The οἰκονομικός, at least, the first extant, devoted to private economy, and especially agriculture, but revealing practical interest in the details of the production of wealth. Cf. _infra_ for further discussion of _Economica_ in Greek literature. Footnote 378: For some qualifications, cf. above, Introduction. Footnote 379: _Econ._ i. 2: οἰκονόμου ἀγοθοῦ εἶναι οἰκεῖν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ οἶκον; cf. 3: τὸν ἄλλου δὲ οἶκον. οἶκον is used of one’s entire property (5). Footnote 380: _Mem._ iii. 4. 6; cf. further above, p. 9, n. 4. Cf. Ruskin, _Pol. Econ. of Art_, I, 12: “Precisely the same laws of economy, which apply to the cultivation of a farm or an estate, apply to the cultivation of a province or an island.” Cf. the story in Hdt. v. 29 on this idea. Espinas (_Revue des Etudes Grecques_, XXVII [1914], 111) contrasts Xenophon, to whom the royal administration is a greatly expanded private economy, with Plato’s absorption of all private economy by the state. Footnote 381: _Econ._ i. 7-15; cf. 10: ταύτα ἄρα ὄντα τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ χρῆσθαι αὐτῶν ἑκάστοισ χρήματα ἐστι, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ οὐ χρήματα. Cf. p. 23 and notes on Plato and Ruskin. H. Sewall (“Theory of Value before Adam Smith,” _Publications of the American Economic Association_, II, Part III, p. 1) says that the conception of value (ἀξία) as a quality inherent in the thing was not questioned, but Xenophon seems to question it here. As she observes, n. 1, the term originally meant “weight,” at first weight in money, as well as actual worth. Footnote 382: i. 11 f. Footnote 383: _Unto This Last_, beginning; cf. preceding n. 1; Ruskin took _Xen. Econ._ as the foundation on which he built all his own economic studies. Cf. _Unto This Last_, Pref., Vol. XVII, pp. xlix and 18; Vol. XXXI, Introd.; pp. xv ff. It was the first in his _Bib. Pastorum_. Cf. his Preface to his translation of the _Economicus_; _Arrows of the Chace_, Vol. XXXIV, 547; _Letters_, II (Vol. XXXVII, 350). In _Mun. Pul._, IV, 105 (Vol. XVII, 230); also on pp. 288 and 88, he refers to Xenophon’s “faultless” definition of wealth, citing _Mem._ ii. 3. 7. Cf. also Vol. XXXI, pp. xvii and 27. Fontpertuis (“Filiation des idées économiques dans l’antiquité,” _Jour. des écon._, September, 1871, p. 361) thinks this is at bottom the true theory of value. Footnote 384: _Econ._ i. 2: ἀποδιδομένοις μὲν οἱ αὐλοὶ χρήματα, μὴ αποδιδομένοις δὲ ἀλλὰ κεκτημένοις οὔ, τοῖς μὴ ἐπισταμένοις αὐτοῖς χρῆσθαι. Brants (_Xen. Econ._, p. 8) overemphasizes this. Footnote 385: _Rev._ iv. 6-10, a remarkable passage, though he fails to include silver in the law. Cf. Kautz, _op. cit._, p. 129; Kaulla, _Die geschichtliche Entwickelung der modernen Werttheorien_, p. 2. Footnote 386: Especially in the story of Isomachus (_Econ._), and the _Revenues_. Footnote 387: Cf. _infra_; also Espinas, _Histoire des doctrines economiques_, p. 20. Footnote 388: