From our comparison of the two definitions, then, it is evident that, though Aristotle is antithetical to Mill in putting the ethical interest first, and though his definition is not so scientifically specific, yet the two agree in recognizing the qualities of materiality, exchange value, and possibility of accumulation as necessary attributes of wealth. We shall see below, also, that the Greek philosopher was the forerunner of the orthodox English economists in criticizing the common confusion of money with wealth.[554] But, despite his grasp of the leading principles in the economics of wealth, he takes the same negative moral attitude toward wealth as does Plato, though his hostility is also directed primarily against the spirit that commercializes life and makes unlimited wealth the _summum bonum_. To his mind, this idea that wealth is the sum of all goods is almost the necessary accompaniment of the possession of superfluous wealth, but it is especially characteristic of the new-rich (νεωστὶ κεκτημένοις).[555] Yet Aristotle is too practical to be ascetic. He realizes that leisure (σχολή) is necessary for moral development and for good citizenship, and that this cannot be enjoyed except on a basis of sufficient wealth. A fair competency is therefore desirable for the best life,[556] for men should live not only temperately, but liberally.[557] Poverty produces civic strife and crime.[558] Wealth in the absolute sense (ἁπλῶς) is always good, though it may not always be fitted to a certain individual, or be property used by him.[559] Each, therefore, should choose what is good for himself, and use it accordingly.[560] All this sounds saner than the subjective notion of wealth taught by Plato. But right here is the secret of the difficulty as Aristotle sees it. Just because all external wealth is good in the absolute sense, the popular error has arisen that it is the final cause (αἰτία) of all happiness,[561] whereas the actual relation of wealth to happiness is the same as that of the lyre to the tune. There can be no music without the intervention of the musician.[562] External goods are therefore not of primary importance to life. The goods of the soul should be placed first,[563] for the virtues of life are not gained and preserved by material wealth, but vice versa,[564] and the men of high character and intelligence are most happy, even though their wealth is moderate.[565] The common attitude of the money-maker that wealth is unlimited is contrary to nature.[566] Genuine wealth cannot be unlimited,[567] since external goods are strictly defined by their utility for a certain thing. Excessive wealth thus either harms the owner, or is, at least, useless to him.[568] Neither can wealth be rightly made the _summum bonum_, for it is really not an end at all, but only a collection of means to an end (ὀργάνων πλῆθος).[569] The inevitable result of making it the end and measure of all is moral degeneration.[570] If the highest