Some insight is exhibited by the author into the problem of value. Like Xenophon, he defines property (χρήματα) as that which is useful, and thus recognizes this element in value.953 He also distinguishes general from economic utility.954
In answer to the question in respect to what particular use wealth possesses utility, he states tentatively that it is with respect to bodily needs,955 an idea suggestive of the organon theory of Aristotle. By this, he doubtless means food, clothing, and shelter, which have the quality of rarity.
This, however, is only a step in the argument, which has for its goal the thesis that intellectual attainments constitute the most important part of one’s wealth, and possess a very real economic value.956 The author thus agrees with Plato, Xenophon, the Cynics, and the Stoics, in his emphasis upon spiritual goods.
The distinction between value in use and value in exchange and the necessary dependence of the latter upon the former are also suggested in the statement that nothing can have economic value except as there is a demand for it. The money that passes current in one state may be valueless in another, as also would be the mansion of the wealthy Polytion to Scythian nomads, since there would be no demand for them.957
The Eryxias has no clear or satisfactory definition of wealth. It is recognized that wealth must be defined before its character as good or evil can be determined, but the final answer nowhere appears.958 In this vagueness of result, one is strongly reminded of some of Plato’s minor dialogues. There is also a certain ambiguity throughout the work, similar to that observed in Plato,959 between wealth in its strict economic sense and excessive wealth. We may gather from the course of the argument, however, that the author would define wealth as consisting of things that