26 EDwaRD M. HaRRIs aND DavID M. LEwIs
Greek society, keeping production and exchange largely within the remit of
the household and small local networks, inhibiting the growth of markets and
market exchange.^125
Though commonplace, both the view that an ideology of autarky was hard-
wired into the Athenian mind and the view that exchange was limited for
the most part to local kin groups are flawed and should be challenged. Let us
begin with the allegedly pervasive ideology of self-sufficiency. According to
this view, the Greek household sought only to produce enough for its own
needs and to avoid dependence on others, viewing chrematistike, the art of
acquisition without limit, as unnatural.^126 The main text cited in support of
this view is a passage from Aristotle’s Politics (1.3.1256a1–1258b8),^127 but the
passage needs to be read carefully and in context. Aristotle begins the chapter
by asking whether chrematistike is the same as oikonomia or part of it or sub-
ordinate to it (1.3.1256a4-6). Without giving the opinions of others, Aristotle
quickly declares that oikonomike is not the same as chrematistike because the aim
of the latter is to acquire or produce, whereas the aim of the former is to use
(1.3.1256a12–14). This would appear to identify chrematistike with production,
oikonomike with consumption. Aristotle then slightly alters the question and
asks whether chrematistike is part of oikonomike or a different kind of skill. Here
he admits that there is some debate, although he does not say who lines up on
each side of the debate (1.3.1256a14–15).
He then launches into an analysis of the different ways that men acquire
their food, enumerating the ways men acquire what they need: some men live
from raising animals, others from hunting and most from agriculture. This leads
him to the conclusion that nature provides plants for consumption by animals,
and animals for consumption by men, because nature makes nothing with-
out purpose or in vain (1.3.7.1256b15–23). Aristotle then says that one type
of acquisition in accordance with nature forms a part of oikonomike. This type
either ensures that there is (or provides that there will be) a supply of goods that
are necessary for life and useful either for the community or for the household.
Here, Aristotle seems to have changed slightly his use of the term oikonomia
because previously he said that it applied only to the use of goods, not to their
acquisition. At this point, he seems implicitly to recognize two aspects to oiko-
nomia, acquisition of goods and the use of goods. In this form of acquisition
a limit has been fixed because riches are a set of tools for the household and
the statesman to use and no tool is without a limit (1.3.9.1256b30–39). What is
relevant for our discussion is that Aristotle disagrees with Solon, who said that
there was no limit set for riches.
This is highly significant, for it shows that Aristotle’s view was not the only
one. We cannot simply assume that Aristotle’s words represent the Greek atti-
tude to self-sufficiency. It may, in fact, have been a minority opinion or a