Cf. p. 120, n. 5; but cf. viii (v). 1308_b_16-19 for a recognition of the desirability of such a regulation. Footnote 848: Cf. above, his criticism of chrematistik, _Pol._ i. chaps. 8-10. Footnote 849: So Souchon, _op. cit._, p. 167; cf. above for differences in detail. Footnote 850: Cf. pp. 119 f.; 1280_b_35 ff. He does not overlook the complement of this principle, that the prosperity of the whole involves that of the parts (iv [vii]. 1328_b_37 ff.; 1329_a_18-21), his unjust criticism of Plato on this point. Zmavc (_Zeitschrift_, etc., p. 56, n. 3) rightly observes that there is more truth in this Greek doctrine of the relation of the individual to the state than moderns are prone to recognize. Footnote 851: _Op. cit._, p. 391. Footnote 852: Francotte (_L’Industrie_, II, 250) strongly emphasizes their extreme limitation of the individual. Souchon (_op. cit._, p. 170) refers to them as precursors of Marx, though he recognizes the difference in their aim. CHAPTER VII MINOR PHILOSOPHERS, CONTEMPORARIES OR SUCCESSORS OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE The minor philosophers, contemporaries or successors of the Socratics, present in their extant fragments some ideas on wealth and other economic problems that are worthy of note. For purposes of convenience, we shall group them all here, though some of them would chronologically precede one or both of the greater philosophers. The successors of Plato in the Academy, Speusippus, Xenocrates, and Crantor,[853] carried forward the teaching of the Socratics on wealth, as opposed to the more extreme doctrine of the Cynics and Stoics.[854] There was, however, probably less emphasis on matters economic in their writings, since their prime interest was in practical individual ethics rather than in the political morality of Plato and Aristotle, though Xenocrates is known to have written an _Economicus_.[855]