ARISTOTLE AND FOREIGN TRADE 47
To start with, let us note that, whatever its precise meaning, the phrase inquestion fits well into the discussion of need as a social bond for one to reject
it without examining it further. With the correction of Münscher, one obtains
a meaning, which, if not in strict conformity with the text, at least appears to
be acceptable (we have already seen in an earlier discussion how in the Politics
an example taken from foreign trade can serve as evidence in a theoretical
analysis). But in fact, one does not even need Münscher’s correction. Aristotle’s
prose, simultaneously technical and abstract, is subordinated to an idea that
uses the same terms again and again to indicate the steps in his argument. As a
result, his language often takes the reader’s understanding for granted in order
to avoid irritating repetitions. Thus, for example, the article employed by itself
often refers to a noun, which is either implicit or has already been mentioned.
One finds a good example of the verb ἔχω accompanied by an understood
subject at Rhetoric 2.7.1.1385a (on obligation): to avoid too many repetitions,
the noun χάριν is not repeated each time.^27 In the passage we are examining in
the Nicomachean Ethics, the word χρεία has already been used twice in the sen-
tence, and χρεία is the subject of the discussion. One should also understand
that Aristotle implies the word χρείαν here in the standard expression χρείαν
ἔχειν. The true meaning is, therefore: ‘Just as when the other person lacks what
one needs oneself (οὗ ἔχει – χρείαν – αὐτός), for example, wheat, and the two
parties offer an export license for wine.’ In this case, to the extent that the two
parties need to import the same commodity and both propose to export the
same product, there is no possibility of exchange between them. This is why
Aristotle concludes: δεῖ ἄρα τοῦτο ἰσασθῆναι, ‘it is therefore necessary to put
the relationship on an equal basis’. The way in which needs can be placed on
an equal basis in similar cases by the use of money is the subject of the follow-
ing discussion with the analysis of deferred exchange. Nowhere in Aristotle is
it explicitly stated that exports serve to finance imports (this could scarcely be
the case when considering ‘surpluses’ and ‘deficiencies’ originating in nature).
But the connection repeatedly made between importing and exporting nev-
ertheless points in this direction. However, the idea surfaces almost explicitly
when he discusses deferred exchange.^28 At any rate, there is nothing mysterious
about this, nothing that would justify the description ‘a speculative translation
of a speculative text’ (is it because the discussion is about exporting?) given
by M.M. Austin and P. Vidal-Naquet in the commentary on their version of
the passage.^29
Now, if one makes a survey of other authors, one discovers that Aristotle’sstatement is by no means unusual.
- Thucydides has the Corinthian ambassadors make the following statement on
the eve of the Peloponnesian War: ‘As for others, who are settled in the interior,
far away from sea-routes, if they do not defend those living on the coasts, they
will have a hard time disposing of their produce and as a result also find it
difficult to acquire in exchange what the sea provides for the dry land’ (τὴν