62 ALAIN BRESSON (TRANSLATED By EDwARD M. HARRIS)
6 Finley 1973 : 161–2.
7 Finley 1973 : 164.
8 Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1977 : 113.
9 For the Rhetoric, see the analyses in the second section of this essay.
10 Pol. 2.1.7; Eth. Nic. 1.7.6.1097b.
11 Pl. Leg. 12.949e–953e.
12 Arist. Pol. 7.5.1. Trans. P. Simpson.
13 Arist. Pol. 7.5.2. Trans. adapted from P. Simpson.
14 Arist. Pol. 1.3.5: ὅσοι γε αὐτόφυτον ἔχουσιν τὴν ἐργασίαν ... These primitive forms are
described at Pol. 1.3.4-5.
15 Arist. Pol. 1.3.13: αὐτὰ γὰρ τὰ χρήσιμα πρὸς αὐτὰ καταλλάτονται ἐπὶ πλέον δ‘ οὐθέν,
οἷον οἶνον πρὸς σῖτον διδόντες καὶ λαμβάνοντες καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων ἕκαστον.
ἡ μὲν οὖν τοιαύτη μεταβλητικὴ οὔτε παρὰ φύσιν, οὔτε χρηματιστικῆς ἐστιν εἶδος οὐδέν,
εἰς ἀναπλήρωσιν γὰρ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν αὺταρκείας ἦν· ἐκ μέντοι ταύτης ἐγένετ‘ ἐκείνη κατὰ
λόγον. ξενικωτέρας γὰρ γινομένης τῆς βοηθείας, τῷ εἰσάγεσθαι ὧν ἐνδεεῖς καὶ ἐκπέμπειν ὧν
ἐπλεόναζον, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἡ τοῦ νομίσματος ἐπορίσθη χρῆσις. Trans. adapted from P. Simpson.
16 Cf. earlier in the chapter, Arist. Pol. 1.3.8-10.
17 On this topic, see Picard 1980.
18 Arist. Pol. 6.5.2.
19 Arist. Pol. 7.5.4.
20 Arist. Pol. 7.5.3.
21 Arist. Pol. 1.4.2.
22 Arist. Pol. 7.5.4.
23 If Finley had followed Aristotle, he should have admitted the possibility of such treaties
between cities, but he doubts that such treaties actually existed (Finley 1973 : 161): ‘Although
traders were beneficiaries [i.e. of bilateral commercial treaties between cities], they were
not the only ones. The existing documentation, admittedly thin, is marked by a com-
plete absence of anything we can recognize as commercial clauses, or even references....
Yet concrete examples are hard to find in the sources.’ According to Finley, Aristotle calls
these commercial treaties ‘treaties about imports’ (he cites Pol. 2.9.7: συνθῆκαι περὶ τῶν
εἰσαγωγίμων). In fact, to the extent that Aristotle considers commercial treaties not from
the perspective of one of the trading partners (as is the case in other passages) but from
that of both trading partners simultaneously, one sees that to the extent that the exports of
one are perforce the imports of the other, Finley oversimplifies when he calls these ‘treaties
about imports’ insofar as (as we have seen) foreign trade has for him the sole aim of achiev-
ing self-sufficiency, that is, to supply needs. But naturally this does not imply in any way, on
the contrary, that one should have no concern for exports because there can be no imports
without exports. On this point, see the analysis of Arist. Eth. Nic. 5.5.13.1133b that follows.
24 ὅσα τ‘ ἂν μὴ τυγχάνῃ παρ‘ αὐτοῖς ὄντα δέξασθαι ταῦτα καὶ τὰ πλεονάζοντα τῶν
γιγνομένων ἐκπέμψασθαι τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐστιν.
25 Gauthier and Jolif 1970 : II.384.
26 Rackham 1934: 286.
27 Arist. Rh. 2.7.1.1385a: Τίσιν δὲ χάριν ἔχουσι, ἢ ἐπὶ τίσιν, καὶ πῶς αὐτοὶ ἔχοντες ὁρισαμένοις
τὴν χάριν δῆλον ἔσται.
28 Eth. Nic. 5.5.14: ‘In the interest of future exchange, if one has no need for anything
now, currency acts as a kind of guarantor for us that, when there is a need exchange
will be possible; for the person bringing it is necessarily in a position to take something
away’ (trans. C. Rowe). This theoretical argument, which can be applied to exchanges
between individuals as well as between cities (Aristotle goes without difficulty from one
category to another, as several examples demonstrate), shows how one can avoid the
preceding problem by selling to a first partner in order to obtain money and thus having
the possibility of buying what one needs from another partner. An anecdote reported by
[Arist.] Oec. 2.2.16a.1348b shows that in practice people know how to finance imports