The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0306-8293.htm

IJSE
38,8 The ethical foundations
of economics in ancient
Greece, focussing on Socrates
714
and Xenophon
James E. Alvey
School of Economics and Finance, Massey University,
Palmerston North, New Zealand

Abstract
Purpose – Economics had a strong linkage to ethics up to the 1930s but this has virtually
disappeared today. Amartya Sen first sketched the historical relationship in his book On Ethics
& Economics. This article seeks to explore the ethical foundations of economics in ancient Greece,
focussing on Socrates and Xenophon.
Design/methodology/approach – Various ancient Greek primary sources are used to investigate
the foundations of economics as an ethical enterprise. For Socrates, the primary sources are the reports
of his conversations by two students: Plato and Xenophon. For Xenophon, one has to rely upon his
own writings, which are extensive and have survived in good condition.
Findings – For Socrates, human flourishing (eudaimonia) was the goal, rather than great
accumulation of material goods. Xenophon accepts private property and the division of labour within
certain ethical limits. In his work, the development of the ethical approach to household management
(oikonomia or oikonomikē), or microeconomics, within the context of the Greek city ( polis) can be seen.
Friendship ( philia) and gentlemanship (kalokagathia) are discussed together with oikonomia as a
united package. Further, Xenophon anticipates several elements of Sen’s understanding of good
human functioning. There is a strong linkage between ethics and economics in Socrates and
Xenophon.
Originality/value – While great efforts have been devoted to tracing the origins of Sen’s capability
framework back to Aristotle, this article represents the first attempt to trace that framework back
further, to Socrates and Xenophon.
Keywords Ethics, Economics, Socrates, Xenophon, Household management, Ancient history, Greece
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
This article has two goals. First, it serves as an introduction to the Socratic school
(Socrates [469-399 BC], Xenophon [434-355 BC], Plato [427-347 BC] and Aristotle
[384-322 BC]) and the ways in which its members contribute to the linkage between
ethics and economics. We will keep in mind how the Socratics are treated by those who
have presented a grand narrative of ethics and economics: Sen (1987) and various others.

JEL classification – A12, A13, B11

International Journal of Social
Economics
Vol. 38 No. 8, 2011
pp. 714-733
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0306-8293
DOI 10.1108/03068291111143910
Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Centre for Public Policy Evaluation,
Massey University, Palmerston North on 26 May 2010 and at the World Congress of Social
Economics, held at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, on 28 June-1 July 2010. It extends
Alvey (2010b). The author wishes to thank Benjamin Wong and participants at the two fora
mentioned above for useful comments on earlier versions of the work.
It is generally agreed that there was an ethical tradition in economics in ancient times but The ethical
at some point after the Middle Ages economics broke from ethics. Second, the article foundations of
indicates some similarities and contrasts between the ancient Greeks and later schools of
economic thought, especially Sen’s capabilities school. Sen and his colleagues have economics
stressed human capabilities as the appropriate framework within which to discuss
human rights. Similarly, Sen argues that capability achievements rather than the
production of commodities should be the appropriate metric for the standard of living. 715
Having developed this framework, Sen has identified various impediments to capability
achievement, including poverty and gender inequality (especially female nutrition)[1].
Such impediments are ignored in the most widely used national accounting measure of
the standard of living (i.e. GDP/head). The capabilities framework will help to focus our
discussion of ethical issues.
Before commencing the work proper, some background on two ancient
Greek institutions is required: the household (oikos; plural oikoi ) and the city ( polis;
plural poleis). The oikoi were “highly self-sufficient” (autarkēs) units, which included
a farm; they required “minimal market activity” as a supplement, although dependence
on markets increased over time (Lowry, 1987, p. 61; Booth, 1993, p. 34). Household
management (oikonomikē or oikonomia)[2] in the oikos is a larger undertaking than it is
in the modern, nuclear family (constituting perhaps four people). It is a community
(koinōnia)[3] and managing it is more like managing a small village[4]; it is also more
diverse, as it includes ruling over family members (parents and two to three surviving
children, and perhaps one or more grandparent) and, for larger oikoi, it includes
management of servants (or slaves)[5], such as a steward (epitropos)[6], a housekeeper,
waiting maids and farm workers (or field hands) (Xenophon, Oec, 1970[7]; Patterson,
1998, p. 43; Pomeroy, 2002, pp. 38-40, 42, 45-7, 56, 74-5).
The oikos was the primitive form of ancient Greek society. Gradually, various oikoi
joined together to form larger units (villages) and the final form of the larger unit in
Greece was the polis, which emerged around 700 BC[8]. Sparta, Athens and Crete were
three of the leading examples of Greek poleis[9]. The polis typically included an urban
area (asty) and a surrounding territory (chora). By modern standards, the population was
very small. Kitto ([1951] 1957, p. 66) says that only three poleis – Syracuse, Acragas and
Athens – had more than 20,000 citizens ( politai ) (Nagle, 2006, pp. 45-58)[10].
The structure of the article is as follows. Section 2 provides a brief introduction to
the Socratic school and to Socrates in particular. Section 3 discusses Xenophon.
Section 4 provides a brief conclusion.

2. An introduction to the Socratic school

The Socratic school (Socrates, Xenophon[11], Plato and Aristotle) arose in opposition to
the Sophists (many of whom adopted a type of proto-mercantilist political economy)
(Gordon, 1975, p. 17)[12]. Although Socrates wrote nothing that has down to us
(Plato, Phaedr, 1998, 274c-275d, pp. 85-6; Nussbaum, [1986] 2001, p. 125), two of his
followers (Plato and Xenophon), wrote extensively.
Socrates achieved fame during his lifetime and was a model for his followers; his
philosophic way of life was regarded by some of them as the best way of life[13].
One of Socrates’s most important doctrines was that virtue (aretē) is knowledge
(Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, III.9.5, IV.6.6-7, pp. 94-5, 141). This doctrine was applied
in many contexts.
IJSE After a period as a natural scientist, Socrates adopted a new methodology: dialogue,
38,8 or dialectics, or “philosophical conversations about what people think about the
world”[14]. The conclusion that can be drawn is that, for Socrates, the study of politics,
ethics and economics requires a fundamentally different methodology to that used
in the natural sciences. This view – of the dichotomy between the methodology of the
humanities and the social sciences – was challenged by Thomas Hobbes in the
716 seventeenth century, and overturned entirely by the end of the Second World War.
The modern economist (Robbins, 1932) claims that economic science adopts the
same methodology as the natural sciences (applied mathematics) but deploys this in a
subject area that is immediately relevant to human beings: the reconciliation of scarce
(material) means with unlimited (material) wants. Socrates would not have seen the
relevance of modern economics for his own life. His life, he said, was eudaimon (often
translated as happy) despite apparent material poverty; Socrates rationally limited his
material desires (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, I.2.1, 14, I.3.5, I.5.6, pp. 6, 8, 19, 27, 1970,
Oec, II.2, pp. 8-9, 47; Bruell, 1994, p. xv)[15]. While eudaimonia can be rendered as
happiness, the modern utilitarian overtones have to be removed[16]. Hereafter, I will
use the Greek term itself or translate eudaimonia as “human flourishing.”
Eudaimonia requires rational restraint of pleasure-seeking activity; the incontinent
are no different from “ignorant beasts,” which simply act on immediate impulse or
pleasure (Xenophon, Mem, 1994a, IV.5.11, p. 138). Addiction to pleasure was a sort of
enslavement that ruled out virtuous action in many cases (and led to ignoble actions
in other cases)[17].
For Socrates, there were at least two types of eudaimonia: the life of the philosopher
and the life of the noble and good man (the kaloskagathos). According to the early
works of Plato, for Socrates, virtue was sufficient for eudaimonia. This seems to apply
to philosophers. As the usual temptations to vice (e.g. love of pleasures derived from
the body or wealth) have been displaced, the philosophic types (such as Socrates),
would be moral in the ordinary sense (Xenophon, Mem, 1994a, I.2.62, p. 17). Socrates
claimed that he was just (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, IV.4.10-1, IV.8.4, 10, pp. 130-1, 148-9).
The way of life of the philosopher aimed at unlimited acquisition of knowledge,
and was supported by a minimum of material goods (Xenophon, 1994a, I.6.10, p. 29;
Strauss, 1970, p. 97). As Gordon (1975, p. 39) says, the most fundamental decisions
concern the selection of ends not means[18].
According to Xenophon (and Plato in his later works), Socrates had a second view of
eudaimonia which applied to non-philosophers. This way of life was the life of the
kaloskagathos. In this context, Socrates included various “good things” in the eudaimon
life. The good condition of one’s body, one’s soul, one’s household, one’s friends and
one’s city required, among other things, bodily health, self-sufficiency, freedom, ruling
others, virtue and friendship[19]. Socrates admits, however, that many of these things
(including beauty, strength, wealth and reputation) are not simply good; hence,
he called them “debatable goods” (Xenophon, 1994a, IV.2.34, p. 122).
Socrates was prepared to modify the desired ends for non-philosophers, because
Xenophon shows at least two occasions (see the discussion below) when the former taught
the art of household management (including farming) to non-philosophers[20]. According
to Petrochilos (2002, p. 604), Socrates taught his followers the moral virtues; his aim was
to lead his “disciples to a life of kalokagathia” (literally a life of nobility and goodness),
by showing them how to become a kaloskagathos, a noble and good man or what I will call
a gentleman (Xenophon, 1994, I.2.48, I.6.14, IV.7.1, IV.8.11, pp. 14, 30, 145, 150)[21]. The ethical
Certainly, there is evidence of Socrates doing so in some cases (see below), but his higher foundations of
task was inspiring some to become philosophers. The ways of life of a philosopher and a
kaloskagathos are quite different (Ambler, 1996, pp. 115, 120-1, 124). The former is economics
primarily discussed by Plato; the latter is primarily discussed by Xenophon.

3. Xenophon 717
Xenophon was a soldier, historian, biographer and philosopher. For centuries, Xenophon
was highly regarded but a sharp downgrade of his work occurred in the eighteenth
century (Strauss, 1970, p. 83). Although Xenophon’s work continues to be evaluated as
vastly inferior to that of Plato’s (Marchant, [1925] 1968, p. xvi; Cartledge, 1981;
Nussbaum, [1986] 2001, p. 453, n. 3; Lowry, 1987, p. 46), a more favourable assessment
has begun to emerge in recent years.
Some preliminary comments are required on Xenophon’s oeuvre. First, some of
Xenophon’s works are dialogues, such as the Oeconomicus. Securing a valid
interpretation of his thought, especially in this dialogue form[22], is difficult and
many differing interpretations have been offered (Strauss, 1970; Foucault, [1984] 1992,
pp. 152-65). Second, even though he does not use modern terminology, Xenophon
demonstrates a clear understanding of many modern economic principles. Third,
Xenophon discusses in an integrated manner a wide variety of themes. Detaching his
teaching on one theme is, therefore, problematic.
In what follows, we will present various aspects of Xenophon’s work that fit under the
ethics and economics rubric. We will discuss these themes within the context of each
Xenophontic work (Cyropaedia, Hiero, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, Oeconomicus
and Memorabilia) but supplementing these comments with cross-references to other
works. Xenophon’s Ways is discussed briefly elsewhere (Alvey, 2010a).

3.1 Cyropaedia and Hiero

In the Cyropaedia (or the Education of Cyrus), Xenophon discusses the life of Cyrus, the
Founder of the Persian Empire. Two points are of interest. First, Xenophon tells a story
from Cyrus’s youth, when the future emperor attended one of the Persian schools
of justice (Xenophon, 2001, I.3.16-7, p. 32). Cyrus’s teacher appointed the young Cyrus to
judge certain controversies between other boys. One big boy owned a tunic that was
too small for him and had taken an oversized one from a smaller boy; as compensation,
the former gave the latter his discarded tunic. Xenophon’s Cyrus judged that these
actions were “fitting,” as both boys benefitted by the change, despite their violation of
the laws of private property (and one aspect of justice) (Xenophon, 2001, I.3.17, p. 32;
Strauss, 1970, p. 96). The young Cyrus, however, was then beaten by the teacher, because
the former was asked to judge what is “just possession” not what is “fitting” (Xenophon,
2001, I.3.17, p. 32). Xenophon’s implicit teaching is that “the just or legal is not simply the
same as the good”; his ultimate standard was “the good” (Strauss, 1970, pp. 96-7). While
reliance on legal ownership may have to be accepted for practical purposes, “the good”
must be kept in mind also. Contrary to defenders of a social contract view of society
(Kahn, 1981), Xenophon held that private ownership rights need limitation. There must
be recognition of those who need the object, or who can use it, as well as those who own it.
Second, in the same work, there is also a detailed presentation of the division of labour
(Xenophon, 2001, Cyro, VIII.2.5-6, pp. 241-2). Xenophon endorses this as a means
IJSE of promoting excellence. Lowry discusses this presentation at length and concludes that
38,8 it is the source of Adam Smith’s famous discussion in the Wealth of Nations (Lowry,
1987, pp. 68-72; Smith, [1776] 1976). The significance of Xenophon’s discussion of the
specialization of labour in the Cyropaedia for our immediate purposes, however, is that it
shows a genuine understanding of the topic. We will return later to the division of labour
and private ownership.
718 Let us now turn briefly to another work, the Hiero. Anticipating the key assumption
that the Physiocrats were to adopt nearly 2,000 years later in the French Enlightenment,
Xenophon (1925b [1968], IX.7, p. 47, Hiero) says that farming is the “most useful of all
occupations”. He does not leave the matter there, however. Xenophon says that
competition in agriculture “is conspicuous by its absence” at that time in classical Greece
but farming would make progress if some competition were introduced; Xenophon
(1925b [1968], IX.7, p. 49, Hiero) proposes that prizes be offered for good cultivation.
He predicts that, if his advice is adopted, not only would “revenues” rise with increased
“industry” but so would “sobriety” (Xenophon, 1925b [1968], IX.8, p. 49, Hiero). A type of
virtue accompanies accumulation. Efficiency and ethics are complementary in this case.
This view of economics and ethics anticipates that developed by David Hume and
Adam Smith in the Scottish Enlightenment.

3.2 Constitution of the Lacedaemonians[23]

In the Constitution of the Lacedaemonians (i.e. the Spartan Constitution), Xenophon
praises[24] several aspects of Spartan life, two of which will be mentioned here.
First, almost immediately after commencing the work, Xenophon turns to a detailed
presentation of the Spartan practice of rearing young females[25]. This is important
because female capability achievement is integral to Sen’s capability school.
Xenophon refers to the good nutrition of females in Sparta[26]. Xenophon (1925a
[1968], I.3, p. 137, Con Lac) condemns the other Greek poleis for failing to do likewise
(Pomeroy, 2002, p. 150):
[O]ther people [those in cities other than Sparta] feed their young women, who are about to
bear offspring, and are of a class regarded as well brought up, on the most moderate quantity
of vegetable food possible, and on the least possible quantity of meat (Xenophon, Con Lac,
1908, I.3, p. 205).
This extraordinary passage tells us that, for Xenophon, the women in Sparta are well
fed but those in other poleis are not. Because Xenophon travelled widely and lived for
long periods in both Athens and Sparta, his praise of Spartan practice may well have
been based on the physical comparison between the Spartan and other Greek women
(Pomeroy, 2002, pp. 141, 150). Xenophon was one of the first to draw attention to female
nutrition as a part of distributive justice. As Sen has made female nutrition a central
element in his capabilities philosophy, Xenophon’s work deserves renewed attention
(Aristotle, 1991, p. 219). Indeed, Xenophon extends his argument about gender
inequality, arguing against female physical seclusion (which hinders what Sen calls the
ability to move, an important capability)[27] and for female physical training (required
for their health, another important capability)[28].
Second, Xenophon extends his argument that private property rights must be
limited. For him, the focus should be on the good use of possessions (usufruct rights).
Good usage would allow private property to be used by non-owners as well. For
example, you might allow friends to use your own possessions on the understanding
that they return them in good condition. Lycurgus (800-730 BC), the founder of Sparta, The ethical
was aware of the connection between common usage and friendship ( philia). Hence, foundations of
in his constitution Lycurgus promoted friendship in various ways, including providing
for usufruct rights. These laws allowed: economics
.
all Spartan fathers (who were also citizens) authority over all Spartan children;
and
.
the common use by the citizens of each other’s servants, hounds, horses and food 719
(Xenophon, [1925a] 1968, Con Lac, VI.4, pp. 157-9).

These practices are also endorsed by Xenophon.

One criticism of Sparta in Xenophon’s work, however, is worth mentioning here.
Xenophon ([1925a] 1968, Con Lac, X.1-7, pp. 167-9) regarded the soul ( psychē) as more
important than the body, and the former needs letters, music, speech and moral
education generally (Strauss, 1939, pp. 512, 517-18). Sparta emphasized only the body
and physical exercise. Hence, Xenophon saw Sparta as defective in terms of the
achievements of higher capabilities.

3.3 Oeconomicus[29]
In recent times, with a few exceptions, Xenophon’s Oeconomicus has been virtually
forgotten[30]. It is important to realize, however, that in this dialogue much of the
ancient Greek view of household management is portrayed. The desire for wealth plays
a significant part in this account but the model of human behaviour is far from the
model of homo economicus developed by J.S. Mill some 2,000 years later (Xenophon,
1970, Oec; Mill, [1836] 1967; Ambler, 1996, pp. 105-10; Strauss, 1970)[31].
Early in the Oeconomicus the distinction is made between the “household manager”
(oikonomos) and the good or “skilled household manager” (oikonomikos) (Xenophon,
1970, Oec, I.2, 15, pp. 3, 6; see p. 3 note by Lord; Strauss, 1970, p. 87). The art of household
management (oikonomikē technē)[32] is not known or practiced by all household
managers; it “is peculiar to those who manage their households well” (Strauss, 1970,
p. 93; Natali, 1995).
We learn most about the oikonomikos through Socrates’s conversation with
Ischomachus, a perfect gentleman (kaloskagathos). Like other Greek gentlemen, he also
owns and operates an estate (farm). All gentlemen are estate owners but not all
estate owners are gentlemen. In the conversation, Socrates learnt (important parts of)
oikonomikē technē and, by retelling that conversation to a small group of associates, he is
effectively teaching the art to them and especially to his young, financially troubled,
companion, Kritoboulos. According to Ischomachus, there are various tasks and skills of
the oikonomikos[33]. The first duty of the oikonomikos, and indirectly the goal of the
oikos community (koinōnia) as a whole, is acquisition: the increase of the household’s
wealth (chrēmata), or, strictly speaking, its “nonfortuitous” increase[34]. Knowledge and
a certain type of excellence (aretē) are required to achieve a “nonfortuitous” increase in
the value of the oikos. Some degree of virtue (aretē) is also required because it must be
within what the “law praises” (Xenophon, 1970, Oec, VII.16, p. 31; Ambler, 1996, p. 125).
The root cause of oikoi having to acquire at all, however, is not to demonstrate virtue but
need (chreia)[35].
The second duty of the oikonomikos is the good use of what has been acquired.
If Socrates’s doctrine is that virtue is knowledge, the critical knowledge that
IJSE is required – which is arguably more important than acquisition and possession of
38,8 property – is the knowledge of “how to use money” (and property) well (Xenophon,
1996, Oec, I.14, p. 41 emphasis added; Strauss, 1970, pp. 95-6, 104)[36]. Socrates refers
to the “instrument-wealth” (organa chrēmata) (Xenophon, 1996, Oec, II.13, p. 46; Booth,
1994, p. 662). Using well what has been acquired – employing the “instrument” of
wealth well – is another task of the oikonomikos. Knowledge of how to use property
720 well is the key to being an oikonomikos[37]. Knowledge and virtue are distinct from
legal ownership.
Ischomachus uses the instrument “to honor the gods magnificently, to aid friends
when they need something, and to see that the city is never unadorned through lack of
wealth” (Xenophon, 1996, Oec, XI.9, p. 75). He uses his wealth in what Socrates calls
“noble” ways; what is more, Ischomachus feels pleasure by doing so (Xenophon, 1996,
Oec, XI.10, p. 75). The pleasure that he feels is not the motivation for his actions but a
by-product of an upbringing in kalokagathia which shaped his desire to perform such
noble actions (the life of ta kala embodies a commitment to performing noble
actions)[38].
Three things are suggested by Ischomachus’s statement quoted above. First,
he not only spends on sacred activities according to the liturgical requirements[39]
but probably exceeds them. Second, in his relations with friends (including his own
family)[40], he demonstrates the virtue of liberality. For example, Ischomachus must
have knowledge of each oikos member’s needs and their ability to use property well;
he also must be liberal in using (i.e. distributing) wealth within the oikos[41]. The same
principles apply to friends generally. Third, his sense of social responsibility makes
him spend even more money on the city. This suggests that he is liberal on a grand
scale[42].
Ischomachus’s sense of duty in acting nobly is clear. It is supported by his
upbringing. Pleasure, he says, accompanies these noble actions. Is it simply pleasurable?
Is it done simply for its own sake? To the extent that it is pleasurable, it is so only after a
suitable early education and a lifetime of habituation to the life of kalokagathia.
Following Ischomachus, Socrates argues that the most “beneficial” (surplus
producing or productive) art used in oikonomikē technē is farming and he exhorts
Kritoboulos to learn what he (Socrates) will teach him and then practice it (and thus
become an oikonomikos); farming seems to be the key to increasing one’s wealth
(Xenophon, 1970, Oec, XV.3, pp. 59, 17-25; Strauss, 1970, pp. 99, 113-24, 191, 197)[43].
Furthermore, gentleman farming (rather than peasant or subsistence farming) is
beneficial in a second sense, which is related to the use of wealth.
In addition to the three uses of wealth seen above, another important use of wealth is
the creation of leisure (scholē) for the household head (the kurios)[44] and, to a lesser
degree, his family: “it seemed least of all to cause any lack of leisure for joining in the
concerns of friends and cities” (Xenophon, 1994b, Oec, VII.9, p. 58; Booth, 1993, p. 42)[45].
Only by the hierarchical arrangement within the oikos is the leisure for even one (or a few)
member(s) possible (Booth, 1993; Alvey, 2010b). The life of beautiful and noble actions
(ta kala), for example in politics, is only possible if leisure is available; this is what
Xenophon saw as a good use of wealth (Booth, 1993, p. 44)[46]. Only with sufficient
accumulation of wealth does the good life ( pros to eu zēn) become a possible choice.
Nevertheless, and strange to our ears, this choice requires freedom from economic
activity.
 Oikonomikē technē involves many tasks. Indeed, so many tasks and skills are The ethical
involved in good household management that Xenophon suggests that it can be called foundations of
a manifestation of the royal or ruling art (basilikē technē); the only difference between it
and ruling, or managing, a city well is one of scale[47]. Microeconomics is really the economics
same as macroeconomics.
As we have seen, one goal of the oikos community is the increase of its wealth. The
way of doing so that Xenophon stresses throughout the Oeconomicus is good 721
management of labour. While he has little interest in technology (except military
technology), through the Ischomachus character in the dialogue we see Xenophon’s
interest in managing and motivating various classes of humans in their work within the
oikos with the goal of securing high and increasing labour productivity. Some of the
means that Xenophon emphasizes include encouraging a sense of community, providing
training and rewarding productive (and punishing unproductive) behaviour[48].
While retaining veto power and ultimate authority (including the use of brute force),
Ischomachus is willing to provide considerable autonomy to his wife inside the house
and his steward (epitropos) outside of the house[49]. Within a hierarchical structure,
this decentralization is like a division of labour (Booth, 1993, p. 40). In association with
what we have seen earlier, it is clear that Xenophon (2001, Cyro, VIII.2.5-6, pp. 241-2)
is a careful analyst of the division of labour.
On the one hand, Xenophon sees advantages in specialization. On the other hand, he
sees significant disadvantages as well (especially in certain techniques or skills). In the
Oeconomicus, Xenophon has a remarkable passage where he presents, in capsule form,
the Socratic view of the banausic (vulgar) or mechanical arts (Strauss, 1970, p. 115)[50].
These arts require immobility indoors and, in some cases, the whole day is spent next to
a fire; they “utterly ruin the bodies of those who work at them” and also those who
supervise them (Xenophon, 1970, Oec, IV.2, p. 17)[51]. Further, the softening of the body
makes the soul ( psychē) even “more diseased” (Xenophon, 1970, IV.2, p. 17). Because of
their “[l]ack of leisure”, the artisans (banausoi ) cannot spare time to share “in the
concerns of friends [i.e. fellow citizens] and the city” (Xenophon, 1970, Oec, IV.3, p. 17).
This is the opposite of the earlier statement about the “leisured” life of the gentleman
farmer. Hence, the mechanical arts are supposed to make the artisans bad friends
(citizens) and bad warriors[52]; in cities esteemed for military prowess (such as Sparta),
citizens (not slaves) are banned from practicing such arts (Xenophon, 1970, Oec, IV.3,
p. 17; Plutarch, 1988a, p. 37, 1988b, pp. 121, 151). Various human capabilities are
impaired. Such ethical concerns about the effects of the division of labour were taken
up by other Socratics and subsequently by modern writers such as Adam Smith,
Adam Ferguson, Karl Marx and others[53].
One final point discussed in the Oeconomicus should be mentioned, as it relates to
the capabilities approach. In this work (as well as in other works), Xenophon places
stress on education. In the Oeconomicus, he emphasizes the education of women in
order for them to perform a range of managerial roles inside the house. While such a
sexual division of roles may be regarded as outdated today, it represents “a systematic
programme for the education of Athenian women” and thus (in the context of the limited
attention given to female capabilities in Greek poleis) “Xenophon must be viewed as a
radical thinker” (Pomeroy, 1994, p. 267; Alvey, 2010b).
The Oeconomicus gives us a good introduction to Xenophon’s view of household
management[54]. For him, ethics and economics are closely interwoven.
IJSE 3.4 Memorabilia[55]
38,8 Many topics are discussed in the Memorabilia, including the nature of virtue (including
the threats to it)[56], gentlemanship, ruling, the military arts, friendship, the division of
labour and oikonomikē technē. We argue that, after the Oeconomicus, it is the second
most important source of Xenophon’s views on ethics and economics.
Like the Oeconomicus, the Memorabilia provides an example of Socrates teaching the
722 art of household management (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.7-8, pp. 61-6). As a result of
civil and foreign wars, Aristarchus, a friend of Socrates, had opened his home to a large
number of female relatives (Nagle, 2006, pp. 59-60). In addition to this considerable,
additional financial expenditure, the turbulent economic conditions had drastically
reduced his revenue. Socrates advised Aristarchus to overcome his resistance to putting
free (non-slave) women to work in commercial activity (Bruell, 1994, pp. xvii-xviii).
He praises work, and attentiveness to a task, as useful for life (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem,
II.7.7-8, see I.2.57, pp. 63, 16). Socrates argues that specialization has several advantages,
including speed of production; he regards it as part of oikonomikē technē (Xenophon,
1994a, Mem, II.7.6, 10, 1994a, pp. 62-4). By putting them to work, the females will
contribute to the needed revenues; Aristarchus will see them as contributing and they,
in turn, will feel appreciated (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.7.9, p. 63). As the women will be
contributing and be appreciated for doing so, a “more friendly” (i.e. a more reciprocal)
atmosphere will develop (Xenophan, 1994a, Mem, II.7.9, p. 63). Hence, we see again how
considerable specialization of commercial production is compatible with oikonomikē
technē (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.7.6, pp. 62-3).
Socrates recommends two things: first, that Aristarchus overcome his resistance to
putting his female relatives to work; and second, that he then select a specialized
revenue-generating activity that is not “shameful” for them to do (Xenophon, 1994a,
Mem, II.7.6-10, III.10.14-5, pp. 62-4, 97). The advice was taken. Capital equipment was
purchased and wool was bought for specialized production of woollen products. The
result was a dramatic improvement in the oikos’s economic viability and concord
(homonia)[57] within its members.
Clearly, managing revenues and expenditures is a part of household management.
Other components of the oikonomikē technē package include gentlemanship and
friendship. These topics are discussed frequently in the Memorabilia but almost always
in an integrated manner. Household management requires moderation, one of the moral
foundations of gentlemanship. Without restraint on the desires for food, wine, sex and
sleep, one will “ruin not only one’s household but also both [one’s own] body and soul”;
this is “the greatest mischief” (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, I.5.3, I.5.1, pp. 27, 26).
When Xenophon discusses “rational” planning for old age – a topic that is frequently
addressed in modern economics textbooks – he discusses not only “engineering”
calculations that are routinely discussed today (where the desirability of saving for
old age is given) but also ethical matters (the frame of mind and habits needed for
“engineering” to make sense). In old age, expenditure on subsistence continues but no one
will pay for the labour of the old (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.8.2, p. 65). Saving for old age,
therefore, is sensible. Various virtues associated with gentlemanship and oikonomikē
technē are painful (in the short run) and require habituation. If one is habituated in youth
to be lazy and spendthrift, one will find it hard to change later. Nevertheless, these habits
are unsustainable in old age, when one cannot labour and generate income. The
incontinent way of life in fact ensures a “miserable and labourious old age”
(Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.1.31, p. 41). Planning for old age is required for all who are The ethical
likely to live to old age; hence, it is necessary, when youthful, to practise foregoing current foundations of
pleasure and enduring current pain (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.1. 31, p. 42). For Xenophon
(1994a, Mem, I.2.19, 21, 23-4, I.6.7, II.1.1-6, 20-33, II.6.39, III.9.3, IV.2.6, pp. 8-10, 28, 33-5, economics
38-42, 60-1, 94, 114), a frequent theme in the Memorabilia is the need for moral habituation
to moderation (), which occurs within the household. Moderation is an essential element
of both gentlemanship and good household management. The modern economics 723
textbooks focus on the “engineering” of means and are silent on the importance of ethical
habituation which relates to the end of eudaimonia. Further, as these textbooks typically
assume that “preferences” are “given,” Xenophon’s central point about moral habituation
is tacitly rejected.
Wealth is important but more important is the knowledge or skill of household
management. Recall the point made earlier, that Socrates said that wealth is one of the
“debatable goods” (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, IV.2.34, p. 122). The rich person who lacks
the virtues of oikonomikē technē will soon be ruined. On the other hand, the one with little
wealth but who has oikonomikē technē may have not only enough but be able to save
from his/her income (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, IV.2.38, p. 123). While the poor were said
to be grasping (stealing from others for their own subsistence) due to their poverty,
actually those rich who lack oikonomikē technē are even more rapacious. The good
household manager (the oikonomikos) without much wealth does not have to be unjust
and is really better regarded as “rich” than those commonly said to be wealthy
(Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, IV.2.39, p. 123).
Just as wealth without oikonomikē technē is of little use in the long run, wealth also must
be supplemented by friendship (understood in a broad sense). Once again, we encounter a
theme little discussed in (and actually at odds with) modern economics. The stingy money
maker “who is able to make wealth but desires a great deal of it [. . .] drives a hard bargain”;
while pleased to receive wealth, he “does not wish to pay back” (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem,
II.6.3, p. 53). This human type (the type assumed in modern economics textbooks) will be
without friends. Socrates is reported as saying that it is better “to hold enough property
while dwelling securely with many than to have risky possession of all the property of the
citizens while living a solitary way of life” (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.3.2, p. 46). The life of
the miser is immoderate and troublesome because of the constant fear of theft by the
envious. One needs allies (a type of friendship) even to sustain one’s stock of possessions.
Oikonomikē technē includes a type of friendship. Acquiring and keeping friends
necessitates reciprocating good deeds (a type of justice) (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.2.2-3,
II.3.12-13, pp. 43, 48). Indeed, it may require initiating good deeds (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem,
II.3.12-3, p. 48) (recall from the Oeconomicus that Ischomachus aided his friends and city
financially). Generally speaking, these matters are not considered by modern economists,
except those few interested in inequality or the foundations of the social contract[58].
Socrates provides a second argument against the life of the miser. The miser,
“because of his erotic[59] desire for making wealth, provides himself with leisure for
nothing other than what he can derive some gain from” (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.6.3,
p. 53). The miser has no leisure and is unable to develop his capabilities (including
bodily and non-bodily capabilities); he or she is unable to develop the political and
military capabilities of gentlemanship[60].
Let us return to friendship. We have seen a little about what a friend is not.
It remains to answer the positive question: what is a friend? The friend is one who
IJSE is “continent in the bodily pleasures [. . .] easy to live with and bargain with,” rigorous
38,8 in returning good deeds, and thus “profitable to those who deal with (chrēsthai ) him”
(Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.6.3, p. 53). The meaning of friendship in this context is quite
wide (including certain market relationships) but does not extend to the anonymous
market of modern societies. Those individuals “who are both noble and good” do not
acquire great property[61] but are content with “moderate property”; they are so
724 continent that, even though “hungry and thirsty,” they “share their food and drink”
(Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.6.22, p. 57). More broadly, they share their property; “they
render their own goods the property of their friends and hold those of their friends to be
their own” (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.6.23, p. 57). Here, we see Xenophon’s model of
ownership rights. While private property is sanctioned by Xenophon, common use
of property (among friends) is emphasized. Oikonomikē technē requires the sharing of
property in order to acquire and keep friends.
Clearly, household management in the broad sense is a comprehensive art and part
of a way of life. It is, therefore, understandable that Xenophon claims that ruling an
oikos and ruling a polis are similar. Likewise, he points out that one of the preconditions
for a flourishing city is also a precondition for a well-run household: concord. Only
when the citizens are law abiding are cities “strongest and happiest”, i.e. able to achieve
some degree of human flourishing (Xenophon, Mem, 1994a, Mem, IV.4.16, p. 132).
As we have seen, the flourishing household also needs some unifying glue. Concord,
a sort of friendship, is needed for oikoi and poleis.
The Memorabilia helps to flesh out the picture of oikonomikē technē seen in the
Oeconomicus. Despite a clear understanding of “engineering” aspects of household
management, Xenophon shows that the complete household manager (the oikonomikos)
must go further. An ethical understanding is also needed; the oikonomikos must view
his task as including friendship and aspects of gentlemanship. There is considerable
overlap in the virtues required for friendship, for oikonomikē, and for kalokagathia.

4. Conclusion
Socrates was the inspiration for Plato and Xenophon. Each student focussed on one
part of his teaching: the life of the philosopher and the life of the gentleman,
respectively. Concerning the latter, Socrates emphasized two points. First, ethical
motivation was inherent to the life of kalokagathia. Second, this version of the good life
has a wide range of components, including health, freedom and wealth (which must be
used virtuously).
Next, let us turn to the various strands of Xenophon’s work. First, his general
orientation is consistent with the other Socratics. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to
suggest that he develops a second branch which differed in important respects from
Plato and Aristotle. Second, Xenophon’s willingness to adopt management
and efficiency notions (including support for competition), makes him attractive to
modern economists.
Third, contrary to those same economists, for Xenophon, economics is a subordinate,
but integral, part of the social fabric; it exists within an ethical framework. Engineering
aspects of retirement planning must be joined to the ethical aspects of preference
formation. The division of labour must be limited (at least for free persons) so that
human capabilities can be achieved. Similarly, private property is endorsed only on
pragmatic grounds. Wealth is an instrument which, depending on the context,
has to serve the end of the oikos (or the polis, see Xenophon’s Ways). Economics has to The ethical
play a subordinate part and is regulated with a view to achieving the larger social goals, foundations of
such as self-sufficiency (autarkēs), leisure (scholē)[62] and human flourishing
(eudaimonia) (Lowry, 1987, p. 69). Eudaimonia requires food and other needs be met. economics
It also requires friendship. Private property rights must be limited to provide for these.
It must also be limited to provide for the good use of resources. Xenophon promotes
common usage of private property, or at least common usage among friends. Modern 725
economists profoundly reject this view on engineering grounds: the right of the owner
of property to use it, whilst excluding all others, is said to be the most efficient. Even
if such unrestricted use of property leads to a higher national income, it does not
promote friendship[63]. Xenophon would point out that property without friendship is
not secure.
At least in regard to his support for education, increased nutrition, and physical
training of females (required for their health), and in his objection to their physical
seclusion indoors (which hinders the ability to move), Xenophon fits with Sen’s focus
on functioning achievements and freedoms[64]. Indeed, if the most fundamental aspect
of social achievement in the ethical approach to economics and ethics, and in the
capabilities approach, is the adequate provision of food and support for health for all,
Xenophon deserves a place as one of the great founders. Similarly, the stress on
redressing gender imbalances in the capabilities approach is foreshadowed in
Xenophon, even if a more complete analysis is provided by Plato.
As stated earlier, the legacy of Xenophon has been limited by the focus on Plato and
by the general downgrading of the assessments of his work since the 1700s. One famous
follower of Xenophon after the latter’s work began its descent in status was John Ruskin
(1819-1900), the English writer and critic (Henderson, 2000; Petrochilos, 2002, pp. 616-19).
He stated that he sought “to create an ethical economics” in opposition to the laissez-faire
economic theory that prevailed at the time (Petrochilos, 2002, p. 619; Ruskin, [1862]
1994). Ruskin may have been on the right track. A serious re-examination of Xenophon’s
ethical economics seems warranted, especially with respect to the close linkages
between his work on household management and Aristotle’s.

Notes
1. There is a huge literature on these topics. The reader should commence by reading Sen
(1987). On poverty, see Sen (1981). On gender inequality, see Sen (1995). On female nutrition,
see Sen (1990) 1992b, [1999] 2000, pp. 89, 104-7.
2. Oikonomia is sometimes used in a broader sense and is rendered as “management.”
3. Koinōnia also means partnership. On the oikos as a community, see Booth (1993, pp. 35-8).
4. The management of such a community might be compared to managing an estate at various
times in history. Thus, Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, which was dedicated to this theme, had
wide appeal for many centuries.
5. Kitto ([1951] 1957, pp. 131-2) suggests that there was roughly one slave for two free
Athenians for domestic service and the same number for production (Amemiya, 2004, p. 59).
He concludes that slaves were “not the basis of economic life” of the Greeks (Kitto, [1951]
1957, p. 32; Amemiya, 2004, p. 59). In Sparta, however, the slaves outnumbered the free;
indeed the slave proportion of the population grew over time (Cartledge, 2001, pp. 150-1).
6. This term can be translated as foreman or supervisor (Pomeroy, 1994, pp. 316-17).
IJSE 7. The following abbreviation conventions have been adopted: Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics – NE,
Plato Phaedrus – Phaedr, Plato Statesman – States, Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian
38,8 War – History, Xenophon Constitution of the Lacedaemonians – Con Lac, Xenophon
Cyropaedia – Cyro, Xenophon Memorabilia – Mem, Xenophon Oeconomicus – Oec, Xenophon
Ways and Means – Ways. Citations from classical sources follow the standard conventions.
8. Larger units than the polis, such as the Egyptian and Persian empires and the Macedonian
726 people, existed but such political arrangements were rejected by the Greeks (Irwin, 1999,
p. 174 note on “people”).
9. Actually, not all poleis were located in Greece. Carthage was a highly regarded polis in
Northern Africa.
10. The number of citizens, of course, was only a fraction of the total population. In the
Memorabilia Xenophon’s Socrates says that there are “more than ten thousand households”
in Athens (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, III.6.14, p. 89).
11. Baeck denies that Xenophon is a Socratic (1994, p. 42).
12. The mercantilists emerged towards the end of the Middle Ages.
13. Xenophon seems to have admired Socrates without accepting that the way of life that was
best for him personally was philosophy and so spent a large proportion of his life as a
professional soldier (Bruell, 1987, p. 91).
14. Arnhart (2009); see Stern (1993, p. 3) and throughout; Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, IV.6.14-5,
p. 144; Plato, Phaedo, 99c-d; 1914, pp. 341-3; Strauss, 1987, p. 69.
15. At times, he seems to advocate something like asceticism (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, I.6.10,
p. 29; Nussbaum, [1986] 2001, p. xiii). In the Oeconomicus, Socrates says that his companion,
Critoboulos, has 100 times his wealth but needs still three times more because of his
spending habits, including liturgical obligations (Xenophon, 1970, Oec, II.4-6, p. 9). Socrates
held that other things (philosophy) gave him greater pleasure than the pleasures that most
people acquired (i.e. from pleasures derived from the stomach, sleep and sex) (Xenophon,
1994a, Mem, I.6.8, p. 28).
16. Eudaimonia is translated into English in various ways. Bury translates this as “well-being”;
Pangle translates it as “happiness” (Plato, 1926, Laws, 631b, Vol. 1, p. 25; 1980, p. 10).
Amemiya (2004, p. 64, see 2007, p. xii) objects to “happiness” as the translation because of its
utilitarian connotations. He suggests “an ideal, worthwhile life” as more suitable,
particularly because it refers to an individual’s “whole life.”
17. Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, I.5.5. II.1.1-7, 22-34, II.6.1, IV.5.2-7, pp. 27, 33-5, 39-42, 52-3, 136-7.
Incontinence means that one cannot endure hardship or waiting. It is only by waiting
that one can enjoy real pleasure; incontinence fails to deliver pleasure worth recalling
(Xenophon, Mem, IV.5.9; 1994a, p. 138).
18. There is a sense in which pleasure remains the goal, however. For Socrates, the most
pleasurable activity is philosophy (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, I.6.8, pp. 28-9). His life was,
therefore, the most pleasurable.
19. Xenophon, Mem, I.1.16; I.2.6, 14; I.3.11; I.5.3, 5. I.6.10, 14; I.7 throughout; II.1.19-20, 22-34;
II.3.2-3; II.4.5, 7; II.6.2; II.7.7; III.3.13-5; III.5.3; III.6.17-8; III.7.9; III. 9.3; III.12-14 throughout;
IV.1.2; IV.2.11; IV.5.2, 10; IV.7.1, 9; 1994a, pp. 4-6, 8, 20, 26-7, 29-31; 38-42, 46-7, 51, 53, 63, 77,
81, 89, 91, 94, 105-12, 115, 136, 138, 145-7.
20. See Xenophon, Oec, throughout; 1970 throughout; Mem, II.7-8; 1994a, pp. 61-6; Strauss, 1970,
pp. 87, 89, 190-1, 209; Booth, 1993, pp. 49, 92. A careful study of the works of the various
Socratics is required to determine how far Socrates modified the ends of philosophers for
non-philosophers.
21. See Xenophon, Oec, throughout; 1970 throughout; Mem, throughout; 1994a, throughout; The ethical
Strauss, 1970, p. 128; Petrochilos, 2002, pp. 604, 607, and throughout. The terms
kaloskagathos and kalokagathia are discussed further below. foundations of
22. On the dialogue mode of communication, see Nussbaum ([1986] 2001, pp. 122-35). economics
23. For a longer discussion of this work, see Alvey (2010a).
24. It has also been suggested that, on several points, Xenophon was very critical of the Spartans
and that his work on the Spartan constitution was actually a satire (Strauss, 1939; Proietti,
727
1987, p. xv).
25. By doing so, according to Pomeroy (2002, p. 150), Xenophon “underlines his view of the
importance of women in Spartan society”.
26. Pomeroy (2004, pp. 204, 211) suggests that the female diet “was generous” and that the
Spartan women “must have been the healthiest of Greek women”.
27. On this point, see Xenophon ([1925a] 1968, Con Lac, I.3-4, pp. 137-9), Sen (1980, p. 218, 1985,
p. 197).
28. On this point, see Xenophon, Con Lac, I.4; in Pomeroy (2002, pp. 33, 13) and Sen (1985, p. 197).
29. This title is sometimes translated as Economics and sometimes as Economist (French, 1991,
p. 26; Gordon, 1975, p. 39).
30. Nevertheless, it was included in an important collection of Greek economics works (Laistner,
1923, pp. 28-40).
31. J.S. Mill’s Homo Economicus presents an abstract model of human motivation: motivation is
limited to the desire for wealth. This was a deliberate simplification by Mill for illustrative
purposes. On the general topic, see also Sen (1977).
32. Technique or skill are acceptable renderings of technē. Bloom ([1968] 1991, p. 478) defines
technē” as “art, [. . .] a skill or craft; not far from science; a discipline operating under clear
principles which can be taught”. Nussbaum ([1986] 2001, pp. 94, 95-8) says that it is often
translated as “craft,” “art,” or “science”.
33. Some of these tasks will be mentioned in the text. Other duties include: 1) minimizing cost,
while retaining strict functionality of housing and furniture; 2) minimizing the number of
servants, while striving to achieve functional purposes; 3) the raising of horses for profit; 4)
the training and good management of one’s wife; and 5) the educating and managing of
stewards and farm workers. Regarding the final point, knowledge of various things (reaping,
threshing, winnowing and planting of various trees) must be acquired.
34. Xenophon, Oec, I.4, 16; II.1, 18; VII.15-6, 43; XI.8; 1970, pp. 4, 6-8, 12, 31, 36, 48; Strauss, 1970,
pp. 179, 93, 106, 112-3, 121, 126, 134, 141, 151, 162, 202-3. This art of increasing one’s
household wealth is called “the economic art” by Strauss (1970, pp. 102, 209).
35. Need plays an important role in Aristotle’s economics (Lowry, 1987, pp. 224-5, 230).
36. Usefulness in turn determines whether property is true wealth (Xenophon, 1970, Oec,
IX-XIV, pp. 40-58). Lowry (1987, pp. 78, 80) claims that Xenophon’s focus “on usefulness as
the criterion for exchange value” aligns “with Aristotle’s theory of the natural limit on
acquisition”.
37. On this point, recall Xenophon’s (2001, Cyro, I.3.16-7, p. 32) discussion of the superiority of
the good to the legal in the Cyropaedia.
38. On ta kala, see Nussbaum ([1986] 2001, p. 178).
39. In Athens, and other poleis, it was established that the wealthy ought to share their success
with all residents in order to be considered as good citizens (agathos politēs) (Petrochilos,
IJSE 2002, p. 606). The wealthiest citizens contributed leitourgia (normally transliterated
as liturgies) to the polis in various circumstances: for the many sacred festivals and activities;
38,8 and for military purposes as the need arose (Kitto, [1951] 1957, pp. 73-4; Davies, 1967; Finley,
[1953] 1983, p. 36; Pomeroy, 1994, pp. 52, 225-8; Carmichael, 1997; Nagle, 2006, p. 44 and n. 33;
c.f. p. 61). In addition, the wealthy frequently undertook expenditures for the city which
exceeded what was expected in the form of liturgies.

728 40. At the time of the conversation between Socrates and Ischomachus, it is likely that the latter
was recently married as he and his wife had no children (Strauss, 1970, p. 134). In any event,
this important aspect of the management of the oikos is missing from the Oeconomicus.
41. Of course, the relevant oikos members do not include the slaves.
42. The virtue of megaloprepeia is often translated as magnificence.
43. Toward the end of the Oeconomicus, there is a discussion of buying land, improving it,
selling it again and repeating the process on many occasions (Xenophon, 1970, Oec, XX.22-7,
pp. 76-7). This type of speculative activity masquerading as farming, or pure money making,
is motivated by the love of gain (Strauss, 1970, p. 200). It seems to be the transformation of
economics (good household management) into chrematistics. Although the latter term has
various meanings, it can be understood as the pursuit of unlimited increase of one’s wealth
(Strauss, 1970, p. 201). This activity is apparently tolerated by Socrates, at least in the case of
those who use the wealth (i.e. spend) virtuously (Strauss, 1970, pp. 202-4, 208). See also Plato
(1987).
44. Each oikos was under the control of a patriarch or master (kurios or oikodespotes).
45. This statement is somewhat misleading because, in the dialogue, the Ischomachus character
stresses diligence and even the need for the master to set a good example of diligence
(Xenophon, Oec, XII.18; see VII.1; XX.4-22; 1994b, p. 80; see also pp. 59, 96-8; Ambler, 1996,
pp. 116, 127).
46. The opportunity provided by leisure is to be used in political and military duties, not wasted
on entertainment.
47. Xenophon (1970, Oec, XIV.1-7, XXI.2-12, pp. 57-8, 78-80; 1994a, Mem, III.4.12, III.6.14, IV.2.11,
pp. 80, 89, 115-16), Strauss ([1963] 1991, pp. 32-3), Strauss (1970, pp. 87, 169-70, 174-5, 206-8;
Plato ([1925] 1939, 258e-259d, pp. 11-13) and Bonar ([1909] 1992, p. 18).
48. Xenophon (1970, VII.41, IX.12, XII.4, XIV.10, XX.16, XXI.2-12, pp. 35, 43, 52-8, 75-6, 78-80),
Lowry (1987, pp. 45-81), Booth (1993, pp. 38-40, 85), Ambler (1996, pp. 116, 124, 127-8) and
Petrochilos (2002, p. 608). As Booth points out, Xenophon was aware of “an ancient version
of the principal-agent problem”: the problems of discipline, motivation and shirking of 1) the
household head’s wife, 2) supervisors, and 3) slaves (1994, p. 659).
49. See Strauss (1970, p. 139), Booth (1993, pp. 40, 85-6) and Ambler (1996, p. 125). As Pomeroy
(1994, pp. 316-17) points out, the epitropos could be a slave or free servant. The use of force
against a slave is obviously highly likely.
50. Pomeroy (1994, p. 235) renders banausos as craftsman.
51. Xenophon’s argument about the arts producing softness seems questionable in the case of
smithing (Strauss, 1970, p. 115).
52. Because their bodies are weaker and somewhat deformed, their martial capacities are
diminished. This is compounded by the artisan’s own perception of this deficiency.
The physical and mental factors tend to produce cowardice (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, III.12.2,
p. 105).
53. Smith ([1776] 1976, pp. 781-2), Ferguson ([1767] 1996, pp. 174-5, 206-7), Marx ([1867] 1954,
pp. 340, 415) and Marx and Engels ([1965] 2004, p. 105).
54. The analogue to the good management of the oikos, the good management of the polis, The ethical
is discussed in the Ways (Xenophon, 1925c [1968]; Alvey, 2010a).
foundations of
55. On the title of the Memorabilia, see Strauss (1970, p. 84).
economics
56. Threats to virtue included love affairs (especially with beautiful people) and the love of food
and drink (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, I.2.22, I.3.5-15, pp. 9, 19-21).
57. Homonia may be translated as “likemindedness” or unity’ (Bonnette, 1994, p. 169, n. 42).
729
58. On inequality, see Sen ([1992a] 1995); on the social contract in this context, see Buchanan
([1975] 2000, pp. 31-41, 80-3, 92, 101-4, 110-11, 212-13).
59. Elsewhere, Xenophon (1994a, Mem, III.9.7, p. 95) defines “erotic passion” as “strong desire”.
60. Similar issues apply to the subsistence farmers, who lack leisure to develop their higher
capabilities.
61. Acquiring much requires engaging in a type of “war” (Xenophon, 1994a, Mem, II.6.22, p. 57).
There is a hint here that a zero-sum game applies (at least beyond a moderate wealth).
62. Especially with respect to the goal of leisure, where a zero-sum game seems to apply (leisure
for some requires servitude for others), is technology the answer that Xenophon overlooked?
This seems to be what Booth (1993, pp. 75, 92) suggests. It is clear that Xenophon
underestimated the potentiality of technological advance regarding production.
63. Even in the unlikely event that every single person is materially better off, such a “trickle
down effect” does not engender friendship.
64. Proietti (1987, pp. 47-9, 54) says that Xenophon was not interested in producing “big, strong
children” who will be “better soldiers”.

References
Alvey, J.E. (2010a), “Ethics and economics in Socrates and Xenophon”, Discussion Paper 10.04,
School of Economics and Finance, Massey University, Palmerston North, May.
Alvey, J.E. (2010b), “The context of ancient Greek ethics and economics”, Discussion Paper 10.02,
Department of Economics and Finance, Massey University, Palmerston North, March.
Ambler, W. (1996), “On the Oeconomicus”, in Bartlett, R.C. (Ed.), Xenophon: The Shorter Socratic
Writings, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 102-32.
Amemiya, T. (2004), “The economic ideas of classical Athens”, Kyoto Economic Review, Vol. 73
No. 2, pp. 57-74.
Amemiya, T. (2007), Economy and Economics of Ancient Greece, Routledge, London.
Aristotle (1991), History of Animals, Books VIII-X, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
(edited and translated by D.M. Balme, prepared for publication by A. Gotthelf).
Arnhart, L. (2009), “Darwinism, Reductionism, and the Socratic turn”, Darwinian Conservatism,
Blog, 23 August, available at: http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2009/08/
darwinism-reductionism-and-socratic.html (accessed 27 April 2010).
Bonar, J. (1909), Philosophy and Political Economy, Thoemmes Press, Bristol (reprinted 1992).
Bonnette, A.L. (1994), Translator’s Note, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (translation and
annotation of Xenophon Memorabilia).
Booth, W.J. (1993), Households: On the Moral Architecture of the Economy, Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY.
Booth, W.J. (1994), “On the idea of the moral economy”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 88
No. 3, pp. 653-67.
IJSE Bruell, C. (1987), “Xenophon”, in Strauss, L. and Cropsey, J. (Eds), History of Political Philosophy,
3rd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 90-117.
38,8
Bruell, C. (1994), “Introduction: Xenophon and his Socrates”, Xenophon Memorabilia, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. vii-xxii.
Buchanan, J.M. (1975), The Limits of Liberty, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, IN (reprinted in 2000,
The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan, Vol. 7).
730 Carmichael, C.M. (1997), “Public munificence for private benefit: liturgies in classical Athens”,
Economic Inquiry, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 261-70.
Cartledge, P. (1981), “Spartan wives: liberation or licence?”, Classical Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 84-105.
Cartledge, P. (2001), Spartan Reflections, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Davies, J.K. (1967), “Demosthenes on liturgies: a note”, Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 87,
pp. 33-40.
Ferguson, A. (1767), An Essay on the History of Civil Society, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (reprinted in 1996, edited with an introduction by F. Oz-Salzberger).
Foucault, M. (1984), The History of Sexuality, Penguin Books, London (Vol. 2 – The Use of
Pleasure, reprinted 1992, translated by R. Hurley).
French, A. (1991), “Economic conditions in fourth-century Athens”, Greece and Rome, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 24-40.
Gordon, B. (1975), Economic Analysis before Adam Smith, Macmillan, London.
Henderson, W. (2000), John Ruskin’s Political Economy, Routledge, London.
Irwin, T. (1999), “Introduction”, “glossary”, and notes in Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, 2nd ed.,
Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN.
Kahn, C.H. (1981), “The origins of social contract theory in the fifth century B.C.”, in Kerferd, G.B. (Ed.),
The Sophists and Their Legacy, Franz Steiner, Weisbaden, pp. 92-108.
Kitto, H.D.F. (1951), The Greeks, Penguin, London (revised edition 1957).
Laistner, M.L.W. (1923), Greek Economics: Introduction and Translation, J.M. Dent & Sons,
London.
Lowry, S.T. (1987), The Archaeology of Economic Ideas, Duke University Press, Durham.
Marchant, E.C. (1925), “‘Introduction’, in Xenophon Scripta Minora, Xenophon in seven
volumes”, Vol. 7, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (reprinted and supplemented
1968, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 183).
Marx, K. (1954), Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Progress Publishers, Moscow (Vol. 1,
first published in German in 1867, translated from the third German edition by S. Moore
and E. Aveling, and edited by F. Englels).
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1965), The German Ideology, 2004 ed., International Publishers,
New York, NY (Part One, with Selections from Parts Two and Three and Supplementary
Texts, with an introduction by C.J. Arthur).
Mill, J.S. (1836), On the Definition of Political Economy and on the Method of Investigation Proper
to it, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 309-39 (first published in London and
Westminster Review, revised edition reprinted in Collected Works, Vol. 4, 1967).
Nagle, D.B. (2006), The Household as the Foundation of Aristotle’s Polis, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Natali, C. (1995), “Oikonomia in hellenistic political thought”, in Lakis, A. and Schofield, M. (Eds),
Justice and Generosity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 95-128.
Nussbaum, M. (1986), Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, The ethical
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA (revised edition 2001).
foundations of
Patterson, C.B. (1998), The Family in Greek History, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
economics
Petrochilos, G.A. (2002), “Kalokagathia: the ethical basis of hellenic political economy and its
influence from Plato to Ruskin and Sen”, History of Political Economy, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 599-631.
Plato (1914), Phaedo, Plato in 12 vols in Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Loeb
731
Classical Library, Vol. 36, William Heinemann, London, pp. 193-403 (translated by
H.N. Fowler).
Plato (1925), Statesman, revised and reprinted 1939, Plato in 12 vols in The Statesman, Philebus,
Ion, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 164, William Heinemann, London, pp. 5-195 (translated by
H.N. Fowler).
Plato (1926), Laws, 2 vols. Plato in 12 vols, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (translated
by R.G. Bury).
Plato (1987), “Hipparchus”, in Pangle, T.L. (Ed.), The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten
Socratic Dialogues, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (translated by S. Forde).
Plutarch (1988a), “Lycurgus”, in Talbert, R.J.A. (Ed.), Plutarch on Sparta, 2nd ed., Penguin Books,
Harmondsworth, pp. 8-46.
Plutarch (1988b), “Sayings of Spartans”, in Talbert, R.J.A. (Ed.), Plutarch on Sparta, 2nd ed.,
Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Pomeroy, S.B. (1994), Xenophon’s Oeconomicus: A Social and Historical Commentary, Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Pomeroy, S.B. (2002), Spartan Women, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Proietti, G. (1987), Xenophon’s Sparta: An Introduction, E.J. Brill, Leiden.
Robbins, L. (1932), An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, Macmillan,
London.
Ruskin, J. (1862), Unto This Last: Four Essays on the First Principles of Economics, Routledge,
London (reprinted 1994).
Sen, A. (1977), “Rational fools: a critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory”,
Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 317-44.
Sen, A. (1980), “Equality of what?”, in McMurrin, S. (Ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human
Values, Vol. I, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Sen, A. (1981), Poverty and Famines, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Sen, A. (1985), “Well-being, agency and freedom: the Dewey lectures 1984”, Journal of Philosophy,
April, pp. 169-221.
Sen, A. (1987), On Ethics and Economics, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Sen, A. (1990), “More than 100 million women are missing”, New York Review of Books, Vol. 37,
20 December, pp. 61-6.
Sen, A. (1992a), Inequality Reexamined, paperback edition 1995, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Sen, A. (1992b), “Missing women”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 304, March, pp. 587-8.
Sen, A. (1995), “Gender inequality and theories of justice”, in Nussbaum, M. and Glover, J. (Eds),
Women, Culture, and Development, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 259-73.
IJSE Smith, A. (1976), “An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”, in Campbell, R.H.
and Skinner, A.S. (Eds), Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith,
38,8 Vol. I, Oxford University Press, Oxford (reprinted in 1976).
Stern, P. (1993), Socratic Rationalism and Political Philosophy: An Interpretation of Plato’s
Phaedo, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Strauss, L. (1939), “The spirit of Sparta or the taste of Xenophon”, Social Research, Vol. 6 Nos 1-4,
732 pp. 502-36.
Strauss, L. (1963), On Tyranny, The Free Press, New York, NY (revised and expanded edition
1991, edited by V. Gourevitch and M.S. Roth).
Strauss, L. (1970), Xenophon’s Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation of the Oeconomicus,
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (with a new, literal translation of the Oeconomicus by
C. Lord).
Strauss, L. (1987), “Plato”, in Strauss, L. and Cropsey, J. (Eds), History of Political Philosophy,
3rd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 33-89.
Xenophon (1908), “On the Government of Lacedaemon”, Xenophon’s Minor Works, George Bell
& Sons, London, pp. 202-30 (translated by J.S. Watson).
Xenophon (1925a), “Constitution of the Lacedaemonians”, Scripta Minora, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA (Xenophon in seven volumes, Vol. 7, reprinted and supplemented
(1968), Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 183, translated by E.C. Marchant).
Xenophon (1925b), “Hiero”, Scripta Minora, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
(Xenophon in seven volumes, Vol. 7, reprinted and supplemented 1968, Loeb Classical
Library, Vol. 183, translated by E.C. Marchant).
Xenophon (1925c), “Ways and means”, Scripta Minora, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA (Xenophon in seven volumes, Vol. 7, reprinted and supplemented 1968, Loeb Classical
Library, Vol. 183, translated by E.C. Marchant).
Xenophon (1970), “Oeconomicus”, Xenophon’s Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation of the
Oeconomicus, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (translated by C. Lord).
Xenophon (1994a), Memorabilia, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (translated and annotated
by A.L. Bonnette, with an introduction by C. Bruell).
Xenophon (1994b), “Oeconomicus”, Xenophon Oeconomicus: A Social and Historical
Commentary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 104-211 (with a new English translation by
S.B. Pomeroy).
Xenophon (1996), “Oeconomicus”, in Bartlett, R.C. (Ed.), Xenophon: The Shorter Socratic
Writings, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 39-101 (translated by C. Lord).
Xenophon (2001), The Education of Cyrus [also known as the Cryopaedia], Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY (translated and annotated by W. Ambler).

Further reading
Aristotle (1925), Nicomachean Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford (World Classics reprint
(1980), translated with an introduction by D. Ross, revised by J. Ackril and J. Urmson).
Baeck, L. (1994), The Mediterranean Tradition of Economic Thought, Routledge, London.
Bloom, A. (1968), “Preface, notes, and an interpretive essay”, The Republic of Plato, 2nd ed. (1991),
Basic Books, New York, NY.
Finley, M.I. (1953), Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
(edited with an introduction by B.A. Shaw and R.P. Saller, Pelican Books edition 1983).
Xenophon (1963), “Hiero or Tyrannicus”, in Strauss, L. (Ed.), On Tyranny, The Free Press, The ethical
New York, NY, pp. 3-21 (revised and expanded edition 1991, edited by V. Gourevitch and M.S.
Roth, translated by M. Kendrick, revised by S. Benardete). foundations of
Lord, C. (1984), “‘Introduction’, ‘note on the text and translation’, ‘analysis of the argument’, economics
‘notes’, and ‘glossary’”, in Lord, C. (Ed.), Aristotle, The Politics, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL.
Plato (1980), The Laws, reprinted in T.P. Pangle, The Laws of Plato, Basic Books, New York, NY, 733
pp. 1-374 (translated, with notes and an interpretive essay by T.L. Pangle).
Plato (1998), Phaedrus, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 25-91 (translated, with
introduction, notes, and interpretive essay by J.H. Nichols, Jr).
Polanyi, K. (1977), The Livelihood of Man, Academic Press, New York, NY (edited by
H.W. Pearson).
Pomeroy, S.B. (2004), “Xenophon’s Spartan women”, in Tuplin, C. (Ed.), Xenophon and His World,
Franz Steiner, Stuttgard.
Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Anchor Books, New York, NY (Anchor Books edition,
2000).
Thucydides (1954), History of the Peloponnesian War, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
(revised edition (1972), introduction, and notes by M.I. Finley, translated by R. Warner).

Corresponding author
James E. Alvey can be contacted at: J.E.Alvey@massey.ac.nz

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints