[765]. Op. cit., pp. 333 ff., more satisfactory than Jowett’s idea that the intermediateness consists either in exchange for money of the direct products of the earth, or else that wood-cutting and mining are themselves the intermediate form; or than Newman’s (op. cit., II, 202 f.) theory that it consists in the fact that in this type wealth is sought, not from fruits or animals, but from things, just as exchange seeks wealth from other men or from money, as Ashley shows. However, two questions still remain unanswered: why Aristotle has three forms in chap. 11 and only two elsewhere; and why the terms, ἀκάρπων, wood-cutting, and mining are so prominent, if their relation to the thought is only incidental.
[766]. Pol. iv (vii). 1328b39 ff.; 1327a29-31.
[767]. This was a common Greek feeling (Dem. xxv. 46).
[768]. But he seems to recognize it elsewhere (N. Eth. v. 8).
[769]. Cf. DuBois, op. cit., p. 48.
[770]. Cf. the entire criticism of chrematistik, and especially 1257b40-42, the contrast between ζῆν and εὐ ζῆν. On this point, cf. above, pp. [109] f. and [87] ff. Zmavc (Zeitschrift, etc., p. 52), rightly states that even Adam Smith made his economic theory a subordinate part of his practical philosophy.
[771]. An unfair criticism, as seen above.
[772]. Pol. 1266b8-14; iv (vii). 1335b22 ff.
[773]. 1265b6-12.
[774]. 1270a40 ff.