The Economist

The Economist
By Xenophon
Translation by H. G. Dakyns

THE ECONOMIST[1] A Treatise on the Science of the Household in the form of a Dialogue INTERLOCUTORS Socrates and Critobulus

XIV

Soc. Well, then, Ischomachus, supposing the man is now so fit to rule that he can compel obedience,[1] is he, I ask once more, your bailiff absolute? or even though possessed of all the qualifications you have named, does he still lack something?[2]

[1] Or, "that discipline flows from him;" al. "he presents you with obedient servants." [2] Lit. "will he still need something further to complete him?"

Most certainly (replied Ischomachus). One thing is still required of him, and that is to hold aloof from property and goods which are his master's; he must not steal. Consider, this is the very person through whose hands the fruits and produce pass, and he has the audacity to make away with them! perhaps he does not leave enough to cover the expenses of the farming operations! Where would be the use of farming the land by help of such an overseer?
What (I exclaimed), can I believe my ears? You actually undertake to teach them virtue! What really, justice!
Isch. To be sure, I do. but it does not follow therefore that I find all equally apt to lend an ear to my instruction. However, what I do is this. I take a leaf now out of the laws of Draco and again another out of the laws of Solon,[3] and so essay to start my household on the path of uprightness. And indeed, if I mistake not (he proceeded), both those legislators enacted many of their laws expressly with a view to teaching this branch of justice.[4] It is written, "Let a man be punished for a deed of theft"; "Let whosoever is detected in the act be bound and thrown in prison"; "If he offer violence,[5] let him be put to death." It is clear that the intention of the lawgivers in framing these enactments was to render the sordid love of gain[6] devoid of profit to the unjust person. What I do, therefore, is to cull a sample of their precepts, which I supplement with others from the royal code[7] where applicable; and so I do my best to shape the members of my household into the likeness of just men concerning that which passes through their hands. And now observe--the laws first mentioned act as penalties, deterrent to transgressors only; whereas the royal code aims higher: by it not only is the malefactor punished, but the righteous and just person is rewarded.[8] The result is, that many a man, beholding how the just grow ever wealthier than the unjust, albeit harbouring in his heart some covetous desires, is constant still to virtue. To abstain from unjust dealing is engrained in him.[9]

[3] Cobet, "Pros. Xen." cf. Plut. "Solon," xvii. {proton men oun tous Drakontos nomous aneile k.t.l.} "First, then, he repealed all Draco's laws, except those concerning homicide, because they were too severe and the punishments too great; for death was appointed for almost all offences, insomuch that those that were convicted of idleness were to die, and those that stole a cabbage or an apple to suffer even as villains that comitted sacrilege or murder" (Clough, i. 184). See Aul. Gell. "N. A." xi. 13. [4] "The branch of justice which concerns us, viz. righteous dealing between man and man." [5] For this sense of {tous egkheirountas} cf. Thuc. iv. 121; "Hell." IV. v. 16. Al. {dedesthai tous egkheirountas kai thanatousthai en tis alo poion} (Weiske), "let the attempt be punished with imprisonment"; "let him who is caught in the act be put to death." [6] Cf. Plat. "Laws," 754 E. [7] Or, "the royal laws," i.e. of Persia. Cf. "Anab." I. ix. 16; "Cyrop." I. ii. 2, 3. Or possibly = "regal"; cf. Plat. "Minos," 317 C; {to men orthon nomos esti basilikos}. [8] Lit. "benefited." [9] Lit. "Whereby, beholding the just becoming wealthier than the unjust, many albeit covetous at heart themselves most constantly abide by abstinence from evil-doing."

Those of my household (he proceeded) whom, in spite of kindly treatment, I perceive to be persistently bent on evil-doing, in the end I treat as desperate cases. Incurable self-seekers,[10] plain enough to see, whose aspiration lifts them from earth, so eager are they to be reckoned just men, not by reason only of the gain derivable from justice, but through passionate desire to deserve my praise-- these in the end I treat as free-born men. I make them wealthy, and not with riches only, but in honour, as befits their gentle manliness.[11] For if, Socrates, there be one point in which the man who thirsts for honour differs from him who thirsts for gain, it is, I think, in willingness to toil, face danger, and abstain from shameful gains--for the sake of honour only and fair fame.[12]

[10] Lit. "Those, on the other hand, whom I discover to be roused" (to honesty--not solely because honesty is the best policy). [11] Or, "men of fair and noble type"; "true gentlemen." This passage suggests the "silver lining to the cloud" of slavery. [12] Cf. Hom. "Il." ix. 413, {oleto men moi nostos, atar kleos aphthiton estai}, "but my fame shall be imperishable."

XV

Soc. But now, suppose, Ischomachus, you have created in the soul of some one a desire for your welfare; have inspired in him not a mere passive interest, but a deep concern to help you to achieve prosperity; further, you have obtained for him a knowledge of the methods needed to give the operations of the field some measure of success; you have, moreover, made him capable of ruling; and, as the crowning point of all your efforts, this same trusty person shows no less delight, than you might take yourself, in laying at your feet[1] earth's products, each in due season richly harvested--I need hardly ask concerning such an one, whether aught else is lacking to him. It is clear to me[2] an overseer of this sort would be worth his weight in gold. But now, Ischomachus, I would have you not omit a topic somewhat lightly handled by us in the previous argument.[3]

[1] {apodeiknuon}, i.e. in presenting the inventory of products for the year. Cf. "Hell." V. iii. 17; "Revenues," ii. 7. [2] {ede}, at this stage of the discussion. [3] Or, "that part of the discussion which we ran over in a light and airy fashion," in reference to xiii. 2. What topic, pray, was that? (he asked).
Soc. You said, if I mistake not, that it was most important to learn the methods of conducting the several processes of husbandry; for, you added, unless a man knows what things he has to do and how to do them, all the care and diligence in the world will stand him in no stead. At this point[4] he took me up, observing: So what you now command me is to teach the art itself of tillage, Socrates? [4] Keeping the vulg. order of SS. 3-9, which many commentators would rearrange in various ways. See Breit. ad loc.; Lincke, op. cit. p. 111 foll. Yes (I replied), for now it looks as if this art were one which made the wise and skilled possessor of it wealthy, whilst the unskilled, in spite of all the pains he takes, must live in indigence.
Isch. Now shall you hear, then,[5] Socrates, the generous nature of this human art. For is it not a proof of something noble in it, that being of supreme utility, so sweet a craft to exercise, so rich in beauty, so acceptable alike to gods and men, the art of husbandry may further fairly claim to be the easiest of all the arts to learn? Noble I name it! this, at any rate, the epithet we give to animals which, being beautiful and large and useful, are also gentle towards the race of man.[6] [5] Or, "Listen, then, and whilst I recount to you at once the loving- kindness of this art, to man the friendliest." [6] Schenkl regards this sentence as an interpolation. For the epithet {gennaios} applied to the dog see "Cyrop." I. iv. 15, 21; "Hunting," iv. 7. Allow me to explain, Ischomachus (I interposed). Up to a certain point I fully followed what you said. I understand, according to your theory, how a bailiff must be taught. In other words, I follow your descriptions both as to how you make him kindly disposed towards yourself; and how, again, you make him careful, capable of rule, and upright. But at that point you made the statement that, in order to apply this diligence to tillage rightly, the careful husbandman must further learn what are the different things he has to do, and not alone what things he has to do, but how and when to do them. These are the topics which, in my opinion, have hitherto been somewhat lightly handled in the argument. Let me make my meaning clearer by an instance: it is as if you were to tell me that, in order to be able to take down a speech in writing,[7] or to read a written statement, a man must know his letters. Of course, if not stone deaf, I must have garnered that for a certain object knowledge of letters was important to me, but the bare recognition of the fact, I fear, would not enable me in any deeper sense to know my letters. So, too, at present I am easily persuaded that if I am to direct my care aright in tillage I must have a knowledge of the art of tillage. But the bare recognition of the fact does not one whit provide me with the knowledge how I ought to till. And if I resolved without ado to set about the work of tilling, I imagine, I should soon resemble your physician going on his rounds and visiting his patients without knowing what to prescribe or what to do to ease their sufferings. To save me from the like predicaments, please teach me the actual work and processes of tillage. [7] Or, "something from dictation."
Isch. But truly,[8] Socrates, it is not with tillage as with the other arts, where the learner must be well-nigh crushed[9] beneath a load of study before his prentice-hand can turn out work of worth sufficient merely to support him.[10] The art of husbandry, I say, is not so ill to learn and cross-grained; but by watching labourers in the field, by listening to what they say, you will have straightway knowledge enough to teach another, should the humour take you. I imagine, Socrates (he added), that you yourself, albeit quite unconscious of the fact, already know a vast amount about the subject. The fact is, other craftsmen (the race, I mean, in general of artists) are each and all disposed to keep the most important[11] features of their several arts concealed: with husbandry it is different. Here the man who has the most skill in planting will take most pleasure in being watched by others; and so too the most skilful sower. Ask any question you may choose about results thus beautifully wrought, and not one feature in the whole performance will the doer of it seek to keep concealed. To such height of nobleness (he added), Socrats, does husbandry appear, like some fair mistress, to conform the soul and disposition of those concerned with it. [8] "Nay, if you will but listen, Socrates, with husbandry it is not the same as with the other arts." [9] {katatribenai}, "worn out." See "Mem." III. iv. 1; IV. vii. 5. Al. "bored to death." [10] Or, "before the products of his pupilage are worth his keep." [11] Or, "critical and crucial." The proem[12] to the speech is beautiful at any rate (I answered), but hardly calculated to divert the hearer from the previous question. A thing so easy to be learnt, you say? then, if so, do you be all the readier for that reason to explain its details to me. No shame on you who teach, to teach these easy matters; but for me to lack the knowledge of them, and most of all if highly useful to the learner, worse than shame, a scandal. [12] Or, "the prelude to the piece."

XVI
Isch. First then, Socrates, I wish to demonstrate to you that what is called[1] "the intricate variety in husbandry"[2] presents no difficulty. I use a phrase of those who, whatever the nicety with which they treat the art in theory,[3] have but the faintest practical experience of tillage. What they assert is, that "he who would rightly till the soil must first be made acquainted with the nature of the earth." [1] "They term"; in reference to the author of some treatise. [2] Or, "the riddling subtlety of tillage." See "Mem." II. iii. 10; Plat. "Symp." 182 B; "Phileb." 53 E. [3] Theophr. "De Caus." ii. 4, 12, mentions Leophanes amongst other writers on agriculture preceding himself. And they are surely right in their assertion (I replied); for he who does not know what the soil is capable of bearing, can hardly know, I fancy, what he has to plant or what to sow. But he has only to look at his neighbour's land (he answered), at his crops and trees, in order to learn what the soil can bear and what it cannot.[4] After which discovery, it is ill work fighting against heaven. Certainly not by dint of sowing and planting what he himself desires will he meet the needs of life more fully than by planting and sowing what the earth herself rejoices to bear and nourish on her bosom. Or if, as well may be the case, through the idleness of those who occupy it, the land itself cannot display its native faculty,[5] it is often possible to derive a truer notion from some neighbouring district that ever you will learn about it from your neighbour's lips.[6] Nay, even though the earth lie waste and barren, it may still declare its nature; since a soil productive of beautiful wild fruits can by careful tending be made to yield fruits of the cultivated kind as beautiful. And on this wise, he who has the barest knowledge[7] of the art of tillage can still discern the nature of the soil. [4] Holden cf. Virg. "Georg." i. 53; iv. 109. According to the commentator Servius, the poet drew largely upon Xenophon's treatise. [5] Or, "cannot prove its natural aptitude." [6] Or, "from a neighbouring mortal." [7] Or, "a mere empiric in the art of husbandry." Thank you (I said), Ischomachus, my courage needs no further fanning upon that score. I am bold enough now to believe that no one need abstain from agriculture for fear he will not recognise the nature of the soil. Indeed, I now recall to mind a fact concerning fishermen, how as they ply their business on the seas, not crawling lazily along, nor bringing to, for prospect's sake, but in the act of scudding past the flying farmsteads,[8] these brave mariners have only to set eyes upon crops on land, and they will boldly pronounce opinion on the nature of the soil itself, whether good or bad: this they blame and that they praise. And these opinions for the most part coincide, I notice, with the verdict of the skilful farmer as to quality of soil.[9] [8] Or, "the flying coastland, fields and farmyards." [9] Lit. "And indeed the opinions they pronounce about 'a good soil' mostly tally with the verdict of the expert farmer."
Isch. At what point shall I begin then, Socrates, to revive your recollection[10] of the art of husbandry? since to explain to you the processes employed in husbandry means the statement of a hundred details which you know yourself full well already. [10] Or, "begin recalling to your mind." See Plat. "Meno," for the doctrine of Anamensis here apparently referred to.
Soc. The first thing I should like to learn, Ischomachus, I think, if only as a point befitting a philosopher, is this: how to proceed and how to work the soil, did I desire to extract the largest crops of wheat and barley.
Isch. Good, then! you are aware that fallow must be broken up in readiness[11] for sowing? [11] Or, "ploughed up." Cf. Theophr. "Hist. Pl." iii. i. 6; Dion. Hal. "Ant." x. 17.
Soc. Yes, I am aware of that.
Isch. Well then, supposing we begin to plough our land in winter?
Soc. It would not do. There would be too much mud.
Isch. Well then, what would you say to summer?
Soc. The soil will be too hard in summer for a plough and a pair of oxen to break up.
Isch. It looks as if spring-time were the season to begin this work, then? What do you say?
Soc. I say, one may expect the soil broken up at that season of the year to crumble[12] best. [12] {kheisthai} = laxari, dissolvi, to be most friable, to scatter readily.
Isch. Yes, and grasses[13] turned over at that season, Socrates, serve to supply the soil already with manure; while as they have not shed their seed as yet, they cannot vegetate.[14] I am supposing that you recognise a further fact: to form good land, a fallow must be clean and clear of undergrowth and weeds,[15] and baked as much as possible by exposure to the sun.[16] [13] "Herbage," whether grass or other plants, "grass," "clover," etc; Theophr. "Hist. Pl." i. 3. 1; Holden, "green crops." [14] Lit. "and not as yet have shed their seed so as to spring into blade." [15] Or, "quitch." [16] Holden cf. Virg. "Georg." i. 65, coquat; ii. 260, excoquere. So Lucr. vi. 962.
Soc. Yes, that is quite a proper state of things, I should imagine.
Isch. And to bring about this proper state of things, do you maintain there can be any other better system than that of turning the soil over as many times as possible in summer?
Soc. On the contrary, I know precisely that for either object, whether to bring the weeds and quitch grass to the surface and to wither them by scorching heat, or to expose the earth itself to the sun's baking rays, there can be nothing better than to plough the soil up with a pair of oxen during mid-day in midsummer.
Isch. And if a gang of men set to, to break and make this fallow with the mattock, it is transparent that their business is to separate the quitch grass from the soil and keep them parted?
Soc. Just so!--to throw the quitch grass down to wither on the surface, and to turn the soil up, so that the crude earth may have its turn of baking. XVII You see, Socrates (he said, continuing the conversation), we hold the same opinion, both of us, concerning fallow. Why, so it seems (I said)--the same opinion.
Isch. But when it comes to sowing, what is your opinion? Can you suggest a better time for sowing than that which the long experience of former generations, combined with that of men now living, recognises as the best? See, so soon as autumn time has come, the faces of all men everywhere turn with a wistful gaze towards high heaven. "When will God moisten the earth," they ask, "and suffer men to sow their seed?"[1]

[1] See Dr. Holden's interesting note at this point: "According to Virgil ('Georg.' i. 215), spring is the time," etc. Yes, Ischomachus (I answered), for all mankind must recognise the precept:[2] "Sow not on dry soil" (if it can be avoided), being taught wisdom doubtless by the heavy losses they must struggle with who sow before God's bidding. [2] Or, "it is a maxim held of all men."
Isch. It seems, then, you and I and all mankind hold one opinion on these matters?
Soc. Why, yes; where God himself is teacher, such accord is apt to follow; for instance, all men are agreed, it is better to wear thick clothes[3] in winter, if so be they can. We light fires by general consent, provided we have logs to burn. [3] Or, "a thick cloak." See Rich, s.v. Pallium (= {imation}). Yet as regards this very period of seed-time (he made answer), Socrates, we find at once the widest difference of opinion upon one point; as to which is better, the early, or the later,[4] or the middle sowing? [4] See Holden ad loc. Sauppe, "Lex. Xen.," notes {opsimos} as Ionic and poet. See also Rutherford, "New Phryn." p. 124: "First met with in a line of the 'Iliad' (ii. 325), {opsimos} does not appear till late Greek except in the 'Oeconomicus,' a disputed work of Xenophon."
Soc. Just so, for neither does God guide the year in one set fashion, but irregularly, now suiting it to early sowing best, and now to middle, and again to later.
Isch. But what, Socrates, is your opinion? Were it better for a man to choose and turn to sole account a single sowing season, be it much he has to sow or be it little? or would you have him begin his sowing with the earliest season, and sow right on continuously until the latest? And I, in my turn, answered: I should think it best, Ischomachus, to use indifferently the whole sowing season.[5] Far better[6] to have enough of corn and meal at any moment and from year to year, than first a superfluity and then perhaps a scant supply. [5] Or, "share in the entire period of seed time." Zeune cf. "Geop." ii. 14. 8; Mr. Ruskin's translators, "Bibl. Past." vol. i.; cf. Eccles. xi. 6. [6] Lit. "according to my tenet," {nomizo}.
Isch. Then, on this point also, Socrates, you hold a like opinion with myself--the pupil to the teacher; and what is more, the pupil was the first to give it utterance. So far, so good! (I answered). Is there a subtle art in scattering the seed?
Isch. Let us by all means investigate that point. That the seed must be cast by hand, I presume you know yourself?
Soc. Yes, by the testimony of my eyes.[7] [7] Lit. "Yes, for I have seen it done."
Isch. But as to actual scattering, some can scatter evenly, others cannot.[8] [8] Holden cf. W. Harte, "Essays on Husbandry," p. 210, 2nd ed., "The main perfection of sowing is to disperse the seeds equally."
Soc. Does it not come to this, the hand needs practice (like the fingers of a harp-player) to obey the will?
Isch. Precisely so, but now suppose the soil is light in one part and heavy in another?
Soc. I do not follow; by "light" do you mean weak? and by "heavy" strong?
Isch. Yes, that is what I mean. And the question which I put to you is this: Would you allow both sorts of soil an equal share of seed? or which the larger?[9] [9] See Theophr. "Hist. Pl." viii. 6. 2; Virg. "Georg." ii. 275. Holden cf. Adam Dickson, "Husbandry of the Ancients," vol. ii. 35. 33 f. (Edin. 1788), "Were the poor light land in Britain managed after the manner of the Roman husbandry, it would certainly require much less seed than under its present management."
Soc. The stronger the wine the larger the dose of water to be added, I believe. The stronger, too, the man the heavier the weight we will lay upon his back to carry: or if it is not porterage, but people to support, there still my tenet holds: the broader and more powerful the great man's shoulders, the more mouths I should assign to him to feed. But perhaps a weak soil, like a lean pack-horse,[10] grows stronger the more corn you pour into it. This I look to you to teach me.[11] [10] Or, "lean cattle." [11] Or, "Will you please answer me that question, teacher?" With a laugh, he answered: Once more you are pleased to jest. Yet rest assured of one thing, Socrates: if after you have put seed into the ground, you will await the instant when, while earth is being richly fed from heaven, the fresh green from the hidden seed first springs, and take and turn it back again,[12] this sprouting germ will serve as food for earth: as from manure an inborn strength will presently be added to the soil. But if you suffer earth to feed the seed of corn within it and to bring forth fruit in an endless round, at last[13] it will be hard for the weakened soil to yield large corn crops, even as a weak sow can hardly rear a large litter of fat pigs. [12] "If you will plough the seedlings in again." [13] {dia telous . . . es telos}, "continually . . . in the end." See references in Holden's fifth edition.
Soc. I understand you to say, Ischomachus, that the weaker soil must receive a scantier dose of seed?
Isch. Most decidedly I do, and you on your side, Socrates, I understand, give your consent to this opinion in stating your belief that the weaker the shoulders the lighter the burdens to be laid on them.
Soc. But those hoers with their hoes, Ischomachus, tell me for what reason you let them loose[14] upon the corn. [14] Cf. "Revenues," iv. 5.
Isch. You know, I daresay, that in winter there are heavy rains?[15] [15] "And melting snows, much water every way."
Soc. To be sure, I do.
Isch. We may suppose, then, that a portion of the corn is buried by these floods beneath a coat of mud and slime, or else that the roots are laid quite bare in places by the torrent. By reason of this same drench, I take it, oftentimes an undergrowth of weeds springs up with the corn and chokes it.
Soc. Yes, all these ills are likely enough to happen.
Isch. Are you not agreed the corn-fields sorely need relief at such a season?
Soc. Assuredly.
Isch. Then what is to be done, in your opinion? How shall we aid the stricken portion lying mud-bedabbled?
Soc. How better than by lifting up and lightening the soil?
Isch. Yes! and that other portion lying naked to the roots and defenceless, how aid it?
Soc. Possibly by mounding up fresh earth about it.[16] [16] "Scraping up a barrier of fresh earth about it."
Isch. And what when the weeds spring up together with the corn and choke it? or when they rob and ruthlessly devour the corn's proper sustenance, like unserviceable drones[17] that rob the working bees of honey, pilfering the good food which they have made and stored away with labour: what must we do? [17] Cf. Shakesp. "Lazy yawning drones," "Henry V." I. ii. 204.
Soc. In good sooth, there can be nothing for it save to cut out the noisome weed, even as drones are cleared out from the hive.
Isch. You agree there is some show of reason for letting in these gangs of hoers?
Soc. Most true. And now I am turning over in my mind,[18] Ischomachus, how grand a thing it is to introduce a simile or such like figure well and aptly. No sooner had you mentioned the word "drones" than I was filled with rage against those miserable weeds, far more than when you merely spoke of weeds and undergrowth. [18] Or, "I was just this moment pondering the virtue of a happy illustration." Lit. "what a thing it is to introduce an 'image' ({tas eikonas}) well." See Plat. "Rep." 487 E, {de eikonos}, "in a parable" (Jowett); "Phaed." 87 B, "a figure"; Aristoph. "Clouds," 559; Plat. "Phaedr." 267 C; Aristot. "Rhet." III. iv. As to the drones, J. J. Hartman, "An. X." 186, aptly cf. Aristoph. "Wasps," 1114 f.

XVIII

But, not to interrupt you further (I continued), after sowing, naturally we hope to come to reaping. If, therefore, you have anything to say on that head also, pray proceed to teach me.
Isch. Yes, by all means, unless indeed you prove on this head also to know as much yourself already as your teacher. To begin then: You know that corn needs cutting?
Soc. To be sure, I know that much at any rate.
Isch. Well, then, the next point: in the act of cutting corn how will you choose to stand? facing the way the wind blows,[1] or against the wind?

[1] Lit. "(on the side) where the wind blows or right opposite."
Soc. Not against the wind, for my part. Eyes and hands must suffer, I imagine, if one stood reaping face to face with husks and particles of straw.[2] [2] i.e. "with particles of straw and beards of corn blowing in one's face."
Isch. And should you merely sever the ears at top, or reap close to the ground?[3] [3] See Holden ad loc.; Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, "Husbandry," 27 (ed. 1767), "In Somersetshire . . . they do share theyr wheate very lowe. . . ." If the stalk of corn were short (I answered), I should cut down close, to secure a sufficient length of straw to be of use. But if the stalk be tall, you would do right, I hold, to cut it half-way down, whereby the thresher and the winnower will be saved some extra labour (which both may well be spared).[4] The stalk left standing in the field, when burnt down (as burnt it will be, I presume), will help to benefit the soil;[5] and laid on as manure, will serve to swell the volume of manure.[6] [4] Lit. "will be spared superfluous labour on what they do not want." [5] Al. "if burnt down . . .; if laid on as manure . . ." [6] "Help to swell the bulk" (Holden). For the custom see Virg. "Georg." i. 84; J. Tull, op. cit. ix. 141: "The custom of burning the stubble on the rich plains about Rome continues to this time."
Isch. There, Socrates, you are detected "in the very act"; you know as much about reaping as I do myself. It looks a little like it (I replied). But I would fain discover whether I have sound knowledge also about threshing.
Isch. Well, I suppose you are aware of this much: corn is threshed by beasts of burthen?[7] [7] Holden cf. Dr. Davy, "Notes and Observations on the Ionian Islands." "The grain is beaten out, commonly in the harvest field, by men, horses, or mules, on a threshing-floor prepared extempore for the purpose, where the ground is firm and dry, and the chaff is separated by winnowing."--Wilkinson, "Ancient Egyptians," ii. 41 foll.
Soc. Yes, I am aware of that much, and beast of burthen is a general name including oxen, horses, mules, and so forth.[8] [8] See Varro, i. 52, as to tritura and ventilatio.
Isch. Is it your opinion that these animals know more than merely how to tread the corn while driven with the goad?
Soc. What more can they know, being beasts of burthen?
Isch. Some one must see, then, that the beasts tread out only what requires threshing and no more, and that the threshing is done evenly itself: to whom do you assign that duty, Socrates?
Soc. Clearly it is the duty of the threshers who are in charge.[9] It is theirs to turn the sheaves, and ever and again to push the untrodden corn under the creatures' feet; and thus, of course, to keep the threshing-floor as smooth, and finish off the work as fast, as possible. [9] Or, "to the over-threshers," "the drivers" (Holden).
Isch. Your comprehension of the facts thus far, it seems, keeps pace with mine.
Soc. Well, after that, Ischomachus, we will proceed to cleanse the corn by winnowing.[10] [10] Breit. cf. Colum. "de r. r." ii. 10, 14, 21; vide Rich, s.v. ventilabrum.
Isch. Yes, but tell me, Socrates; do you know that if you begin the process from the windward portion (of the threshing-floor), you will find your chaff is carried over the whole area.
Soc. It must be so.
Isch. Then it is more than likely the chaff will fall upon the corn.
Soc. Yes, considering the distance,[11] the chaff will hardly be carried across the corn into the empty portion of the threshing-floor. [11] Lit. "it is a long space for the chaff to be carried." Al. (1) "It is of great consequence the chaff should be carried beyond the corn." (2) "It often happens that the corn is blown not only on to the corn, but over and beyond it into the empty portion of the threshing-floor." So Breit.
Isch. But now, suppose you begin winnowing on the "lee" side of the threshing-floor?[12] [12] Or, "on the side of the threshing-floor opposite the wind." Al. "protected from the wind."
Soc. It is clear the chaff will at once fall into the chaff- receiver.[13] [13] A hollowed-out portion of the threshing-floor, according to Breitenbach.
Isch. And when you have cleansed the corn over half the floor, will you proceed at once, with the corn thus strewn in front of you, to winnow the remainder,[14] or will you first pack the clean grain into the narrowest space against the central pillar?[15] [14] Lit. "of the chaff," where we should say "corn," the winnowing process separating chaff from grain and grain from chaff. [15] If that is the meaning of {ton polon}. Al. "the outer edge or rim of the threshing-floor."
Soc. Yes, upon my word! first pack together the clean grain, and proceed. My chaff will now be carried into the empty portion of the floor, and I shall escape the need of winnowing twice over.[16] [16] Or, "the same chaff (i.e. unwinnowed corn, Angl. corn) twice."
Isch. Really, Socrates, you are fully competent yourself, it seems, to teach an ignorant world[17] the speediest mode of winnowing. [17] Lit. "After all, Socrates, it seems you could even teach another how to purge his corn most expeditiously."
Soc. It seems, then, as you say, I must have known about these matters, though unconsciously; and here I stand and beat my brains,[18] reflecting whether or not I may not know some other things --how to refine gold and play the flute and paint pictures--without being conscious of the fact. Certainly, as far as teaching goes, no one ever taught me these, no more than husbandry; while, as to using my own eyes, I have watched men working at the other arts no less than I have watched them till the soil. [18] Lit. "all this while, I am thinking whether . . ."
Isch. Did I not tell you long ago that of all arts husbandry was the noblest, the most generous, just because it is the easiest to learn?
Soc. That it is without a doubt, Ischomachus. It seems I must have known the processes of sowing, without being conscious of my knowledge.[19] [19] Or, "but for all my science, I was ignorant (of knowing my own knowledge)."

XIX

Soc. (continuing). But may I ask, is the planting of trees[1] a department in the art of husbandry?

[1] i.e. of fruit trees, the vine, olive, fig, etc.
Isch. Certainly it is.

Soc. How is it, then, that I can know about the processes of sowing and at the same time have no knowledge about planting?
Isch. Is it so certain that you have no knowledge?
Soc. How can you ask me? when I neither know the sort of soil in which to plant, nor yet the depth of hole[2] the plant requires, nor the breadth, or length of ground in which it needs to be embedded;[3] nor lastly, how to lay the plant in earth, with any hope of fostering its growth.[4]

[2] Reading {to phuto}, "nor yet how deep or broad to sink (the hole) for the plant." Holden (ed. 1886) supplies {bothunon}. Al. {bothron}. [3] See Loudon, "Encycl. of Agric." S. 407, ap. Holden: "In France plantations of the vine are made by dibbling in cuttings of two feet of length; pressing the earth firmly to their lower end, an essential part of the operation, noticed even by Xenophon." [4] Lit. "how, laid in the soil, the plant will best shoot forth or grow."

Isch. Come, then, to lessons, pupil, and be taught whatever you do not know already! You have seen, I know, the sort of trenches which are dug for plants?
Soc. Hundreds of times.
Isch. Did you ever see one more than three feet deep?
Soc. No, I do not think I ever saw one more than two and a half feet deep.
Isch. Well, as to the breadth now. Did you ever see a trench more than three feet broad?[5]

[5] Or, "width," "wide." The commentators cf. Plin. "H. N." xvii. 11, 16, 22; Columell. v. 5. 2; ib. iii. 15. 2; Virg. "Georg." ii. 288.

Soc. No, upon my word, not even more than two feet broad. Isch. Good! now answer me this question: Did you ever see a trench less than one foot deep?
Soc. No, indeed! nor even less than one foot and a half. Why, the plants would be no sooner buried than dug out again, if planted so extremely near the surface.
Isch. Here, then, is one matter, Socrates, which you know as well as any one.[6] The trench is not to be sunk deeper than two feet and a half, or shallower than one foot and a half.

[6] Lit. "quite adequately."

Soc. Obviously, a thing so plain appeals to the eye at once.
Isch. Can you by eyesight recognise the difference between a dry soil and a moist?
Soc. I should certainly select as dry the soil round Lycabettus,[7] and any that resembles it; and as moist, the soil in the marsh meadows of Phalerum,[8] or the like.

[7] See Leake, "Topog. of Athens," i. 209. [8] Or, "the Phaleric marsh-land." See Leake, ib. 231, 427; ii. 9. Isch. In planting, would you dig (what I may call) deep trenches in a dry soil or a moist?

Soc. In a dry soil certainly; at any rate, if you set about to dig deep trenches in the moist you will come to water, and there and then an end to further planting. Isch. You could not put it better. We will suppose, then, the trenches have been dug. Does your eyesight take you further?[9] Have you noticed at what season in either case[10] the plants must be embedded?

[9] Lit. "As soon as the trenches have been dug then, have you further noticed . . ." [10] (1) The vulg. reading {openika . . . ekatera} = "at what precise time . . . either (i.e. 'the two different' kinds of) plant," i.e. "vine and olive" or "vine and fig," I suppose; (2) Breit. emend. {opotera . . . en ekatera} = "which kind of plant . . . in either soil . . ."; (3) Schenkl. etc., {openika . . . en ekatera} = "at what season . . . in each of the two sorts of soil . . ."

Soc. Certainly.[11]

[11] There is an obvious lacuna either before or after this remark, or at both places.

Isch. Supposing, then, you wish the plants to grow as fast as possible: how will the cutting strike and sprout, do you suppose, most readily?--after you have laid a layer of soil already worked beneath it, and it merely has to penetrate soft mould? or when it has to force its way through unbroken soil into the solid ground?
Soc. Clearly it will shoot through soil which has been worked more quickly than through unworked soil.
Isch. Well then, a bed of earth must be laid beneath the plant?
Soc. I quite agree; so let it be.
Isch. And how do you expect your cutting to root best?--if set straight up from end to end, pointing to the sky?[12] or if you set it slantwise under its earthy covering, so as to lie like an inverted gamma?[13]

[12] Lit. "if you set the whole cutting straight up, facing heavenwards." [13] i.e. Anglice, "like the letter {G} upon its back" {an inverted "upper-case" gamma looks like an L}. See Lord Bacon, "Nat. Hist." Cent. v. 426: "When you would have many new roots of fruit-trees, take a low tree and bow it and lay all his branches aflat upon the ground and cast earth upon them; and every twig will take root. And this is a very profitable experiment for costly trees (for the boughs will make stock without charge), such as are apricots, peaches, almonds, cornelians, mulberries, figs, etc. The like is continually practised with vines, roses, musk roses, etc."

Soc. Like an inverted gamma, to be sure, for so the plant must needs have more eyes under ground. Now it is from these same eyes of theirs, if I may trust my own,[14] that plants put forth their shoots above ground. I imagine, therefore, the eyes still underground will do the same precisely, and with so many buds all springing under earth, the plant itself, I argue, as a whole will sprout and shoot and push its way with speed and vigour.

[14] Lit. "it is from their eyes, I see, that plants . . ."

Isch. I may tell you that on these points, too, your judgment tallies with my own. But now, should you content yourself with merely heaping up the earth, or will you press it firmly round your plant?
Soc. I should certainly press down the earth; for if the earth is not pressed down, I know full well that at one time under the influence of rain the unpressed soil will turn to clay or mud; at another, under the influence of the sun, it will turn to sand or dust to the very bottom: so that the poor plant runs a risk of being first rotted with moisture by the rain, and next of being shrivelled up with drought through overheating of the roots.[15]

[15] Through "there being too much bottom heat." Holden (ed. 1886).

Isch. So far as the planting of vines is concerned, it appears, Socrates, that you and I again hold views precisely similar. And does this method of planting apply also to the fig-tree? (I inquired).
Isch. Surely, and not to the fig-tree alone, but to all the rest of fruit-trees.[16] What reason indeed would there be for rejecting in the case of other plant-growths[17] what is found to answer so well with the vine?

[16] {akrodrua} = "edible fruits" in Xenophon's time. See Plat. "Criti." 115 B; Dem. "c. Nicostr." 1251; Aristot. "Hist. An." viii. 28. 8, {out akrodrua out opora khronios}; Theophr. "H. Pl." iv. 4. 11. (At a later period, see "Geopon." x. 74, = "fruits having a hard rind or shell," e.g. nuts, acorns, as opposed to pears, apples, grapes, etc., {opora}.) See further the interesting regulations in Plat. "Laws," 844 D, 845 C. [17] Lit. "planting in general."

Soc. How shall we plant the olive, pray, Ischomachus? Isch. I see your purpose. You ask that question with a view to put me to the test,[18] when you know the answer yourself as well as possible. You can see with your own eyes[19] that the olive has a deeper trench dug, planted as it is so commonly by the side of roads. You can see that all the young plants in the nursery adhere to stumps.[20] And lastly, you can see that a lump of clay is placed on the head of every plant,[21] and the portion of the plant above the soil is protected by a wrapping.[22]

[18] Plat. "Prot." 311 B, 349 C; "Theaet." 157 C: "I cannot make out whether you are giving your own opinion, or only wanting to draw me out" (Jowett). [19] For the advantage, see "Geopon." iii. 11. 2. [20] Holden cf. Virg. "Georg." ii. 30--

quin et caudicibus sectis, mirabile dictu, truditur e sicco radix oleagina ligno. The stock in slices cut, and forth shall shoot, O passing strange! from each dry slice a root (Holden). See John Martyn ad loc.: "La Cerda says, that what the Poet here speaks of was practised in Spain in his time. They take the trunk of an olive, says he, deprive it of its root and branches, and cut it into several pieces, which they put into the ground, whence a root and, soon afterwards, a tree is formed." This mode of propagating by dry pieces of the trunk (with bark on) is not to be confounded with that of "truncheons" mentioned in "Georg." ii. 63.

[21] See Theophr. "H. Pl." ii. 2, 4; "de Caus." iii. 5. 1; "Geopon." ix. 11. 4, ap. Hold.; Col. v. 9. 1; xi. 2. 42. [22] Or, "covered up for protection."

Soc. Yes, all these things I see. Isch. Granted, you see: what is there in the matter that you do not understand? Perhaps you are ignorant how you are to lay the potsherd on the clay at top?
Soc. No, in very sooth, not ignorant of that Ischomachus, or anything you mentioned. That is just the puzzle, and again I beat my brains to discover why, when you put to me that question a while back: "Had I, in brief, the knowledge how to plant?" I answered, "No." Till then it never would have struck me that I could say at all how planting must be done. But no sooner do you begin to question me on each particular point than I can answer you; and what is more, my answers are, you tell me, accordant with the views of an authority[23] at once so skilful and so celebrated as yourself. Really, Ischomachus, I am disposed to ask: "Does teaching consist in putting questions?"[24] Indeed, the secret of your system has just this instant dawned upon me. I seem to see the principle in which you put your questions. You lead me through the field of my own knowledge,[25] and then by pointing out analogies[26] to what I know, persuade me that I really know some things which hitherto, as I believed, I had no knowledge of.

[23] Or, "whose skill in farming is proverbial." [24] Lit. "Is questioning after all a kind of teaching?" See Plat. "Meno"; "Mem." IV. vi. 15. [25] It appears, then, that the Xenophontean Socrates has {episteme} of a sort. [26] Or, "a series of resemblances," "close parallels," reading {epideiknus}: or if with Breit. {apodeiknus}, transl. "by proving such or such a thing is like some other thing known to me already."

Isch. Do you suppose if I began to question you concerning money and its quality,[27] I could possibly persuade you that you know the method to distinguish good from false coin? Or could I, by a string of questions about flute-players, painters, and the like, induce you to believe that you yourself know how to play the flute, or paint, and so forth?

[27] Lit. "whether it is good or not."

Soc. Perhaps you might; for have you not persuaded me I am possessed of perfect knowledge of this art of husbandry,[28] albeit I know that no one ever taught this art to me?

[28] Or, "since you actually succeeded in persuading me I was scientifically versed in," etc. See Plat. "Statesm." 301 B; "Theaet." 208 E; Aristot. "An. Post." i. 6. 4; "Categ." 8. 41

. Isch. Ah! that is not the explanation, Socrates. The truth is what I told you long ago and kept on telling you. Husbandry is an art so gentle, so humane, that mistress-like she makes all those who look on her or listen to her voice intelligent[29] of herself at once. Many a lesson does she herself impart how best to try conclusions with her.[30] See, for instance, how the vine, making a ladder of the nearest tree whereon to climb, informs us that it needs support.[31] Anon it spreads its leaves when, as it seems to say, "My grapes are young, my clusters tender," and so teaches us, during that season, to screen and shade the parts exposed to the sun's rays; but when the appointed moment comes, when now it is time for the swelling clusters to be sweetened by the sun, behold, it drops a leaf and then a leaf, so teaching us to strip it bare itself and let the vintage ripen. With plenty teeming, see the fertile mother shows her mellow clusters, and the while is nursing a new brood in primal crudeness.[32] So the vine plant teaches us how best to gather in the vintage, even as men gather figs, the juiciest first.[33]

[29] Or, "gives them at once a perfect knowledge of herself." [30] Lit. "best to deal with her," "make use of her." [31] Lit. "teaches us to prop it." [32] Lit. "yet immature." [33] Or, "first one and then another as it swells." Cf. Shakespeare:

The mellow plum doth fall, the green sticks fast, Or being early pluck'd is sour to taste ("V. and A." 527).

XX

At this point in the conversation I remarked: Tell me, Ischomachus, if the details of the art of husbandry are thus easy to learn, and all alike know what needs to be done, how does it happen that all farmers do not fare like, but some live in affluence owning more than they can possibly enjoy, while others of them fail to obtain the barest necessities and actually run into debt?
I will tell you, Socrates (Ischomachus replied). It is neither knowledge nor lack of knowledge in these husbandmen which causes some to be well off, while others are in difficulties; nor will you ever hear such tales afloat as that this or that estate has gone to ruin because the sower failed to sow evenly, or that the planter failed to plant straight rows of plants, or that such an one,[1] being ignorant what soil was best suited to bear vines, had set his plants in sterile ground, or that another[2] was in ignorance that fallow must be broken up for purposes of sowing, or that a third[3] was not aware that it is good to mix manure in with the soil. No, you are much more likely to hear said of So-and-so: No wonder the man gets in no wheat from his farm, when he takes no pains to have it sown or properly manured. Or of some other that he grows no wine: Of course not, when he takes no pains either to plant new vines or to make those he has bear fruit. A third has neither figs nor olives; and again the self-same reason: He too is careless, and takes no steps whatever to succeed in growing either one or other. These are the distinctions which make all the difference to prosperity in farming, far more than the reputed discovery of any clever agricultural method or machine.[4]

[1] "Squire This." [2] "Squire That." [3] "Squire T'other." [4] There is something amiss with the text at this point. For emendations see Breit., Schenkl, Holden, Hartman.

You will find the principle applies elsewhere. There are points of strategic conduct in which generals differ from each other for the better or the worse, not because they differ in respect of wit or judgment, but of carefulness undoubtedly. I speak of things within the

Who does not know, for instance, that in marching through a hostile territory an army ought to march in the order best adapted to deliver battle with effect should need arise?[5]--a golden rule which, punctually obeyed by some, is disobeyed by others. Again, as all the world knows, it is better to place day and night pickets[6] in front of an encampment. Yet even that is a procedure which, carefully observed at times, is at times as carelessly neglected. Once more: not one man in ten thousand,[7] I suppose, but knows that when a force is marching through a narrow defile, the safer method is to occupy beforehand certain points of vantage.[8] Yet this precaution also has been known to be neglected.

[5] See Thuc. ii. 81: "The Hellenic troops maintained order on the march and kept a look-out until . . ."--Jowett. [6] See "Cyrop." I. vi. 43. [7] Lit. "it would be hard to find the man who did not know." [8] Or, "to seize advantageous positions in advance." Cf. "Hiero," x. 5.

Similarly, every one will tell you that manure is the best thing in the world for agriculture, and every one can see how naturally it is produced. Still, though the method of production is accurately known, though there is every facility to get it in abundance, the fact remains that, while one man takes pains to have manure collected, another is entirely neglectful. And yet God sends us rain from heaven, and every hollow place becomes a standing pool, while earth supplies materials of every kind; the sower, too, about to sow must cleanse the soil, and what he takes as refuse from it needs only to be thrown into water and time itself will do the rest, shaping all to gladden earth.[9] For matter in every shape, nay earth itself,[10] in stagnant water turns to fine manure.

[9] Lit. "Time itself will make that wherein Earth rejoices." [10] i.e. "each fallen leaf, each sprig or spray of undergrowth, the very weeds, each clod." Lit. "what kind of material, what kind of soil does not become manure when thrown into stagnant water?"

So, again, as touching the various ways in which the earth itself needs treatment, either as being too moist for sowing, or too salt[11] for planting, these and the processes of cure are known to all men: how in one case the superfluous water is drawn off by trenches, and in the other the salt corrected by being mixed with various non-salt bodies, moist or dry. Yet here again, in spite of knowledge, some are careful of these matters, others negligent.

[11] See Anatol. "Geop." ii. 10. 9; Theophr. "de Caus." ii. 5. 4, 16. 8, ap. Holden. Cf. Virg. "Georg." ii. 238:

salsa autem tellus, et quae perhibetur amara frugibus infelix.
But even if a man were altogether ignorant what earth can yield, were he debarred from seeing any fruit or plant, prevented hearing from the lips of any one the truth about this earth: even so, I put it to you, it would be easier far for any living soul to make experiments on a piece of land,[12] than on a horse, for instance, or on his fellow- man. For there is nought which earth displays with intent to deceive, but in clear and simple language stamped with the seal of truth she informs us what she can and cannot do.[13] Thus it has ever seemed to me that earth is the best discoverer of true honesty,[14] in that she offers all her stores of knowledge in a shape accessible to the learner, so that he who runs may read. Here it is not open to the sluggard, as in other arts, to put forward the plea of ignorance or lack of knowledge, for all men know that earth, if kindly treated, will repay in kind. No! there is no witness[15] against a coward soul so clear as that of husbandry;[16] since no man ever yet persuaded himself that he could live without the staff of life. He therefore that is unskilled in other money-making arts and will not dig, shows plainly he is minded to make his living by picking and stealing, or by begging alms, or else he writes himself down a very fool.[17]

[12] Or, "this fair earth herself." [13] Or, "earth our mother reveals her powers and her impotence." [14] Lit. "of the good and the bad." Cf. Dem. "adv. Phorm." 918. 18. [15] Lit. "no accuser of." Cf. Aesch. "Theb." 439. [16] Reading, with Sauppe, {all' e georgia}, or if, with Jacobs, {e en georgia argia}, transl. "as that of idleness in husbandry." [17] Or, "if not, he must be entirely irrational." Cf. Plat. "Apol." 37 C.

Presently, Ischomachus proceeded: Now it is of prime importance,[18] in reference to the profitableness or unprofitableness of agriculture, even on a large estate where there are numerous[19] workfolk,[20] whether a man takes any pains at all to see that his labourers are devoted to the work on hand during the appointed time,[21] or whether he neglects that duty. Since one man will fairly distance ten[22] simply by working at the time, and another may as easily fall short by leaving off before the hour.[23] In fact, to let the fellows take things easily the whole day through will make a difference easily of half in the whole work.[24]

[18] Lit. "it made a great difference, he said, with regard to profit and loss in agriculture." [19] Or if, after Hertlein, adding {kai meionon}, transl. "workmen now more, now less, in number." [20] {ergasteron}, "poet." L. & S. cf. "Orph. H." 65. 4. See above, v. 15; xiii. 10. [21] Cf. Herod. II. ii. 2. [22] Or, "Why! one man in ten makes all the difference by . . ." {para} = "by comparison with." [23] Reading as vulg., or if {to me pro k.t.l.} transl. "by not leaving off, etc." [24] i.e. "is a difference of fifty per cent on the whole work."

As, on a walking-expedition, it may happen, of two wayfarers, the one will gain in pace upon the other half the distance say in every five- and-twenty miles,[25] though both alike are young and hale of body. The one, in fact, is bent on compassing the work on which he started, he steps out gaily and unflinchingly; the other, more slack in spirit, stops to recruit himself and contemplate the view by fountain side and shady nook, as though his object were to court each gentle zephyr. So in farm work; there is a vast difference as regards performance between those who do it not, but seek excuse for idleness and are suffered to be listless. Thus, between good honest work and base neglect there is as great a difference as there is between--what shall I say?--why, work and idleness.[26] The gardeners, look, are hoeing vines to keep them clean and free of weeds; but they hoe so sorrily that the loose stuff grows ranker and more plentiful. Can you call that[27] anything but idleness?

[25] Lit. "per 200 stades." [26] Or, "wholly to work and wholly to be idle." Reading as Sauppe, etc., or if with Holden, etc., {to de de kalos kai to kakos ergazesthai e epimeleisthai}, transl. "between toil and carefulness well or ill expended there lies all the difference; the two things are sundered as wide apart as are the poles of work and play," etc. A. Jacobs' emend. ap. Hartm. "An. Xen." p. 211, {to de de kakos ergazesthai e kakos epimeleisthai kei to kalos}, seems happy. [27] Or, "such a hoer aught but an idle loon."

Such, Socrates, are the ills which cause a house to crumble far more than lack of scientific knowledge, however rude it be.[28] For if you will consider; on the one hand, there is a steady outflow[29] of expenses from the house, and, on the other, a lack of profitable works outside to meet expenses; need you longer wonder if the field-works create a deficit and not a surplus? In proof, however, that the man who can give the requisite heed, while straining every nerve in the pursuit of agriculture, has speedy[30] and effective means of making money, I may cite the instance of my father, who had practised what he preached.[31]

[28] Cf. Thuc. v. 7; Plat. "Rep." 350 A; "Theaet." 200 B. [29] Or, "the expenses from the house are going on at the full rate," {enteleis}. Holden cf. Aristoph. "Knights," 1367: {ton misthon apodoso 'ntele}, "I'll have the arrears of seamen's wages paid to a penny" (Frere). [30] {anutikotaten}. Cf. "Hipparch," ii. 6. [31] Or, "who merely taught me what he had himself carried out in practice."

Now, my father would never suffer me to purchase an estate already under cultivation, but if he chanced upon a plot of land which, owing to the neglect or incapacity of the owner, was neither tilled nor planted,[32] nothing would satisfy him but I must purchase it. He had a saying that estates already under cultivation cost a deal of money and allowed of no improvement; and where there is no prospect of improvement, more than half the pleasure to be got from the possession vanishes. The height of happiness was, he maintained, to see your purchase, be it dead chattel or live animal,[33] go on improving daily under your own eyes.[34] Now, nothing shows a larger increase[35] than a piece of land reclaimed from barren waste and bearing fruit a hundredfold. I can assure you, Socrates, many is the farm which my father and I made worth I do not know how many times more than its original value. And then, Socrates, this valuable invention[36] is so easy to learn that you who have but heard it know and understand it as well as I myself do, and can go away and teach it to another if you choose. Yet my father did not learn it of another, nor did he discover it by a painful mental process;[37] but, as he has often told me, through pure love of husbandry and fondness of toil, he would become enamoured of such a spot as I describe,[38] and then nothing would content him but he must own it, in order to have something to do, and at the same time, to derive pleasure along with profit from the purchase. For you must know, Socrates, of all Athenians I have ever heard of, my father, as it seems to me, had the greatest love for agricultural pursuits.

[32] i.e. out of cultivation, whether as corn land or for fruit trees, viz. olive, fig, vine, etc. [33] Or, "be it a dead thing or a live pet." Cf. Plat. "Theaet." 174 B; "Laws," 789 B, 790 D, 819 B; "C. I." 1709. [34] Cf. "Horsem." iii. 1; and see Cowley's Essay above referred to. [35] Or, "is susceptible of greater improvement." [36] Or, "discovery." See "Anab." III. v. 12; "Hell." IV. v. 4; "Hunting," xiii. 13. [37] Or, "nor did he rack his brains to discover it." See "Mem." III. v. 23. Cf. Aristoph. "Clouds," 102, {merimnophrontistai}, minute philosophers. [38] "He could not see an estate of the sort described but he must fall over head and ears in love with it at first sight; have it he must."

When I heard this, I could not resist asking a question; Ischomachus (I said), did your father retain possession of all the farms he put under cultivation, or did he part with them whenever he was offered a good price?
He parted with them, without a doubt (replied Ischomachus), but then at once he bought another in the place of what he sold, and in every case an untilled farm, in order to gratify his love for work.
As you describe him (I proceeded), your father must truly have been formed by nature with a passion for husbandry, not unlike that corn- hunger which merchants suffer from. You know their habits: by reason of this craving after corn,[39] whenever they hear that corn is to be got, they go sailing off to find it, even if they must cross the Aegean, or the Euxine, or the Sicilian seas. And when they have got as much as ever they can get, they will not let it out of their sight, but store it in the vessel on which they sail themselves, and off they go across the seas again.[40] Whenever they stand in need of money, they will not discharge their precious cargo,[41] at least not in haphazard fashion, wherever they may chance to be; but first they find out where corn is at the highest value, and where the inhabitants will set the greatest store by it, and there they take and deliver the dear article. Your father's fondness for agriculture seems to bear a certain family resemblance to this passion.

[39] Lit. "of their excessive love for corn." [40] Lit. "they carry it across the seas again, and that, too, after having stored it in the hold of the very vessel in which they sail themselves." [41] Or, "their treasure." {auton} throughout, which indeed is the humour of the passage. The love of John Barleycorn is their master passion.

To these remarks Ischomachus replied: You jest, Socrates; but still I hold to my belief: that man is fond of bricks and mortar who no sooner has built one house than he must needs sell it and proceed to build another.
To be sure, Ischomachus (I answered), and for my part I assure you, upon oath, I, Socrates, do verily and indeed believe[42] you that all men by nature love (or hold they ought to love) those things wherebysoever they believe they will be benefited.

[32] Reading {e men pisteuein soi phusei (nomizein) philein tauta pantas . . .}; and for the "belief" propounded with so much humorous emphasis, see Adam Smith, "Moral Sentiments." Hartman, "An. Xen." 180, cf. Plat. "Lysis."

XXI

After a pause, I added: I am turning over in my mind how cleverly you have presented the whole argument to support your thesis: which was, that of all arts the art of husbandry is the easiest to learn. And now, as the result of all that has been stated, I am entirely persuaded that this is so.
Isch. Yes, Socrates, indeed it is. But I, on my side, must in turn admit that as regards that faculty which is common alike to every kind of conduct (tillage, or politics, the art of managing a house, or of conducting war), the power, namely, of command[1]--I do subscribe to your opinion, that on this score one set of people differ largely from another both in point of wit and judgement. On a ship of war, for instance,[2] the ship is on the high seas, and the crew must row whole days together to reach moorings.[3] Now note the difference. Here you may find a captain[4] able by dint of speech and conduct to whet the souls of those he leads, and sharpen them to voluntary toils; and there another so dull of wit and destitute of feeling that it will take his crew just twice the time to finish the same voyage. See them step on shore. The first ship's company are drenched in sweat; but listen, they are loud in praise of one another, the captain and his merry men alike. And the others? They are come at last; they have not turned a hair, the lazy fellows, but for all that they hate their officer and by him are hated.

[1] See "Mem." I. i. 7. [2] Or, "the crew must row the livelong day . . ." [3] For an instance see "Hell." VI. ii. 27, Iphicrates' periplus. [4] Or, "one set of boatswains." See Thuc. ii. 84. For the duties of the Keleustes see "Dict. Gk. Rom. Ant." s.v. portisculus; and for the type of captain see "Hell." V. i. 3, Teleutias.

Generals, too, will differ (he proceeded), the one sort from the other, in this very quality. Here you have a leader who, incapable of kindling a zest for toil and love of hairbreadth 'scapes, is apt to engender in his followers that base spirit which neither deigns nor chooses to obey, except under compulsion. They even pride and plume themselves,[5] the cowards, on their opposition to their leader; this same leader who, in the end, will make his men insensible to shame even in presence of most foul mishap. On the other hand, put at their head another stamp of general: one who is by right divine[6] a leader, good and brave, a man of scientific knowledge. Let him take over to his charge those malcontents, or others even of worse character, and he will have them presently ashamed of doing a disgraceful deed. "It is nobler to obey" will be their maxim. They will exult in personal obedience and in common toil, where toil is needed, cheerily performed. For just as an unurged zeal for voluntary service[7] may at times invade, we know, the breasts of private soldiers, so may like love of toil with emulous longing to achieve great deeds of valour under the eyes of their commander, be implanted in whole armies by good officers.

[5] Lit. "magnify themselves." See "Ages." x. 2; "Pol. Lac." viii. 2. [6] Or, "god-like," "with something more than human in him." See Hom. "Il." xxiv. 259:

{oude eokei andros ge thnetou pais emmenai alla theoio.} "Od." iv. 691; {theioi basilees}. Cf. Carlyle, "Heroes"; Plat. "Meno," 99 D: Soc. "And may we not, Meno, truly call those men divine who, having no understanding, yet succeed in many a grand deed and word?" And below: Soc. "And the women too, Meno, call good men divine; and the Spartans, when they praise a good man, say, 'that he is a divine man'" (Jowett). Arist. "Eth. N." vii. 1: "That virtue which transcends the human, and which is of an heroic or godlike type, such as Priam, in the poems of Homer, ascribes to Hector, when wishing to speak of his great goodness:
Not woman-born seemed he, but sprung from gods."
And below: "And exactly as it is a rare thing to find a man of godlike nature--to use the expression of the Spartans, 'a godlike man,' which they apply to those whom they expressively admire--so, too, brutality is a type of character rarely found among men" (Robert Williams).

[7] Reading {etheloponia tis}, or if {philoponia}, transl. "just as some strange delight in labour may quicken in the heart of many an individual soldier." See "Anab." IV. vii. 11.

Happy must that leader be whose followers are thus attached to him: beyond all others he will prove a stout and strong commander. And by strong, I mean, not one so hale of body as to tower above the stoutest of the soldiery themselves; no, nor him whose skill to hurl a javelin or shoot an arrow will outshine the skilfullest; nor yet that mounted on the fleetest charger it shall be his to bear the brunt of danger foremost amid the knightliest horsemen, the nimblest of light infantry. No, not these, but who is able to implant a firm persuasion in the minds of all his soldiers: follow him they must and will through fire, if need be, or into the jaws of death.[8]

[8] Or, "through flood and fire or other desperate strait." Cf. "Anab." II. vi. 8.

Lofty of soul and large of judgment[9] may he be designated justly, at whose back there steps a multitude stirred by his sole sentiment; not unreasonably may he be said to march "with a mighty arm,"[10] to whose will a thousand willing hands are prompt to minister; a great man in every deed he is who can achieve great ends by resolution rather than brute force.

[9] See "Ages." ix. 6, "of how lofty a sentiment." [10] See Herod. vii. 20, 157; Thuc. iii. 96.

So, too, within the field of private industry, the person in authority, be it the bailiff, be it the overseer,[11] provided he is able to produce unflinching energy, intense and eager, for the work, belongs to those who haste to overtake good things[12] and reap great plenty. Should the master (he proceeded), being a man possessed of so much power, Socrates, to injure the bad workman and reward the zealous --should he suddenly appear, and should his appearance in the labour field produce no visible effect upon his workpeople, I cannot say I envy or admire him. But if the sight of him is followed by a stir of movement, if there come upon[13] each labourer fresh spirit, with mutual rivaly and keen ambition, drawing out the finest qualities of each,[14] of him I should say, Behold a man of kingly disposition. And this, if I mistake not, is the quality of greatest import in every operation which needs the instrumentality of man; but most of all, perhaps, in agriculture. Not that I would maintain that it is a thing to be lightly learnt by a glance of the eye, or hearsay fashion, as a tale that is told. Far from it, I assert that he who is to have this power has need of education; he must have at bottom a good natural disposition; and, what is greatest of all, he must be himself a god- like being.[15] For if I rightly understand this blessed gift, this faculty of command over willing followers, by no means is it, in its entirety, a merely human quality, but it is in part divine. It is a gift plainly given to those truly initiated[16] in the mystery of self-command. Whereas despotism over unwilling slaves, the heavenly ones give, as it seems to me, to those whom they deem worthy to live the life of Tantalus in Hades, of whom it is written[17] "he consumes unending days in apprehension of a second death."

[11] According to Sturz, "Lex." s.v., the {epitropos} is (as a rule, see "Mem." II. viii.) a slave or freedman, the {epistates} a free man. See "Mem." III. v. 18. [12] Apparently a homely formula, like "make hay whilst the sun shines," "a stitch in time saves nine." [13] Cf. Hom. "Il." ix. 436, xvii. 625; "Hell." VII. i. 31. [14] Reading {kratiste ousa}, or if with Heindorf, {kratisteusai}, transl. "to prove himself the best." [15] See "Cyrop." I. i. 3; Grote, "Plato," vol. iii. 571. [16] See Plat. "Phaed." 69 C; Xen. "Symp." i. 10. [17] Or, "it is said." See Eur. "Orest." 5, and Porson ad loc.

---

Ancient/Classical History

Return to Contents of Xenophon's The Economist

---

Free Ancient History Newsletter!Sign Up