \"things beautiful and of good report.\"\n\n [14] Al. \"has treated her as a dunce, devoid of this high knowledge.\"\n\nCrit. There is no one.\n\nSoc. And is there any one with whom you are less in the habit of\nconversing than with your wife?\n\nCrit. Not many, I am forced to admit.\n\nSoc. And when you married her she was quite young, a mere girl--at\nan age when, as far as seeing and hearing go, she had the smallest\nacquaintance with the outer world?\n\nCrit. Certainly.\n\nSoc. Then would it not be more astonishing that she should have real\nknowledge how to speak and act than that she should go altogether\nastray?\n\nCrit. But let me ask you a question, Socrates: have those happy\nhusbands, you tell us of, who are blessed with good wives educated them\nthemselves?\n\nSoc. There is nothing like investigation. I will introduce you to\nAspasia, [15] who will explain these matters to you in a far more\nscientific way than I can. My belief is that a good wife, being as\nshe is the partner in a common estate, must needs be her husband's\ncounterpoise and counterpart for good; since, if it is through the\ntransactions of the husband, as a rule, that goods of all sorts find\ntheir way into the house, yet it is by means of the wife's economy and\nthrift that the greater part of the expenditure is checked, and on the\nsuccessful issue or the mishandling of the same depends the increase or\nimpoverishment of a whole estate. And so with regard to the remaining\narts and sciences, I think I can point out to you the ablest performers\nin each case, if you feel you have any further need of help. [16]\n\n [15] Aspasia. See \"Mem.\" II. vi. 36.\n\n [16] Al. \"there are successful performers in each who will be happy to\n    illustrate any point in which you think you need,\" etc.\n\n\n\nIV\n\nBut why need you illustrate all the sciences, Socrates? (Critobulus\nasked): it would not be very easy to discover efficient craftsmen of all\nthe arts, and quite impossible to become skilled in all one's self.\nSo, please, confine yourself to the nobler branches of knowledge as men\nregard them, such as it will best befit me to pursue with devotion; be\nso good as to point me out these and their performers, and, above\nall, contribute as far as in you lies the aid of your own personal\ninstruction.\n\nSoc. A good suggestion, Critobulus, for the base mechanic arts, so\ncalled, have got a bad name; and what is more, are held in ill repute by\ncivilised communities, and not unreasonably; seeing they are the ruin\nof the bodies of all concerned in them, workers and overseers alike, who\nare forced to remain in sitting postures and to hug the loom, or else\nto crouch whole days confronting a furnace. Hand in hand with physical\nenervation follows apace enfeeblement of soul: while the demand which\nthese base mechanic arts makes on the time of those employed in them\nleaves them no leisure to devote to the claims of friendship and the\nstate. How can such folk be other than sorry friends and ill defenders\nof the fatherland? So much so that in some states, especially those\nreputed to be warlike, no citizen [1] is allowed to exercise any\nmechanical craft at all.\n\n [1] \"In the strict sense,\" e.g. the Spartiates in Sparta. See \"Pol.\n    Lac.\" vii.; Newman, op. cit. i. 99, 103 foll.\n\nCrit. Then which are the arts you would counsel us to engage in?\n\nSoc. Well, we shall not be ashamed, I hope, to imitate the kings of\nPersia? [2] That monarch, it is said, regards amongst the noblest\nand most necessary pursuits two in particular, which are the arts of\nhusbandry and war, and in these two he takes the strongest interest.\n\n [2] \"It won't make us blush actually to take a leaf out of the great\n    king's book.\" As to the Greek text at this point see the\n    commentators, and also a note by Mr. H. Richers in the \"Classical\n    Review,\" x. 102.\n\nWhat! (Critobulus exclaimed); do you, Socrates, really believe that the\nking of Persia pays a personal regard to husbandry, along with all his\nother cares?\n\nSoc. We have only to investigate the matter, Critobulus, and I daresay\nwe shall discover whether this is so or not. We are agreed that he\ntakes strong interest in military matters; since, however numerous the\ntributary nations, there is a governor to each, and every governor\nhas orders from the king what number of cavalry, archers, slingers and\ntargeteers [3] it is his business to support, as adequate to control the\nsubject population, or in case of hostile attack to defend the country.\nApart from these the king keeps garrisons in all the citadels. The\nactual support of these devolves upon the governor, to whom the duty is\nassigned. The king himself meanwhile conducts the annual inspection and\nreview of troops, both mercenary and other, that have orders to be under\narms. These all are simultaneously assembled (with the exception of\nthe garrisons of citadels) at the mustering ground, [4] so named.\nThat portion of the army within access of the royal residence the king\nreviews in person; the remainder, living in remoter districts of the\nempire, he inspects by proxy, sending certain trusty representatives.\n[5] Wherever the commandants of garrisons, the captains of thousands,\nand the satraps [6] are seen to have their appointed members complete,\nand at the same time shall present their troops equipped with horse and\narms in thorough efficiency, these officers the king delights to honour,\nand showers gifts upon them largely. But as to those officers whom he\nfinds either to have neglected their garrisons, or to have made private\ngain of their position, these he heavily chastises, deposing them from\noffice, and appointing other superintendents [7] in their stead. Such\nconduct, I think we may say, indisputably proves the interest which he\ntakes in matters military.\n\n [3] Or, Gerrophoroi, \"wicker-shield bearers.\"\n\n [4] Or, \"rendezvous\"; \"the 'Champ de Mars' for the nonce.\" Cf.\n    \"Cyrop.\" VI. ii. 11.\n\n [5] Lit. \"he sends some of the faithful to inspect.\" Cf. our \"trusty\n    and well-beloved.\"\n\n [6] See, for the system, Herod. iii. 89 foll.; \"Cyrop.\" VIII. vi. 11.\n\n [7] Or, as we say, \"inspecting officers.\" Cf. \"Cyrop.\" VIII. i. 9.\n\nFurther than this, by means of a royal progress through the country,\nhe has an opportunity of inspecting personally some portion of his\nterritory, and again of visiting the remainder in proxy as above by\ntrusty representatives; and wheresoever he perceives that any of his\ngovernors can present to him a district thickly populated, and the soil\nin a state of active cultivation, full of trees and fruits, its natural\nproducts, to such officers he adds other territory, adorning them with\ngifts and distinguishing them by seats of honour. But those officers\nwhose land he sees lying idle and with but few inhabitants, owing either\nto the harshness of their government, their insolence, or their neglect,\nhe punishes, and making them to cease from their office he appoints\nother rulers in their place.... Does not this conduct indicate at least\nas great an anxiety to promote the active cultivation of the land by its\ninhabitants as to provide for its defence by military occupation? [8]\n\n [8] Lit. \"by those who guard and garrison it.\"\n\nMoreover, the governors appointed to preside over these two departments\nof state are not one and the same. But one class governs the inhabitants\nproper including the workers of the soil, and collects the tribute from\nthem, another is in command of the armed garrisons. If the commandant\n[9] protects the country insufficiently, the civil governor of the\npopulation, who is in charge also of the productive works, lodges\naccusation against the commandant to the effect that the inhabitants\nare prevented working through deficiency of protection. Or if again, in\nspite of peace being secured to the works of the land by the military\ngovernor, the civil authority still presents a territory sparse in\npopulation and untilled, it is the commandant's turn to accuse the\ncivil ruler. For you may take it as a rule, a population tilling their\nterritory badly will fail to support their garrisons and be quite\nunequal to paying their tribute. Where a satrap is appointed he has\ncharge of both departments. [10]\n\n [9] Or, \"garrison commandant.\" Lit. \"Phrourarch.\"\n\n [10] The passage reads like a gloss. See about the Satrap, \"Hell.\"\n    III. i. 10; \"Cyrop.\" VIII. vi. 1; \"Anab.\" I. ix. 29 foll.\n\nThereupon Critobulus: Well, Socrates (said he), if such is his conduct,\nI admit that the great king does pay attention to agriculture no less\nthan to military affairs.\n\nAnd besides all this (proceeded Socrates), nowhere among the various\ncountries which he inhabits or visits does he fail to make it his first\ncare that there shall be orchards and gardens, parks and \"paradises,\"\nas they are called, full of all fair and noble products which the earth\nbrings forth; and within these chiefly he spends his days, when the\nseason of the year permits.\n\nCrit. To be sure, Socrates, it is a natural and necessary conclusion\nthat when the king himself spends so large a portion of his time there,\nhis paradises should be furnished to perfection with trees and all else\nbeautiful that earth brings forth.\n\nSoc. And some say, Critobulus, that when the king gives gifts, he\nsummons in the first place those who have shown themselves brave\nwarriors, since all the ploughing in the world were but small gain in\nthe absence of those who should protect the fields; and next to these\nhe summons those who have stocked their countries best and rendered them\nproductive, on the principle that but for the tillers of the soil the\nwarriors themselves could scarcely live. And there is a tale told of\nCyrus, the most famous prince, I need not tell you, who ever wore a\ncrown, [11] how on one occasion he said to those who had been called\nto receive the gifts, \"it were no injustice, if he himself received the\ngifts due to warriors and tillers of the soil alike,\" for \"did he not\ncarry off the palm in stocking the country and also in protecting the\ngoods with which it had been stocked?\"\n\n [11] Lit. \"the most glorious king that ever lived.\" The remark would\n    seem to apply better to Cyrus the Great. Nitsche and others regard\n    these SS. 18, 19 as interpolated. See Schenkl ad loc.\n\nCrit. Which clearly shows, Socrates, if the tale be true, that this same\nCyrus took as great a pride in fostering the productive energies of\nhis country and stocking it with good things, as in his reputation as a\nwarrior.\n\nSoc. Why, yes indeed, had Cyrus lived, I have no doubt he would have\nproved the best of rulers, and in support of this belief, apart from\nother testimony amply furnished by his life, witness what happened when\nhe marched to do battle for the sovereignty of Persia with his brother.\nNot one man, it is said, [12] deserted from Cyrus to the king, but\nfrom the king to Cyrus tens of thousands. And this also I deem a great\ntestimony to a ruler's worth, that his followers follow him of their own\nfree will, and when the moment of danger comes refuse to part from him.\n[13] Now this was the case with Cyrus. His friends not only fought their\nbattles side by side with him while he lived, but when he died they too\ndied battling around his dead body, one and all, excepting only Ariaeus,\nwho was absent at his post on the left wing of the army. [14] But there\nis another tale of this same Cyrus in connection with Lysander, who\nhimself narrated it on one occasion to a friend of his in Megara. [15]\n\n [12] Cf. \"Anab.\" I. ix. 29 foll.\n\n [13] Cf. \"Hiero,\" xi. 12, and our author passim.\n\n [14] See \"Anab.\" ib. 31.\n\n [15] Possibly to Xenophon himself {who may have met Lysander on his\n    way back after the events of the \"Anabasis,\" and implying this\n    dialogue is concocted, since Socrates died before Xenophon\n    returned to Athens, if he did return at that period.}\n\nLysander, it seems, had gone with presents sent by the Allies to Cyrus,\nwho entertained him, and amongst other marks of courtesy showed him his\n\"paradise\" at Sardis. [16] Lysander was astonished at the beauty of the\ntrees within, all planted [17] at equal intervals, the long straight\nrows of waving branches, the perfect regularity, the rectangular [18]\nsymmetry of the whole, and the many sweet scents which hung about them\nas they paced the park. In admiration he exclaimed to Cyrus: \"All this\nbeauty is marvellous enough, but what astonishes me still more is the\ntalent of the artificer who mapped out and arranged for you the several\nparts of this fair scene.\" [19] Cyrus was pleased by the remark, and\nsaid: \"Know then, Lysander, it is I who measured and arranged it all.\nSome of the trees,\" he added, \"I planted with my own hands.\" Then\nLysander, regarding earnestly the speaker, when he saw the beauty of\nhis apparel and perceived its fragrance, the splendour [20] also of the\nnecklaces and armlets, and other ornaments which he wore, exclaimed:\n\"What say you, Cyrus? did you with your own hands plant some of these\ntrees?\" whereat the other: \"Does that surprise you, Lysander? I swear\nto you by Mithres, [21] when in ordinary health I never dream of\nsitting down to supper without first practising some exercise of war or\nhusbandry in the sweat of my brow, or venturing some strife of honour,\nas suits my mood.\" \"On hearing this,\" said Lysander to his friend, \"I\ncould not help seizing him by the hand and exclaiming, 'Cyrus, you have\nindeed good right to be a happy man, [22] since you are happy in being a\ngood man.'\" [23]\n\n [16] See \"Hell.\" I. v. 1.\n\n [17] Reading {oi' isou pephuteumena}, or if {ta pephuteumena}, transl.\n    \"the various plants ranged.\"\n\n [18] Cf. Dion. Hal. \"de Comp.\" p. 170; Cic. \"de Senect.\" S. 59.\n\n [19] Lit. \"of these\" {deiktikos}, i.e. pointing to the various\n    beauties of the scenery.\n\n [20] Reading {to kallos}.\n\n [21] The Persian \"Sun-God.\" See \"Cyrop.\" VII. v. 53; Strab. xv. 3. 13.\n\n [22] Or, \"fortunate.\"\n\n [23] Or, \"you are a good man, and thereby fortunate.\"\n\n\n\nV\n\nAll this I relate to you (continued Socrates) to show you that quite\nhigh and mighty [1] people find it hard to hold aloof from agriculture,\ndevotion to which art would seem to be thrice blest, combining as it\ndoes a certain sense of luxury with the satisfaction of an improved\nestate, and such a training of physical energies as shall fit a man to\nplay a free man's part. [2] Earth, in the first place, freely offers to\nthose that labour all things necessary to the life of man; and, as if\nthat were not enough, makes further contribution of a thousand luxuries.\n[3] It is she who supplies with sweetest scent and fairest show all\nthings wherewith to adorn the altars and statues of the gods, or deck\nman's person. It is to her we owe our many delicacies of flesh or fowl\nor vegetable growth; [4] since with the tillage of the soil is closely\nlinked the art of breeding sheep and cattle, whereby we mortals may\noffer sacrifices well pleasing to the gods, and satisfy our personal\nneeds withal.\n\n [1] Lit. \"Not even the most blessed of mankind can abstain from.\" See\n    Plat. \"Rep.\" 344 B, \"The superlatively best and well-to-do.\"\n\n [2] Lit. \"Devotion to it would seem to be at once a kind of luxury, an\n    increase of estate, a training of the bodily parts, so that a man\n    is able to perform all that a free man should.\"\n\n [3] Al. \"and further, to the maintenance of life she adds the sources\n    of pleasure in life.\"\n\n [4] Lit. \"she bears these and rears those.\"\n\nAnd albeit she, good cateress, pours out her blessings upon us in\nabundance, yet she suffers not her gifts to be received effeminately,\nbut inures her pensioners to suffer glady summer's heat and winter's\ncold. Those that labour with their hands, the actual delvers of the\nsoil, she trains in a wrestling school of her own, adding strength\nto strength; whilst those others whose devotion is confined to the\noverseeing eye and to studious thought, she makes more manly, rousing\nthem with cock-crow, and compelling them to be up and doing in many\na long day's march. [5] Since, whether in city or afield, with the\nshifting seasons each necessary labour has its hour of performance. [6]\n\n [5] See \"Hellenica Essays,\" p. 341.\n\n [6] Lit. \"each most necessary operation must ever be in season.\"\n\nOr to turn to another side. Suppose it to be a man's ambition to aid his\ncity as a trooper mounted on a charger of his own: why not combine the\nrearing of horses with other stock? it is the farmer's chance. [7] Or\nwould your citizen serve on foot? It is husbandry that shall give him\nrobustness of body. Or if we turn to the toil-loving fascination of the\nchase, [8] here once more earth adds incitement, as well as furnishing\nfacility of sustenance for the dogs as by nurturing a foster brood of\nwild animals. And if horses and dogs derive benefit from this art of\nhusbandry, they in turn requite the boon through service rendered to the\nfarm. The horse carries his best of friends, the careful master, betimes\nto the scene of labour and devotion, and enables him to leave it late.\nThe dog keeps off the depredations of wild animals from fruits and\nflocks, and creates security in the solitary place.\n\n [7] Lit. \"farming is best adapted to rearing horses along with other\n    produce.\"\n\n [8] Lit. \"to labour willingly and earnestly at hunting earth helps to\n    incite us somewhat.\"\n\nEarth, too, adds stimulus in war-time to earth's tillers; she pricks\nthem on to aid the country under arms, and this she does by fostering\nher fruits in open field, the prize of valour for the mightiest. [9]\nFor this also is the art athletic, this of husbandry; as thereby men are\nfitted to run, and hurl the spear, and leap with the best. [10]\n\n [9] Cf. \"Hipparch,\" viii. 8.\n\n [10] Cf. \"Hunting,\" xii. 1 foll.\n\nThis, too, is that kindliest of arts which makes requital tenfold in\nkind for every work of the labourer. [11] She is the sweet mistress who,\nwith smile of welcome and outstretched hand, greets the approach of her\ndevoted one, seeming to say, Take from me all thy heart's desire. She\nis the generous hostess; she keeps open house for the stranger. [12] For\nwhere else, save in some happy rural seat of her devising, shall a man\nmore cheerily cherish content in winter, with bubbling bath and blazing\nfire? or where, save afield, in summer rest more sweetly, lulled by\nbabbling streams, soft airs, and tender shades? [13]\n\n [11] Lit. \"What art makes an ampler return for their labour to those\n    who work for her? What art more sweetly welcomes him that is\n    devoted to her?\"\n\n [12] Lit. \"What art welcomes the stranger with greater prodigality?\"\n\n [13] See \"Hellenica Essays,\" p. 380; and as still more to the point,\n    Cowley's Essays: \"Of Agriculture,\" passim.\n\nHer high prerogative it is to offer fitting first-fruits to high heaven,\nhers to furnish forth the overflowing festal board. [14] Hers is a\nkindly presence in the household. She is the good wife's favourite,\nthe children long for her, she waves her hand winningly to the master's\nfriends.\n\n [14] Or, \"to appoint the festal board most bounteously.\"\n\nFor myself, I marvel greatly if it has ever fallen to the lot of\nfreeborn man to own a choicer possession, or to discover an occupation\nmore seductive, or of wider usefulness in life than this.\n\nBut, furthermore, earth of her own will [15] gives lessons in justice\nand uprightness to all who can understand her meaning, since the\nnobler the service of devotion rendered, the ampler the riches of\nher recompense. [16] One day, perchance, these pupils of hers, whose\nconversation in past times was in husbandry, [17] shall, by reason of\nthe multitude of invading armies, be ousted from their labours. The work\nof their hands may indeed be snatched from them, but they were brought\nup in stout and manly fashion. They stand, each one of them, in body and\nsoul equipped; and, save God himself shall hinder them, they will march\ninto the territory of those their human hinderers, and take from them\nthe wherewithal to support their lives. Since often enough in war it is\nsurer and safer to quest for food with sword and buckler than with all\nthe instruments of husbandry.\n\n [15] Reading {thelousa}, vulg., or if after Cobet, {theos ousa},\n    transl. \"by sanction of her divinity.\" With {thelousa} Holden\n    aptly compares Virgil's \"volentia rura,\" \"Georg.\" ii. 500.\n\n [16] \"That is, her 'lex talionis.'\"\n\n [17] \"Engaged long time in husbandry.\"\n\nBut there is yet another lesson to be learnt in the public shool of\nhusbandry [18]--the lesson of mutual assistance. \"Shoulder to shoulder\"\nmust we march to meet the invader; [19] \"shoulder to shoulder\" stand to\ncompass the tillage of the soil. Therefore it is that the husbandman,\nwho means to win in his avocation, must see that he creates enthusiasm\nin his workpeople and a spirit of ready obedience; which is just what a\ngeneral attacking an enemy will scheme to bring about, when he deals out\ngifts to the brave and castigation [20] to those who are disorderly.\n\n [18] Lit. \"But again, husbandry trains up her scholars side by side in\n    lessons of...\"\n\n [19] {sun anthropois}, \"man with his fellow-man,\" is the \"mot d'order\"\n    (cf. the author's favourite {sun theois}); \"united human effort.\"\n\n [20] \"Lashes,\" \"punishment.\" Cf. \"Anab.\" II. vi. 10, of Clearchus.\n\nNor will there be lacking seasons of exhortation, the general haranguing\nhis troops and the husbandman his labourers; nor because they are slaves\ndo they less than free men need the lure of hope and happy expectation,\n[21] that they may willingly stand to their posts.\n\n [21] \"The lure of happy prospects.\" See \"Horsemanship,\" iii. 1.\n\nIt was an excellent saying of his who named husbandry \"the mother and\nnurse of all the arts,\" for while agriculture prospers all other arts\nlike are vigorous and strong, but where the land is forced to remain\ndesert, [22] the spring that feeds the other arts is dried up; they\ndwindle, I had almost said, one and all, by land and sea.\n\n [22] Or, \"lie waste and barren as the blown sea-sand.\"\n\nThese utterances drew from Critobulus a comment:\n\nSocrates (he said), for my part I agree with all you say; only, one must\nface the fact that in agriculture nine matters out of ten are beyond\nman's calculation. Since at one time hailstones and another frost, at\nanother drought or a deluge of rain, or mildew, or other pest, will\nobliterate all the fair creations and designs of men; or behold, his\nfleecy flocks most fairly nurtured, then comes murrain, and the end most\nfoul destruction. [23]\n\n [23] See Virg. \"Georg.\" iii. 441 foll.: \"Turpis oves tentat scabies,\n    ubi frigidus imber.\"\n\nTo which Socrates: Nay, I thought, Critobulus, you full surely were\naware that the operations of husbandry, no less than those of war, lie\nin the hands of the gods. I am sure you will have noted the behaviour of\nmen engaged in war; how on the verge of military operations they strive\nto win the acceptance of the divine powers; [24] how eagerly they assail\nthe ears of heaven, and by dint of sacrifices and omens seek to discover\nwhat they should and what they should not do. So likewise as regards\nthe processes of husbandry, think you the propitiation of heaven is less\nneeded here? Be well assured (he added) the wise and prudent will pay\nservice to the gods on behalf of moist fruits and dry, [25] on behalf\nof cattle and horses, sheep and goats; nay, on behalf of all their\npossessions, great and small, without exception.\n\n [24] See \"Hell.\" III. i. 16 foll., of Dercylidas.\n\n [25] \"Every kind of produce, succulent (like the grape and olive) or\n    dry (like wheat and barley, etc.)\"\n\n\n\nVI\n\nYour words (Critobulus answered) command my entire sympathy, when you\nbid us endeavour to begin each work with heaven's help, [1] seeing that\nthe gods hold in their hands the issues alike of peace and war. So\nat any rate will we endeavour to act at all times; but will you now\nendeavour on your side to continue the discussion of economy from\nthe point at which you broke off, and bring it point by point to its\nconclusion? What you have said so far has not been thrown away on me.\nI seem to discern already more clearly, what sort of behaviour is\nnecessary to anything like real living. [2]\n\n [1] Lit. \"with the gods,\" and for the sentiment see below, x. 10;\n    \"Cyrop.\" III. i. 15; \"Hipparch,\" ix. 3.\n\n [2] For {bioteuein} cf. Pind. \"Nem.\" iv. 11, and see Holden ad loc.\n\nSocrates replied: What say you then? Shall we first survey the ground\nalready traversed, and retrace the steps on which we were agreed, so\nthat, if possible we may conduct the remaining portion of the argument\nto its issue with like unanimity? [3]\n\n [3] Lit. \"try whether we can go through the remaining steps with\n    like...\"\n\nCrit. Why, yes! If it is agreeable for two partners in a business to\nrun through their accounts without dispute, so now as partners in\nan argument it will be no less agreeable to sum up the points under\ndiscussion, as you say, with unanimity.\n\nSoc. Well, then, we agreed that economy was the proper title of a branch\nof knowledge, and this branch of knowledge appeared to be that whereby\nmen are enabled to enhance the value of their houses or estates; and\nby this word \"house or estate\" we understood the whole of a man's\npossessions; and \"possessions\" again we defined to include those things\nwhich the possessor should find advantageous for the purposes of his\nlife; and things advantageous finally were discovered to mean all that\na man knows how to use and turn to good account. Further, for a man to\nlearn all branches of knowledge not only seemed to us an impossibility,\nbut we thought we might well follow the example of civil communities\nin rejecting the base mechanic arts so called, on the ground that they\ndestroy the bodies of the artisans, as far as we can see, and crush\ntheir spirits.\n\nThe clearest proof of this, we said, [4] could be discovered if, on the\noccasion of a hostile inroad, one were to seat the husbandmen and the\nartisans apart in two divisions, and then proceed to put this question\nto each group in turn: \"Do you think it better to defend our country\ndistricts or to retire from the fields [5] and guard the walls?\" And we\nanticipated that those concerned with the soil would vote to defend\nthe soil; while the artisans would vote not to fight, but, in docile\nobedience to their training, to sit with folded hands, neither expending\ntoil nor venturing their lives.\n\n [4] This S. 6 has no parallel supra. See Breit. and Schenkl ad loc.\n    for attempts to cure the text.\n\n [5] See Cobet, \"N. L.\" 580, reading {uphemenous}, or if {aphemenous}\n    transl. \"to abandon.\"\n\nNext we held it as proved that there was no better employment for a\ngentleman--we described him as a man beautiful and good--than this of\nhusbandry, by which human beings procure to themselves the necessaries\nof life. This same employment, moreover, was, as we agreed, at once the\neasiest to learn [6] and the pleasantest to follow, since it gives\nto the limbs beauty and hardihood, whilst permitting [7] to the soul\nleisure to satisfy the claims of friendship and of civic duty.\n\n [6] {raste mathein}. Vide infra, not supra.\n\n [7] Lit. \"least allowing the soul no leisure to care for friends and\n    state withal.\"\n\nAgain it seemed to us that husbandry acts as a spur to bravery in the\nhearts of those that till the fields, [8] inasmuch as the necessaries of\nlife, vegetable and animal, under her auspices spring up and are reared\noutside the fortified defences of the city. For which reason also this\nway of life stood in the highest repute in the eyes of statesmen and\ncommonwealths, as furnishing the best citizens and those best disposed\nto the common weal. [9]\n\n [8] Cf. Aristot. \"Oec.\" I. ii. 1343 B, {pros toutois k.t.l.}\n\n [9] Cf. Aristoph. \"Archarnians.\"\n\nCrit. I think I am fully persuaded as to the propriety of making\nagriculture the basis of life. I see it is altogether noblest, best, and\npleasantest to do so. But I should like to revert to your remark that\nyou understood the reason why the tillage of one man brings him in an\nabundance of all he needs, while the operations of another fail to\nmake husbandry a profitable employment. I would gladly hear from you\nan explanation of both these points, so that I may adopt the right and\navoid the harmful course. [10]\n\n [10] Lincke conceives the editor's interpolation as ending here.\n\nSoc. Well, Critobulus, suppose I narrate to you from the beginning how\nI cam in contact with a man who of all men I ever met seemed to me to\ndeserve the appellation of a gentleman. He was indeed a \"beautiful and\ngood\" man. [11]\n\n [11] Or, \"a man 'beautiful and good,' as the phrase goes.\"\n\nCrit. There is nothing I should better like to hear, since of all titles\nthis is the one I covet most the right to bear.\n\nSoc. Well, then, I will tell you how I came to subject him to my\ninquiry. It did not take me long to go the round of various good\ncarpenters, good bronze-workers, painters, sculptors, and so forth. A\nbrief period was sufficient for the contemplation of themselves and of\ntheir most admired works of art. But when it came to examining those who\nbore the high-sounding title \"beautiful and good,\" in order to find out\nwhat conduct on their part justified their adoption of this title, I\nfound my soul eager with desire for intercourse with one of them; and\nfirst of all, seeing that the epithet \"beautiful\" was conjoined with\nthat of \"good,\" every beautiful person I saw, I must needs approach\nin my endeavour to discover, [12] if haply I might somewhere see the\nquality of good adhering to the quality of beauty. But, after all, it\nwas otherwise ordained. I soon enough seemed to discover [13] that some\nof those who in their outward form were beautiful were in their inmost\nselves the veriest knaves. Accordingly I made up my mind to let go\nbeauty which appeals to the eye, and address myself to one of\nthose \"beautiful and good\" people so entitled. And since I heard of\nIschomachus [14] as one who was so called by all the world, both men and\nwomen, strangers and citizens alike, I set myself to make acquaintance\nwith him.\n\n [12] Or, \"and try to understand.\"\n\n [13] Or, \"understand.\"\n\n [14] See Cobet, \"Pros. Xen.\" s.n.\n\n\n\nVII\n\nIt chanced, one day I saw him seated in the portico of Zeus Eleutherios,\n[1] and as he appeared to be at leisure, I went up to him and, sitting\ndown by his side, accosted him: How is this, Ischomachus? you seated\nhere, you who are so little wont to be at leisure? As a rule, when I\nsee you, you are doing something, or at any rate not sitting idle in the\nmarket-place.\n\n [1] \"The god of freedom, or of freed men.\" See Plat. \"Theag.\" 259 A.\n    The scholiast on Aristoph. \"Plutus\" 1176 identifies the god with\n    Zeus Soter. See Plut. \"Dem.\" 859 (Clough, v. 30).\n\nNor would you see me now so sitting, Socrates (he answered), but that I\npromised to meet some strangers, friends of mine, [2] at this place.\n\n [2] \"Foreign friends.\"\n\nAnd when you have no such business on hand (I said) where in heaven's\nname do you spend your time and how do you employ yourself? I will\nnot conceal from you how anxious I am to learn from your lips by what\nconduct you have earned for yourself the title \"beautiful and good.\" [3]\nIt is not by spending your days indoors at home, I am sure; the whole\nhabit of your body bears witness to a different sort of life.\n\n [3] \"The sobriquet of 'honest gentleman.'\"\n\nThen Ischomachus, smiling at my question, but also, as it seemed to\nme, a little pleased to be asked what he had done to earn the title\n\"beautiful and good,\" made answer: Whether that is the title by which\nfolk call me when they talk to you about me, I cannot say; all I know\nis, when they challenge me to exchange properties, [4] or else to\nperform some service to the state instead of them, the fitting out of\na trireme, or the training of a chorus, nobody thinks of asking for the\nbeautiful and good gentleman, but it is plain Ischomachus, the son\nof So-and-so, [5] on whom the summons is served. But to answer your\nquestion, Socrates (he proceeded), I certainly do not spend my days\nindoors, if for no other reason, because my wife is quite capable of\nmanaging our domestic affairs without my aid.\n\n [4] On the antidosis or compulsory exchange of property, see Boeckh,\n    p. 580, Engl. ed.: \"In case any man, upon whom a {leitourgia} was\n    imposed, considered that another was richer than himself, and\n    therefore most justly chargeable with the burden, he might\n    challenge the other to assume the burden, or to make with him an\n    {antidosis} or exchange of property. Such a challenge, if\n    declined, was converted into a lawsuit, or came before a heliastic\n    court for trial.\" Gow, \"Companion,\" xviii. \"Athenian Finance.\" See\n    Dem. \"Against Midias,\" 565, Kennedy, p. 117, and Appendix II. For\n    the various liturgies, Trierarchy, Choregy, etc., see \"Pol. Ath.\"\n    i. 13 foll.\n\n [5] Or, \"the son of his father,\" it being customary at Athens to add\n    the patronymic, e.g. Xenophon son of Gryllus, Thucydides son of\n    Olorus, etc. See Herod. vi. 14, viii. 90. In official acts the\n    name of the deme was added, eg. Demosthenes son of Demosthenes of\n    Paiane; or of the tribe, at times. Cf. Thuc. viii. 69; Plat.\n    \"Laws,\" vi. p. 753 B.\n\nAh! (said I), Ischomachus, that is just what I should like particularly\nto learn from you. Did you yourself educate your wife to be all that a\nwife should be, or when you received her from her father and mother\nwas she already a proficient well skilled to discharge the duties\nappropriate to a wife?\n\nWell skilled! (he replied). What proficiency was she likely to bring\nwith her, when she was not quite fifteen [6] at the time she wedded me,\nand during the whole prior period of her life had been most carefully\nbrought up [7] to see and hear as little as possible, and to ask [8]\nthe fewest questions? or do you not think one should be satisfied, if at\nmarriage her whole experience consisted in knowing how to take the wool\nand make a dress, and seeing how her mother's handmaidens had their\ndaily spinning-tasks assigned them? For (he added), as regards control\nof appetite and self-indulgence, [9] she had received the soundest\neducation, and that I take to be the most important matter in the\nbringing-up of man or woman.\n\n [6] See Aristot. \"Pol.\" vii. 16. 1335(a). See Newman, op. cit. i. 170\n    foll.\n\n [7] Or, \"surveillance.\" See \"Pol. Lac.\" i. 3.\n\n [8] Reading {eroito}; or if with Sauppe after Cobet, {eroin}, transl.\n    \"talk as little as possible.\"\n\n [9] Al. \"in reference to culinary matters.\" See Mahaffy, \"Social Life\n    in Greece,\" p. 276.\n\nThen all else (said I) you taught your wife yourself, Ischomachus, until\nyou had made her capable of attending carefully to her appointed duties?\n\nThat did I not (replied he) until I had offered sacrifice, and prayed\nthat I might teach and she might learn all that could conduce to the\nhappiness of us twain.\n\nSoc. And did your wife join in sacrifice and prayer to that effect?\n\nIsch. Most certainly, with many a vow registered to heaven to become\nall she ought to be; and her whole manner showed that she would not be\nneglectful of what was taught her. [10]\n\n [10] Or, \"giving plain proof that, if the teaching failed, it should\n    not be from want of due attention on her part.\" See \"Hellenica\n    Essays,\" \"Xenophon,\" p. 356 foll.\n\nSoc. Pray narrate to me, Ischomachus, I beg of you, what you first\nessayed to teach her. To hear that story would please me more than any\ndescription of the most splendid gymnastic contest or horse-race you\ncould give me.\n\nWhy, Socrates (he answered), when after a time she had become accustomed\nto my hand, that is, was tamed [11] sufficiently to play her part in\na discussion, I put to her this question: \"Did it ever strike you to\nconsider, dear wife, [12] what led me to choose you as my wife among\nall women, and your parents to entrust you to me of all men? It was\ncertainly not from any difficulty that might beset either of us to find\nanother bedfellow. That I am sure is evident to you. No! it was with\ndeliberate intent to discover, I for myself and your parents in behalf\nof you, the best partner of house and children we could find, that I\nsought you out, and your parents, acting to the best of their ability,\nmade choice of me. If at some future time God grant us to have children\nborn to us, we will take counsel together how best to bring them up, for\nthat too will be a common interest, [13] and a common blessing if haply\nthey shall live to fight our battles and we find in them hereafter\nsupport and succour when ourselves are old. [14] But at present there is\nour house here, which belongs like to both. It is common property, for\nall that I possess goes by my will into the common fund, and in the same\nway all that you deposited [15] was placed by you to the common fund.\n[16] We need not stop to calculate in figures which of us contributed\nmost, but rather let us lay to heart this fact that whichever of us\nproves the better partner, he or she at once contributes what is most\nworth having.\"\n\n [11] (The timid, fawn-like creature.) See Lecky, \"Hist. of Eur.\n    Morals,\" ii. 305. For the metaphor cf. Dem. \"Olynth.\" iii. 37. 9.\n\n [12] Lit. \"woman.\" Cf. N. T. {gunai}, St. John ii. 4; xix. 26.\n\n [13] Or, \"our interests will centre in them; it will be a blessing we\n    share in common to train them that they shall fight our battles,\n    and...\"\n\n [14] Cf. \"Mem.\" II. ii. 13. Holden cf. Soph. \"Ajax.\" 567; Eur.\n    \"Suppl.\" 918.\n\n [15] Or reading {epenegke} with Cobet, \"brought with you in the way of\n    dowry.\"\n\n [16] Or, \"to the joint estate.\"\n\nThus I addressed her, Socrates, and thus my wife made answer: \"But how\ncan I assist you? what is my ability? Nay, everything depends on you. My\nbusiness, my mother told me, was to be sober-minded!\" [17]\n\n [17] \"Modest and temperate,\" and (below) \"temperance.\"\n\n\"Most true, my wife,\" I replied, \"and that is what my father said to me.\nBut what is the proof of sober-mindedness in man or woman? Is it not so\nto behave that what they have of good may ever be at its best, and that\nnew treasures from the same source of beauty and righteousness may be\nmost amply added?\"\n\n\"But what is there that I can do,\" my wife inquired, \"which will help to\nincrease our joint estate?\"\n\n\"Assuredly,\" I answered, \"you may strive to do as well as possible what\nHeaven has given you a natural gift for and which the law approves.\"\n\n\"And what may these things be?\" she asked.\n\n\"To my mind they are not the things of least importance,\" I replied,\n\"unless the things which the queen bee in her hive presides over are of\nslight importance to the bee community; for the gods\" (so Ischomachus\nassured me, he continued), \"the gods, my wife, would seem to have\nexercised much care and judgment in compacting that twin system which\ngoes by the name of male and female, so as to secure the greatest\npossible advantage [18] to the pair. Since no doubt the underlying\nprinciple of the bond is first and foremost to perpetuate through\nprocreation the races of living creatures; [19] and next, as the outcome\nof this bond, for human beings at any rate, a provision is made by which\nthey may have sons and daughters to support them in old age.\n\n [18] Reading {oti}, or if with Br. {eti... auto}, \"with the further\n    intent it should prove of maximum advantage to itself.\"\n\n [19] Cf. (Aristot.) \"Oecon.\" i. 3.\n\n\"And again, the way of life of human beings, not being maintained\nlike that of cattle [20] in the open air, obviously demands roofed\nhomesteads. But if these same human beings are to have anything to bring\nin under cover, some one to carry out these labours of the field under\nhigh heaven [21] must be found them, since such operations as the\nbreaking up of fallow with the plough, the sowing of seed, the planting\nof trees, the pasturing and herding of flocks, are one and all open-air\nemployments on which the supply of products necessary to life depends.\n\n [20] \"And the beast of the field.\"\n\n [21] \"Sub dis,\" \"in the open air.\"\n\n\"As soon as these products of the field are safely housed and under\ncover, new needs arise. There must be some one to guard the store and\nsome one to perform such necessary operations as imply the need of\nshelter. [22] Shelter, for instance, is needed for the rearing of infant\nchildren; shelter is needed for the various processes of converting the\nfruits of earth into food, and in like manner for the fabrication of\nclothing out of wool.\n\n [22] Or, \"works which call for shelter.\"\n\n\"But whereas both of these, the indoor and the outdoor occupations\nalike, demand new toil and new attention, to meet the case,\" I added,\n\"God made provision [23] from the first by shaping, as it seems to me,\nthe woman's nature for indoor and the man's for outdoor occupations.\nMan's body and soul He furnished with a greater capacity for enduring\nheat and cold, wayfaring and military marches; or, to repeat, He laid\nupon his shoulders the outdoor works.\n\n [23] \"Straightway from the moment of birth provided.\" Cf. (Aristot.)\n    \"Oecon.\" i. 3, a work based upon or at any rate following the\n    lines of Xenophon's treatise.\n\n\"While in creating the body of woman with less capacity for these\nthings,\" I continued, \"God would seem to have imposed on her the indoor\nworks; and knowing that He had implanted in the woman and imposed upon\nher the nurture of new-born babies, He endowed her with a larger share\nof affection for the new-born child than He bestowed upon man. [24] And\nsince He imposed on woman the guardianship of the things imported from\nwithout, God, in His wisdom, perceiving that a fearful spirit was no\ndetriment to guardianship, [25] endowed the woman with a larger measure\nof timidity than He bestowed on man. Knowing further that he to whom the\noutdoor works belonged would need to defend them against malign attack,\nHe endowed the man in turn with a larger share of courage.\n\n [24] {edasato}, \"Cyrop.\" IV. ii. 43.\n\n [25] Cf. \"Hipparch,\" vii. 7; Aristot. \"Pol.\" iii. 2; \"Oecon.\" iii.\n\n\"And seeing that both alike feel the need of giving and receiving, He\nset down memory and carefulness between them for their common use, [26]\nso that you would find it hard to determine which of the two, the male\nor the female, has the larger share of these. So, too, God set down\nbetween them for their common use the gift of self-control, where\nneeded, adding only to that one of the twain, whether man or woman,\nwhich should prove the better, the power to be rewarded with a larger\nshare of this perfection. And for the very reason that their natures\nare not alike adapted to like ends, they stand in greater need of one\nanother; and the married couple is made more useful to itself, the one\nfulfilling what the other lacks. [27]\n\n [26] Or, \"He bestowed memory and carefulness as the common heritage of\n    both.\"\n\n [27] Or, \"the pair discovers the advantage of duality; the one being\n    strong wherein the other is defective.\"\n\n\"Now, being well aware of this, my wife,\" I added, \"and knowing well\nwhat things are laid upon us twain by God Himself, must we not strive to\nperform, each in the best way possible, our respective duties? Law,\ntoo, gives her consent--law and the usage of mankind, by sanctioning the\nwedlock of man and wife; and just as God ordained them to be partners in\ntheir children, so the law establishes their common ownership of house\nand estate. Custom, moreover, proclaims as beautiful those excellences\nof man and woman with which God gifted them at birth. [28] Thus for\na woman to bide tranquilly at home rather than roam aborad is no\ndishonour; but for a man to remain indoors, instead of devoting himself\nto outdoor pursuits, is a thing discreditable. But if a man does things\ncontrary to the nature given him by God, the chances are, [29] such\ninsubordination escapes not the eye of Heaven: he pays the penalty,\nwhether of neglecting his own works, or of performing those appropriate\nto woman.\" [30]\n\n [28] Or, \"with approving fingers stamps as noble those diverse\n    faculties, those superiorities in either sex which God created in\n    them. Thus for the woman to remain indoors is nobler than to gad\n    about abroad.\" {ta kala...; kallion... aiskhion...}--\n    These words, which their significant Hellenic connotation, suffer\n    cruelly in translation.\n\n [29] Or, \"maybe in some respect this violation of the order of things,\n    this lack of discipline on his part.\" Cf. \"Cyrop.\" VII. ii. 6.\n\n [30] Or, \"the works of his wife.\" For the sentiment cf. Soph. \"Oed.\n    Col.\" 337 foll.; Herod. ii. 35.\n\nI added: \"Just such works, if I mistake not, that same queen-bee we\nspoke of labours hard to perform, like yours, my wife, enjoined upon her\nby God Himself.\"\n\n\"And what sort of works are these?\" she asked; \"what has the queen-bee\nto do that she seems so like myself, or I like her in what I have to\ndo?\"\n\n\"Why,\" I answered, \"she too stays in the hive and suffers not the other\nbees to idle. Those whose duty it is to work outside she sends forth\nto their labours; and all that each of them brings in, she notes and\nreceives and stores against the day of need; but when the season for\nuse has come, she distributes a just share to each. Again, it is she who\npresides over the fabric of choicely-woven cells within. She looks to it\nthat warp and woof are wrought with speed and beauty. Under her guardian\neye the brood of young [31] is nursed and reared; but when the days of\nrearing are past and the young bees are ripe for work, she sends them\nout as colonists with one of the seed royal [32] to be their leader.\"\n\n [31] Or, \"the growing progeny is reared to maturity.\"\n\n [32] Or, \"royal lineage,\" reading {ton epigonon} (emend. H. Estienne);\n    or if the vulg. {ton epomenon}, \"with some leader of the host\"\n    (lit. of his followers). So Breitenbach.\n\n\"Shall I then have to do these things?\" asked my wife.\n\n\"Yes,\" I answered, \"you will need in the same way to stay indoors,\ndespatching to their toils without those of your domestics whose work\nlies there. Over those whose appointed tasks are wrought indoors, it\nwill be your duty to preside; yours to receive the stuffs brought in;\nyours to apportion part for daily use, and yours to make provision for\nthe rest, to guard and garner it so that the outgoings destined for\na year may not be expended in a month. It will be your duty, when the\nwools are introduced, to see that clothing is made for those who\nneed; your duty also to see that the dried corn is rendered fit and\nserviceable for food.\n\n\"There is just one of all these occupations which devolve upon you,\" I\nadded, \"you may not find so altogether pleasing. Should any one of our\nhousehold fall sick, it will be your care to see and tend them to the\nrecovery of their health.\"\n\n\"Nay,\" she answered, \"that will be my pleasantest of tasks, if careful\nnursing may touch the springs of gratitude and leave them friendlier\nthan before.\"\n\nAnd I (continued Ischomachus) was struck with admiration at her answer,\nand replied: \"Think you, my wife, it is through some such traits of\nforethought seen in their mistress-leader that the hearts of bees are\nwon, and they are so loyally affectioned towards her that, if ever she\nabandon her hive, not one of them will dream of being left behind; [33]\nbut one and all must follow her.\"\n\n [33] Al. \"will suffer her to be forsaken.\"\n\nAnd my wife made answer to me: \"It would much astonish me (said she) did\nnot these leader's works, you speak of, point to you rather than myself.\nMethinks mine would be a pretty [34] guardianship and distribution of\nthings indoors without your provident care to see that the importations\nfrom without were duly made.\"\n\n [34] Or, \"ridiculous.\"\n\n\"Just so,\" I answered, \"and mine would be a pretty [35] importation if\nthere were no one to guard what I imported. Do you not see,\" I added,\n\"how pitiful is the case of those unfortunates who pour water in their\nsieves for ever, as the story goes, [36] and labour but in vain?\"\n\n [35] \"As laughable an importation.\"\n\n [36] Or, \"how pitiful their case, condemned, as the saying goes, to\n    pour water into a sieve.\" Lit. \"filling a bucket bored with\n    holes.\" Cf. Aristot. \"Oec.\" i. 6; and for the Danaids, see Ovid.\n    \"Met.\" iv. 462; Hor. \"Carm.\" iii. 11. 25; Lucr. iii. 937; Plaut.\n    \"Pseud.\" 369. Cp. Coleridge:\n\n  Work without hope draws nectar in a sieve,\n  And hope without an object cannot live.\n\n\"Pitiful enough, poor souls,\" she answered, \"if that is what they do.\"\n\n\"But there are other cares, you know, and occupations,\" I answered,\n\"which are yours by right, and these you will find agreeable. This, for\ninstance, to take some maiden who knows naught of carding wool and to\nmake her proficient in the art, doubling her usefulness; or to receive\nanother quite ignorant of housekeeping or of service, and to render her\nskilful, loyal, serviceable, till she is worth her weight in gold; or\nagain, when occasion serves, you have it in your power to requite by\nkindness the well-behaved whose presence is a blessing to your house; or\nmaybe to chasten the bad character, should such an one appear. But the\ngreatest joy of all will be to prove yourself my better; to make me your\nfaithful follower; knowing no dread lest as the years advance you should\ndecline in honour in your household, but rather trusting that, though\nyour hair turn gray, yet, in proportion as you come to be a better\nhelpmate to myself and to the children, a better guardian of our home,\nso will your honour increase throughout the household as mistress,\nwife, and mother, daily more dearly prized. Since,\" I added, \"it is not\nthrough excellence of outward form, [37] but by reason of the lustre\nof virtues shed forth upon the life of man, that increase is given to\nthings beautiful and good.\" [38]\n\n [37] \"By reason of the flower on the damask cheek.\"\n\n [38] Al. \"For growth is added to things 'beautiful and good,' not\n    through the bloom of youth but virtuous perfections, an increase\n    coextensive with the life of man.\" See Breit. ad loc.\n\nThat, Socrates, or something like that, as far as I may trust my memory,\nrecords the earliest conversation which I held with her.\n\n\n\nVIII\n\nAnd did you happen to observe, Ischomachus (I asked), whether, as\nthe result of what was said, your wife was stirred at all to greater\ncarefulness?\n\nYes, certainly (Ischomachus answered), and I remember how piqued she was\nat one time and how deeply she blushed, when I chanced to ask her for\nsomething which had been brought into the house, and she could not give\nit me. So I, when I saw her annoyance, fell to consoling her. \"Do not be\nat all disheartened, my wife, that you cannot give me what I ask for. It\nis plain poverty, [1] no doubt, to need a thing and not to have the\nuse of it. But as wants go, to look for something which I cannot lay my\nhands upon is a less painful form of indigence than never to dream of\nlooking because I know full well that the thing exists not. Anyhow, you\nare not to blame for this,\" I added; \"mine the fault was who handed over\nto your care the things without assigning them their places. Had I done\nso, you would have known not only where to put but where to find them.\n[2] After all, my wife, there is nothing in human life so serviceable,\nnought so beautiful as order. [3]\n\n [1] \"Vetus proverbium,\" Cic. ap. Columellam, xii. 2, 3; Nobbe, 236,\n    fr. 6.\n\n [2] Lit. \"so that you might know not only where to put,\" etc.\n\n [3] Or, \"order and arrangement.\" So Cic. ap. Col. xii. 2, 4,\n    \"dispositione atque ordine.\"\n\n\"For instance, what is a chorus?--a band composed of human beings,\nwho dance and sing; but suppose the company proceed to act as each\nmay chance--confusion follows; the spectacle has lost its charm. How\ndifferent when each and all together act and recite [4] with orderly\nprecision, the limbs and voices keeping time and tune. Then, indeed,\nthese same performers are worth seeing and worth hearing.\n\n [4] Or, \"declaim,\" {phtheggontai}, properly of the \"recitative\" of the\n    chorus. Cf. Plat. \"Phaedr.\" 238 D.\n\n\"So, too, an army,\" I said, \"my wife, an army destitute of order is\nconfusion worse confounded: to enemies an easy prey, courting attack; to\nfriends a bitter spectacle of wasted power; [5] a mingled mob of asses,\nheavy infantry, and baggage-bearers, light infantry, cavalry, and\nwaggons. Now, suppose they are on the march; how are they to get along?\nIn this condition everybody will be a hindrance to everybody: 'slow\nmarch' side by side with 'double quick,' 'quick march' at cross purposes\nwith 'stand at ease'; waggons blocking cavalry and asses fouling\nwaggons; baggage-bearers and hoplites jostling together: the whole a\nhopeless jumble. And when it comes to fighting, such an army is not\nprecisely in condition to deliver battle. The troops who are compelled\nto retreat before the enemy's advance [6] are fully capable of trampling\ndown the heavy infantry detachments in reserve. [7]\n\n [5] Reading {agleukestaton}, or, if with Breit, {akleestaton}, \"a most\n    inglorious spectacle of extreme unprofitableness.\"\n\n [6] Or, \"whose duty (or necessity) it is to retire before an attack,\"\n    i.e. the skirmishers. Al. \"those who have to retreat,\" i.e. the\n    non-combatants.\n\n [7] Al. \"are quite capable of trampling down the troops behind in\n    their retreat.\" {tous opla ekhontas} = \"the troops proper,\" \"heavy\n    infantry.\"\n\n\"How different is an army well organised in battle order: a splendid\nsight for friendly eyes to gaze at, albeit an eyesore to the enemy. For\nwho, being of their party, but will feel a thrill of satisfaction as he\nwatches the serried masses of heavy infantry moving onwards in unbroken\norder? who but will gaze with wonderment as the squadrons of the cavalry\ndash past him at the gallop? And what of the foeman? will not his heart\nsink within him to see the orderly arrangements of the different arms:\n[8] here heavy infantry and cavalry, and there again light infantry,\nthere archers and there slingers, following each their leaders, with\norderly precision. As they tramp onwards thus in order, though they\nnumber many myriads, yet even so they move on and on in quiet progress,\nstepping like one man, and the place just vacated in front is filled up\non the instant from the rear.\n\n [8] \"Different styles of troops drawn up in separate divisions:\n    hoplites, cavalry, and peltasts, archers, and slingers.\"\n\n\"Or picture a trireme, crammed choke-full of mariners; for what reason\nis she so terror-striking an object to her enemies, and a sight so\ngladsome to the eyes of friends? is it not that the gallant ship sails\nso swiftly? And why is it that, for all their crowding, the ship's\ncompany [9] cause each other no distress? Simply that there, as you may\nsee them, they sit in order; in order bend to the oar; in order recover\nthe stroke; in order step on board; in order disembark. But disorder\nis, it seems to me, precisely as though a man who is a husbandman should\nstow away [10] together in one place wheat and barley and pulse, and\nby and by when he has need of barley meal, or wheaten flour, or some\ncondiment of pulse, [11] then he must pick and choose instead of laying\nhis hand on each thing separately sorted for use.\n\n [9] See Thuc. iii. 77. 2.\n\n [10] \"Should shoot into one place.\"\n\n [11] \"Vegetable stock,\" \"kitchen.\" See Holden ad loc., and Prof.\n    Mahaffy, \"Old Greek Life,\" p. 31.\n\n\"And so with you too, my wife, if you would avoid this confusion, if you\nwould fain know how to administer our goods, so as to lay your finger\nreadily on this or that as you may need, or if I ask you for anything,\ngraciously to give it me: let us, I say, select and assign [12] the\nappropriate place for each set of things. This shall be the place where\nwe will put the things; and we will instruct the housekeeper that she is\nto take them out thence, and mind to put them back again there; and\nin this way we shall know whether they are safe or not. If anything is\ngone, the gaping space will cry out as if it asked for something back.\n[13] The mere look and aspect of things will argue what wants mending;\n[14] and the fact of knowing where each thing is will be like having it\nput into one's hand at once to use without further trouble or debate.\"\n\n [12] {dokimasometha}, \"we will write over each in turn, as it were,\n    'examined and approved.'\"\n\n [13] Lit. \"will miss the thing that is not.\"\n\n [14] \"Detect what needs attention.\"\n\nI must tell you, Socrates, what strikes me as the finest and most\naccurate arrangement of goods and furniture it was ever my fortune to\nset eyes on; when I went as a sightseer on board the great Phoenician\nmerchantman, [15] and beheld an endless quantity of goods and gear of\nall sorts, all separately packed and stowed away within the smallest\ncompass. [16] I need scarce remind you (he said, continuing his\nnarrative) what a vast amount of wooden spars and cables [17] a ship\ndepends on in order to get to moorings; or again, in putting out to sea;\n[18] you know the host of sails and cordage, rigging [19] as they call\nit, she requires for sailing; the quantity of engines and machinery of\nall sorts she is armed with in case she should encounter any hostile\ncraft; the infinitude of arms she carries, with her crew of fighting men\naboard. Then all the vessels and utensils, such as people use at home on\nland, required for the different messes, form a portion of the\nfreight; and besides all this, the hold is heavy laden with a mass of\nmerchandise, the cargo proper, which the master carries with him for the\nsake of traffic.\n\n [15] See Lucian, lxvi. \"The Ship,\" ad in. (translated by S. T. Irwin).\n\n [16] Lit. \"in the tiniest receptacle.\"\n\n [17] See Holden ad loc. re {xelina, plekta, kremasta}.\n\n [18] \"In weighing anchor.\"\n\n [19] \"Suspended tackle\" (as opposed to wooden spars and masts, etc.)\n\nWell, all these different things that I have named lay packed there in a\nspace but little larger than a fair-sized dining-room. [20] The several\nsorts, moreover, as I noticed, lay so well arranged, there could be no\nentanglement of one with other, nor were searchers needed; [21] and if\nall were snugly stowed, all were alike get-at-able, [22] much to the\navoidance of delay if anything were wanted on the instant.\n\n [20] Lit. \"a symmetrically-shaped dining-room, made to hold ten\n    couches.\"\n\n [21] Lit. \"a searcher\"; \"an inquisitor.\" Cf. Shakesp. \"Rom. and Jul.\"\n    V. ii. 8.\n\n [22] Lit. \"not the reverse of easy to unpack, so as to cause a waste\n    of time and waiting.\"\n\nThen the pilot's mate [23]--\"the look-out man at the prow,\" to give him\nhis proper title--was, I found, so well acquainted with the place for\neverything that, even off the ship, [24] he could tell you where each\nset of things was laid and how many there were of each, just as well\nas any one who knows his alphabet [25] could tell you how many letters\nthere are in Socrates and the order in which they stand.\n\n [23] Cf. \"Pol. Ath.\" i. 1; Aristoph. \"Knights,\" 543 foll.\n\n [24] Or, \"with his eyes shut, at a distance he could say exactly.\"\n\n [25] Or, \"how to spell.\" See \"Mem.\" IV. iv. 7; Plat. \"Alc.\" i. 113 A.\n\nI saw this same man (continued Ischomachus) examining at leisure [26]\neverything which could possibly [27] be needful for the service of the\nship. His inspection caused me such surprise, I asked him what he was\ndoing, whereupon he answered, \"I am inspecting, stranger,\" [28] \"just\nconsidering,\" says he, \"the way the things are lying aboard the ship; in\ncase of accidents, you know, to see if anything is missing, or not lying\nsnug and shipshape. [29] There is no time left, you know,\" he added,\n\"when God makes a tempest in the great deep, to set about searching\nfor what you want, or to be giving out anything which is not snug and\nshipshape in its place. God threatens and chastises sluggards. [30] If\nonly He destroy not innocent with guilty, a man may be content; [31]\nor if He turn and save all hands aboard that render right good service,\n[32] thanks be to Heaven.\" [33]\n\n [26] \"Apparently when he had nothing better to do\"; \"by way of\n    amusement.\"\n\n [27] {ara}, \"as if he were asking himself, 'Would this or this\n    possibly be wanted for the ship's service?'\"\n\n [28] \"Sir.\"\n\n [29] Or, \"things not lying handy in their places.\"\n\n [30] Or, \"them that are slack.\" Cf. \"Anab.\" V. viii. 15; \"Mem.\" IV.\n    ii. 40; Plat. \"Gorg.\" 488 A: \"The dolt and good-for-nothing.\"\n\n [31] \"One must not grumble.\"\n\n [32] \"The whole ship's crew right nobly serving.\" {uperetein} = \"to\n    serve at the oar\" (metaphorically = to do service to heaven).\n\n [33] Lit. \"great thanks be to the gods.\"\n\nSo spoke the pilot's mate; and I, with this carefulness of stowage still\nbefore my eyes, proceeded to enforce my thesis:\n\n\"Stupid in all conscience would it be on our parts, my wife, if those\nwho sail the sea in ships, that are but small things, can discover space\nand place for everything; can, moreover, in spite of violent tossings up\nand down, keep order, and, even while their hearts are failing them for\nfear, find everything they need to hand; whilst we, with all our ample\nstorerooms [34] diversely disposed for divers objects in our mansion,\nan edifice firmly based [35] on solid ground, fail to discover fair and\nfitting places, easy of access for our several goods! Would not that\nargue great lack of understanding in our two selves? Well then! how good\na thing it is to have a fixed and orderly arrangement of all furniture\nand gear; how easy also in a dwelling-house to find a place for every\nsort of goods, in which to stow them as shall suit each best--needs no\nfurther comment. Rather let me harp upon the string of beauty--image a\nfair scene: the boots and shoes and sandals, and so forth, all laid in\norder row upon row; the cloaks, the mantles, and the rest of the apparel\nstowed in their own places; the coverlets and bedding; the copper\ncauldrons; and all the articles for table use! Nay, though it well may\nraise a smile of ridicule (not on the lips of a grave man perhaps, but\nof some facetious witling) to hear me say it, a beauty like the cadence\nof sweet music [36] dwells even in pots and pans set out in neat\narray: and so, in general, fair things ever show more fair when orderly\nbestowed. The separate atoms shape themselves to form a choir, and all\nthe space between gains beauty by their banishment. Even so some sacred\nchorus, [37] dancing a roundelay in honour of Dionysus, not only is\na thing of beauty in itself, but the whole interspace swept clean of\ndancers owns a separate charm. [38]\n\n [34] Or, \"coffers,\" \"cupboards,\" \"safes.\"\n\n [35] Cf. \"Anab.\" III. ii. 19, \"firmly planted on terra firma.\"\n\n [36] Or, \"like the rhythm of a song,\" {euruthmon}. See Mr. Ruskin's\n    most appropriate note (\"Bib. Past.\" i. 59), \"A remarkable word, as\n    significant of the complete rhythm ({ruthmos}) whether of sound or\n    motion, that was so great a characteristic of the Greek ideal (cf.\n    xi. 16, {metarruthmizo}),\" and much more equally to the point.\n\n [37] \"Just as a chorus, the while its dancers weave a circling dance.\"\n\n [38] Or, \"contrasting with the movement and the mazes of the dance, a\n    void appears serene and beautiful.\"\n\n\"The truth of what I say, we easily can test, my wife,\" I added, \"by\ndirect experiment, and that too without cost at all or even serious\ntrouble. [39] Nor need you now distress yourself, my wife, to think how\nhard it will be to discover some one who has wit enough to learn the\nplaces for the several things and memory to take and place them there.\nWe know, I fancy, that the goods of various sorts contained in the whole\ncity far outnumber ours many thousand times; and yet you have only to\nbid any one of your domestics go buy this, or that, and bring it you\nfrom market, and not one of them will hesitate. The whole world knows\nboth where to go and where to find each thing.\n\n [39] Lit. \"now whether these things I say are true (i.e. are facts),\n    we can make experiment of the things themselves (i.e. of actual\n    facts to prove to us).\"\n\n\"And why is this?\" I asked. \"Merely because they lie in an appointed\nplace. But now, if you are seeking for a human being, and that too at\ntimes when he is seeking you on his side also, often and often shall\nyou give up the search in sheer despair: and of this again the reason?\nNothing else save that no appointed place was fixed where one was\nto await the other.\" Such, so far as I can now recall it, was the\nconversation which we held together touching the arrangement of our\nvarious chattels and their uses.\n\n\n\nIX\n\nWell (I replied), and did your wife appear, Ischomachus, to lend a\nwilling ear to what you tried thus earnestly to teach her?\n\nIsch. Most certainly she did, with promise to pay all attention. Her\ndelight was evident, like some one's who at length has found a pathway\nout of difficulties; in proof of which she begged me to lose no time in\nmaking the orderly arrangement I had spoken of.\n\nAnd how did you introduce the order she demanded, Ischomachus? (I\nasked).\n\nIsch. Well, first of all I thought I ought to show her the capacities\nof our house. Since you must know, it is not decked with ornaments and\nfretted ceilings, [1] Socrates; but the rooms were built expressly with\na view to forming the most apt receptacles for whatever was intended\nto be put in them, so that the very look of them proclaimed what suited\neach particular chamber best. Thus our own bedroom, [2] secure in its\nposition like a stronghold, claimed possession of our choicest carpets,\ncoverlets, and other furniture. Thus, too, the warm dry rooms would seem\nto ask for our stock of bread-stuffs; the chill cellar for our wine; the\nbright and well-lit chambers for whatever works or furniture required\nlight, and so forth.\n\n [1] Or, \"curious workmanship and paintings.\" See \"Mem.\" III. viii. 10.\n    Cf. Plat. \"Rep.\" vii. 529 B; \"Hipp. maj.\" 298 A. See Becker,\n    \"Charicles,\" Exc. i. 111.\n\n [2] Or, \"the bridal chamber.\" See Becker, op. cit. p. 266. Al. \"our\n    store-chamber.\" See Hom. \"Od.\" xxi. 9:\n\n{be d' imenai thalamonde sun amphipoloisi gunaixin eskhaton, k.t.l.}\n\n\"And she (Penelope) betook her, with her handmaidens, to the\ntreasure-chamber in the uttermost part of the house, where lay the\ntreasures of her lord, bronze and gold and iron well wrought.\"--Butcher\nand Lang. Cf. \"Od.\" ii. 337; \"Il.\" vi. 288.\n\nNext I proceeded to point out to her the several dwelling-rooms, all\nbeautifully fitted up for cool in summer and for warmth in winter. [3] I\nshowed her how the house enjoyed a southern aspect, whence it was plain,\nin winter it would catch the sunlight and in summer lie in shade. [4]\nThen I showed her the women's apartments, separated from the men's\napartments by a bolted door, [5] whereby nothing from within could\nbe conveyed without clandestinely, nor children born and bred by our\ndomestics without our knowledge and consent [6]--no unimportant matter,\nsince, if the act of rearing children tends to make good servants\nstill more loyally disposed, [7] cohabiting but sharpens ingenuity for\nmischief in the bad.\n\n [3] See \"Mem.\" III. viii. 8.\n\n [4] See \"Mem.\" ib. 9.\n\n [5] \"By bolts and bars.\" Lit. \"a door fitted with a bolt-pin.\" See\n    Thuc. ii. 4; Aristoph. \"Wasps,\" 200.\n\n [6] Cf. (Aristot.) \"Oecon.\" i. 5, {dei de kai exomereuein tais\n    teknopoiiais}.\n\n [7] Lit. \"since (you know) if the good sort of servant is rendered, as\n    a rule, better disposed when he becomes a father, the base,\n    through intermarrying, become only more ripe for mischief.\"\n\nWhen we had gone over all the rooms (he continued), we at once set about\ndistribution our furniture [8] in classes; and we began (he said) by\ncollecting everything we use in offering sacrifice. [9] After this we\nproceeded to set apart the ornaments and holiday attire of the wife, and\nthe husband's clothing both for festivals and war; then the bedding used\nin the women's apartments, and the bedding used in the men's apartments;\nthen the women's shoes and sandals, and the shoes and sandals of the\nmen. [10] There was one division devoted to arms and armour; another\nto instruments used for carding wood; another to implements for making\nbread; another to utensils for cooking condiments; another to utensils\nfor the bath; another connected with the kneading trough; another with\nthe service of the table. All these we assigned to separate places,\ndistinguishing one portion for daily and recurrent use and the rest\nfor high days and holidays. Next we selected and set aside the supplies\nrequired for the month's expenditure; and, under a separate head, [11]\nwe stored away what we computed would be needed for the year. [12] For\nin this way there is less chance of failing to note how the supplies are\nlikely to last to the end.\n\n [8] \"Movable property,\" \"meubles.\"\n\n [9] Holden cf. Plut. \"De Curios.\" 515 E, {os gar Xenophon legei toi\n    Oikonomikois, k.t.l.}\n\n [10] Cf. \"Cyrop.\" VIII. ii. 5. See Becker, op. cit. p. 447.\n\n [11] See Cic. ap. Col. who curiously mistranslates {dikha}.\n\n [12] Schneider, etc., cf. Aristot. \"Oecon.\" i. 6.\n\nAnd so having arranged the different articles of furniture in classes,\nwe proceeded to convey them to their appropriate places. That done, we\ndirected our attention to the various articles needed by our domestics\nfor daily use, such as implements or utensils for making bread, cooking\nrelishes, spinning wool, and anything else of the same sort. These\nwe consigned to the care of those who would have to use them, first\npointing out where they must stow them, and enjoining on them to return\nthem safe and sound when done with.\n\nAs to the other things which we should only use on feast-days, or\nfor the entertainment of guests, or on other like occasions at long\nintervals, we delivered them one and all to our housekeeper. Having\npointed out to her their proper places, and having numbered and\nregistered [13] the several sets of articles, we explained that it was\nher business to give out each thing as required; to recollect to whom\nshe gave them; and when she got them back, to restore them severally to\nthe places from which she took them. In appointing our housekeeper, we\nhad taken every pains to discover some one on whose self-restraint we\nmight depend, not only in the matters of food and wine and sleep, but\nalso in her intercourse with men. She must besides, to please us, be\ngifted with no ordinary memory. She must have sufficient forethought not\nto incur displeasure through neglect of our interests. It must be her\nobject to gratify us in this or that, and in return to win esteem and\nhonour at our hands. We set ourselves to teach and train her to feel a\nkindly disposition towards us, by allowing her to share our joys in\nthe day of gladness, or, if aught unkind befell us, by inviting her\nto sympathise in our sorrow. We sought to rouse in her a zeal for our\ninterests, an eagerness to promote the increase of our estate, by\nmaking her intelligent of its affairs, and by giving her a share in our\nsuccesses. We instilled in her a sense of justice and uprightness, by\nholding the just in higher honour than the unjust, and by pointing out\nthat the lives of the righteous are richer and less servile than those\nof the unrighteous; and this was the position in which she found herself\ninstalled in our household. [14]\n\n [13] Or, \"having taken an inventory of the several sets of things.\"\n    Cf. \"Ages.\" i. 18; \"Cyrop.\" VII. iv. 12. See Newman, op. cit. i.\n    171.\n\n [14] Or, \"and this was the position in which we presently established\n    her herself.\"\n\nAnd now, on the strength of all that we had done, Socrates (he added),\nI addressed my wife, explaining that all these things would fail of use\nunless she took in charge herself to see that the order of each several\npart was kept. Thereupon I taught her that in every well-constituted\ncity the citizens are not content merely to pass good laws, but they\nfurther choose them guardians of the laws, [15] whose function as\ninspectors is to praise the man whose acts are law-abiding, or to mulct\nsome other who offends against the law. Accordingly, I bade her believe\nthat she, the mistress, was herself to play the part of guardian of the\nlaws to her whole household, examining whenever it seemed good to her,\nand passing in review the several chattels, just as the officer in\ncommand of a garrison [16] musters and reviews his men. She must apply\nher scrutiny and see that everything was well, even as the Senate [17]\ntests the condition of the Knights and of their horses. [18] Like a\nqueen, she must bestow, according to the power vested in her, praise\nand honour on the well-deserving, but blame and chastisement on him who\nstood in need thereof.\n\n [15] See Plat. \"Laws,\" vi. 755 A, 770 C; Aristot. \"Pol.\" iii. 15, 1287\n    A; iv. 14, 1298 B; vi. 8, 1323 A; \"Ath. Pol.\" viii. 4; and Cic.\n    ap. Col. xii. 3. 10 f. Holden cf. Cic. \"de Legg.\" iii. 20, S. 46;\n    \"C. I. G.\" 3794.\n\n [16] Lit. Phrourarch, \"the commandant.\"\n\n [17] Or, \"Council\" at Athens.\n\n [18] Cf. \"Hipparch.\" i. 8, 13.\n\nNor did my lessons end here (added he); I taught her that she must not\nbe annoyed should I seem to be enjoining upon her more trouble than upon\nany of our domestics with regard to our possessions; pointing out to her\nthat these domestics have only so far a share in their master's chattels\nthat they must fetch and carry, tend and guard them; nor have they the\nright to use a single one of them except the master grant it. But to\nthe master himself all things pertain to use as he thinks best. And so\nI pointed the conclusion: he to whom the greater gain attaches in the\npreservation of the property or loss in its destruction, is surely he to\nwhom by right belongs the larger measure of attention. [19]\n\n [19] Or, \"he it is on whom devolves as his concern the duty of\n    surveillance.\"\n\nWhen, then (I asked), Ischomachus, how fared it? was your wife disposed\nat all to lend a willing ear to what you told her? [20]\n\n [20] Lit. \"when she heard did she give ear at all?\"\n\nBless you, [21] Socrates (he answered), what did she do but forthwith\nanswer me, I formed a wrong opinion if I fancied that, in teaching her\nthe need of minding our property, I was imposing a painful task upon\nher. A painful task it might have been [22] (she added), had I bade her\nneglect her personal concerns! But to be obliged to fulfil the duty of\nattending to her own domestic happiness, [23] that was easy. After all\nit would seem to be but natural (added he); just as any honest [24]\nwoman finds it easier to care for her own offspring than to neglect\nthem, so, too, he could well believe, an honest woman might find it\npleasanter to care for than to neglect possessions, the very charm of\nwhich is that they are one's very own.\n\n [21] Lit. \"By Hera!\" Cf. the old formula \"Marry!\" or \"By'r lakin!\"\n\n [22] Lit. \"more painful had it been, had I enjoined her to neglect her\n    own interests than to be obliged...\"\n\n [23] {ton oikeion agathon}, cp. \"charity begins at home.\" See Joel,\n    op. cit. p. 448.\n\n [24] Or, \"true and honest\"; \"any woman worthy of the name.\" {sophroni}\n    = with the {sophrosune} of womanhood; possibly transl. \"discreet\n    and sober-minded.\"\n\n\n\nX\n\nSo (continued Socrates), when I heard his wife had made this answer, I\nexclaimed: By Hera, Ischomachus, a brave and masculine intelligence the\nlady has, as you describe her.\n\n(To which Ischomachus) Yes, Socrates, and I would fain narrate some\nother instances of like large-mindedness on her part: shown in the\nreadiness with which she listened to my words and carried out my wishes.\n\nWhat sort of thing? (I answered). Do, pray, tell me, since I would far\nmore gladly learn about a living woman's virtues than that Zeuxis [1]\nshould show me the portrait of the loveliest woman he has painted.\n\n [1] See \"Mem.\" I. iv. 3.\n\nWhereupon Ischomachus proceeded to narrate as follows: I must tell you,\nSocrates, I one day noticed she was much enamelled with white lead, [2]\nno doubt to enhance the natural whiteness of her skin; she had rouged\nherself with alkanet [3] profusely, doubtless to give more colour to her\ncheeks than truth would warrant; she was wearing high-heeled shoes, in\norder to seem taller than she was by nature. [4]\n\n [2] Cf. Aristoph. \"Eccl.\" 878; ib. 929, {egkhousa mallon kai to son\n    psimuthion}: ib. 1072; \"Plut.\" 1064.\n\n [3] Lit. \"enamelled or painted with anchusa or alkanet,\" a plant, the\n    wild bugloss, whose root yields a red dye. Cf. Aristoph. \"Lys.\"\n    48; Theophr. \"H. Pl.\" vii. 8. 3.\n\n [4] See Becker, op. cit. p. 452; Breit. cf. \"Anab.\" III. ii. 25;\n    \"Mem.\" II. i. 22; Aristot. \"Eth. Nic.\" iv. 3, 5, \"True beauty\n    requires a great body.\"\n\nAccordingly I put to her this question: [5] \"Tell me, my wife, would you\nesteem me a less lovable co-partner in our wealth, were I to show you\nhow our fortune stands exactly, without boasting of unreal possessions\nor concealing what we really have? Or would you prefer that I should try\nto cheat you with exaggeration, exhibiting false money to you, or sham\n[6] necklaces, or flaunting purples [7] which will lose their colour,\nstating they are genuine the while?\"\n\n [5] Lit. \"So I said to her, 'Tell me, my wife, after which fashion\n    would you find me the more delectable partner in our joint estate\n    --were I to...? or were I to...?'\"\n\n [6] Lit. \"only wood coated with gold.\"\n\n [7] See Becker, op. cit. p. 434 f; Holden cf. Athen. ix. 374, xii.\n    525; Ael. \"V. H.\" xii. 32; Aristoph. \"Plut.\" 533.\n\nShe caught me up at once: \"Hush, hush!\" she said, \"talk not such talk.\nMay heaven forfend that you should ever be like that. I could not love\nyou with my whole heart were you really of that sort.\"\n\n\"And are we two not come together,\" I continued, \"for a closer\npartnership, being each a sharer in the other's body?\"\n\n\"That, at any rate, is what folk say,\" she answered.\n\n\"Then as regards this bodily relation,\" I proceeded, \"should you regard\nme as more lovable or less did I present myself, my one endeavour and my\nsole care being that my body should be hale and strong and thereby well\ncomplexioned, or would you have me first anoint myself with pigments,\n[8] smear my eyes with patches [9] of 'true flesh colour,' [10] and so\nseek your embrace, like a cheating consort presenting to his mistress's\nsight and touch vermillion paste instead of his own flesh?\"\n\n [8] \"Red lead.\"\n\n [9] Cf. Aristoph. \"Ach.\" 1029.\n\n [10] {andreikelon}. Cf. Plat. \"Rep.\" 501 B, \"the human complexion\";\n    \"Crat.\" 424 E.\n\n\"Frankly,\" she answered, \"it would not please me better to touch paste\nthan your true self. Rather would I see your own 'true flesh colour'\nthan any pigment of that name; would liefer look into your eyes and see\nthem radiant with health than washed with any wash, or dyed with any\nointment there may be.\"\n\n\"Believe the same, my wife, of me then,\" Ischomachus continued (so he\ntold me); \"believe that I too am not better pleased with white enamel\nor with alkanet than with your own natural hue; but as the gods have\nfashioned horses to delight in horses, cattle in cattle, sheep in their\nfellow sheep, so to human beings the human body pure and undefiled is\nsweetest; [11] and as to these deceits, though they may serve to cheat\nthe outside world without detection, yet if intimates try to deceive\neach other, they must one day be caught; in rising from their beds,\nbefore they make their toilet; by a drop of sweat they stand convicted;\ntears are an ordeal they cannot pass; the bath reveals them as they\ntruly are.\"\n\n [11] See \"Mem.\" II. i. 22.\n\nWhat answer (said I) did she make, in Heaven's name, to what you said?\n\nWhat, indeed (replied the husband), save only, that thenceforward she\nnever once indulged in any practice of the sort, but has striven\nto display the natural beauty of her person in its purity. She did,\nhowever, put to me a question: Could I advise her how she might become\nnot in false show but really fair to look upon?\n\nThis, then, was the counsel which I gave her, Socrates: Not to be for\never seated like a slave; [12] but, with Heaven's help, to assume the\nattitude of a true mistress standing before the loom, and where her\nknowledge gave her the superiority, bravely to give the aid of her\ninstruction; where her knowledge failed, as bravely try to learn. I\ncounselled her to oversee the baking woman as she made the bread; to\nstand beside the housekeeper as she measured out her stores; to go tours\nof inspection to see if all things were in order as they should be.\nFor, as it seemed to me, this would at once be walking exercise and\nsupervision. And, as an excellent gymnastic, I recommended her to knead\nthe dough and roll the paste; to shake the coverlets and make the beds;\nadding, if she trained herself in exercise of this sort she would enjoy\nher food, grow vigorous in health, and her complexion would in very\ntruth be lovelier. The very look and aspect of the wife, the mistress,\nseen in rivalry with that of her attendants, being as she is at once\nmore fair [13] and more beautifully adorned, has an attractive charm,\n[14] and not the less because her acts are acts of grace, not services\nenforced. Whereas your ordinary fine lady, seated in solemn state, would\nseem to court comparison with painted counterfeits of womanhood.\n\n [12] See Becker, p. 491. Breit., etc., cf. Nicostr. ap. Stob. \"Tit.\"\n    lxxiv. 61.\n\n [13] Lit. \"more spotles\"; \"like a diamond of purest water.\" Cf.\n    Shakesp. \"Lucr.\" 394, \"whose perfect white Showed like an April\n    daisy in the grass.\"\n\n [14] Or, \"is wondrous wooing, and all the more with this addition,\n    hers are acts of grace, theirs services enforced.\"\n\nAnd, Socrates, I would have you know that still to-day, my wife is\nliving in a style as simple as that I taught her then, and now recount\nto you.\n\n\n\nXI\n\nThe conversation was resumed as follows: Thanking Ischomachus for what\nhe had told me about the occupations of his wife; on that side I have\nheard enough (I said) perhaps for a beginning; the facts you mention\nreflect the greatest credit on both wife and husband; but would you now\nin turn describe to me your work and business? In doing so you will have\nthe pleasure of narrating the reason of your fame. And I, for my part,\nwhen I have heard from end to end the story of a beautiful and good\nman's works, if only my wits suffice and I have understood it, shall be\nmuch indebted.\n\nIndeed (replied Ischomachus), it will give me the greatest pleasure to\nrecount to you my daily occupations, and in return I beg you to reform\nme, where you find some flaw or other in my conduct. [1]\n\n [1] Lit. \"in order that you on your side may correct and set me right\n    where I seem to you to act amiss.\" {metarruthmises}--remodel. Cf.\n    Aristot. \"Nic. Eth.\" x. 9. 5.\n\nThe idea of my reforming you! (I said). How could I with any show of\njustice hope to reform you, the perfect model [2] of a beautiful, good\nman--I, who am but an empty babbler, [3] and measurer of the air,\n[4] who have to bear besides that most senseless imputation of being\npoor--an imputation which, I assure you, Ischomachus, would have reduced\nme to the veriest despair, except that the other day I chanced to come\nacross the horse of Nicias, [5] the foreigner? I saw a crowd of people\nin attendance staring, and I listened to a story which some one had\nto tell about the animal. So then I stepped up boldly to the groom and\nasked him, \"Has the horse much wealth?\" The fellow looked at me as if I\nwere hardly in my right mind to put the question, and retorted, \"How\ncan a horse have wealth?\" Thereat I dared to lift my eyes from earth, on\nlearning that after all it is permitted a poor penniless horse to be\na noble animal, if nature only have endowed him with good spirit. If,\ntherefore, it is permitted even to me to be a good man, please recount\nto me your works from first to last, I promise, I will listen, all I\ncan, and try to understand, and so far as in me lies to imitate you from\nto-morrow. To-morrow is a good day to commence a course of virtue, is it\nnot?\n\n [2] Cf. Plat. \"Rep.\" 566 A, \"a tyrant full grown\" (Jowett).\n\n [3] Cf. Plat. \"Phaed.\" 70 C; Aristoph. \"Clouds,\" 1480.\n\n [4] Or rather, \"a measurer of air\"--i.e. devoted not to good sound\n    solid \"geometry,\" but the unsubstantial science of \"aerometry.\"\n    See Aristoph. \"Clouds,\" i. 225; Plat. \"Apol.\" 18 B, 19 B; Xen.\n    \"Symp.\" vi. 7.\n\n [5] Nothing is known of this person.\n\nYou are pleased to jest, Socrates (Ischomachus replied), in spite of\nwhich I will recount to you those habits and pursuits by aid of which I\nseek to traverse life's course. If I have read aright life's lesson, it\nhas taught me that, unless a man first discover what he needs to do, and\nseriously study to bring the same to good effect, the gods have placed\nprosperity [6] beyond his reach; and even to the wise and careful they\ngive or they withhold good fortune as seemeth to them best. Such being\nmy creed, I begin with service rendered to the gods; and strive to\nregulate my conduct so that grace may be given me, in answer to my\nprayers, to attain to health, and strength of body, honour in my own\ncity, goodwill among my friends, safety with renown in war, and of\nriches increase, won without reproach.\n\n [6] \"The gods have made well-doing and well-being a thing impossible.\"\n    Cf. \"Mem.\" III. ix. 7, 14.\n\nI, when I heard these words, replied: And are you then indeed so careful\nto grow rich, Ischomachus?--amassing wealth but to gain endless trouble\nin its management?\n\nMost certainly (replied Ischomachus), and most careful must I needs be\nof the things you speak of. So sweet I find it, Socrates, to honour\nGod magnificently, to lend assistance to my friends in answer to\ntheir wants, and, so far as lies within my power, not to leave my city\nunadorned with anything which riches can bestow.\n\nNay (I answered), beautiful indeed the works you speak of, and powerful\nthe man must be who would essay them. How can it be otherwise, seeing so\nmany human beings need the help of others merely to carry on existence,\nand so many are content if they can win enough to satisfy their wants.\nWhat of those therefore who are able, not only to administer their own\nestates, but even to create a surplus sufficient to adorn their city and\nrelieve the burthen of their friends? Well may we regard such people\nas men of substance and capacity. But stay (I added), most of us are\ncompetent to sing the praises of such heroes. What I desire is to hear\nfrom you, Ischomachus, in your own order, [7] first how you study to\npreserve your health and strength of body; and next, how it is granted\nto you [8] to escape from the perils of war with honour untarnished.\nAnd after that (I added), it will much content me to learn from your own\nlips about your money-making.\n\n [7] \"And from your own starting-point.\"\n\n [8] As to the construction {themis einai} see Jebb ad \"Oed. Col.\"\n    1191, Appendix.\n\nYes (he answered), and the fact is, Socrates, if I mistake not, all\nthese matters are in close connection, each depending on the other.\nGiven that a man have a good meal to eat, he has only to work off the\neffect by toil [9] directed rightly; and in the process, if I mistake\nnot, his health will be confirmed, his strength added to. Let him but\npractise the arts of war and in the day of battle he will preserve his\nlife with honour. He needs only to expend his care aright, sealing\nhis ears to weak and soft seductions, and his house shall surely be\nincreased. [10]\n\n [9] See \"Mem.\" I. ii. 4; \"Cyrop.\" I. ii. 16. Al. \"bring out the effect\n    of it by toil.\"\n\n [10] Lit. \"it is likely his estate will increase more largely.\"\n\nI answered: So far I follow you, Ischomachus. You tell me that by\nlabouring to his full strength, [11] by expending care, by practice and\ntraining, a man may hope more fully to secure life's blessings. So I\ntake your meaning. But now I fain would learn of you some details. What\nparticular toil do you impose on yourself in order to secure good health\nand strength? After what particular manner do you practise the arts of\nwar? How do you take pains to create a surplus which will enable you to\nbenefit your friends and to gratify the state?\n\n [11] Or, \"by working off ill-humours,\" as we should say.\n\nWhy then (Ischomachus replied), my habit is to rise from bed betimes,\nwhen I may still expect to find at home this, that, or the other friend,\nwhom I may wish to see. Then, if anything has to be done in town, I set\noff to transact the business and make that my walk; [12] or, if there is\nno business to do in town, my serving-boy leads my horse to the farm;\nI follow, and so make the country-road my walk, which suits my purpose\nquite as well, or better, Socrates, perhaps, than pacing up and down the\ncolonnade. [13] Then when I have reached the farm, where mayhap some of\nmy men are planting trees, or breaking fallow, sowing or getting in the\ncrops, I inspect their various labours with an eye to every detail,\nand, whenever I can improve upon the present system, I introduce reform.\nAfter this, as a rule, I mount my horse and take a canter. I put\nhim through his paces, suiting these, as far as possible, to those\ninevitable in war [14]--in other words, I avoid neither steep slope [15]\nnor sheer incline, neither trench nor runnel, only giving my utmost heed\nthe while so as not to lame my horse while exercising him. When that\nis over, the boy gives the horse a roll, [16] and leads him homewards,\ntaking at the same time from the country to town whatever we may chance\nto need. Meanwhile I am off for home, partly walking, partly running,\nand having reached home I take a bath and give myself a rub; [17] and\nthen I breakfast--a repast which leaves me neither empty nor replete,\n[18] and will suffice to last me through the day.\n\n [12] See \"Mem.\" III. xiii. 5.\n\n [13] {xusto}--the xystus, \"a covered corridor in the gymnasium where\n    the athletes exercised in winter.\" Vitruv. v. 11. 4; vi. 7. 5. See\n    Rich, \"Companion,\" s.n.; Becker, op. cit. p. 309. Cf. Plat.\n    \"Phaedr.\" 227--Phaedrus loq.: \"I have come from Lysias the son of\n    Cephalus, and I am going to take a walk outside the wall, for I\n    have been sitting with him the whole morning; and our common\n    friend Acumenus advises me to walk in the country, which he says\n    is more invigorating than to walk in the courts.\"--Jowett.\n\n [14] See \"Horsemanship,\" iii. 7 foll.; ib. viii.; \"Hipparch,\" i. 18.\n\n [15] \"Slanting hillside.\"\n\n [16] See \"Horsemanship,\" v. 3; Aristoph. \"Clouds,\" 32.\n\n [17] Lit. \"scrape myself clean\" (with the {stleggis} or strigil). Cf.\n    Aristoph. \"Knights,\" 580. See Becker, op. cit. p. 150.\n\n [18] See \"Lac. Pol.\" ii. 5. Cf. Hor. \"Sat.\" i. 6. 127:\n\npransus non avide, quantum interpellet inani ventre diem durare.\n\nThen eat a temperate luncheon, just to stay A sinking stomach till the\nclose of day (Conington).\n\nBy Hera (I replied), Ischomachus, I cannot say how much your doings take\nmy fancy. How you have contrived, to pack up portably for use--together\nat the same time--appliances for health and recipes for strength,\nexercises for war, and pains to promote your wealth! My admiration is\nraised at every point. That you do study each of these pursuits in the\nright way, you are yourself a standing proof. Your look of heaven-sent\nhealth and general robustness we note with our eyes, while our ears have\nheard your reputation as a first-rate horseman and the wealthiest of\nmen.\n\nIsch. Yes, Socrates, such is my conduct, in return for which I am\nrewarded with--the calumnies of half the world. You thought, I daresay,\nI was going to end my sentence different, and say that a host of people\nhave given me the enviable title \"beautiful and good.\"\n\nI was indeed myself about to ask, Ischomachus (I answered), whether you\ntake pains also to acquire skill in argumentative debate, the cut and\nthrust and parry of discussion, [19] should occasion call?\n\n [19] Lit. \"to give a reason and to get a reason from others.\" Cf.\n    \"Cyrop.\" I. iv. 3.\n\nIsch. Does it not strike you rather, Socrates, that I am engaged in one\nlong practice of this very skill, [20] now pleading as defendant that,\nas far as I am able, I do good to many and hurt nobody? And then, again,\nyou must admit, I play the part of prosecutor when accusing people whom\nI recognise to be offenders, as a rule in private life, or possibly\nagainst the state, the good-for-nothing fellows?\n\n [20] \"The arts of the defendant, the apologist; and of the plaintiff,\n    the prosecutor.\"\n\nBut please explain one other thing, Ischomachus (I answered). Do you put\ndefence and accusation into formal language? [21]\n\n [21] \"Does your practice include the art of translating into words\n    your sentiments?\" Cf. \"Mem.\" I. ii. 52.\n\nIsch. \"Formal language,\" say you, Socrates? The fact is, I never cease\nto practise speaking; and on this wise: Some member of my household has\nsome charge to bring, or some defence to make, [22] against some other.\nI have to listen and examine. I must try to sift the truth. Or there\nis some one whom I have to blame or praise before my friends, or I must\narbitrate between some close connections and endeavour to enforce the\nlesson that it is to their own interests to be friends not foes. [23]...\nWe are present to assist a general in court; [24] we are called upon to\ncensure some one; or defend some other charged unjustly; or to prosecute\na third who has received an honour which he ill deserves. It frequently\noccurs in our debates [25] that there is some course which we strongly\nfavour: naturally we sound its praises; or some other, which we\ndisapprove of: no less naturally we point out its defects.\n\n [22] Or, \"One member of my household appears as plaintiff, another as\n    defendant. I must listen and cross-question.\"\n\n [23] The \"asyndeton\" would seem to mark a pause, unless some words\n    have dropped out. See the commentators ad loc.\n\n [24] The scene is perhaps that of a court-martial (cf. \"Anab.\" V.\n    viii.; Dem. \"c. Timocr.\" 749. 16). (Al. cf. Sturz, \"Lex.\" s.v. \"we\n    are present (as advocates) and censure some general\"), or more\n    probably, I think, that of a civil judicial inquiry of some sort,\n    conducted at a later date by the Minister of Finance ({to stratego\n    to epi tas summorias eremeno}).\n\n [25] Or, \"Or again, a frequent case, we sit in council\" (as members of\n    the Boule). See Aristot. \"Pol.\" iv. 15.\n\nHe paused, then added: Things have indeed now got so far, Socrates, that\nseveral times I have had to stand my trial and have judgment passed upon\nme in set terms, what I must pay or what requital I must make. [26]\n\n [26] See \"Symp.\" v. 8. Al. {dielemmenos} = \"to be taken apart and have\n   ...\"\n\nAnd at whose bar (I asked) is the sentence given? That point I failed to\ncatch. [27]\n\n [27] Or, \"so dull was I, I failed to catch the point.\"\n\nWhose but my own wife's? (he answered).\n\nAnd, pray, how do you conduct your own case? (I asked). [28]\n\n [28] See \"Mem.\" III. vii. 4; Plat. \"Euth.\" 3 E.\n\nNot so ill (he answered), when truth and interest correspond, but when\nthey are opposed, Socrates, I have no skill to make the worse appear the\nbetter argument. [29]\n\n [29] See Plat. \"Apol.\" 19-23 D; Aristoph. \"Clouds,\" 114 foll.\n\nPerhaps you have no skill, Ischomachus, to make black white or falsehood\ntruth (said I). [30]\n\n [30] Or, \"It may well be, Ischomachus, you cannot manufacture\n    falsehood into truth.\" Lit. \"Like enough you cannot make an\n    untruth true.\"\n\n\n\nXII\n\nBut (I continued presently), perhaps I am preventing you from going, as\nyou long have wished to do, Ischomachus?\n\nTo which he: By no means, Socrates. I should not think of going away\nuntil the gathering in the market is dispersed. [1]\n\n [1] Lit. \"until the market is quite broken up,\" i.e. after mid-day.\n    See \"Anab.\" I. viii. 1; II. i. 7; \"Mem.\" I. i. 10. Cf. Herod. ii.\n    173; iii. 104; vii. 223.\n\nOf course, of course (I answered), you are naturally most careful not\nto forfeit the title they have given you of \"honest gentleman\"; [2] and\nyet, I daresay, fifty things at home are asking your attention at this\nmoment; only you undertook to meet your foreign friends, and rather than\nplay them false you go on waiting.\n\n [2] Lit. \"beautiful and good.\"\n\nIsch. Let me so far correct you, Socrates; in no case will the things\nyou speak of be neglected, since I have stewards and bailiffs [3] on the\nfarms.\n\n [3] Cf. Becker, op. cit. p. 363.\n\nSoc. And, pray, what is your system when you need a bailiff? Do you\nsearch about, until you light on some one with a natural turn for\nstewardship; and then try to purchase him?--as, I feel certain, happens\nwhen you want a carpenter: first, you discover some one with a turn for\ncarpentry, and then do all you can to get possession of him. [4] Or do\nyou educate your bailiffs yourself?\n\n [4] The steward, like the carpenter, and the labourers in general,\n    would, as a rule, be a slave. See below, xxi. 9.\n\nIsch. Most certainly the latter, Socrates; I try to educate them, as you\nsay, myself; and with good reason. He who is properly to fill my place\nand manage my affairs when I am absent, my \"alter ego,\" [5] needs but to\nhave my knowledge; and if I am fit myself to stand at the head of my own\nbusiness, I presume I should be able to put another in possession of my\nknowledge. [6]\n\n [5] Or, \"my other self.\"\n\n [6] Lit. \"to teach another what I know myself.\"\n\nSoc. Well then, the first thing he who is properly to take your place\nwhen absent must possess is goodwill towards you and yours; for without\ngoodwill, what advantage will there be in any knowledge whatsoever which\nyour bailiff may possess?\n\nIsch. None, Socrates; and I may tell you that a kindly disposition\ntowards me and mine is precisely what I first endeavour to instil.\n\nSoc. And how, in the name of all that is holy, do you pick out whom you\nwill and teach him to have kindly feeling towards yourself and yours?\n\nIsch. By kindly treatment of him, to be sure, whenever the gods bestow\nabundance of good things upon us.\n\nSoc. If I take your meaning rightly, you would say that those who enjoy\nyour good things grow well disposed to you and seek to render you some\ngood?\n\nIsch. Yes, for of all instruments to promote good feeling this I see to\nbe the best.\n\nSoc. Well, granted the man is well disposed to you does it therefore\nfollow, Ischomachus, that he is fit to be your bailiff? It cannot have\nescaped your observation that albeit human beings, as a rule, are kindly\ndisposed towards themselves, yet a large number of them will not apply\nthe attention requisite to secure for themselves those good things which\nthey fain would have.\n\nIsch. Yes, but believe me, Socrates, when I seek to appoint such men as\nbailiffs, I teach them also carefulness and application. [7]\n\n [7] {epimeleia} is a cardinal virtue with the Greeks, or at any rate\n    with Xenophon, but it has no single name in English.\n\nSoc. Nay, now in Heaven's name, once more, how can that be? I always\nthought it was beyond the power of any teacher to teach these virtues.\n[8]\n\n [8] For the Socratic problem {ei arete didakte} see Grote, \"H. G.\"\n    viii. 599.\n\nIsch. Nor is it possible, you are right so far, to teach such\nexcellences to every single soul in order as simply as a man might\nnumber off his fingers.\n\nSoc. Pray, then, what sort of people have the privilege? [9] Should you\nmind pointing them out to me with some distinctness?\n\n [9] Lit. \"what kind of people can be taught them? By all means signify\n    the sort to me distinctly.\"\n\nIshc. Well, in the first place, you would have some difficulty in making\nintemperate people diligent--I speak of intemperance with regard to\nwine, for drunkenness creates forgetfulness of everything which needs to\nbe done.\n\nSoc. And are persons devoid of self-control in this respect the only\npeople incapable of diligence and carefulness? or are there others in\nlike case?\n\nIsch. Certainly, people who are intemperate with regard to sleep, seeing\nthat the sluggard with his eyes shut cannot do himself or see that\nothers do what is right.\n\nSoc. What then? [10] Are we to regard these as the only people incapable\nof being taught this virtue of carefulness? or are there others in a\nlike condition?\n\n [10] Or, \"What then--is the list exhausted? Are we to suppose that\n    these are the sole people...\"\n\nIsch. Surely we must include the slave to amorous affection. [11] Your\nwoeful lover [12] is incapable of being taught attention to anything\nbeyond one single object. [13] No light task, I take it, to discover any\nhope or occupation sweeter to him than that which now employs him, his\ncare for his beloved, nor, when the call for action comes, [14] will\nit be easy to invent worse punishment than that he now endures in\nseparation from the object of his passion. [15] Accordingly, I am in no\ngreat hurry to appoint a person of this sort to manage [16] my affairs;\nthe very attempt to do so I regard as futile.\n\n [11] See \"Mem.\" I. iii. 8 foll.; II. vi. 22.\n\n [12] {duserotes}. Cf. Thuc. vi. 13, \"a desperate craving\" (Jowett).\n\n [13] Cf. \"Symp.\" iv. 21 foll.; \"Cyrop.\" V. i. 7-18.\n\n [14] Or, \"where demands of business present themselves, and something\n    must be done.\"\n\n [15] Cf. Shakesp. \"Sonnets,\" passim.\n\n [16] Or, \"I never dream of appointing as superintendent.\" See above,\n    iv. 7.\n\nSoc. Well, and what of those addicted to another passion, that of gain?\nAre they, too, incapable of being trained to give attention to field and\nfarming operations?\n\nIsch. On the contrary, there are no people easier to train, none so\nsusceptible of carefulness in these same matters. One needs only to\npoint out to them that the pursuit is gainful, and their interest is\naroused.\n\nSoc. But for ordinary people? Given they are self-controlled to suit\nyour bidding, [17] given they possess a wholesome appetite for gain, how\nwill you lesson them in carefulness? how teach them growth in diligence\nto meet your wishes?\n\n [17] Or, \"in matters such as you insist on.\"\n\nIsch. By a simple method, Socrates. When I see a man intent on\ncarefulness, I praise and do my best to honour him. When, on the other\nhand, I see a man neglectful of his duties, I do not spare him: I try in\nevery way, by word and deed, to wound him.\n\nSoc. Come now, Ischomachus, kindly permit a turn in the discussion,\nwhich has hitherto concerned the persons being trained to carefulness\nthemselves, and explain a point in reference to the training process.\nIs it possible for a man devoid of carefulness himself to render others\nmore careful?\n\nNo more possible (he answered) than for a man who knows no music to make\nothers musical. [18] If the teacher sets but an ill example, the pupil\ncan hardly learn to do the thing aright. [19] And if the master's\nconduct is suggestive of laxity, how hardly shall his followers attain\nto carefulness! Or to put the matter concisely, \"like master like man.\"\nI do not think I ever knew or heard tell of a bad master blessed with\ngood servants. The converse I certainly have seen ere now, a good master\nand bad servants; but they were the sufferers, not he. [20] No, he who\nwould create a spirit of carefulness in others [21] must have the skill\nhimself to supervise the field of labour; to test, examine, scrutinise.\n[22] He must be ready to requite where due the favour of a service well\nperformed, nor hesitate to visit the penalty of their deserts upon those\nneglectful of their duty. [23] Indeed (he added), the answer of the\nbarbarian to the king seems aposite. You know the story, [24] how the\nking had met with a good horse, but wished to give the creature flesh\nand that without delay, and so asked some one reputed to be clever about\nhorses: \"What will give him flesh most quickly?\" To which the other:\n\"The master's eye.\" So, too, it strikes me, Socrates, there is nothing\nlike \"the master's eye\" to call forth latent qualities, and turn the\nsame to beautiful and good effect. [25]\n\n [18] Or, \"to give others skill in 'music.'\" See Plat. \"Rep.\" 455 E;\n    \"Laws,\" 802 B. Al. \"a man devoid of letters to make others\n    scholarly.\" See Plat. \"Phaedr.\" 248 D.\n\n [19] Lit. \"when the teacher traces the outline of the thing to copy\n    badly.\" For {upodeiknuontos} see \"Mem.\" IV. iii. 13; \"Horsem.\" ii.\n    2. Cf. Aristot. \"Oecon.\" i. 6; \"Ath. Pol.\" 41. 17; and Dr. Sandys'\n    note ad loc.\n\n [20] Or, \"but they did not go scot-free\"; \"punishments then were\n    rife.\"\n\n [21] Cf. Plat. \"Polit.\" 275 E: \"If we say either tending the herds, or\n    managing the herds, or having the care of them, that will include\n    all, and then we may wrap up the statesman with the rest, as the\n    argument seems to require.\"--Jowett.\n\n [22] Or, \"he must have skill to over-eye the field of labour, and be\n    scrutinous.\"\n\n [23] \"For every boon of service well performed he must be eager to\n    make requital to the author of it, nor hesitate to visit on the\n    heads of those neglectful of their duty a just recompense.\" (The\n    language is poetical.)\n\n [24] See Aristot. \"Oecon.\" i. 6; Aesch. \"Pers.\" 165; Cato ap. Plin.\n    \"H. N.\" xviii. 5. Cic. ap. Colum. iv. 18; ib. vi. 21; La Fontaine,\n    \"L'Oeil du Maitre.\"\n\n [25] Or, \"so, too, in general it seems to me 'the master's eye' is\n    aptest to elicit energy to issue beautiful and good.\"\n\n\n\nXIII\n\nBut now (I ventured), suppose you have presented strongly to the mind of\nsome one [1] the need of carefulness to execute your wishes, is a person\nso qualified to be regarded as fit at once to be your bailiff? or is\nthere aught else which he must learn in order to play the part of an\nefficient bailiff?\n\n [1] Breit. cf. \"Pol. Lac.\" xv. 8. Holden cf. Plat. \"Rep.\" 600 C.\n\nMost certainly there is (he answered): it still remains for him to learn\nparticulars--to know, that is, what things he has to do, and when and\nhow to do them; or else, if ignorant of these details, the profit of\nthis bailiff in the abstract may prove no greater than the doctor's\nwho pays a most precise attention to a sick man, visiting him late and\nearly, but what will serve to ease his patient's pains [2] he knows not.\n\n [2] Lit. \"what it is to the advantage of his patient to do, is beyond\n    his ken.\"\n\nSoc. But suppose him to have learnt the whole routine of business, will\nhe need aught else, or have we found at last your bailiff absolute? [3]\n\n [3] Cf. Plat. \"Rep.\" 566 D. Or, \"the perfect and consummate type of\n    bailiff.\"\n\nIsch. He must learn at any rate, I think, to rule his fellow-workmen.\n\nWhat! (I exclaimed): you mean to say you educate your bailiffs to that\nextent? Actually you make them capable of rule?\n\nAt any rate I try to do so (he replied).\n\nAnd how, in Heaven's name (I asked), do you contrive to educate another\nin the skill to govern human beings?\n\nIsch. I have a very simple system, Socrates; so simple, I daresay, you\nwill simply laugh at me.\n\nSoc. The matter, I protest, is hardly one for laughter. The man who\ncan make another capable of rule, clearly can teach him how to play the\nmaster; and if can make him play the master, he can make him what is\ngrander still, a kingly being. [4] Once more, therefore, I protest: A\nman possessed of such creative power is worthy, not of ridicule, far\nfrom it, but of the highest praise.\n\n [4] i.e. {arkhikos} includes (1) {despotikos}, i.e. an arbitrary head\n    of any sort, from the master of one's own family to the {turannos\n    kai despotes} (Plat. \"Laws,\" 859 A), despotic lord or owner; (2)\n    {basilikos}, the king or monarch gifted with regal qualities.\n\nThus, then, I reason, [5] Socrates (he answered): The lower animals are\ntaught obedience by two methods chiefly, partly through being punished\nwhen they make attempts to disobey, partly by experiencing some kindness\nwhen they cheerfully submit. This is the principle at any rate adopted\nin the breaking of young horses. The animal obeys its trainer, and\nsomething sweet is sure to follow; or it disobeys, and in place of\nsomething sweet it finds a peck of trouble; and so on, until it comes at\nlast to yield obedience to the trainer's every wish. Or to take another\ninstance: Young dogs, [6] however far inferior to man in thought\nand language, [7] can still be taught to run on errands and turn\nsomersaults, [8] and do a host of other clever things, precisely on\nthis same principle of training. Every time the animal obeys it gets\nsomething or other which it wanted, and every time it misbehaves it\ngets a whipping. But when it comes to human beings: in man you have a\ncreature still more open to persuasion through appeals to reason; [9]\nonly make it plain to him \"it is his interest to obey.\" Or if they\nhappen to be slaves, [10] the more ignoble training of wild animals\ntamed to the lure will serve to teach obedience. Only gratify their\nbellies in the matter of appetite, and you will succeed in winning much\nfrom them. [11] But ambitious, emulous natures feel the spur of praise,\n[12] since some natures hunger after praise no less than others crave\nfor meats and drinks. My practice then is to instruct those whom I\ndesire to appoint as my bailiffs in the various methods which I have\nfound myself to be successful in gaining the obedience of my fellows. To\ntake an instance: There are clothes and shows and so forth, with which\nI must provide my workfolk. [13] Well, then, I see to it that these are\nnot all alike in make; [14] but some will be of better, some of less\ngood quality: my object being that these articles for use shall vary\nwith the service of the wearer; the worse man will receive the worse\nthings as a gift, the better man the better as a mark of honour. For I\nask you, Socrates, how can the good avoid despondency seeing that\nthe work is wrought by their own hands alone, in spite of which these\nvillains who will neither labour nor face danger when occasion calls are\nto receive an equal guerdon with themselves? And just as I cannot bring\nmyself in any sort of way to look upon the better sort as worthy to\nreceive no greater honour than the baser, so, too, I praise my bailiffs\nwhen I know they have apportioned the best things among the most\ndeserving. And if I see that some one is receiving preference by dint\nof flatteries or like unworthy means, I do not let the matter pass; I\nreprimand my bailiff roundly, and so teach him that such conduct is not\neven to his interest.\n\n [5] {oukoun}. \"This, then, is my major premiss: the dumb animal...\"\n    (lit. \"the rest of animals\").\n\n [6] {ta kunidia} possibly implies \"performing poodles.\"\n\n [7] {te gnome... te glotte}, i.e. mental impression and expression,\n    \"mind and tongue.\"\n\n [8] Or, \"to run round and round and turn heels over head.\" Al. \"dive\n    for objects.\"\n\n [9] \"Logic, argument.\" Or, \"a creature more compliant; merely by a\n    word demonstrate to him...\"\n\n [10] Cf. Plat. \"Rep.\" 591 C.\n\n [11] See Pater, \"Plato and Platonism,\" \"Lacedaemon,\" p. 196 foll.\n\n [12] See \"Cyrop.\" passim.\n\n [13] {ergastersi}, Xenophontic for the common Attic {ergatais}. See\n    Hold. ad loc. for similar forms, and cf. Rutherford, \"New\n    Phrynichus,\" 59.\n\n [14] Cf. Aristot. \"Oecon.\" i. 5 (where the thesis is developed\n    further).\n\n\n\nXIV\n\nSoc. Well, then, Ischomachus, supposing the man is now so fit to rule\nthat he can compel obedience, [1] is he, I ask once more, your bailiff\nabsolute? or even though possessed of all the qualifications you have\nnamed, does he still lack something? [2]\n\n [1] Or, \"that discipline flows from him;\" al. \"he presents you with\n    obedient servants.\"\n\n [2] Lit. \"will he still need something further to complete him?\"\n\nMost certainly (replied Ischomachus). One thing is still required of\nhim, and that is to hold aloof from property and goods which are his\nmaster's; he must not steal. Consider, this is the very person through\nwhose hands the fruits and produce pass, and he has the audacity to make\naway with them! perhaps he does not leave enough to cover the expenses\nof the farming operations! Where would be the use of farming the land by\nhelp of such an overseer?\n\nWhat (I exclaimed), can I believe my ears? You actually undertake to\nteach them virtue! What really, justice!\n\nIsch. To be sure, I do. but it does not follow therefore that I find\nall equally apt to lend an ear to my instruction. However, what I do is\nthis. I take a leaf now out of the laws of Draco and again another out\nof the laws of Solon, [3] and so essay to start my household on the path\nof uprightness. And indeed, if I mistake not (he proceeded), both those\nlegislators enacted many of their laws expressly with a view to teaching\nthis branch of justice. [4] It is written, \"Let a man be punished for\na deed of theft\"; \"Let whosoever is detected in the act be bound and\nthrown in prison\"; \"If he offer violence, [5] let him be put to death.\"\nIt is clear that the intention of the lawgivers in framing these\nenactments was to render the sordid love of gain [6] devoid of profit\nto the unjust person. What I do, therefore, is to cull a sample of their\nprecepts, which I supplement with others from the royal code [7] where\napplicable; and so I do my best to shape the members of my household\ninto the likeness of just men concerning that which passes through\ntheir hands. And now observe--the laws first mentioned act as penalties,\ndeterrent to transgressors only; whereas the royal code aims higher:\nby it not only is the malefactor punished, but the righteous and just\nperson is rewarded. [8] The result is, that many a man, beholding how\nthe just grow ever wealthier than the unjust, albeit harbouring in his\nheart some covetous desires, is constant still to virtue. To abstain\nfrom unjust dealing is engrained in him. [9]\n\n [3] Cobet, \"Pros. Xen.\" cf. Plut. \"Solon,\" xvii. {proton men oun tous\n    Drakontos nomous aneile k.t.l.} \"First, then, he repealed all\n    Draco's laws, except those concerning homicide, because they were\n    too severe and the punishments too great; for death was appointed\n    for almost all offences, insomuch that those that were convicted\n    of idleness were to die, and those that stole a cabbage or an\n    apple to suffer even as villains that committed sacrilege or\n    murder\" (Clough, i. 184). See Aul. Gell. \"N. A.\" xi. 13.\n\n [4] \"The branch of justice which concerns us, viz. righteous dealing\n    between man and man.\"\n\n [5] For this sense of {tous egkheirountas} cf. Thuc. iv. 121; \"Hell.\"\n    IV. v. 16. Al. {dedesthai tous egkheirountas kai thanatousthai en\n    tis alo poion} (Weiske), \"let the attempt be punished with\n    imprisonment\"; \"let him who is caught in the act be put to death.\"\n\n [6] Cf. Plat. \"Laws,\" 754 E.\n\n [7] Or, \"the royal laws,\" i.e. of Persia. Cf. \"Anab.\" I. ix. 16;\n    \"Cyrop.\" I. ii. 2, 3. Or possibly = \"regal\"; cf. Plat. \"Minos,\"\n    317 C; {to men orthon nomos esti basilikos}.\n\n [8] Lit. \"benefited.\"\n\n [9] Lit. \"Whereby, beholding the just becoming wealthier than the\n    unjust, many albeit covetous at heart themselves most constantly\n    abide by abstinence from evil-doing.\"\n\nThose of my household (he proceeded) whom, in spite of kindly treatment,\nI perceive to be persistently bent on evil-doing, in the end I treat as\ndesperate cases. Incurable self-seekers, [10] plain enough to see, whose\naspiration lifts them from earth, so eager are they to be reckoned just\nmen, not by reason only of the gain derivable from justice, but through\npassionate desire to deserve my praise--these in the end I treat as\nfree-born men. I make them wealthy, and not with riches only, but in\nhonour, as befits their gentle manliness. [11] For if, Socrates, there\nbe one point in which the man who thirsts for honour differs from him\nwho thirsts for gain, it is, I think, in willingness to toil, face\ndanger, and abstain from shameful gains--for the sake of honour only and\nfair fame. [12]\n\n [10] Lit. \"Those, on the other hand, whom I discover to be roused\" (to\n    honesty--not solely because honesty is the best policy).\n\n [11] Or, \"men of fair and noble type\"; \"true gentlemen.\" This passage\n    suggests the \"silver lining to the cloud\" of slavery.\n\n [12] Cf. Hom. \"Il.\" ix. 413, {oleto men moi nostos, atar kleos\n    aphthiton estai}, \"but my fame shall be imperishable.\"\n\n\n\nXV\n\nSoc. But now, suppose, Ischomachus, you have created in the soul of some\none a desire for your welfare; have inspired in him not a mere passive\ninterest, but a deep concern to help you to achieve prosperity; further,\nyou have obtained for him a knowledge of the methods needed to give the\noperations of the field some measure of success; you have, moreover,\nmade him capable of ruling; and, as the crowning point of all your\nefforts, this same trusty person shows no less delight, than you might\ntake yourself, in laying at your feet [1] earth's products, each in\ndue season richly harvested--I need hardly ask concerning such an one,\nwhether aught else is lacking to him. It is clear to me [2] an overseer\nof this sort would be worth his weight in gold. But now, Ischomachus,\nI would have you not omit a topic somewhat lightly handled by us in the\nprevious argument. [3]\n\n [1] {apodeiknuon}, i.e. in presenting the inventory of products for\n    the year. Cf. \"Hell.\" V. iii. 17; \"Revenues,\" ii. 7.\n\n [2] {ede}, at this stage of the discussion.\n\n [3] Or, \"that part of the discussion which we ran over in a light and\n    airy fashion,\" in reference to xiii. 2.\n\nWhat topic, pray, was that? (he asked).\n\nSoc. You said, if I mistake not, that it was most important to learn\nthe methods of conducting the several processes of husbandry; for, you\nadded, unless a man knows what things he has to do and how to do them,\nall the care and diligence in the world will stand him in no stead.\n\nAt this point [4] he took me up, observing: So what you now command me\nis to teach the art itself of tillage, Socrates?\n\n [4] Keeping the vulg. order of SS. 3-9, which many commentators would\n    rearrange in various ways. See Breit. ad loc.; Lincke, op. cit. p.\n    111 foll.\n\nYes (I replied), for now it looks as if this art were one which made the\nwise and skilled possessor of it wealthy, whilst the unskilled, in spite\nof all the pains he takes, must live in indigence.\n\nIsch. Now shall you hear, then, [5] Socrates, the generous nature of\nthis human art. For is it not a proof of something noble in it, that\nbeing of supreme utility, so sweet a craft to exercise, so rich in\nbeauty, so acceptable alike to gods and men, the art of husbandry may\nfurther fairly claim to be the easiest of all the arts to learn? Noble I\nname it! this, at any rate, the epithet we give to animals which, being\nbeautiful and large and useful, are also gentle towards the race of man.\n[6]\n\n [5] Or, \"Listen, then, and whilst I recount to you at once the\n    loving-kindness of this art, to man the friendliest.\"\n\n [6] Schenkl regards this sentence as an interpolation. For the epithet\n    {gennaios} applied to the dog see \"Cyrop.\" I. iv. 15, 21;\n    \"Hunting,\" iv. 7.\n\nAllow me to explain, Ischomachus (I interposed). Up to a certain point\nI fully followed what you said. I understand, according to your theory,\nhow a bailiff must be taught. In other words, I follow your descriptions\nboth as to how you make him kindly disposed towards yourself; and how,\nagain, you make him careful, capable of rule, and upright. But at that\npoint you made the statement that, in order to apply this diligence to\ntillage rightly, the careful husbandman must further learn what are the\ndifferent things he has to do, and not alone what things he has to do,\nbut how and when to do them. These are the topics which, in my opinion,\nhave hitherto been somewhat lightly handled in the argument. Let me make\nmy meaning clearer by an instance: it is as if you were to tell me that,\nin order to be able to take down a speech in writing, [7] or to read a\nwritten statement, a man must know his letters. Of course, if not\nstone deaf, I must have garnered that for a certain object knowledge\nof letters was important to me, but the bare recognition of the fact,\nI fear, would not enable me in any deeper sense to know my letters. So,\ntoo, at present I am easily persuaded that if I am to direct my care\naright in tillage I must have a knowledge of the art of tillage. But\nthe bare recognition of the fact does not one whit provide me with the\nknowledge how I ought to till. And if I resolved without ado to set\nabout the work of tilling, I imagine, I should soon resemble your\nphysician going on his rounds and visiting his patients without knowing\nwhat to prescribe or what to do to ease their sufferings. To save\nme from the like predicaments, please teach me the actual work and\nprocesses of tillage.\n\n [7] Or, \"something from dictation.\"\n\nIsch. But truly, [8] Socrates, it is not with tillage as with the other\narts, where the learner must be well-nigh crushed [9] beneath a load\nof study before his prentice-hand can turn out work of worth sufficient\nmerely to support him. [10] The art of husbandry, I say, is not so ill\nto learn and cross-grained; but by watching labourers in the field, by\nlistening to what they say, you will have straightway knowledge enough\nto teach another, should the humour take you. I imagine, Socrates (he\nadded), that you yourself, albeit quite unconscious of the fact, already\nknow a vast amount about the subject. The fact is, other craftsmen (the\nrace, I mean, in general of artists) are each and all disposed to keep\nthe most important [11] features of their several arts concealed:\nwith husbandry it is different. Here the man who has the most skill in\nplanting will take most pleasure in being watched by others; and so too\nthe most skilful sower. Ask any question you may choose about results\nthus beautifully wrought, and not one feature in the whole performance\nwill the doer of it seek to keep concealed. To such height of nobleness\n(he added), Socrates, does husbandry appear, like some fair mistress, to\nconform the soul and disposition of those concerned with it.\n\n [8] \"Nay, if you will but listen, Socrates, with husbandry it is not\n    the same as with the other arts.\"\n\n [9] {katatribenai}, \"worn out.\" See \"Mem.\" III. iv. 1; IV. vii. 5. Al.\n    \"bored to death.\"\n\n [10] Or, \"before the products of his pupilage are worth his keep.\"\n\n [11] Or, \"critical and crucial.\"\n\nThe proem [12] to the speech is beautiful at any rate (I answered), but\nhardly calculated to divert the hearer from the previous question. A\nthing so easy to be learnt, you say? then, if so, do you be all the\nreadier for that reason to explain its details to me. No shame on you\nwho teach, to teach these easy matters; but for me to lack the knowledge\nof them, and most of all if highly useful to the learner, worse than\nshame, a scandal.\n\n [12] Or, \"the prelude to the piece.\"\n\n\n\nXVI\n\nIsch. First then, Socrates, I wish to demonstrate to you that what\nis called [1] \"the intricate variety in husbandry\" [2] presents no\ndifficulty. I use a phrase of those who, whatever the nicety with\nwhich they treat the art in theory, [3] have but the faintest practical\nexperience of tillage. What they assert is, that \"he who would rightly\ntill the soil must first be made acquainted with the nature of the\nearth.\"\n\n [1] \"They term\"; in reference to the author of some treatise.\n\n [2] Or, \"the riddling subtlety of tillage.\" See \"Mem.\" II. iii. 10;\n    Plat. \"Symp.\" 182 B; \"Phileb.\" 53 E.\n\n [3] Theophr. \"De Caus.\" ii. 4, 12, mentions Leophanes amongst other\n    writers on agriculture preceding himself.\n\nAnd they are surely right in their assertion (I replied); for he who\ndoes not know what the soil is capable of bearing, can hardly know, I\nfancy, what he has to plant or what to sow.\n\nBut he has only to look at his neighbour's land (he answered), at his\ncrops and trees, in order to learn what the soil can bear and what\nit cannot. [4] After which discovery, it is ill work fighting against\nheaven. Certainly not by dint of sowing and planting what he himself\ndesires will he meet the needs of life more fully than by planting and\nsowing what the earth herself rejoices to bear and nourish on her bosom.\nOr if, as well may be the case, through the idleness of those who occupy\nit, the land itself cannot display its native faculty, [5] it is often\npossible to derive a truer notion from some neighbouring district that\never you will learn about it from your neighbour's lips. [6] Nay, even\nthough the earth lie waste and barren, it may still declare its nature;\nsince a soil productive of beautiful wild fruits can by careful tending\nbe made to yield fruits of the cultivated kind as beautiful. And on\nthis wise, he who has the barest knowledge [7] of the art of tillage can\nstill discern the nature of the soil.\n\n [4] Holden cf. Virg. \"Georg.\" i. 53; iv. 109. According to the\n    commentator Servius, the poet drew largely upon Xenophon's\n    treatise.\n\n [5] Or, \"cannot prove its natural aptitude.\"\n\n [6] Or, \"from a neighbouring mortal.\"\n\n [7] Or, \"a mere empiric in the art of husbandry.\"\n\nThank you (I said), Ischomachus, my courage needs no further fanning\nupon that score. I am bold enough now to believe that no one need\nabstain from agriculture for fear he will not recognise the nature of\nthe soil. Indeed, I now recall to mind a fact concerning fishermen, how\nas they ply their business on the seas, not crawling lazily along, nor\nbringing to, for prospect's sake, but in the act of scudding past the\nflying farmsteads, [8] these brave mariners have only to set eyes upon\ncrops on land, and they will boldly pronounce opinion on the nature\nof the soil itself, whether good or bad: this they blame and that they\npraise. And these opinions for the most part coincide, I notice, with\nthe verdict of the skilful farmer as to quality of soil. [9]\n\n [8] Or, \"the flying coastland, fields and farmyards.\"\n\n [9] Lit. \"And indeed the opinions they pronounce about 'a good soil'\n    mostly tally with the verdict of the expert farmer.\"\n\nIsch. At what point shall I begin then, Socrates, to revive your\nrecollection [10] of the art of husbandry? since to explain to you the\nprocesses employed in husbandry means the statement of a hundred details\nwhich you know yourself full well already.\n\n [10] Or, \"begin recalling to your mind.\" See Plat. \"Meno,\" for the\n    doctrine of Anamensis here apparently referred to.\n\nSoc. The first thing I should like to learn, Ischomachus, I think, if\nonly as a point befitting a philosopher, is this: how to proceed and how\nto work the soil, did I desire to extract the largest crops of wheat and\nbarley.\n\nIsch. Good, then! you are aware that fallow must be broken up in\nreadiness [11] for sowing?\n\n [11] Or, \"ploughed up.\" Cf. Theophr. \"Hist. Pl.\" iii. i. 6; Dion. Hal.\n    \"Ant.\" x. 17.\n\nSoc. Yes, I am aware of that.\n\nIsch. Well then, supposing we begin to plough our land in winter?\n\nSoc. It would not do. There would be too much mud.\n\nIsch. Well then, what would you say to summer?\n\nSoc. The soil will be too hard in summer for a plough and a pair of oxen\nto break up.\n\nIsch. It looks as if spring-time were the season to begin this work,\nthen? What do you say?\n\nSoc. I say, one may expect the soil broken up at that season of the year\nto crumble [12] best.\n\n [12] {kheisthai} = laxari, dissolvi, to be most friable, to scatter\n    readily.\n\nIsch. Yes, and grasses [13] turned over at that season, Socrates, serve\nto supply the soil already with manure; while as they have not shed\ntheir seed as yet, they cannot vegetate. [14] I am supposing that you\nrecognise a further fact: to form good land, a fallow must be clean and\nclear of undergrowth and weeds, [15] and baked as much as possible by\nexposure to the sun. [16]\n\n [13] \"Herbage,\" whether grass or other plants, \"grass,\" \"clover,\" etc;\n    Theophr. \"Hist. Pl.\" i. 3. 1; Holden, \"green crops.\"\n\n [14] Lit. \"and not as yet have shed their seed so as to spring into\n    blade.\"\n\n [15] Or, \"quitch.\"\n\n [16] Holden cf. Virg. \"Georg.\" i. 65, coquat; ii. 260, excoquere. So\n    Lucr. vi. 962.\n\nSoc. Yes, that is quite a proper state of things, I should imagine.\n\nIsch. And to bring about this proper state of things, do you maintain\nthere can be any other better system than that of turning the soil over\nas many times as possible in summer?\n\nSoc. On the contrary, I know precisely that for either object, whether\nto bring the weeds and quitch grass to the surface and to wither them by\nscorching heat, or to expose the earth itself to the sun's baking rays,\nthere can be nothing better than to plough the soil up with a pair of\noxen during mid-day in midsummer.\n\nIsch. And if a gang of men set to, to break and make this fallow with\nthe mattock, it is transparent that their business is to separate the\nquitch grass from the soil and keep them parted?\n\nSoc. Just so!--to throw the quitch grass down to wither on the surface,\nand to turn the soil up, so that the crude earth may have its turn of\nbaking.\n\n\n\nXVII\n\nYou see, Socrates (he said, continuing the conversation), we hold the\nsame opinion, both of us, concerning fallow.\n\nWhy, so it seems (I said)--the same opinion.\n\nIsch. But when it comes to sowing, what is your opinion? Can you suggest\na better time for sowing than that which the long experience of former\ngenerations, combined with that of men now living, recognises as\nthe best? See, so soon as autumn time has come, the faces of all men\neverywhere turn with a wistful gaze towards high heaven. \"When will God\nmoisten the earth,\" they ask, \"and suffer men to sow their seed?\" [1]\n\n [1] See Dr. Holden's interesting note at this point: \"According to\n    Virgil ('Georg.' i. 215), spring is the time,\" etc.\n\nYes, Ischomachus (I answered), for all mankind must recognise the\nprecept: [2] \"Sow not on dry soil\" (if it can be avoided), being taught\nwisdom doubtless by the heavy losses they must struggle with who sow\nbefore God's bidding.\n\n [2] Or, \"it is a maxim held of all men.\"\n\nIsch. It seems, then, you and I and all mankind hold one opinion on\nthese matters?\n\nSoc. Why, yes; where God himself is teacher, such accord is apt to\nfollow; for instance, all men are agreed, it is better to wear thick\nclothes [3] in winter, if so be they can. We light fires by general\nconsent, provided we have logs to burn.\n\n [3] Or, \"a thick cloak.\" See Rich, s.v. Pallium (= {imation}).\n\nYet as regards this very period of seed-time (he made answer), Socrates,\nwe find at once the widest difference of opinion upon one point; as to\nwhich is better, the early, or the later, [4] or the middle sowing?\n\n [4] See Holden ad loc. Sauppe, \"Lex. Xen.,\" notes {opsimos} as Ionic\n    and poet. See also Rutherford, \"New Phryn.\" p. 124: \"First met\n    with in a line of the 'Iliad' (ii. 325), {opsimos} does not appear\n    till late Greek except in the 'Oeconomicus,' a disputed work of\n    Xenophon.\"\n\nSoc. Just so, for neither does God guide the year in one set fashion,\nbut irregularly, now suiting it to early sowing best, and now to middle,\nand again to later.\n\nIsch. But what, Socrates, is your opinion? Were it better for a man to\nchoose and turn to sole account a single sowing season, be it much he\nhas to sow or be it little? or would you have him begin his sowing with\nthe earliest season, and sow right on continuously until the latest?\n\nAnd I, in my turn, answered: I should think it best, Ischomachus, to use\nindifferently the whole sowing season. [5] Far better [6] to have enough\nof corn and meal at any moment and from year to year, than first a\nsuperfluity and then perhaps a scant supply.\n\n [5] Or, \"share in the entire period of seed time.\" Zeune cf. \"Geop.\"\n    ii. 14. 8; Mr. Ruskin's translators, \"Bibl. Past.\" vol. i.; cf.\n    Eccles. xi. 6.\n\n [6] Lit. \"according to my tenet,\" {nomizo}.\n\nIsch. Then, on this point also, Socrates, you hold a like opinion with\nmyself--the pupil to the teacher; and what is more, the pupil was the\nfirst to give it utterance.\n\nSo far, so good! (I answered). Is there a subtle art in scattering the\nseed?\n\nIsch. Let us by all means investigate that point. That the seed must be\ncast by hand, I presume you know yourself?\n\nSoc. Yes, by the testimony of my eyes. [7]\n\n [7] Lit. \"Yes, for I have seen it done.\"\n\nIsch. But as to actual scattering, some can scatter evenly, others\ncannot. [8]\n\n [8] Holden cf. W. Harte, \"Essays on Husbandry,\" p. 210, 2nd ed., \"The\n    main perfection of sowing is to disperse the seeds equally.\"\n\nSoc. Does it not come to this, the hand needs practice (like the fingers\nof a harp-player) to obey the will?\n\nIsch. Precisely so, but now suppose the soil is light in one part and\nheavy in another?\n\nSoc. I do not follow; by \"light\" do you mean weak? and by \"heavy\"\nstrong?\n\nIsch. Yes, that is what I mean. And the question which I put to you\nis this: Would you allow both sorts of soil an equal share of seed? or\nwhich the larger? [9]\n\n [9] See Theophr. \"Hist. Pl.\" viii. 6. 2; Virg. \"Georg.\" ii. 275.\n    Holden cf. Adam Dickson, \"Husbandry of the Ancients,\" vol. ii. 35.\n    33 f. (Edin. 1788), \"Were the poor light land in Britain managed\n    after the manner of the Roman husbandry, it would certainly\n    require much less seed than under its present management.\"\n\nSoc. The stronger the wine the larger the dose of water to be added, I\nbelieve. The stronger, too, the man the heavier the weight we will\nlay upon his back to carry: or if it is not porterage, but people to\nsupport, there still my tenet holds: the broader and more powerful the\ngreat man's shoulders, the more mouths I should assign to him to feed.\nBut perhaps a weak soil, like a lean pack-horse, [10] grows stronger the\nmore corn you pour into it. This I look to you to teach me. [11]\n\n [10] Or, \"lean cattle.\"\n\n [11] Or, \"Will you please answer me that question, teacher?\"\n\nWith a laugh, he answered: Once more you are pleased to jest. Yet rest\nassured of one thing, Socrates: if after you have put seed into the\nground, you will await the instant when, while earth is being richly\nfed from heaven, the fresh green from the hidden seed first springs, and\ntake and turn it back again, [12] this sprouting germ will serve as food\nfor earth: as from manure an inborn strength will presently be added to\nthe soil. But if you suffer earth to feed the seed of corn within it and\nto bring forth fruit in an endless round, at last [13] it will be hard\nfor the weakened soil to yield large corn crops, even as a weak sow can\nhardly rear a large litter of fat pigs.\n\n [12] \"If you will plough the seedlings in again.\"\n\n [13] {dia telous... es telos}, \"continually... in the end.\" See\n    references in Holden's fifth edition.\n\nSoc. I understand you to say, Ischomachus, that the weaker soil must\nreceive a scantier dose of seed?\n\nIsch. Most decidedly I do, and you on your side, Socrates, I understand,\ngive your consent to this opinion in stating your belief that the weaker\nthe shoulders the lighter the burdens to be laid on them.\n\nSoc. But those hoers with their hoes, Ischomachus, tell me for what\nreason you let them loose [14] upon the corn.\n\n [14] Cf. \"Revenues,\" iv. 5.\n\nIsch. You know, I daresay, that in winter there are heavy rains? [15]\n\n [15] \"And melting snows, much water every way.\"\n\nSoc. To be sure, I do.\n\nIsch. We may suppose, then, that a portion of the corn is buried by\nthese floods beneath a coat of mud and slime, or else that the roots are\nlaid quite bare in places by the torrent. By reason of this same drench,\nI take it, oftentimes an undergrowth of weeds springs up with the corn\nand chokes it.\n\nSoc. Yes, all these ills are likely enough to happen.\n\nIsch. Are you not agreed the corn-fields sorely need relief at such a\nseason?\n\nSoc. Assuredly.\n\nIsch. Then what is to be done, in your opinion? How shall we aid the\nstricken portion lying mud-bedabbled?\n\nSoc. How better than by lifting up and lightening the soil?\n\nIsch. Yes! and that other portion lying naked to the roots and\ndefenceless, how aid it?\n\nSoc. Possibly by mounding up fresh earth about it. [16]\n\n [16] \"Scraping up a barrier of fresh earth about it.\"\n\nIsch. And what when the weeds spring up together with the corn and choke\nit? or when they rob and ruthlessly devour the corn's proper sustenance,\nlike unserviceable drones [17] that rob the working bees of honey,\npilfering the good food which they have made and stored away with\nlabour: what must we do?\n\n [17] Cf. Shakesp. \"Lazy yawning drones,\" \"Henry V.\" I. ii. 204.\n\nSoc. In good sooth, there can be nothing for it save to cut out the\nnoisome weed, even as drones are cleared out from the hive.\n\nIsch. You agree there is some show of reason for letting in these gangs\nof hoers?\n\nSoc. Most true. And now I am turning over in my mind, [18] Ischomachus,\nhow grand a thing it is to introduce a simile or such like figure well\nand aptly. No sooner had you mentioned the word \"drones\" than I was\nfilled with rage against those miserable weeds, far more than when you\nmerely spoke of weeds and undergrowth.\n\n [18] Or, \"I was just this moment pondering the virtue of a happy\n    illustration.\" Lit. \"what a thing it is to introduce an 'image'\n    ({tas eikonas}) well.\" See Plat. \"Rep.\" 487 E, {de eikonos}, \"in a\n    parable\" (Jowett); \"Phaed.\" 87 B, \"a figure\"; Aristoph. \"Clouds,\"\n    559; Plat. \"Phaedr.\" 267 C; Aristot. \"Rhet.\" III. iv. As to the\n    drones, J. J. Hartman, \"An. X.\" 186, aptly cf. Aristoph. \"Wasps,\"\n    1114 f.\n\n\n\nXVIII\n\nBut, not to interrupt you further (I continued), after sowing, naturally\nwe hope to come to reaping. If, therefore, you have anything to say on\nthat head also, pray proceed to teach me.\n\nIsch. Yes, by all means, unless indeed you prove on this head also to\nknow as much yourself already as your teacher. To begin then: You know\nthat corn needs cutting?\n\nSoc. To be sure, I know that much at any rate.\n\nIsch. Well, then, the next point: in the act of cutting corn how will\nyou choose to stand? facing the way the wind blows, [1] or against the\nwind?\n\n [1] Lit. \"(on the side) where the wind blows or right opposite.\"\n\nSoc. Not against the wind, for my part. Eyes and hands must suffer, I\nimagine, if one stood reaping face to face with husks and particles of\nstraw. [2]\n\n [2] i.e. \"with particles of straw and beards of corn blowing in one's\n    face.\"\n\nIsch. And should you merely sever the ears at top, or reap close to the\nground? [3]\n\n [3] See Holden ad loc.; Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, \"Husbandry,\" 27 (ed.\n    1767), \"In Somersetshire... they do share theyr wheate very\n    lowe....\"\n\nIf the stalk of corn were short (I answered), I should cut down close,\nto secure a sufficient length of straw to be of use. But if the stalk be\ntall, you would do right, I hold, to cut it half-way down, whereby the\nthresher and the winnower will be saved some extra labour (which both\nmay well be spared). [4] The stalk left standing in the field, when\nburnt down (as burnt it will be, I presume), will help to benefit the\nsoil; [5] and laid on as manure, will serve to swell the volume of\nmanure. [6]\n\n [4] Lit. \"will be spared superfluous labour on what they do not want.\"\n\n [5] Al. \"if burnt down...; if laid on as manure...\"\n\n [6] \"Help to swell the bulk\" (Holden). For the custom see Virg.\n    \"Georg.\" i. 84; J. Tull, op. cit. ix. 141: \"The custom of burning\n    the stubble on the rich plains about Rome continues to this time.\"\n\nIsch. There, Socrates, you are detected \"in the very act\"; you know as\nmuch about reaping as I do myself.\n\nIt looks a little like it (I replied). But I would fain discover whether\nI have sound knowledge also about threshing.\n\nIsch. Well, I suppose you are aware of this much: corn is threshed by\nbeasts of burthen? [7]\n\n [7] Holden cf. Dr. Davy, \"Notes and Observations on the Ionian\n    Islands.\" \"The grain is beaten out, commonly in the harvest field,\n    by men, horses, or mules, on a threshing-floor prepared extempore\n    for the purpose, where the ground is firm and dry, and the chaff\n    is separated by winnowing.\"--Wilkinson, \"Ancient Egyptians,\" ii.\n    41 foll.\n\nSoc. Yes, I am aware of that much, and beast of burthen is a general\nname including oxen, horses, mules, and so forth. [8]\n\n [8] See Varro, i. 52, as to tritura and ventilatio.\n\nIsch. Is it your opinion that these animals know more than merely how to\ntread the corn while driven with the goad?\n\nSoc. What more can they know, being beasts of burthen?\n\nIsch. Some one must see, then, that the beasts tread out only what\nrequires threshing and no more, and that the threshing is done evenly\nitself: to whom do you assign that duty, Socrates?\n\nSoc. Clearly it is the duty of the threshers who are in charge. [9] It\nis theirs to turn the sheaves, and ever and again to push the untrodden\ncorn under the creatures' feet; and thus, of course, to keep the\nthreshing-floor as smooth, and finish off the work as fast, as possible.\n\n [9] Or, \"to the over-threshers,\" \"the drivers\" (Holden).\n\nIsch. Your comprehension of the facts thus far, it seems, keeps pace\nwith mine.\n\nSoc. Well, after that, Ischomachus, we will proceed to cleanse the corn\nby winnowing. [10]\n\n [10] Breit. cf. Colum. \"de r. r.\" ii. 10, 14, 21; vide Rich, s.v.\n    ventilabrum.\n\nIsch. Yes, but tell me, Socrates; do you know that if you begin the\nprocess from the windward portion (of the threshing-floor), you will\nfind your chaff is carried over the whole area.\n\nSoc. It must be so.\n\nIsch. Then it is more than likely the chaff will fall upon the corn.\n\nSoc. Yes, considering the distance, [11] the chaff will hardly be\ncarried across the corn into the empty portion of the threshing-floor.\n\n [11] Lit. \"it is a long space for the chaff to be carried.\" Al. (1)\n    \"It is of great consequence the chaff should be carried beyond the\n    corn.\" (2) \"It often happens that the corn is blown not only on to\n    the corn, but over and beyond it into the empty portion of the\n    threshing-floor.\" So Breit.\n\nIsch. But now, suppose you begin winnowing on the \"lee\" side of the\nthreshing-floor? [12]\n\n [12] Or, \"on the side of the threshing-floor opposite the wind.\" Al.\n    \"protected from the wind.\"\n\nSoc. It is clear the chaff will at once fall into the chaff-receiver.\n[13]\n\n [13] A hollowed-out portion of the threshing-floor, according to\n    Breitenbach.\n\nIsch. And when you have cleansed the corn over half the floor, will you\nproceed at once, with the corn thus strewn in front of you, to winnow\nthe remainder, [14] or will you first pack the clean grain into the\nnarrowest space against the central pillar? [15]\n\n [14] Lit. \"of the chaff,\" where we should say \"corn,\" the winnowing\n    process separating chaff from grain and grain from chaff.\n\n [15] If that is the meaning of {ton polon}. Al. \"the outer edge or rim\n    of the threshing-floor.\"\n\nSoc. Yes, upon my word! first pack together the clean grain, and\nproceed. My chaff will now be carried into the empty portion of the\nfloor, and I shall escape the need of winnowing twice over. [16]\n\n [16] Or, \"the same chaff (i.e. unwinnowed corn, Angl. corn) twice.\"\n\nIsch. Really, Socrates, you are fully competent yourself, it seems, to\nteach an ignorant world [17] the speediest mode of winnowing.\n\n [17] Lit. \"After all, Socrates, it seems you could even teach another\n    how to purge his corn most expeditiously.\"\n\nSoc. It seems, then, as you say, I must have known about these matters,\nthough unconsciously; and here I stand and beat my brains, [18]\nreflecting whether or not I may not know some other things--how to\nrefine gold and play the flute and paint pictures--without being\nconscious of the fact. Certainly, as far as teaching goes, no one ever\ntaught me these, no more than husbandry; while, as to using my own eyes,\nI have watched men working at the other arts no less than I have watched\nthem till the soil.\n\n [18] Lit. \"all this while, I am thinking whether...\"\n\nIsch. Did I not tell you long ago that of all arts husbandry was the\nnoblest, the most generous, just because it is the easiest to learn?\n\nSoc. That it is without a doubt, Ischomachus. It seems I must have known\nthe processes of sowing, without being conscious of my knowledge. [19]\n\n [19] Or, \"but for all my science, I was ignorant (of knowing my own\n    knowledge).\"\n\n\n\nXIX\n\nSoc. (continuing). But may I ask, is the planting of trees [1] a\ndepartment in the art of husbandry?\n\n [1] i.e. of fruit trees, the vine, olive, fig, etc.\n\nIsch. Certainly it is.\n\nSoc. How is it, then, that I can know about the processes of sowing and\nat the same time have no knowledge about planting?\n\nIsch. Is it so certain that you have no knowledge?\n\nSoc. How can you ask me? when I neither know the sort of soil in which\nto plant, nor yet the depth of hole [2] the plant requires, nor the\nbreadth, or length of ground in which it needs to be embedded; [3] nor\nlastly, how to lay the plant in earth, with any hope of fostering its\ngrowth. [4]\n\n [2] Reading {to phuto}, \"nor yet how deep or broad to sink (the hole)\n    for the plant.\" Holden (ed. 1886) supplies {bothunon}. Al.\n    {bothron}.\n\n [3] See Loudon, \"Encycl. of Agric.\" S. 407, ap. Holden: \"In France\n    plantations of the vine are made by dibbling in cuttings of two\n    feet of length; pressing the earth firmly to their lower end, an\n    essential part of the operation, noticed even by Xenophon.\"\n\n [4] Lit. \"how, laid in the soil, the plant will best shoot forth or\n    grow.\"\n\nIsch. Come, then, to lessons, pupil, and be taught whatever you do not\nknow already! You have seen, I know, the sort of trenches which are dug\nfor plants?\n\nSoc. Hundreds of times.\n\nIsch. Did you ever see one more than three feet deep?\n\nSoc. No, I do not think I ever saw one more than two and a half feet\ndeep.\n\nIsch. Well, as to the breadth now. Did you ever see a trench more than\nthree feet broad? [5]\n\n [5] Or, \"width,\" \"wide.\" The commentators cf. Plin. \"H. N.\" xvii. 11,\n    16, 22; Columell. v. 5. 2; ib. iii. 15. 2; Virg. \"Georg.\" ii. 288.\n\nSoc. No, upon my word, not even more than two feet broad.\n\nIsch. Good! now answer me this question: Did you ever see a trench less\nthan one foot deep?\n\nSoc. No, indeed! nor even less than one foot and a half. Why, the plants\nwould be no sooner buried than dug out again, if planted so extremely\nnear the surface.\n\nIsch. Here, then, is one matter, Socrates, which you know as well as any\none. [6] The trench is not to be sunk deeper than two feet and a half,\nor shallower than one foot and a half.\n\n [6] Lit. \"quite adequately.\"\n\nSoc. Obviously, a thing so plain appeals to the eye at once.\n\nIsch. Can you by eyesight recognise the difference between a dry soil\nand a moist?\n\nSoc. I should certainly select as dry the soil round Lycabettus, [7] and\nany that resembles it; and as moist, the soil in the marsh meadows of\nPhalerum, [8] or the like.\n\n [7] See Leake, \"Topog. of Athens,\" i. 209.\n\n [8] Or, \"the Phaleric marsh-land.\" See Leake, ib. 231, 427; ii. 9.\n\nIsch. In planting, would you dig (what I may call) deep trenches in a\ndry soil or a moist?\n\nSoc. In a dry soil certainly; at any rate, if you set about to dig deep\ntrenches in the moist you will come to water, and there and then an end\nto further planting.\n\nIsch. You could not put it better. We will suppose, then, the trenches\nhave been dug. Does your eyesight take you further? [9] Have you noticed\nat what season in either case [10] the plants must be embedded?\n\n [9] Lit. \"As soon as the trenches have been dug then, have you further\n    noticed...\"\n\n [10] (1) The vulg. reading {openika... ekatera} = \"at what precise\n    time... either (i.e. 'the two different' kinds of) plant,\" i.e.\n    \"vine and olive\" or \"vine and fig,\" I suppose; (2) Breit. emend.\n    {opotera... en ekatera} = \"which kind of plant... in either\n    soil...\"; (3) Schenkl. etc., {openika... en ekatera} = \"at\n    what season... in each of the two sorts of soil...\"\n\nSoc. Certainly. [11]\n\n [11] There is an obvious lacuna either before or after this remark, or\n    at both places.\n\nIsch. Supposing, then, you wish the plants to grow as fast as\npossible: how will the cutting strike and sprout, do you suppose, most\nreadily?--after you have laid a layer of soil already worked beneath it,\nand it merely has to penetrate soft mould? or when it has to force its\nway through unbroken soil into the solid ground?\n\nSoc. Clearly it will shoot through soil which has been worked more\nquickly than through unworked soil.\n\nIsch. Well then, a bed of earth must be laid beneath the plant?\n\nSoc. I quite agree; so let it be.\n\nIsch. And how do you expect your cutting to root best?--if set straight\nup from end to end, pointing to the sky? [12] or if you set it slantwise\nunder its earthy covering, so as to lie like an inverted gamma? [13]\n\n [12] Lit. \"if you set the whole cutting straight up, facing\n    heavenwards.\"\n\n [13] i.e. Anglice, \"like the letter {G} upon its back\" {an inverted\n    \"upper-case\" gamma looks like an L}. See Lord Bacon, \"Nat. Hist.\"\n    Cent. v. 426: \"When you would have many new roots of fruit-trees,\n    take a low tree and bow it and lay all his branches aflat upon the\n    ground and cast earth upon them; and every twig will take root.\n    And this is a very profitable experiment for costly trees (for the\n    boughs will make stock without charge), such as are apricots,\n    peaches, almonds, cornelians, mulberries, figs, etc. The like is\n    continually practised with vines, roses, musk roses, etc.\"\n\nSoc. Like an inverted gamma, to be sure, for so the plant must needs\nhave more eyes under ground. Now it is from these same eyes of theirs,\nif I may trust my own, [14] that plants put forth their shoots above\nground. I imagine, therefore, the eyes still underground will do the\nsame precisely, and with so many buds all springing under earth, the\nplant itself, I argue, as a whole will sprout and shoot and push its way\nwith speed and vigour.\n\n [14] Lit. \"it is from their eyes, I see, that plants...\"\n\nIsch. I may tell you that on these points, too, your judgment tallies\nwith my own. But now, should you content yourself with merely heaping up\nthe earth, or will you press it firmly round your plant?\n\nSoc. I should certainly press down the earth; for if the earth is not\npressed down, I know full well that at one time under the influence of\nrain the unpressed soil will turn to clay or mud; at another, under the\ninfluence of the sun, it will turn to sand or dust to the very bottom:\nso that the poor plant runs a risk of being first rotted with moisture\nby the rain, and next of being shrivelled up with drought through\noverheating of the roots. [15]\n\n [15] Through \"there being too much bottom heat.\" Holden (ed. 1886).\n\nIsch. So far as the planting of vines is concerned, it appears,\nSocrates, that you and I again hold views precisely similar.\n\nAnd does this method of planting apply also to the fig-tree? (I\ninquired).\n\nIsch. Surely, and not to the fig-tree alone, but to all the rest of\nfruit-trees. [16] What reason indeed would there be for rejecting in the\ncase of other plant-growths [17] what is found to answer so well with\nthe vine?\n\n [16] {akrodrua} = \"edible fruits\" in Xenophon's time. See Plat.\n    \"Criti.\" 115 B; Dem. \"c. Nicostr.\" 1251; Aristot. \"Hist. An.\"\n    viii. 28. 8, {out akrodrua out opora khronios}; Theophr. \"H. Pl.\"\n    iv. 4. 11. (At a later period, see \"Geopon.\" x. 74, = \"fruits\n    having a hard rind or shell,\" e.g. nuts, acorns, as opposed to\n    pears, apples, grapes, etc., {opora}.) See further the interesting\n    regulations in Plat. \"Laws,\" 844 D, 845 C.\n\n [17] Lit. \"planting in general.\"\n\nSoc. How shall we plant the olive, pray, Ischomachus?\n\nIsch. I see your purpose. You ask that question with a view to put me\nto the test, [18] when you know the answer yourself as well as possible.\nYou can see with your own eyes [19] that the olive has a deeper trench\ndug, planted as it is so commonly by the side of roads. You can see that\nall the young plants in the nursery adhere to stumps. [20] And lastly,\nyou can see that a lump of clay is placed on the head of every plant,\n[21] and the portion of the plant above the soil is protected by a\nwrapping. [22]\n\n [18] Plat. \"Prot.\" 311 B, 349 C; \"Theaet.\" 157 C: \"I cannot make out\n    whether you are giving your own opinion, or only wanting to draw\n    me out\" (Jowett).\n\n [19] For the advantage, see \"Geopon.\" iii. 11. 2.\n\n [20] Holden cf. Virg. \"Georg.\" ii. 30--\n\nquin et caudicibus sectis, mirabile dictu, truditur e sicco radix\noleagina ligno.\n\nThe stock in slices cut, and forth shall shoot, O passing strange! from\neach dry slice a root (Holden).\n\nSee John Martyn ad loc.: \"La Cerda says, that what the Poet here speaks\nof was practised in Spain in his time. They take the trunk of an olive,\nsays he, deprive it of its root and branches, and cut it into several\npieces, which they put into the ground, whence a root and, soon\nafterwards, a tree is formed.\" This mode of propagating by dry pieces\nof the trunk (with bark on) is not to be confounded with that of\n\"truncheons\" mentioned in \"Georg.\" ii. 63.\n\n [21] See Theophr. \"H. Pl.\" ii. 2, 4; \"de Caus.\" iii. 5. 1; \"Geopon.\"\n    ix. 11. 4, ap. Hold.; Col. v. 9. 1; xi. 2. 42.\n\n [22] Or, \"covered up for protection.\"\n\nSoc. Yes, all these things I see.\n\nIsch. Granted, you see: what is there in the matter that you do not\nunderstand? Perhaps you are ignorant how you are to lay the potsherd on\nthe clay at top?\n\nSoc. No, in very sooth, not ignorant of that Ischomachus, or anything\nyou mentioned. That is just the puzzle, and again I beat my brains to\ndiscover why, when you put to me that question a while back: \"Had I, in\nbrief, the knowledge how to plant?\" I answered, \"No.\" Till then it never\nwould have struck me that I could say at all how planting must be done.\nBut no sooner do you begin to question me on each particular point\nthan I can answer you; and what is more, my answers are, you tell me,\naccordant with the views of an authority [23] at once so skilful and so\ncelebrated as yourself. Really, Ischomachus, I am disposed to ask: \"Does\nteaching consist in putting questions?\" [24] Indeed, the secret of your\nsystem has just this instant dawned upon me. I seem to see the principle\nin which you put your questions. You lead me through the field of my own\nknowledge, [25] and then by pointing out analogies [26] to what I\nknow, persuade me that I really know some things which hitherto, as I\nbelieved, I had no knowledge of.\n\n [23] Or, \"whose skill in farming is proverbial.\"\n\n [24] Lit. \"Is questioning after all a kind of teaching?\" See Plat.\n    \"Meno\"; \"Mem.\" IV. vi. 15.\n\n [25] It appears, then, that the Xenophontean Socrates has {episteme}\n    of a sort.\n\n [26] Or, \"a series of resemblances,\" \"close parallels,\" reading\n    {epideiknus}: or if with Breit. {apodeiknus}, transl. \"by proving\n    such or such a thing is like some other thing known to me\n    already.\"\n\nIsch. Do you suppose if I began to question you concerning money and its\nquality, [27] I could possibly persuade you that you know the method to\ndistinguish good from false coin? Or could I, by a string of questions\nabout flute-players, painters, and the like, induce you to believe that\nyou yourself know how to play the flute, or paint, and so forth?\n\n [27] Lit. \"whether it is good or not.\"\n\nSoc. Perhaps you might; for have you not persuaded me I am possessed of\nperfect knowledge of this art of husbandry, [28] albeit I know that no\none ever taught this art to me?\n\n [28] Or, \"since you actually succeeded in persuading me I was\n    scientifically versed in,\" etc. See Plat. \"Statesm.\" 301 B;\n    \"Theaet.\" 208 E; Aristot. \"An. Post.\" i. 6. 4; \"Categ.\" 8. 41.\n\nIsch. Ah! that is not the explanation, Socrates. The truth is what\nI told you long ago and kept on telling you. Husbandry is an art so\ngentle, so humane, that mistress-like she makes all those who look on\nher or listen to her voice intelligent [29] of herself at once. Many\na lesson does she herself impart how best to try conclusions with her.\n[30] See, for instance, how the vine, making a ladder of the nearest\ntree whereon to climb, informs us that it needs support. [31] Anon it\nspreads its leaves when, as it seems to say, \"My grapes are young, my\nclusters tender,\" and so teaches us, during that season, to screen and\nshade the parts exposed to the sun's rays; but when the appointed moment\ncomes, when now it is time for the swelling clusters to be sweetened\nby the sun, behold, it drops a leaf and then a leaf, so teaching us to\nstrip it bare itself and let the vintage ripen. With plenty teeming, see\nthe fertile mother shows her mellow clusters, and the while is nursing\na new brood in primal crudeness. [32] So the vine plant teaches us how\nbest to gather in the vintage, even as men gather figs, the juiciest\nfirst. [33]\n\n [29] Or, \"gives them at once a perfect knowledge of herself.\"\n\n [30] Lit. \"best to deal with her,\" \"make use of her.\"\n\n [31] Lit. \"teaches us to prop it.\"\n\n [32] Lit. \"yet immature.\"\n\n [33] Or, \"first one and then another as it swells.\" Cf. Shakespeare:\n\nThe mellow plum doth fall, the green sticks fast, Or being early pluck'd\nis sour to taste (\"V. and A.\" 527).\n\n\n\nXX\n\nAt this point in the conversation I remarked: Tell me, Ischomachus,\nif the details of the art of husbandry are thus easy to learn, and all\nalike know what needs to be done, how does it happen that all farmers\ndo not fare like, but some live in affluence owning more than they\ncan possibly enjoy, while others of them fail to obtain the barest\nnecessities and actually run into debt?\n\nI will tell you, Socrates (Ischomachus replied). It is neither knowledge\nnor lack of knowledge in these husbandmen which causes some to be well\noff, while others are in difficulties; nor will you ever hear such tales\nafloat as that this or that estate has gone to ruin because the sower\nfailed to sow evenly, or that the planter failed to plant straight rows\nof plants, or that such an one, [1] being ignorant what soil was best\nsuited to bear vines, had set his plants in sterile ground, or that\nanother [2] was in ignorance that fallow must be broken up for purposes\nof sowing, or that a third [3] was not aware that it is good to mix\nmanure in with the soil. No, you are much more likely to hear said of\nSo-and-so: No wonder the man gets in no wheat from his farm, when he\ntakes no pains to have it sown or properly manured. Or of some other\nthat he grows no wine: Of course not, when he takes no pains either to\nplant new vines or to make those he has bear fruit. A third has neither\nfigs nor olives; and again the self-same reason: He too is careless, and\ntakes no steps whatever to succeed in growing either one or other. These\nare the distinctions which make all the difference to prosperity in\nfarming, far more than the reputed discovery of any clever agricultural\nmethod or machine. [4]\n\n [1] \"Squire This.\"\n\n [2] \"Squire That.\"\n\n [3] \"Squire T'other.\"\n\n [4] There is something amiss with the text at this point. For\n    emendations see Breit., Schenkl, Holden, Hartman.\n\nYou will find the principle applies elsewhere. There are points of\nstrategic conduct in which generals differ from each other for the\nbetter or the worse, not because they differ in respect of wit or\njudgment, but of carefulness undoubtedly. I speak of things within the\ncognisance of every general, and indeed of almost every private soldier,\nwhich some commanders are careful to perform and others not. Who does\nnot know, for instance, that in marching through a hostile territory\nan army ought to march in the order best adapted to deliver battle with\neffect should need arise? [5]--a golden rule which, punctually obeyed\nby some, is disobeyed by others. Again, as all the world knows, it is\nbetter to place day and night pickets [6] in front of an encampment. Yet\neven that is a procedure which, carefully observed at times, is at times\nas carelessly neglected. Once more: not one man in ten thousand, [7]\nI suppose, but knows that when a force is marching through a narrow\ndefile, the safer method is to occupy beforehand certain points of\nvantage. [8] Yet this precaution also has been known to be neglected.\n\n [5] See Thuc. ii. 81: \"The Hellenic troops maintained order on the\n    march and kept a look-out until...\"--Jowett.\n\n [6] See \"Cyrop.\" I. vi. 43.\n\n [7] Lit. \"it would be hard to find the man who did not know.\"\n\n [8] Or, \"to seize advantageous positions in advance.\" Cf. \"Hiero,\" x.\n    5.\n\nSimilarly, every one will tell you that manure is the best thing in\nthe world for agriculture, and every one can see how naturally it is\nproduced. Still, though the method of production is accurately known,\nthough there is every facility to get it in abundance, the fact remains\nthat, while one man takes pains to have manure collected, another is\nentirely neglectful. And yet God sends us rain from heaven, and every\nhollow place becomes a standing pool, while earth supplies materials of\nevery kind; the sower, too, about to sow must cleanse the soil, and what\nhe takes as refuse from it needs only to be thrown into water and time\nitself will do the rest, shaping all to gladden earth. [9] For matter\nin every shape, nay earth itself, [10] in stagnant water turns to fine\nmanure.\n\n [9] Lit. \"Time itself will make that wherein Earth rejoices.\"\n\n [10] i.e. \"each fallen leaf, each sprig or spray of undergrowth, the\n    very weeds, each clod.\" Lit. \"what kind of material, what kind of\n    soil does not become manure when thrown into stagnant water?\"\n\nSo, again, as touching the various ways in which the earth itself needs\ntreatment, either as being too moist for sowing, or too salt [11] for\nplanting, these and the processes of cure are known to all men: how\nin one case the superfluous water is drawn off by trenches, and in the\nother the salt corrected by being mixed with various non-salt bodies,\nmoist or dry. Yet here again, in spite of knowledge, some are careful of\nthese matters, others negligent.\n\n [11] See Anatol. \"Geop.\" ii. 10. 9; Theophr. \"de Caus.\" ii. 5. 4, 16.\n    8, ap. Holden. Cf. Virg. \"Georg.\" ii. 238:\n\nsalsa autem tellus, et quae perhibetur amara frugibus infelix.\n\nBut even if a man were altogether ignorant what earth can yield, were he\ndebarred from seeing any fruit or plant, prevented hearing from the\nlips of any one the truth about this earth: even so, I put it to you, it\nwould be easier far for any living soul to make experiments on a piece\nof land, [12] than on a horse, for instance, or on his fellow-man. For\nthere is nought which earth displays with intent to deceive, but in\nclear and simple language stamped with the seal of truth she informs\nus what she can and cannot do. [13] Thus it has ever seemed to me that\nearth is the best discoverer of true honesty, [14] in that she offers\nall her stores of knowledge in a shape accessible to the learner, so\nthat he who runs may read. Here it is not open to the sluggard, as in\nother arts, to put forward the plea of ignorance or lack of knowledge,\nfor all men know that earth, if kindly treated, will repay in kind.\nNo! there is no witness [15] against a coward soul so clear as that of\nhusbandry; [16] since no man ever yet persuaded himself that he could\nlive without the staff of life. He therefore that is unskilled in other\nmoney-making arts and will not dig, shows plainly he is minded to make\nhis living by picking and stealing, or by begging alms, or else he\nwrites himself down a very fool. [17]\n\n [12] Or, \"this fair earth herself.\"\n\n [13] Or, \"earth our mother reveals her powers and her impotence.\"\n\n [14] Lit. \"of the good and the bad.\" Cf. Dem. \"adv. Phorm.\" 918. 18.\n\n [15] Lit. \"no accuser of.\" Cf. Aesch. \"Theb.\" 439.\n\n [16] Reading, with Sauppe, {all' e georgia}, or if, with Jacobs, {e en\n    georgia argia}, transl. \"as that of idleness in husbandry.\"\n\n [17] Or, \"if not, he must be entirely irrational.\" Cf. Plat. \"Apol.\"\n    37 C.\n\nPresently, Ischomachus proceeded: Now it is of prime importance, [18] in\nreference to the profitableness or unprofitableness of agriculture, even\non a large estate where there are numerous [19] workfolk, [20] whether a\nman takes any pains at all to see that his labourers are devoted to the\nwork on hand during the appointed time, [21] or whether he neglects that\nduty. Since one man will fairly distance ten [22] simply by working at\nthe time, and another may as easily fall short by leaving off before the\nhour. [23] In fact, to let the fellows take things easily the whole day\nthrough will make a difference easily of half in the whole work. [24]\n\n [18] Lit. \"it made a great difference, he said, with regard to profit\n    and loss in agriculture.\"\n\n [19] Or if, after Hertlein, adding {kai meionon}, transl. \"workmen now\n    more, now less, in number.\"\n\n [20] {ergasteron}, \"poet.\" L. & S. cf. \"Orph. H.\" 65. 4. See above, v.\n    15; xiii. 10.\n\n [21] Cf. Herod. II. ii. 2.\n\n [22] Or, \"Why! one man in ten makes all the difference by...\"\n    {para} = \"by comparison with.\"\n\n [23] Reading as vulg., or if {to me pro k.t.l.} transl. \"by not\n    leaving off, etc.\"\n\n [24] i.e. \"is a difference of fifty per cent on the whole work.\"\n\nAs, on a walking-expedition, it may happen, of two wayfarers, the\none will gain in pace upon the other half the distance say in every\nfive-and-twenty miles, [25] though both alike are young and hale of\nbody. The one, in fact, is bent on compassing the work on which he\nstarted, he steps out gaily and unflinchingly; the other, more slack in\nspirit, stops to recruit himself and contemplate the view by fountain\nside and shady nook, as though his object were to court each gentle\nzephyr. So in farm work; there is a vast difference as regards\nperformance between those who do it not, but seek excuse for idleness\nand are suffered to be listless. Thus, between good honest work and base\nneglect there is as great a difference as there is between--what shall I\nsay?--why, work and idleness. [26] The gardeners, look, are hoeing vines\nto keep them clean and free of weeds; but they hoe so sorrily that the\nloose stuff grows ranker and more plentiful. Can you call that [27]\nanything but idleness?\n\n [25] Lit. \"per 200 stades.\"\n\n [26] Or, \"wholly to work and wholly to be idle.\" Reading as Sauppe,\n    etc., or if with Holden, etc., {to de de kalos kai to kakos\n    ergazesthai e epimeleisthai}, transl. \"between toil and\n    carefulness well or ill expended there lies all the difference;\n    the two things are sundered as wide apart as are the poles of work\n    and play,\" etc. A. Jacobs' emend. ap. Hartm. \"An. Xen.\" p. 211,\n    {to de de kakos ergazesthai e kakos epimeleisthai kei to kalos},\n    seems happy.\n\n [27] Or, \"such a hoer aught but an idle loon.\"\n\nSuch, Socrates, are the ills which cause a house to crumble far more\nthan lack of scientific knowledge, however rude it be. [28] For if\nyou will consider; on the one hand, there is a steady outflow [29] of\nexpenses from the house, and, on the other, a lack of profitable works\noutside to meet expenses; need you longer wonder if the field-works\ncreate a deficit and not a surplus? In proof, however, that the man who\ncan give the requisite heed, while straining every nerve in the pursuit\nof agriculture, has speedy [30] and effective means of making money, I\nmay cite the instance of my father, who had practised what he preached.\n[31]\n\n [28] Cf. Thuc. v. 7; Plat. \"Rep.\" 350 A; \"Theaet.\" 200 B.\n\n [29] Or, \"the expenses from the house are going on at the full rate,\"\n    {enteleis}. Holden cf. Aristoph. \"Knights,\" 1367: {ton misthon\n    apodoso 'ntele}, \"I'll have the arrears of seamen's wages paid to\n    a penny\" (Frere).\n\n [30] {anutikotaten}. Cf. \"Hipparch,\" ii. 6.\n\n [31] Or, \"who merely taught me what he had himself carried out in\n    practice.\"\n\nNow, my father would never suffer me to purchase an estate already under\ncultivation, but if he chanced upon a plot of land which, owing to the\nneglect or incapacity of the owner, was neither tilled nor planted, [32]\nnothing would satisfy him but I must purchase it. He had a saying that\nestates already under cultivation cost a deal of money and allowed of\nno improvement; and where there is no prospect of improvement, more than\nhalf the pleasure to be got from the possession vanishes. The height of\nhappiness was, he maintained, to see your purchase, be it dead chattel\nor live animal, [33] go on improving daily under your own eyes. [34]\nNow, nothing shows a larger increase [35] than a piece of land reclaimed\nfrom barren waste and bearing fruit a hundredfold. I can assure you,\nSocrates, many is the farm which my father and I made worth I do not\nknow how many times more than its original value. And then, Socrates,\nthis valuable invention [36] is so easy to learn that you who have but\nheard it know and understand it as well as I myself do, and can go away\nand teach it to another if you choose. Yet my father did not learn it of\nanother, nor did he discover it by a painful mental process; [37] but,\nas he has often told me, through pure love of husbandry and fondness of\ntoil, he would become enamoured of such a spot as I describe, [38] and\nthen nothing would content him but he must own it, in order to have\nsomething to do, and at the same time, to derive pleasure along with\nprofit from the purchase. For you must know, Socrates, of all Athenians\nI have ever heard of, my father, as it seems to me, had the greatest\nlove for agricultural pursuits.\n\n [32] i.e. out of cultivation, whether as corn land or for fruit trees,\n    viz. olive, fig, vine, etc.\n\n [33] Or, \"be it a dead thing or a live pet.\" Cf. Plat. \"Theaet.\" 174\n    B; \"Laws,\" 789 B, 790 D, 819 B; \"C. I.\" 1709.\n\n [34] Cf. \"Horsem.\" iii. 1; and see Cowley's Essay above referred to.\n\n [35] Or, \"is susceptible of greater improvement.\"\n\n [36] Or, \"discovery.\" See \"Anab.\" III. v. 12; \"Hell.\" IV. v. 4;\n    \"Hunting,\" xiii. 13.\n\n [37] Or, \"nor did he rack his brains to discover it.\" See \"Mem.\" III.\n    v. 23. Cf. Aristoph. \"Clouds,\" 102, {merimnophrontistai}, minute\n    philosophers.\n\n [38] \"He could not see an estate of the sort described but he must\n    fall over head and ears in love with it at first sight; have it he\n    must.\"\n\nWhen I heard this, I could not resist asking a question; Ischomachus (I\nsaid), did your father retain possession of all the farms he put under\ncultivation, or did he part with them whenever he was offered a good\nprice?\n\nHe parted with them, without a doubt (replied Ischomachus), but then at\nonce he bought another in the place of what he sold, and in every case\nan untilled farm, in order to gratify his love for work.\n\nAs you describe him (I proceeded), your father must truly have\nbeen formed by nature with a passion for husbandry, not unlike that\ncorn-hunger which merchants suffer from. You know their habits: by\nreason of this craving after corn, [39] whenever they hear that corn is\nto be got, they go sailing off to find it, even if they must cross the\nAegean, or the Euxine, or the Sicilian seas. And when they have got as\nmuch as ever they can get, they will not let it out of their sight, but\nstore it in the vessel on which they sail themselves, and off they go\nacross the seas again. [40] Whenever they stand in need of money, they\nwill not discharge their precious cargo, [41] at least not in haphazard\nfashion, wherever they may chance to be; but first they find out where\ncorn is at the highest value, and where the inhabitants will set the\ngreatest store by it, and there they take and deliver the dear article.\nYour father's fondness for agriculture seems to bear a certain family\nresemblance to this passion.\n\n [39] Lit. \"of their excessive love for corn.\"\n\n [40] Lit. \"they carry it across the seas again, and that, too, after\n    having stored it in the hold of the very vessel in which they sail\n    themselves.\"\n\n [41] Or, \"their treasure.\" {auton} throughout, which indeed is the\n    humour of the passage. The love of John Barleycorn is their master\n    passion.\n\nTo these remarks Ischomachus replied: You jest, Socrates; but still I\nhold to my belief: that man is fond of bricks and mortar who no sooner\nhas built one house than he must needs sell it and proceed to build\nanother.\n\nTo be sure, Ischomachus (I answered), and for my part I assure you, upon\noath, I, Socrates, do verily and indeed believe [42] you that all men by\nnature love (or hold they ought to love) those things wherebysoever they\nbelieve they will be benefited.\n\n [32] Reading {e men pisteuein soi phusei (nomizein) philein tauta\n    pantas...}; and for the \"belief\" propounded with so much\n    humorous emphasis, see Adam Smith, \"Moral Sentiments.\" Hartman,\n    \"An. Xen.\" 180, cf. Plat. \"Lysis.\"\n\n\n\nXXI\n\nAfter a pause, I added: I am turning over in my mind how cleverly you\nhave presented the whole argument to support your thesis: which was,\nthat of all arts the art of husbandry is the easiest to learn. And now,\nas the result of all that has been stated, I am entirely persuaded that\nthis is so.\n\nIsch. Yes, Socrates, indeed it is. But I, on my side, must in turn admit\nthat as regards that faculty which is common alike to every kind of\nconduct (tillage, or politics, the art of managing a house, or of\nconducting war), the power, namely, of command [1]--I do subscribe to\nyour opinion, that on this score one set of people differ largely\nfrom another both in point of wit and judgement. On a ship of war, for\ninstance, [2] the ship is on the high seas, and the crew must row whole\ndays together to reach moorings. [3] Now note the difference. Here you\nmay find a captain [4] able by dint of speech and conduct to whet the\nsouls of those he leads, and sharpen them to voluntary toils; and there\nanother so dull of wit and destitute of feeling that it will take his\ncrew just twice the time to finish the same voyage. See them step on\nshore. The first ship's company are drenched in sweat; but listen, they\nare loud in praise of one another, the captain and his merry men alike.\nAnd the others? They are come at last; they have not turned a hair, the\nlazy fellows, but for all that they hate their officer and by him are\nhated.\n\n [1] See \"Mem.\" I. i. 7.\n\n [2] Or, \"the crew must row the livelong day...\"\n\n [3] For an instance see \"Hell.\" VI. ii. 27, Iphicrates' periplus.\n\n [4] Or, \"one set of boatswains.\" See Thuc. ii. 84. For the duties of\n    the Keleustes see \"Dict. Gk. Rom. Ant.\" s.v. portisculus; and for\n    the type of captain see \"Hell.\" V. i. 3, Teleutias.\n\nGenerals, too, will differ (he proceeded), the one sort from the other,\nin this very quality. Here you have a leader who, incapable of kindling\na zest for toil and love of hairbreadth 'scapes, is apt to engender in\nhis followers that base spirit which neither deigns nor chooses to obey,\nexcept under compulsion. They even pride and plume themselves, [5] the\ncowards, on their opposition to their leader; this same leader who, in\nthe end, will make his men insensible to shame even in presence of\nmost foul mishap. On the other hand, put at their head another stamp of\ngeneral: one who is by right divine [6] a leader, good and brave, a\nman of scientific knowledge. Let him take over to his charge those\nmalcontents, or others even of worse character, and he will have them\npresently ashamed of doing a disgraceful deed. \"It is nobler to obey\"\nwill be their maxim. They will exult in personal obedience and in common\ntoil, where toil is needed, cheerily performed. For just as an unurged\nzeal for voluntary service [7] may at times invade, we know, the breasts\nof private soldiers, so may like love of toil with emulous longing to\nachieve great deeds of valour under the eyes of their commander, be\nimplanted in whole armies by good officers.\n\n [5] Lit. \"magnify themselves.\" See \"Ages.\" x. 2; \"Pol. Lac.\" viii. 2.\n\n [6] Or, \"god-like,\" \"with something more than human in him.\" See Hom.\n    \"Il.\" xxiv. 259:\n\n{oude eokei andros ge thnetou pais emmenai alla theoio.}\n\n\"Od.\" iv. 691; {theioi basilees}. Cf. Carlyle, \"Heroes\"; Plat. \"Meno,\"\n99 D: Soc. \"And may we not, Meno, truly call those men divine who,\nhaving no understanding, yet succeed in many a grand deed and word?\"\nAnd below: Soc. \"And the women too, Meno, call good men divine; and the\nSpartans, when they praise a good man, say, 'that he is a divine man'\"\n(Jowett). Arist. \"Eth. N.\" vii. 1: \"That virtue which transcends the\nhuman, and which is of an heroic or godlike type, such as Priam, in the\npoems of Homer, ascribes to Hector, when wishing to speak of his great\ngoodness:\n\n     Not woman-born seemed he, but sprung from gods.\"\n\nAnd below: \"And exactly as it is a rare thing to find a man of godlike\nnature--to use the expression of the Spartans, 'a godlike man,' which\nthey apply to those whom they expressively admire--so, too, brutality is\na type of character rarely found among men\" (Robert Williams).\n\n [7] Reading {etheloponia tis}, or if {philoponia}, transl. \"just as\n    some strange delight in labour may quicken in the heart of many an\n    individual soldier.\" See \"Anab.\" IV. vii. 11.\n\nHappy must that leader be whose followers are thus attached to him:\nbeyond all others he will prove a stout and strong commander. And by\nstrong, I mean, not one so hale of body as to tower above the stoutest\nof the soldiery themselves; no, nor him whose skill to hurl a javelin\nor shoot an arrow will outshine the skilfullest; nor yet that mounted\non the fleetest charger it shall be his to bear the brunt of danger\nforemost amid the knightliest horsemen, the nimblest of light infantry.\nNo, not these, but who is able to implant a firm persuasion in the minds\nof all his soldiers: follow him they must and will through fire, if need\nbe, or into the jaws of death. [8]\n\n [8] Or, \"through flood and fire or other desperate strait.\" Cf.\n    \"Anab.\" II. vi. 8.\n\nLofty of soul and large of judgment [9] may he be designated justly, at\nwhose back there steps a multitude stirred by his sole sentiment; not\nunreasonably may he be said to march \"with a mighty arm,\" [10] to whose\nwill a thousand willing hands are prompt to minister; a great man in\nevery deed he is who can achieve great ends by resolution rather than\nbrute force.\n\n [9] See \"Ages.\" ix. 6, \"of how lofty a sentiment.\"\n\n [10] See Herod. vii. 20, 157; Thuc. iii. 96.\n\nSo, too, within the field of private industry, the person in authority,\nbe it the bailiff, be it the overseer, [11] provided he is able to\nproduce unflinching energy, intense and eager, for the work, belongs\nto those who haste to overtake good things [12] and reap great plenty.\nShould the master (he proceeded), being a man possessed of so\nmuch power, Socrates, to injure the bad workman and reward the\nzealous--should he suddenly appear, and should his appearance in the\nlabour field produce no visible effect upon his workpeople, I cannot say\nI envy or admire him. But if the sight of him is followed by a stir\nof movement, if there come upon [13] each labourer fresh spirit, with\nmutual rivalry and keen ambition, drawing out the finest qualities of\neach, [14] of him I should say, Behold a man of kingly disposition.\nAnd this, if I mistake not, is the quality of greatest import in every\noperation which needs the instrumentality of man; but most of all,\nperhaps, in agriculture. Not that I would maintain that it is a thing to\nbe lightly learnt by a glance of the eye, or hearsay fashion, as a tale\nthat is told. Far from it, I assert that he who is to have this\npower has need of education; he must have at bottom a good natural\ndisposition; and, what is greatest of all, he must be himself a god-like\nbeing. [15] For if I rightly understand this blessed gift, this faculty\nof command over willing followers, by no means is it, in its entirety,\na merely human quality, but it is in part divine. It is a gift plainly\ngiven to those truly initiated [16] in the mystery of self-command.\nWhereas despotism over unwilling slaves, the heavenly ones give, as it\nseems to me, to those whom they deem worthy to live the life of Tantalus\nin Hades, of whom it is written [17] \"he consumes unending days in\napprehension of a second death.\"\n\n [11] According to Sturz, \"Lex.\" s.v., the {epitropos} is (as a rule,\n    see \"Mem.\" II. viii.) a slave or freedman, the {epistates} a free\n    man. See \"Mem.\" III. v. 18.\n\n [12] Apparently a homely formula, like \"make hay whilst the sun\n    shines,\" \"a stitch in time saves nine.\"\n\n [13] Cf. Hom. \"Il.\" ix. 436, xvii. 625; \"Hell.\" VII. i. 31.\n\n [14] Reading {kratiste ousa}, or if with Heindorf, {kratisteusai},\n    transl. \"to prove himself the best.\"\n\n [15] See \"Cyrop.\" I. i. 3; Grote, \"Plato,\" vol. iii. 571.\n\n [16] See Plat. \"Phaed.\" 69 C; Xen. \"Symp.\" i. 10.\n\n [17] Or, \"it is said.\" See Eur. \"Orest.\" 5, and Porson ad loc.","title":"The Economist","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":37747}