value or the negative value of cost, which settles how much out of this fund shall be in fact disposable for price. Here, for instance, as to the prussic acid, always it must be the capacity of this acid to meet a purpose which could cause any price at all to arise. And this effect of affirmative value must always continue to act, even when the ordinary state of things shall have been restored by some English vessel bringing an abundant supply of the acid, and after the cost or negative value shall have been reinstalled as the operative price. This primary and latent action of the affirmative value must not be for a moment forgotten. In fact, the confusion arising out of this one oversight has been the real cause why the idea of value has never yet been thoroughly and searchingly investigated. It must be remembered that in every case of price alike, whether terminating in a negative or affirmative result, invariably and necessarily it commences on affirmative grounds. Without a purpose contemplated, no article could be entertained in the thoughts for a moment as even potentially susceptible of a price. But, secondly, this being presumed to be realized as a sine qua non condition, then always a twofold opening arises: the original, intrinsic, affirmative value, has first determined the possible quantity of money, &c., available in the extreme case for price, say twenty. But in the last step it is either this affirmative value, or the negative, which settles how much of that twenty shall be cut off and rendered effective, - whether the entire twenty, or perhaps only one. And in the very delicate management of forces so contradictory coming always into a collision, or into the very closest juxtaposition, it cannot be wondered at that the popular and hurried style of thinking in economy has led most men into confusion.

Before concluding, it may be well to remark that even the Pagan Greeks, ignorant as they necessarily were on political economy, perceived the main outline of distinction between affirmative and negative price.

A passage exists in the "Characteristics" of Theophrastus, which presents us with this distinction in a lively form, and under circumstances which will prove interesting to the reader. By pure accident, this passage came under the separate review of two eminent scholars, - Casaubon and Salmasius.

Greater names do

Casaubon was dis

in

not adorn the rolls of scholarship. tinguished for his accuracy in the midst of his vast comprehensiveness; and every page of his writing is characterized by an overruling good sense. Salmasius, on the other hand, was too adventurous to be always safe. He was the man for riding steeple-chases, — for wrestling with extravagant difficulties, or for dancing upon nothing. Yet, with all the benefit from this caution of his intellectual temper, upon the passage Theophrastus did Casaubon write the most inexcusable nonsense; whilst the youthful Salmasius, at one bound of his agile understanding, cleared the "rasper" in a style which must have satisfied even the doubts of Isaac. The case illustrates powerfully the uselessness of mere erudition in contending with a difficulty seated in the matter, substantially in the thing, and not in the Greek or Latin expression. Here, in Theophrastus, it was not Greek, it was political economy, that could put it to rights. I will give the very words, construing as I go along, for the benefit of non-Grecian readers. Και πωλων τι, αnd when selling any article, μη λεγειν, not to say, (i. e. it is amongst his characteristic traits not to say,) τοις ὠνουμενοις, to the purchasers, ποσου ἂν ἀποδοιτο, in exchange for how much he would deliver it, åλλ' épwτạv,

but to ask. Ay, "but to ask" What is it that he asks? Casaubon, we are concerned to report, construes the words thus,―ecquid inveniat damnandum? — what is it that he (the purchaser, I suppose) finds to complain of? But, besides that such a rendering could not be sustained verbally, it is still worse, that this sense, if it could be sustained, would be irrelevant. How would it be any substitution for the plain declaration of what price he asked, to turn round upon a buyer, and insist upon that buyer's saying what blemish could be detected in the article? And then, venerable Isaac, in which of your waistcoat-pockets did you find the word damnandum? And again, as the Greek expression had been plural, Tois vovμevois, to the purchasers, whence comes it that the verb is εὑρισκει, and not pluraliter εἱσρικουσι? Ought Casaubon to have been satisfied with that blunder, so apparent on his construction, in the syntax?

66

Salmasius saw the truth at a glance, His version needs no justification: itself justifies itself. Thus it is: "TevρLσke; ad verbum quid invenit? hoc est, quid pretium mereat hæc res; quanti valeat?" Instead of saying at a word how much he demands, our knavish friend insists upon asking, τι εὑρισκει; "What does it fetch? What do we say, gentlemen, for this glorious sabre from Damascus ? What price shall I have the honor of naming for these jewelled stirrups from Antioch?" The antithesis designed is gross and palpable: that it is the antithesis, and sharply drawn, between affirmative and negative price,-power price (in reference to the power in the article to fulfil human purposes) as opposed to resistance price, (or price measured by the amount of resistance to its reproduction) — price, in short, regulated by what x will produce in opposition to price regulated by what will produce x-all this (which is

that

round upon

but the same idea under three different formula) will appear at once by the following reflection:- What is it that Theophrastus inputes to him as the form of his trickery? (whatever might be its drift.) It is, he evaded a question to himself, and turned the company with a question of his own. Now, it is evident that the question of price, when thrown into the negative form as a question about the cost, was a question for him to answer, and not for the company. The cost could be known only to himself. But, when our friend has taken his resolution of translating the onus to the buyers, the only way to accomplish this is, by throwing that question about price into a shape which only the company could answer. "Nay, gentlemen, how can I tell the value? Every man knows best what pleasure or what benefit he will draw from an article. Do you mind your own business: the cost is my business; but yours is, the worth of the thing for use; for your uses, not for mine." Scamp seems to have the best of it: their benefit from the article could not be affected by the terms on which he had acquired it. And thus even Hellas was up to this elementary distinction.26

SECTION VII. - MODES OF CAPITAL AS AFFECTING VALUE.

FINALLY, there arises a modification, first indicated by Ricardo, of value, from the different proportions in which capital fixed or circulating, predominates in the production of the articles. In this case, it can very often no longer be said that the prices of the resulting articles, according to the general rule of Ricardo, vary as the quantities of the producing labor, -a disturbance of that law occurs.

The difference between what is called fixed capital and what is called circulating capital, has often been represented as shifting and shadowy. However, without entering upon that dispute further at this point, it will be sufficient to say, that they may be distinguished essentially. Circulating capital, in its normal idea, means any agent whatever used productively which perishes in the very act of being used. Thus, wages are conveniently said to be for a month, a week, or a day; but, in fact, a commensurate "moment" of wages perishes upon every instant of time. So of candlelight or gas, so of the porter or drink of any kind allowed by the master of a manufacturing establishment, none of it holds over for a second act of consumption. That part which may accidentally survive, is a part wholly distinct, not concerned at all in the first act. But in fixed capital this is otherwise. The workman's tools hold over from one act of production to a thousandth act. The same identical chisel, saw, grindstone, and not successive parts of them, have operated on many hundreds of cases and by how much larger has been the range of these iterations, by so much the more intensely is the tool, engine, or machinery, entitled to the denomination of fixed. The leading case under circulating capital-what we chiefly think of is wages; the leading case under fixed capital is machinery.

Now, in practice, although one kind of capital often preponderates, rarely is it found altogether to exclude the other. Where wages, for instance, form the main element of cost, there will yet be implements required; and, inversely, the most extensive machines require human vigilance, direction, and sometimes very considerable cooperation. But, though this is always the practical case, for the sake of trying the question, it is better to suppose