Xenophon Oeconomicus: A Social and Historical Commentary.

• Author: Lowry, S. Todd

Most economists are aware that the name for their discipline dates back to a 4th century B.C. Greek text by Xenophon, but few have bothered to read it. It has been represented as dealing with household economics, but once when I gave it to a top quality business administration student to read, he came back shaking his head, "you know, its all there - personnel management and organization science - you don't need much more!"

Pomeroy has given us an introduction that includes a biographical sketch of Xenophon, the history of the document itself, and a discussion of its influence in European education, particularly its support of equal education for women. The text is presented with the Greek and English on opposing pages, with 134 pages of commentary that ties the material into the latest scholarship on the subject matter in the classics and economic history. This translation is distinguished from others, even recent ones, by the serious scholarly content of the commentary and the insight of the introduction.

Although all 19th century economists had classical educations and many, Sidgwick, Jowet, Wicksteed, Ingram, had a foot in both camps, by the turn of the century, things changed. The theologically, ethically or philosophically oriented classical scholars began to defend their shrinking turf. One thing became quite clear; they did not want the purity of their discipline sullied by the grubby science of economics. The Greek heritage in ethics, politics, historiography, and mathematics was heralded, but not economics. The epitome of this attitude was M. I. Finley's adamant denial of any relevant economic ideas in the writings of Aristotle or Xenophon in his classic 1970 essay, "Aristotle and Economic Analysis," in Past & Present [no. 47, pp. 3-25]. He drew on Schumpeter's failure to find antecedents to his perception of economic analysis and on a narrow price-theory definition of the total discipline of economics. As the ranking economic historian of antiquity, he stifled communication between the disciplines with both economists and classicists trusting his judgment in the other field.

Pomeroy challenges Finley's anachronistic obstinacy in refusing to grasp the relation of Xenophon's concept of the division of labor to the market [p. 43], and for failing to appreciate the significance of the accounting practices of the day [p. 56]. We should go further, however, and point out that Xenophon's discussion of use value and exchange value is...