[845]. iv (vii). 1329a18-21.
[846]. 1330a25-31; 1328b40; 1329a2; cf. Souchon, op. cit., pp. 169 f., on his system as compared with that of the Laws.
[847]. Cf. p. [120], n. 5; but cf. viii (v). 1308b16-19 for a recognition of the desirability of such a regulation.
[848]. Cf. above, his criticism of chrematistik, Pol. i. chaps. 8-10.
[849]. So Souchon, op. cit., p. 167; cf. above for differences in detail.
[850]. Cf. pp. 119 f.; 1280b35 ff. He does not overlook the complement of this principle, that the prosperity of the whole involves that of the parts (iv [vii]. 1328b37 ff.; 1329a18-21), his unjust criticism of Plato on this point. Zmavc (Zeitschrift, etc., p. 56, n. 3) rightly observes that there is more truth in this Greek doctrine of the relation of the individual to the state than moderns are prone to recognize.
[851]. Op. cit., p. 391.
[852]. Francotte (L’Industrie, II, 250) strongly emphasizes their extreme limitation of the individual. Souchon (op. cit., p. 170) refers to them as precursors of Marx, though he recognizes the difference in their aim.
[853]. Third century B.C.; cf. Zeller, op. cit., II, 1, 986 ff.
[854]. Cic. De fin., iv. 18. 49; Plut. Adv. Stoicos, p. 1065: οἱ τοῦ Ξενοκράτους καὶ Σπευσίππου κατηγοροῦντες ἐτὶ τῷ μὴ τὴν ὑγείαν ἀδιάφοραν ἡγεῖσθαι μηδὲ τὸν πλοῦτον ἀνωφελές. On Crantor, cf. Ap. Sext. Emp. (Bekker, p. 538, ll. 4 ff.); on the above, cf. Heidel, Pseudo-Platonica (dissertation, Chicago, 1896), p. 60, n. 5; cf. also Def. 140, of Speusippus (Mullach, op. cit., III, 80): πλοῦτος κτῆσις σύμμετρος πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν.