The pseudo-Platonic dialogue, _Eryxias_, is of special interest for our study, since it is the only extant work in Greek literature which deals directly and exclusively with the problem of wealth.[943] The work presents nothing new, however, which had not already been observed by the Socratics. The statement of Heidel,[944] that it is “distinctly the most valuable contribution of antiquity to the science of political economy,” is therefore an exaggeration. Nevertheless, the essay is worthy of more notice than it has usually received in histories of ancient economic thought.[945] Whatever consideration has been given to it has been largely devoted to the question of its origin. It reveals points of contact with Plato, the later Socratics, and especially with Antisthenes, the Cynic, with whom the author seems to have been most in sympathy.[946] The two theses that form the goal of the _Eryxias_ are that the wisest men are in reality the wealthiest, and that material wealth is an evil, since they who possess most of it are the most needy of all, and hence most depraved.[947] The keynote of the dialogue is the question of Socrates concerning the wealthy Sicilian, “What sort of a man was he reputed to be in Sicily?”[948] The double thesis is illustrated concretely by Socrates, the wisest, and the Sicilian, the richest but worst of men. The first idea is prominent in Euthydemus,[949] and elsewhere in Plato and Xenophon.[950] The second is a favorite doctrine of the Cynics and Stoics,[951] though the general thought may be traced back to Socrates.[952] Some insight is exhibited by the author into the problem of value. Like Xenophon, he defines property (χρήματα) as that which is useful, and thus recognizes this element in value.[953] He also distinguishes general from economic utility.[954] In answer to the question in respect to what particular use wealth possesses utility, he states tentatively that it is with respect to bodily needs,[955] an idea suggestive of the organon theory of Aristotle. By this, he doubtless means food, clothing, and shelter, which have the quality of rarity. This, however, is only a step in the argument, which has for its goal the thesis that intellectual attainments constitute the most important part of one’s wealth, and possess a very real economic value.[956] The author thus agrees with Plato, Xenophon, the Cynics, and the Stoics, in his emphasis upon spiritual goods. The distinction between value in use and value in exchange and the necessary dependence of the latter upon the former are also suggested in the statement that nothing can have economic value except as there is a demand for it. The money that passes current in one state may be valueless in another, as also would be the mansion of the wealthy Polytion to Scythian nomads, since there would be no demand for them.[957]