fathers, even of the best classes (τῶν μεγίστων δοκούντων) urge their boys to seek wealth, since without this they are of no account, is almost in the language of Pastor Wagner’s condemnation of the extreme commercialism of this age.965 Material goods, when unwisely used, are a fruitful source of ills,966 and excessive wealth is always evil.967 However, the political motive, which prompted the hostility of Plato and Aristotle to excessive wealth, is absent from the Eryxias.
Thus far the attitude of the author does not differ very essentially from that of the Socratics, but toward the end of the dialogue the doctrine is distinctly taught that wealth is an evil per se. He argues that one’s needs are most numerous in a state of sickness, when he is in his worst condition.968 One is at his best, on the other hand, when he has fewest and simplest needs.969 But those who have most property are sure to need the largest provision for the service of the body.970 Thus the richest, as being the most needy, are the most depraved (μοχθηρότατα διακείμενοι) and the most unhappy, and therefore external wealth is essentially evil.971 Such a characteristically Cynic doctrine is essentially ascetic, and subversive of the very foundations of economics.
The Eryxias hints at a definition of capital in the distinction between the direct consumption of wealth and its use for further production.972 But it is far from the author’s purpose to define capital, and he makes nothing of the distinction. The relation of money to wealth is also dealt with incidentally. Like Aristotle, he criticizes the definition of wealth as “the possession of much money,”973 on the ground that the money of one country may not pass current in another, and hence cannot be true wealth.974 This is suggestive of the Cynic theory of fiat money, since the examples used are those of the worthless currency of Carthage, Sparta, and Ethiopia.975 But the argument proves too much, since it would be equally as effective against counting the house of Polytion as true wealth. There is, moreover, a peculiar shift in this part of the dialogue between money and property. The theory of the author is further upheld by the