#SWORDS AND SANDALS 3 CRIT HOW TO#

It follows apparently that if a man purchases a horse and does not know how to handle him, but each time he mounts he is thrown and sustains injuries, the horse is not part of his wealth?Ĭrit.

Precisely if he has things that injure him, I should regard these rather as a loss than as wealth. As I understand, you would limit the term to what we may call a man’s useful or advantageous possessions?Ĭrit.

Yes, certainly! the good part of his possessions but the evil portion! no, I thank you, that I do not call part of a man’s possessions. Because, you know, we agreed that a man’s estate was identical with his possessions?Ĭrit. A comic notion indeed! that some one should be good enough to add to my stock of enemies, and that in addition he should be paid for his kind services. Then shall we say that a man’s enemies form part of his possessions?Ĭrit. Yes, I am afraid some people have got a great many. “Has got”? but he may have got enemies?Ĭrit. Certainly, in my opinion at any rate, everything which a man has got, even though some portion of it may lie in another part of the world from that in which he lives, forms part of his estate. “is it synonymous with dwelling-place, or is all that a man possesses outside his dwelling-place part of his house or estate?”Ĭrit.

Well! and this word “house,” what are we to understand by it? the domicile merely? or are we to include all a man’s possessions outside the actual dwelling-place? None at all: and a large salary he would be entitled to earn if, after paying the necessary expenses of the estate entrusted to him, he can create a surplus and improve the property. Then there is no reason why a proficient in this art, even if he does not happen to possess wealth of his own, should not be paid a salary for managing a house, just as he might be paid for building one?Ĭrit. And supposing another man’s house to be entrusted to him, he would be able, if he chose, to manage it as skilfully as his own, would he not? since a man who is skilled in carpentry can work as well for another as for himself: and this ought to be equally true of the good economist? It must, I should think, be the business of the good economist at any rate to manage his own house or estate well. And as, in the case of the arts just named, we can state the proper work or function of each, can we (similarly) state the proper work and function of economy?Ĭrit. “the management of a household and estate.” See Plat. Addressing Critobulus, he said: Tell me, Critobulus, is “economy,” like the words “medicine,” “carpentry,” “building,” “smithying,” “metal-working,” and so forth, the name of a particular kind of knowledge or science?īy “economist” we now generally understand “policital economist,” but the use of the word as referring to domestic economy, the subject matter of the treatise, would seem to be legitimate. I once heard him discuss the topic of economy after the following manner. a prior discussion held between Socrates and Ischomachus is introduced: On the life of a “beautiful and good” man. The Economist records Socrates and Critobulus in a talk about profitable estate management, and a lengthy recollection by Socrates of Ischomachus’ discussion of the same topic.Ī Treatise on the Science of the Household in the form of a DialogueĪt Chapter VII. Sparta gave him land and property in Scillus, where he lived for many years before having to move once more, to settle in Corinth. He marched with the Spartans, and was exiled from Athens. Atheense democratie: teksten | bron en auteursrechten

Swords and sandals 3 crit