_Econ._ vi. 4; cf. i. 7 ff., cited above, p. 64, n. 1. Footnote 389: P. 64 and notes. Büchsenschütz (_Besitz und Erwerb_, p. 15) criticizes it as too broad, including spiritual goods; too narrow, including only what one can use. Footnote 390: In _Econ._ ii. 2-8, Socrates’ comparison of himself with the wealthy Critoboulos; _Hiero_ iv. 6-10; _Mem._ iv. 2. 37 f.; i. 6. 1-10, where Socrates defends his own simple life, especially 10: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐνόμιζον τὸ μὲν μηδενὸς δεῖσθαι θεῖον εἶναι. If meant in the economic sense, this would approach a definition of capital, as “excess of goods over needs.” Footnote 391: Cf. p. 25, n. 11, on the similar modern doctrine. Footnote 392: _Symp._ iii. 8 and iv. 34-44, given as the doctrine of Antisthenes, the Cynic, though with apparent approval; _Mem._ iv. 2. 9. Footnote 393: _Econ._ xi. 9. Footnote 394: _Cyrop._ viii. 2. 23. Footnote 395: _Mem._ ii. 7. 7; _Rev._ iv. 29. Footnote 396: Thuc. vii. 6. 2, of walls; _Gorg._ 449D, ἱματίων; _Theaet._ 146D, ὑποδημάτων; Xen. _Econ._ vii. 21, ἐσθῆτος. Footnote 397: Hdt. i. 68; _Charm._ 173E; Thuc. iv. 105. Footnote 398: Ar. _Frogs_ 1034; Isoc. _Areop._ 30. Footnote 399: Isoc. _Areop._, 146_d_, cited _infra_ on the terms for capital; _Ad Nicocl._ 18C. Footnote 400: _Mem._ iii. 10. 1; Dem. xxxiii. 4. Footnote 401: _C.I.A._ 3924: ἡ ἐργασία τῶν βαφέων. Footnote 402: Ar. _N. Eth._ vi. 4. 2 ff. Footnote 403: _Op. cit._, 1st ed., p. 55. Footnote 404: _Econ._, especially chaps. v-vii; iv. 4; _Mem._ ii. 1. 6; _Econ._ v. 17: εὒ μὲν γὰρ φερομένης τῆς γεωργίας ἔρρωνται καὶ ἄλλαι τέχναι ἄπασαι, ὅπου δ᾽ ἂν ἀναγκασθῇ ἡ γῆ χερσεύειν, ἀποσβέννυνται καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι τέχναι σχεδόν τι καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν, a very true statement, which does not belittle other industries. Footnote 405: _Ibid._ v. 2; iii. 15. 11, 16; _Rev._ i. 2 ff., etc. Footnote 406: _Pol._ i. 8 and 9. Footnote 407: _Mem._ ii. 7. 13 f., from Socrates. Cf. _infra_ under distribution, on this. Footnote 408: _Rev._ iv. 5-7; Cossa, _op. cit._, p. 148; Kautz, _Histoire des doctrines économiques_, p. 127; Fontpertuis, _op. cit._, p. 367. Footnote 409: _Econ._ v. 17, cited on p. 66, n. 11, perhaps the strongest statement of the economic importance of agriculture in Greek writers. Ruskin follows Xenophon in his high appreciation of agriculture. He thinks it should be largely done by the upper classes (_Mun. Pul._, 109 [Vol. XVII, 235]); cf. also Vol. VII, 341, 429; Vol. X, 201. Footnote 410: _Econ._ iv. 4; cf. _Rev._ v. and _Cyrop._ iii. 2. 17, which favor peace for the sake of economic advance. Footnote 411: _Econ._ iv. 8 to end of chapter, especially 21. Footnote 412: _Econ._, v. 1; 2-16; vi. 9-10; cf. Fontpertuis, _op. cit._, pp. 362 f. Footnote 413: _Econ._ vi. 8. Footnote 414: Cf. _Revenues_. Footnote 415: