CLARK'S REFORMULATION OF THE CAPITAL CONCEPT 149 
its valuation expression) as compared with the social concept. 
The individual concept is now cited in the index as the “standard 
use” of the term,® and appears with this comment: “This 
definition of capital from the individual or business point of view 
is firmly established in ordinary usage; and it will be assumed 
throughout the present treatise whenever we are discussing prob- 
lems relating to business in general.” He concludes this chapter 
with admonitions to economists to “forego the aid of a complete 
set of technical terms,” and not to assign “a rigid exact use to a 
word” as this “confuses business men” —astonishing counsel to 
budding would-be scientists. 
Marshall's view as to the relation of land to capital is not 
easy to fix, but on the whole it seems to be that land is among 
the (concrete) things comprising individual but not social capital. 
E.g., he says: “This illustrates the fact that land from the 
point of view of the individual cultivator is simply one form of 
capital.” * Speaking more generally of manufacturers and traders 
as well as of farmers he says: “It is to be remembered that land 
is but a particular form of capital from the point of view of the 
individual producer.” * Though Marshall here distinctly excluded 
land from capital from the social point of view; * nevertheless, 
only three pages later, still speaking of the social point of view, 
he says: “In purely abstract, and especially in mathematical, 
reasoning the terms Capital and Wealth are used as synonymous 
almost perforce, except that ‘land’ proper may for some purposes 
be omitted from capital.” Are we to understand then, that for 
most purposes, land is by Marshall included in capital, at least 
land “proper,” whatever that may mean, which here seems to 
mean “in the scientific sense,” if it means anything? 
The reader must take his choice among these contradictions, 
for his bewilderment will only be enhanced by further search 
amid the mazes of Marshall's tome. But, though Marshalls 
formal definitions of capital run in terms of concrete agents, there 
is no doubt that whenever he comes to discuss individual capital 
in problems relating to business in general he resorts to a valua- 
tion concept. The resources of an individual “are in the form of 
'8th ed., p. 72. But still, in his last word on the subject (p. 790), 
Marshall justifies his own adoption of “the two-fold definition of capital.” 
* Idem., p. 170. 
* Idem., pp. 430-431. Also p. 535 et passim. 
t Idem., p. 78.