a8 ARISTOTLE’S POLITICS.
Cp. the passage in the Republic (i. 349, 350) in which it is
shewn from the analogy of the arts that the just and the wise do
not aim at excess. Here as elsewhere ‘the good is of the nature
of the finite,’ whereas evil is undefined. Cp. also Nic. Eth. ii. 6.
0 14, ~b ybp KU~V TO; alntipov, AS oi ndaydpfloi tira(‘ov, ri) 6i dyaeb TO;
mnfpaupivou : and Mill, Polit. Econ., Preliminary Remarks, ‘ the
definition of wealth as signifying instruments is philosophically cor-
rect but departs too widely from the custom of language.’
- dr’ iv ahlav.
Sc. because provision has to be made for the uses of life.
- dr’ iv ahlav.
- I. Bi at& Bo& &par.
‘ Owing to which,’ or ‘to the nature of which,’ ‘ there appears to
be no limit,’ etc. - I. Furl 6’ 4 plv Cp6Ufl ?j B’ 06 +€l.
So Plato divides VIK~ into &~EUTLIC$ and alhhammj, Soph. 223 ff.
~K~UTOU KT$~UTOS Si+ 4 xp+jors.
Cp. Adam Smith‘s ‘Value in use’ and ‘Value in exchange’;
Wealth of Nations, Book i. c. 4, though the order of the two ideas
is inverted. For to Aristotle the value in use or teleological value
is the truer and better, to Adam Smith as a political economist
the value in exchange is prior in importance.
- Buov ybp iravhv shots.
Sc. TO% dv6pinroc~.
ol p2v yhp roiv a6rlv irorvbvovv ndmov, oi SZ KepprwpLvor lroXXtv
Ircixcv wai &lp.v Ov Kurd T~E Btjurcs civayraiov ~OifiuBai rhs pra66urcr.
Bernays inserts i‘rrpor before &lp~, which he would translate
‘ different persons want different things; ’ and he assumes the idea
of want to be implied in KCXXW~LU~‘YO~. But it is difficult to under-
stand this explanation. A fair meaning may be elicited from the
text, as it stands :-I) ‘In families they shared in all things alike ;
when they were dispersed they had many things as before, but not
all the same’: or 2) rai i~lp~ may be taken more simply: ‘they
shared in many things as before, and had many other things as
well’ ; i. e. the enlargement of Society gave rise to new wants. The
- Buov ybp iravhv shots.
0.5.