_Phæd_. The mistake, then, of Mr. Malthus, if I understand it, is egregious. In column five he estimates the labor necessary to produce the entire one hundred and twenty quarters--which, he says, is the labor of eight men; and so it is, if he means by labor what produces both wages and profits; otherwise, not. Of necessity, therefore, he has assigned the value both of wages and profits in column five. Yet in column six he gravely proceeds to estimate profits a second time. _X_. Yes; and, what is still worse, in estimating these profits a second time over, he estimates them on the whole one hundred and twenty; that is, he allows for a second profit of thirty quarters; else it could not cost two men's labor (as by his valuation it does); for each man in the case Alpha produces fifteen quarters. Now, thirty quarters added to one hundred and twenty, are one hundred and fifty. But this is the _product_ of ten men, and not the _wages_ of ten men; which is the amount offered for valuation in column three, and which is all that column seven professes to have valued. SECTION III. _Phæd_. I am satisfied, X. But Philebus seems perplexed. Make all clear, therefore, by demonstrating the same result in some other way. With your adroitness, it can cost you no trouble to treat us with a little display of dialectical skirmishing. Show us a specimen of manoeuvring; enfilade him; take him in front and rear; and do it rapidly, and with a light-horseman's elegance. _X_. If you wish for variations, it is easy to give them. In the first argument, what I depended on was this--that the valuation was inaccurate. Now, then, _secondly_, suppose the valuation to be accurate, in this case we must still disallow it to Mr. Malthus; for, in columns five and six, he values by the quantity of producing labor; but that is the Ricardian principle of valuation, which is the very principle that he writes to overthrow. _Phæd_. This may seem a good _quoad hominem_ argument. Yet surely any man may use the principle of his antagonist, in order to extort a particular result from it? _X_. He may; but in that case will the result be true, or will it not be true? _Phæd_. If he denies the principle, he is bound to think the result not true; and he uses it as a _reductio ad absurdum_. _X_. Right; but now in this case Mr. Malthus presents the result as a truth. _Phil_. Yes, X.; but observe, the result is the direct contradiction of Mr. Ricardo's result. The quantities of column first vary in value by column the last; but the result, in Mr. Ricardo's hands, is--that they do not vary in value. _X_. Still, if in Mr. Malthus' hands the principle is made to yield a truth, then at any rate the principle is itself true; and all that will be proved against Mr. Ricardo is, that he applied a sound principle unskilfully. But Mr. Malthus writes a book to prove that the principle is _not_ sound. _Phæd_. Yes, and to substitute another.