Chapter V The Orators — Demosthenes, Isocrates
Though the Attic orators constitute a very important source for our knowledge of economic conditions in Athens, they furnish but little definite material for a history of Greek economic thought. From the standpoint of theory, their chief value consists in the fact that they all reveal a positive interest in wealth and all the phenomena of practical economy. In this respect, they present a striking contrast to the negative attitude of the Socratics, and thus serve to correct our conception of the economic ideas of the average Athenian citizen. Specific consideration need be given only to Demosthenes and Isocrates.
The positive interest of Demosthenes in commerce and finance has already been indicated by some passages,487 and this fact is so evident throughout all his orations that further citations are unnecessary. Instead, we may note briefly some slight hints in him of the negative moral attitude of the philosophers. He emphasizes the dominating influence of money in warping the judgments of men.488 He praises the simple life of the previous generation, and criticizes in contrast the private luxury of his own day.489 According to him, it is considered to be rare for a business man to be both diligent (φιλεργόν) and honest (χρηστόν).490 In his assertion that poverty compels freemen to turn to menial work (δουλικά) and that many freewomen (ἀσταί) have been driven by the stress of the times to such vocations,491 some aristocratic prejudice against common labor seems to be implied. A similar attitude toward traders and money-dealers is at least suggested by his question as to what is the worst (πονηρότατον) element in the state.492 His scornful mention of Stephanus as one who loans money at interest, and takes advantage of another’s need,493 is a slight reminder of the philosophic prejudice against interest, though here he is doubtless emphasizing loans for consumption merely, at an exorbitant rate.494 But these traces of the Socratic attitude toward wealth are of very little significance, in the face of the evident economic interest that characterizes all the orations of Demosthenes.
Isocrates may, in a sense, be reckoned among the Socratics, and he exhibits more of their spirit in relation to wealth than do any of the other orators. He would have men strive for honest character rather than for wealth, since it is not always gain to acquire and loss to spend. The result depends rather upon the occasion and virtue.495 Noble character is of more value than great riches,496 for good reputation is not purchasable (ὠνητή) with money, but is itself the source of material possessions, and it is immortal, while wealth is only temporal.497 Material and spiritual wealth are thus contrasted in true Socratic manner;498 right use is emphasized,499 and the common insatiety and injustice of money-makers is opposed.500 Folly and license are named as the usual accompaniments of wealth, in contrast to the moderation that characterizes the poor and lowly.501 But, like Plato, Isocrates considers neither luxury nor penury to be the ideal condition,502 and clearly appreciates the evil effect of poverty in arousing discontent and civic strife in the state.503
But despite this moralizing tendency, he agrees with the other orators in appreciating highly the economic importance of the manual arts.[504] He points also, with apparent pride, to the extensive commerce of Athens as compared with that of other states,505 and one of his chief arguments for peace is that thereby the city will be filled with merchants and strangers and metics.506 This entire plea for peace, which he bases so largely on economic advantage, has a decidedly modern ring. He understood well the importance of industrial development in the general prosperity of a democracy. In almost Aristotelian language, he pictures how in the good old days the rich were accustomed to give the poor a start in business (ἀφορμή), either in agriculture, trade, or the arts.[507] This positive economic interest is further evidenced by his emphasis upon the increased skill that results from the application of the division of labor.508
Isocrates, like Plato, was especially opposed to civic strife and the extreme individualistic communism that demanded a redivision of lands and abolition of debts.509 In the ideal past of his dreams, there were no extremes of wealth and poverty, private property was safe, and revolutions did not rend the state. Now, on the other hand, all is changed. Sparta is the only state that has not been torn by the bitter party strife.510 He contrasts the high regard in which the wealthy were held in his boyhood with the present jealous discontent. To be known as a wealthy man now is almost equivalent to being considered criminal and is a thing for which to apologize.511 This attitude toward the rich, of which Isocrates complains, is significant in the light of similar tendencies in our own democracy today.
Again, in agreement with Plato and Aristotle, Isocrates opposes the doctrine of mere arithmetical equality, and insists that the true equality apportions to each what befits his capacity.512 But though he is hostile to the crasser type of communism, he makes the chief characteristic of the ideal past a noble community feeling and spirit of co-operation. In that happy time, the common weal was first in the thought of all, each had regard for others’ interests, the poor were not jealous of the rich, and the rich assisted the poor.513 At times, he even approaches the modern humanitarian sentiment for the submerged classes. He defines true national prosperity as a condition in which no citizen is lacking the means of livelihood,514 and thinks the poor might well be pardoned for their indifference to public welfare, in their anxiety over the daily means of subsistence.515 He also states the somewhat socialistic principle so emphasized by Plato, that the character of the state will be like that of the ruler.516