[695]. Blanqui (op. cit., pp. 36, 88), Ingram (op. cit., p. 18), DuBois (op. cit., p. 51 and n. 1), Zmavc (Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Staatswiss. [1902], pp. 76 f.), Palgrave’s Dictionary (art. “Aristotle,” p. 54), all admit this conclusion. Barker (op. cit., p. 380) says that the idea is hinted at. Souchon (op. cit., pp. 110 f.) accepts the other view, stating that this was his purpose, to show the folly of making merely imaginary goods the goal of all life.
[696]. Cf. N. Eth. v. 5. 1133b13 f.
[697]. Pol. 1257b5-8, and the whole of 1257b; 1258b1-5.
[698]. 1258b25.
[699]. N. Eth. 1121b34: καὶ τοκισταὶ κατὰ μικρὰ καὶ ἐπὶ πολλῷ. Cf. Zell’s translation.
[700]. Pol. 1258b1-8; but cf. p. [39] on this point. The etymology should not be taken seriously. Ruskin cites Aristotle on this point. Cf. above, p. [39], n. 10.
[701]. Cf. Barker, op. cit., p. 385 and n. 2, where he criticizes Poehlmann for his idea that Aristotle “is attacking a great credit system,” and “is enunciating a gospel of socialism.” But cf. infra.
[702]. Pol. 1257b5 ff.
[703]. Ibid. 33 ff.; for further discussion of chrematistik, cf. infra.
[704]. Cf. Haney, op. cit., p. 49: “In Athens, the circulation of capital was inconsiderable, and money was not lent for productive purposes as often as for the purpose of relieving distress”; Souchon, op. cit., p. 93, though (pp. 106 f.) he recognizes the other side.