[535]. 1133a25-27; 1133b6 f. Cf. p. 34, n. 5, for Plato’s use of the term.
[536]. Op. cit., pp. 47 f.
[537]. Cf. the discussion and notes above; also 1133a15 f., where both elements seem to be recognized, though the meaning of the passage is disputed. Cf. infra, p. [108], n. 3.
[538]. 1133a19 ff.; 29; 1133b10 ff., cited infra, on money. It clearly distinguishes the quality of exchangeableness. Cf. iv. 1. 1119b26 f., cited infra, n. 7. Cf. pp. [38] f. for Plato’s theory.
[539]. So Stewart, op. cit., in loc.; Zmavc, Archiv., etc., p. 415, who criticizes Karl Marx (Kapital, 4th ed., I, 26) for denying this. Barker (op. cit., p. 379) says that Aristotle did not recognize the “seller’s cost of production”; but cf. 384, where he implies the opposite.
[540]. But cf. his definition of wealth, pp. [85] f.
[541]. Bonar (op. cit., p. 40) criticizes him for this. The words ἀξία and τίμη are not used in the passage, but for the former in a very dear economic sense, cf. iv. 1. 1119b26-27; χρήματα δὲ λέγομεν πάντα ὅσων ἡ ἀξία νομίσματι μετρεῖται.
[542]. For further discussion of this Ethics passage, cf. infra on money, exchange, and distribution. Mag. mor. i. 33. 1193b19-1194b2 repeats the idea, citing Plato Rep. on the exchange of the four producers in his primitive state.
[543]. i. 8. 1256b28-32. The term ἄπειρος, as applied to wealth, is used by Plato and Aristotle of undue love of money (Rep. 373D, 591D; Laws 870A); for Aristotle, cf. passage above and infra. There is a sense, even from the economic standpoint, in which wealth is not unlimited.
[544]. Prin. of Pol. Econ., preliminary remarks, and Book I, chap. iii, 3.