would
be able, if he chose, to manage it as skilfully as his own, would
he not? since a man who is skilled in carpentry can work as well for
another as for himself: and this ought to be equally true of the good
economist?

Crit. Yes, I think so, Socrates.

Soc. Then there is no reason why a proficient in this art, even if
he does not happen to possess wealth of his own, should not be paid a
salary for managing a house, just as he might be paid for building one?

Crit. None at all: and a large salary he would be entitled to earn if,
after paying the necessary expenses of the estate entrusted to him, he
can create a surplus and improve the property.

Soc. Well! and this word "house," what are we to understand by it? the
domicile merely? or are we to include all a man's possessions outside
the actual dwelling-place? [6]

[6] Lit. "is it synonymous with dwelling-place, or is all that a man
possesses outside his dwelling-place part of his house or estate?"

Crit. Certainly, in my opinion at any rate, everything which a man has
got, even though some portion of it may lie in another part of the world
from that in which he lives, [7] forms part of his estate.

[7] Lit. "not even in the same state or city."

Soc. "Has got"? but he may have got enemies?

Crit. Yes, I am afraid some people have got a great many.

Soc. Then shall we say that a man's enemies form part of his
possessions?

Crit. A comic notion indeed! that some one should be good enough to add
to my stock of enemies, and that in addition he should be paid for his
kind services.

Soc. Because, you know, we agreed that a man's estate was identical with
his possessions?

Crit. Yes, certainly! the good part of his possessions; but the
evil portion! no, I thank you, that I do not call part of a man's
possessions.

Soc. As I understand, you would limit the term to what we may call a
man's useful or advantageous possessions?

Crit. Precisely; if he has things that injure him, I should regard these
rather as a loss than as wealth.

Soc. It follows apparently that if a man purchases a horse and does
not know how to handle him, but each time he mounts he is thrown and
sustains injuries, the horse is not part of his wealth?

Crit. Not, if wealth implies weal, certainly.

Soc. And by the same token land itself is no wealth to a man who so
works it that his tillage only brings him loss?

Crit. True; mother earth herself is not a source of wealth to