Book iii, in Latin, is of later origin, and is of no economic

interest. Book i is perhaps from Eudemus of Rhodes, a pupil of Aristotle and Theophrastus (Zeller, II, 2, 869 ff.), but Philodemus (_De vita_ ix) assigns it to Theophrastus (Zeller, II, 2, 944); cf. Susemihl, introduction to his edition of the _Economica_, 1887. Book ii is later, but from the Peripatetic school (Zeller, II, 2, 945).

Footnote 878:

Cf. Susemihl, _op. cit._, p. v, n. 1, for a list of parallel passages from Xenophon and Aristotle.

Footnote 879:

1343_a_1-4, especially ἡ μὲν πολιτικὴ ἐκ πολλῶν ἀρχόντων ἐστίν, ἡ οἰκονομικὴ δὲ μοναρχία. Cf. also 14 f. Cf. Aristotle, above. Zeller (II, 2, 181, n. 6) points out that _Eud. Eth._ makes a similar distinction, in that he places economics between ethics and politics.

Footnote 880:

1343_a_8 f., though 25 ff. implies the limitation, κτήσεως δὲ πρώτη ἐπιμέλεια ἡ κατὰ φύσιν.

Footnote 881:

1344_b_22 ff.

Footnote 882:

ii. 1345_b_13 ff.

Footnote 883:

_Ibid._ 20 ff.: νόμισμα, ἐξαγώγιμα, εἰσαγώγιμα, and ἀναλώματα.

Footnote 884:

1343_a_25-27.

Footnote 885:

_Ibid._ 28-30. Cf. Aristotle, who makes war a natural pursuit.

Footnote 886:

1343_b_2 f.

Footnote 887:

Cf. preceding n. 8.

Footnote 888:

1343_b_3 f.

Footnote 889:

_Ibid._ 26 ff.

Footnote 890:

1344_b_15 f.; 1344_a_23-1344_b_11.

Footnote 891:

1348_b_17 ff.

Footnote 892:

1349_a_33 ff.

Footnote 893:

1350_a_23 ff.

Footnote 894:

1349_b_31 ff. Debasement of the currency was common in the time of the author.

Footnote 895:

1346_b_24 ff.; 1347_b_3 ff.; cf. At. _Pol._ 1259_a_6-35.

Footnote 896:

1346_a_14-16: τὸ τἀναλώματα μὴ μείζω τῶν προσόδων γίνεσθαι.

Footnote 897:

1352_a_16 ff.; cf. above on the Socratics, under exchange.

Footnote 898:

Of Cyrene (435 B.C.), a pupil of Socrates. No genuine fragments of his writings are extant. Cf. Zeller, II, 1, 346 ff.

Footnote 899:

Cf. Horace _Ep._ i. 17, 23.

Footnote 900:

Cf. Zeller, II, 1, 346, n. 2, and Xen. _Mem._ ii. 1. 9.

Footnote 901:

Zeller II, 1, 346, n. 2; cf. Oncken, _op. cit._, p. 47, a basal principle of hedonism.

Footnote 902:

Cf. Hor. _Ep._ ii. 2. 60.

Footnote 903:

342-270 B.C. His theory was far different than the Cyrenaic doctrine of the pleasure of the moment.

Footnote 904:

Diog. L. x. 130, 144, 146; Stob. _Flor._ xvii. 23.

Footnote 905:

Usener, _Epicurea_ (1887), pp. 300-304, ὤρισται.

Footnote 906:

_Ibid._, p. 302, fr. 473; p. 303, fr. 476.

Footnote 907:

Diog. L. x. 130 f.

Footnote 908:

Usener, p. 304, fr. 479.

Footnote 909:

_Ibid._, p. 302, fr. 473 f.; cf. Stob. _Flor._ xvii. 30.

Footnote 910:

Usener, p. 303, and fragments.

Footnote 911:

Stob. xvii. 34; Seneca _Ep._ 25. 4 f.; Cic. _Tusc. disp._ v. 31.

Footnote 912:

Diog. L. x. 119; Philod. _De vit._ ix. cols. 12 ff., 27, 40.

Footnote 913:

Cf. Barker, _op. cit._, p. 37; cf. above on Sophists; also Dunning, _Political Theories Ancient and Mediaeval_ (1913), pp. 103 f.

Footnote 914:

Cf. Hasbach, _Allgemeine philosophische Grundlagen der Pol. Econ._ (1890), pp. 76 and 36 f.; Dunning, as above.

Footnote 915:

For his life, cf. Zeller, II, 1, 280 ff., and Diog. L. vi. A few fragments of his philosophical dialogues are extant. Cf. above, p. 126, n. 7. for his _Economicus_. He and Diogenes are discussed at this point, since the Cynic movement as a whole is logically post-Aristotelian.

Footnote 916:

Diog. L. vi. 1. 15; cf. Gomperz, _op. cit._, II, 117 and note, with citations from Dio of Prusa; also Zeller, _op. cit._, II, 1, 325 f. and note, who thinks Plato’s ironical “city of pigs” (_Rep._ ii) may well have been a reference to the ideas of Antisthenes.

Footnote 917:

Cf. preceding note, and _infra_, on later ideal states.

Footnote 918:

_Pol._ i. 1253a1-4: ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον, etc.

Footnote 919:

Dionis Prus. _Opera_ (ed. Arnim, 1893, or vi. 25 f.), ascribed to Diogenes, but it was also the idea of Antisthenes. Cf. Gomperz, _op. cit._, II, 118; compare Rousseau.

Footnote 920:

Diog. L. vi. 104.

Footnote 921:

_Ibid._ vi. 12; cf. chap. 9, 105.

Footnote 922:

Xen. _Symp._ iv. 34, 34-43, on the advantages and disadvantages of the two kinds of wealth; iii. 8; _Econ._ i. 7 f.; ii. 2 f.

Footnote 923:

Xen. _Symp._ iv. 35

Footnote 924:

Mullach, _op. cit._, II, p. 289, fr. 86: φιλάργυρος.

Footnote 925:

Diog. L. vi. 2, καὶ ὅτι ὁ πόνος ἀγαθὸν συνέστησε διὰ τοῦ μεγάλου Ἡρακλέους καὶ τοῦ κύρου. Heracles, the toiler, was their patron saint. Antisthenes is said to have written two dialogues called Heracles (Diog. L. vi. 2. 18), but Zeller, (_op. cit._, II, 1, 307, n. 4) thinks only one was genuine.

Footnote 926:

Cf. _infra_ on Diogenes. Ar. _Pol._ 1253b20-22 probably refers to the Cynics, as holding it to be κατὰ φύσιν, οὐδὲ δίκαιων, and βίαιων. Cf. Newman, _op. cit._, I, 140, n. 2, on this. He cites Strabo, p. 15; 110, on the opposition of the Cynic Onesicritus to slavery. Cf. above, pp. 97 ff.; Zeller, _op. cit._, II, 1, 280 ff., 323 f.

Footnote 927:

Cf. _infra_ on Diogenes and _Eryxias_; Ar. _Pol._ 1257_b_10, probably Cynic.

Footnote 928:

412-323 B.C.; cf. Zeller, _op. cit._, II, 1, 280 ff.

Footnote 929:

Mullach, _F.Ph.G._, II, 326, fr. 276; cf. Diog. L. vi. 47: τὸν πλούσιον ἀμαθῆ, πρόβατον εἶπε χρυσόμαλλον.

Footnote 930:

Mullach, II, 302, fr. 27; 327, fr. 285; cf. _infra_ on Teles, for like idea.

Footnote 931:

Mullach, II, 316, fr. 168; Chrysost. _Homil._ lxiv in Matthew points to Paul’s parallel, I Tim. 6: 10: ῥἰζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία.

Footnote 932:

Mullach, II, 305, fr. 63.

Footnote 933:

_Ibid._ fr. 66; 65.

Footnote 934:

_Ibid._ fr. 61; p. 327, fr. 285.

Footnote 935:

Gomperz, _op. cit._, II, 133; Zeller (_op. cit._, II, 1, 323 f.) is not sure that the Cynics taught a positive anti-slavery doctrine, but cf. p. 132, n. 2.

Footnote 936:

Diog. L. vi. 66, 74 f.; cf. Epict. _Dissert._ iii. 24. 67.

Footnote 937:

_Athen._ iv. 159_c_; Διογένης δ᾽ ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ νόμισμα εἶναι νομοθετεῖ ἀστραγάλους.

Footnote 938:

Diog. L. vi. 72: ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ κοινὰς εἶναι δεῖν τὰς γυναῖκας, etc. Aristotle (_Pol._ ii. 7. 1266_a_34) names Plato as its sole advocate, but cf. Zeller, _op. cit._, II, 1, 321 f., n. 4, and Gomperz, _op. cit._, II, 132, though they think that he did not hold it in the extreme form stated by Diogenes Laertius.

Footnote 939:

There is no specific evidence, though it would accord well with his other teachings. Cf. Gomperz, _op. cit._, II, 132.

Footnote 940:

Called “Thebaios”; flor. _ca._ 328 B.C.; cf. Diog. L. vi. 87.

Footnote 941:

Mullach, _F. Ph. G._, II, 334, fr. 6; 338, frs. 38, 39; cf. also Diog. L. vi. 86.

Footnote 942:

Cf. _The Beggar’s Wallet_, an amusing parody of the _Odyssey_ (von Arnim, _Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa_ [1898], 255 ff.) Gomperz (_op. cit._, II, n. 545 to p. 125) doubts its genuineness for Crates, but thinks it is from a Cynic source; cf. also _infra_ on Teles.

Footnote 943:

The pseudo-Aristotelian _Economics_ is a possible exception. The _Economics_ of Xenophon has a broader theme, and the _Revenues_ is for practical purposes.

Footnote 944:

_Pseudo-Platonica_, p. 59.

Footnote 945:

It is given mere passing mention in Boeckh, _op. cit._, I, 693; Hoderman, _op. cit._, p. 9; Francotte, _L’Industrie_, II, 310, n. 1; Cossa, _op. cit._, p. 146; Oncken, _op. cit._, p. 37; Bonar, _op. cit._, p. 11, n. 1; Kautz, _op. cit._, p. 121; Simey, _op. cit._, p. 474; Hagen, _Observationum oec. pol. in Aesch. dialog., qui Eryx. inscribitur_ (dissertation, 1822). The latter has not been examined.

Footnote 946:

On its origin, cf. Otto Schrohl, _De Eryx. qui fertur Platonis_ (dissertation, 1901) which gives a full bibliography, pp. 5 ff.; Heidel (_Pseudo-Platonica_, p. 61), following Steinhart (Mueller, VII, 14), attributes it to a later Socratic, in sympathy with Antisthenes; p. 69, n. 3, he thinks it grew out of _Euthyd._ 288E ff.; for other points of contact, cf. Schrohl, 10 ff.

Footnote 947:

On the first, cf. 393A-394E, 402E-403C; on the second, cf. 396E-397D, 405C-406B.

Footnote 948:

Cf. preceding n. 3.

Footnote 949:

278E-282.

Footnote 950:

Cf. above, _in loc._

Footnote 951:

For Stoics, cf. _infra_.

Footnote 952:

Xen. _Mem._ i. 6, especially end: ἐγὼ δὲ νομίζω τὸ μὲν μηδενὸς δεῖσθαι θεῖον εἶναι, etc.; cf. Schrohl, _op. cit._, pp. 26-28.

Footnote 953:

400E, 401A.

Footnote 954:

401A: ἀλλὰ ποῖα δὴ τῶν χρησίμων, ἐπειδή γε οὐ πάντα. Cf. also 400E.

Footnote 955:

401B, 401E.

Footnote 956:

402E, 393E-394E, and the general thesis that the wisest are richest.

Footnote 957:

400A-E, 394D, arguing that economic demand might make a man’s wisdom more valuable than another’s house.

Footnote 958:

399E.

Footnote 959:

Cf. 399E, where Eristratos defines πλοῦτος as τὰ χρήματα πολλὰ κεκτῆσθαι.

Footnote 960:

393A, 393D-394A; cf. above, pp. 24 ff. and notes for Plato and others.

Footnote 961:

394D-E, 402E.

Footnote 962:

393E, 396E-397E, 403E, the insistence upon ability to use, so common in Plato, Xenophon, and Ruskin.

Footnote 963:

394D-E, which reads like a passage from the New Testament.

Footnote 964:

397E.

Footnote 965:

396C: ἂν μέν τι ἕχῃς, ἄξιός του, ἐὰν δὲ μή, οὐδενός. Cf. _The Simple Life_: “He who has nothing is nothing.” Cf. Eurip. fr. 328, Danae (Nauck): κακὸς δ᾽ ὁ μὴ ἔχων, οἱ δ᾽ ἔχοντες ὄλβιοι.

Footnote 966:

396E-397E; cf. _infra_, the Stoic doctrine of “indifferents”; but they included health and wealth in the same class, while the _Eryxias_ does not. Cf. Diog. L. vii. 103; cf. a similar passage in the _Euthydemus_; cf. Schrohl, _op. cit._, p. 34.

Footnote 967:

396E-397E, as above; 393A.

Footnote 968:

405D.

Footnote 969:

405E.

Footnote 970:

406B.

Footnote 971:

_Ibid._, but cf. 134, n. 8, where Socrates approaches this asceticism.

Footnote 972:

403E, distinguishing the materials of a house, the tools by which they are provided, and the tools for building. Cf. Plato and Aristotle, _in loc._, for a like distinction.

Footnote 973:

399E.

Footnote 974:

400A-E.

Footnote 975:

400A-B. Heidel (_op. cit._, p. 61) points to his “ostentatious display of learning” here.

Footnote 976:

402B-C, 404A-B.

Footnote 977:

400E.

Footnote 978:

400C-E, especially ὅσα μέν ἄρα τυγχάνει χρήσιμα ὄντα ἡμῖν ταῦτα χρήματα, though at this point the term has been made to include all wealth; cf. also 402C: ἀλλὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἂν εἴν (χρήματα) οἷς τὰ χρήσιμα οἶοί τ᾽ ἐσμὲν ἐκπορίζεσθαι.

Footnote 979:

Cf. _Teletis Reliquiae_, ed. Hense, Freiburg, 1889. The ancient source is Stobaeus. Teles, a Cynic of Megara, wrote about 240 B.C. Cf. Hense, _op. cit._, XXI-XXXV; Gomperz, _op. cit._, II, 129 ff. Fr. iv. A, pp. 24 ff., and iv. B, p. 34, are of special economic interest.

Footnote 980:

Fr. IV, A, pp. 24 ff.

Footnote 981:

Fr. IV, A, p. 24: δι᾽ ἀνελευθερίαν καὶ ῥυπαρίαν.

Footnote 982:

_Ibid._ 27; cf. the example of the Φορκίδες, who have an eye, but do not use it; cf. also the quotation from the “ancients” on the distinction between χρήματα, “used wealth,” and κτήματα, “wealth merely possessed” (ll. 13 f.).

Footnote 983:

P. 32, the unsated life will not be satisfied even with immortality, since it cannot become Zeus. L. 13 ff., kings are always in want, σπανίζουσιν. Cf. Xen. _Symp._ iv. 36.

Footnote 984:

P. 26, ll. 4 f., 6-12; p. 31.

Footnote 985:

P. 28, ll. 13-29.

Footnote 986:

P. 29, ll. 6 ff.

Footnote 987:

P. 29; cf. pp. 30 f.; p. 26, ll. 11 f.

Footnote 988:

P. 26.

Footnote 989:

Fr.; Περὶ αὐταρκείας; p. 9: καὶ τί ἔχει δυσχερὲς ἣ ἐπίπονον ἡ πενία.

Footnote 990:

_Ibid._

Footnote 991:

_Ibid._ Cephalus in _Rep._ i gives a more balanced judgment.

Footnote 992:

_Ibid._, pp. 6 f., citing Bion on the answer of poverty to her accusers. Cf. Aristoph. _Plutus_ 558 f. on the power of poverty, cited by Ruskin, _Aratra Pentel._, IV, 139 (Vol. XX, 296).

Footnote 993:

Fr. iv. B, p. 34, he attacks the opposite thesis.

Footnote 994:

_Ibid._, ll. 5 f.; p. 35, good doctrine for a tramp; p. 34.

Footnote 995:

_Ibid._, ll. 13 ff.

Footnote 996:

_Ibid._, pp. 36 f., a comparison of Aristides and Callias.

Footnote 997:

Fr. iv. A, p. 28, purporting to be the answer of Crates as to what he would gain by being a philosopher.

Footnote 998:

Cf. _infra_; also Cic. _De fin._ iii. 10. 33 f.; Zeller, _op. cit._, III, 1, 214.

Footnote 999:

Cic. _Paradox._ 6, on the thesis that only the wise are rich.

Footnote 1000:

Seneca _Benef._ vii. 3. 2 f.; 6. 3; 8. 1.

Footnote 1001:

Diog. L. vii. 125. On both the citations above, cf. Zeller, III, 1, 251.

Footnote 1002:

Called Citieus, born 320 B.C., of Semitic descent.

Footnote 1003:

_Stoic Vet. Fr._, ed. Arnim, 1905, I, 47, fr. 190 (Stob. _Ecl._ ii. 7. 5, pp. 57 f., ed. Wachs.); Diog. L. vii. 101 f., 103-5.

Footnote 1004:

Von Arnim, _op. cit._, p. 53, fr. 220; Cic. _De fin._ v. 84: “At Zeno eum (mendicum) non beatum modo, sed etiam divitem dicere ausus est.”

Footnote 1005:

Von Arnim (p. 52, fr. 216 [Stob. _Ecl._ ii. 7. 11_g_, pp. 991., ed. Wachs.]) cites Zeno as placing among the goods of the σπουδαῖος man the fact that he is οἰκονομικός and χρηματιστικός, while the φαῦλοι are opposite; cf. also p. 100.

Footnote 1006:

Von Arnim, p. 61, fr. 264 (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ v. 12. 76, p. 691_p_).

Footnote 1007:

Von Arnim, p. 62, fr. 268 (Diog. L. vii. 33): νόμισμα δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἀλλαγῆς ἕνεκεν οἴεσθαι δεῖν κατασκευάζειν οὔτ᾽ ἀποδημίας ἕνεκεν. Oncken (_op. cit._, p. 48) thinks that the Stoics were forerunners of the physiocrats.

Footnote 1008:

Plut. _De Alex. Fort._ i. 6: ἡ πολὺ θαυμαζομένη πολιτεία τοῦ ... Ζήνονος. He says that it agreed in principle with the states of Plato and Lycurgus. Cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, II, 341 ff., but cf. _infra_, p. 140 f. Cf. n. 2, above. Ar. _Pol._ ii. 4. 1266_a_: εἰσὶ δέ τινες πολιτεῖαι καὶ ἄλλαι, etc., shows that a series of ideal states had preceded his, though he says Plato’s was the most radical.

Footnote 1009:

_Plut. De Alex. Fort._ i. 6.

Footnote 1010:

Diog. L. vii. 33, 131; cf. nn. 3 and 5 above.

Footnote 1011:

Diog. L. vii. 131; 33.

Footnote 1012:

Poehlmann, _op. cit._, II, 342, n. 1.

Footnote 1013:

Cf. above, n. 5; _Athen._ xiii. 561_c_.

Footnote 1014:

Cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, I, 11, n. 8; also 346.

Footnote 1015:

Diog. L. vii. 33.

Footnote 1016:

On this double tendency in the Stoics, and reasons therefore, cf. Souchon (_op. cit._, pp. 173 f.); Poehlmann (_op. cit._, II, 342 f., and I, 111) and Wolf (_op. cit._, pp. 116 ff.) exaggerate their socialistic tendency. For further discussion, cf. _infra_. Cf. L. Stein, _Soc. Frage_, pp. 171-80.

Footnote 1017:

280-206 B.C. Aristo and Cleanthes, successors of Zeno, also emphasized similar doctrines in relation to wealth. Cf. von Arnim, I, p. 89, frs. 396, 397, 398, from Aristo; _ibid._, p. 137, fr. 617, from Cleanthes.

Footnote 1018:

_Ibid._, II, 79, fr. 240; III, 28, fr. 117; p. 29, frs. 122, 123; p. 32, fr. 135.

Footnote 1019:

_Ibid._, III, 156, fr. 598; p. 159, fr. 618; p. 155, fr. 593.

Footnote 1020:

_Ibid._, p. 155, fr. 597.

Footnote 1021:

_Ibid._, p. 160, fr. 629, “Lucro autem numquam sapiens studet.”

Footnote 1022:

_Ibid._, p. 169, fr. 623: μόνον δὲ τὸν σπουδαῖον ἄνορα χρηματιστικὸν εἶναι, γινώσκοντα ἀφ᾽ ὧν, χρηματιστέον, καὶ πότε καὶ πῶς καὶ μέχρι πότε.

Footnote 1023:

Von Arnim, III, 168, fr. 674.

Footnote 1024:

_Ibid._, p. 36, frs. 151, 152, “Bonum ex malo non fit: divitiae fiunt: fiunt autem ex avaritia divitiae ergo non sunt bonum” (Seneca _Ep._ 87. 22).

Footnote 1025:

Von Arnim, p. 172, fr. 686 (Stob. _Ecl._ ii. 7, p. 109, 10): .... λόγους κατηλεύειν, οὐ φαμένων δεῖν ἀπὸ παιδείας παρὰ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων χρηματίζεσθαι.

Footnote 1026:

Von Arnim, p. 86, fr. 352: ἄνθρωπος γὰρ ἐκ φύσεως δοῦλος οὐδείς; p. 87, fr. 358; cf. p. 141, n. 7, above.

Footnote 1027:

_Ibid._, fr. 357.

Footnote 1028:

_Ibid._, 89, fr. 365; p. 86, frs. 356, 354.

Footnote 1029:

_Ibid._, p. 86, fr. 355; p. 88, fr. 362; p. 89, 364. Cf. Espinas, _Hist. des doctrines èconomiques_, 56 f., on the Stoics’ attitude toward labor and slavery: “Ni les Cyniques ni les Stoiciens ne méprisaient le travail”; “La seule servitude déshonorante est celle des passions et du vice.”

Footnote 1030:

Poehlmann (_op. cit._, II, 342 f. and notes), citing von Arnim, III, 77, fr. 314, ὁ νόμος πάντων ἐστὶ βασιλεύς, etc., thinks Chrysippus’ principle of the law of reason as king of all is anti-individualistic. He cites also Cic. _De fin._ iii. 19 (64), where the individual seems to be made to exist for the sake of the whole. But cf. above, p. 140 f. and notes.

Footnote 1031:

Cf. Diog. L. vii. 131, and above, p. 140, nn. 7 f.

Footnote 1032:

_Op. cit._, p. 171.

Footnote 1033:

Cf. above, on Cynics and Stoics, and _infra_; cf. even in Plato, _Laws_ 679A-B.

Footnote 1034:

The Socratics were the pioneers in this regard also. On the unhistorical character of the alleged early communism in Sparta, cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, I, 75 ff. and 100 f.; on this triple tendency in the post-Aristotelian social thought, cf. _ibid._, pp. 99 ff., on “Der Sozialstaat der Legende und das sozialistische Naturrecht”; also Souchon, p. 172.

Footnote 1035:

Cf. above, p. 140.

Footnote 1036:

Cf. Porphyry _De abstin._ iv. 1. 2; Mueller, _F.H.G._, II, 233. His Βίος Ἑλλάδοσς was a history of the degeneration of Greek civilization from the primitive ideal. Cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, I, 109 and n. 1, on his influence on Rousseau, who refers to him. Cf. _ibid._, n. 2, for a similar idea of a golden age in Theoc. xii. 15.

Footnote 1037:

On his social ideas, cf. Poehlmann, I, 113 ff.

Footnote 1038:

Strabo vii, p. 463 (_F.H.G._, I, 256, fr. 76).

Footnote 1039:

Nic. Damasc. (_F.H.G._, III, fr. 123): διὰ τὴν τοῦ βίου κοινότητα καὶ δικαιοσύνην. Cf. also _ibid._, I, 257, fr. 78, Ephorus.

Footnote 1040:

_Ibid._; also fr. 76: πρός τε ἀλλήλους εὐνομοῦνται κοινὰ πάντα ἔχοντες τά τε ἄλλα καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ τέκνα καὶ τὴν ὅλην συγγένειαν.

Footnote 1041:

_Panathen._ 178: ἀλλὰ παρὰ σφίσι μὲν αὐτοῖς ἰσονομίαν καταστῆσαι καὶ δημοκρατίαν τοιαύτην, οἵαν περ χρὴ τοὺς μέλλοντας ἄπαντα τὸν χρόνον ὁμονοήσειν; also 153; for an idealized picture of early Athenian life, cf. _Paneg._ 79; _Areop._ 31; 32, 35, 44, 83; cited by Poehlmann, _op. cit._, I, 136 f.

Footnote 1042:

Cf. Polybius vi. 45, and Poehlmann’s note (I, 122).

Footnote 1043: