The method of presentation is primarily chronological. Thus the ideas of each thinker can be discussed in a more thorough and unitary manner, and more in relation to the contemporary economic conditions that gave rise to them. Moreover, despite some practical advantages of the topical method, it savors too much of an artificial attempt to force the Greek thinkers on the procrustean rack of the concepts of modern economy. The general characteristics of Greek economic thought have often been enumerated. They may be restated with advantage, at this point, together with some additions and needed criticisms. 1. _Simplicity._—The theory of economics as a separate science never developed in Greece. The consideration of economic problems was incidental to the pursuit of politics and ethics. In so far as Greek thinkers treated such subjects, their theories reflect the comparative simplicity of their economic environment. Without prejudging the issue as to the actual extent of capitalism in ancient Athens, we need only to think away the vast international scope of our modern commercial problems, our giant manufacturing plants with their steam and electric power, our enormous wealth and its extreme concentration, the untold complexity of modern business and finance, the vast territorial expanse of modern nations, almost all our luxuries and commonplace comforts, to begin to appreciate something of this ancient simplicity.[2] However, as a direct result of this limitation, the Greeks were led to deal with their problems more in terms of men than in terms of things, and thus their economic vision was sometimes clearer and truer than our own. Aristotle struck the keynote in Greek economic thought in stating that the primary interest of economy is human beings rather than inanimate property.[3] 2. _Confusion of private and public economy._—As a result of this simplicity, the terms οἰκονομία and οἰκονομική were, both in derivation and largely in usage, referred to household management rather than to public economy.[4] Domestic and public economy were regularly defined as differing merely in extent.[5] Aristotle, however, distinctly criticizes the confusion of the two.[6] Moreover, there is no warrant for the frequent assertion that Greek thinkers never rose above the conception of domestic economy. Xenophon’s treatise on the _Revenues of Athens_, and Aristotle’s entire philosophy of the state are a sufficient answer to such generalizations. The statement of Professor Barker that “political economy,” to Aristotle, would be a “contradiction in terms,” is extreme.[7] There is also a certain important truth in the Greek confusion, which has been too generally missed by modern critics and statesmen—that the public is a great property-holder, and that politics should be a business which requires the application of the same economic and ethical laws as are admitted to govern in private affairs.