The Economist

He does not happen to possess wealth of his own,
what are we to understand by it?

Some portion of it may lie in another part of the world,
not even in the same state or city

If he has things that injure him, I should regard,
these rather as a loss than as wealth

Land itself is no wealth to a man.

Vide supra.
That is my opinion, at any rate.
That is precisely the conclusion we should come to,
pros touto o, pros touton, os.

What shall we say of friends?
Pros touto o,
pros touton, os.


Reply via email to