The _Eryxias_ has no clear or satisfactory definition of wealth. It is recognized that wealth must be defined before its character as good or evil can be determined, but the final answer nowhere appears.[958] In this vagueness of result, one is strongly reminded of some of Plato’s minor dialogues. There is also a certain ambiguity throughout the work, similar to that observed in Plato,[959] between wealth in its strict economic sense and excessive wealth. We may gather from the course of the argument, however, that the author would define wealth as consisting of things that possess utility, and are subjects of economic demand, whether external, physical, or intellectual goods. The attitude of the _Eryxias_ toward wealth is an extreme version of that with which we have become familiar in the Socratics, and is best characterized as Cynic. As seen above, the author considers external wealth to be an absolute second to wisdom,[960] since wisdom is not only itself a means of providing material needs,[961] but also and especially because through it alone does any material wealth become truly valuable.[962] When the latter is made the _summum bonum_, it becomes the greatest evil. Like Plato, Jesus, and Ruskin, he insists that the kingdom of wisdom be given the first place,[963] for things derive their good or evil quality from the character or knowledge of the user.[964] The ironical account of how the Greek fathers, even of the best classes (τῶν μεγίστων δοκούντων) urge their boys to seek wealth, since without this they are of no account, is almost in the language of Pastor Wagner’s condemnation of the extreme commercialism of this age.[965] Material goods, when unwisely used, are a fruitful source of ills,[966] and excessive wealth is always evil.[967] However, the political motive, which prompted the hostility of Plato and Aristotle to excessive wealth, is absent from the _Eryxias_. Thus far the attitude of the author does not differ very essentially from that of the Socratics, but toward the end of the dialogue the doctrine is distinctly taught that wealth is an evil _per se_. He argues that one’s needs are most numerous in a state of sickness, when he is in his worst condition.[968] One is at his best, on the other hand, when he has fewest and simplest needs.[969] But those who have most property are sure to need the largest provision for the service of the body.[970] Thus the richest, as being the most needy, are the most depraved (μοχθηρότατα διακείμενοι) and the most unhappy, and therefore external wealth is essentially evil.[971] Such a characteristically Cynic doctrine is essentially ascetic, and subversive of the very foundations of economics.