Chapter III: Plato (2)

In any event, there is nothing in common between the high moral idealism of Plato’s so-called communism and the crass materialistic communism that is the subject of Aristophanes’ satire in the _Ecclesiazusae_. Dietzel[324] has well pointed out that the latter is extremely individualistic, atheistic, and immoral, demanding all from the state with no return; that the _Republic_, on the other hand, demands the loftiest morality and renunciation, and is a direct protest against such tendencies in Athens as are attacked by the comic poet. As he shows, the two are as far apart as are the watchwords, “All for self,” and “All for all.”

Plato’s idea that society is the exact counterpart of the individual in the large, however, is quite analogous to the modern comparison of society to an organism.[325] Both are wrong in attempting to press the analogy too far, yet they contain a truth of profound importance, which is at the foundation of the marked change in the spirit of economics in recent years. It is the notion of solidarity, which demands that the individual shall no longer seek the content of his being in himself alone, but also in the conditions that shall produce the highest life for the commonwealth.

In the _Laws_, Plato reluctantly abandons some of the utopian suggestions of the _Republic_ for a more practical legislation,[326] though his ideal is really unchanged. Communism of property and of the family are both discarded even for the rulers, as feasible only for a supernatural order of beings.[327] As a noble ideal, however, it still hovers before him.[328] Private property is permitted to the citizens,[329] but under protest, and if practicable, Plato would like to prohibit it, as the primary root of all social disturbance and corruption.[330] He would advocate, therefore, a return to the old régime of family tenure, somewhat on the model of the Spartan system.[331] He would also hamper this by limitations so as to make it no real ownership at all. The land is to be practically state property, over which the citizens exercise merely the right of use.[332] It is to be divided into lots of equal value, corresponding exactly to the number of citizens.[333] Natural disadvantages shall be compensated for by an increase in the size of the lot, and part of each allotment shall be near, and part at a distance from the city, that all may be on an equal footing, and alike ready to defend against invasion.[334] In order that no citizen may lose his lot, and no man may possess more than one, very stringent regulations are advised.[335] No lot may be purchased or sold,[336] confiscated,[337] or divided by will to more than one heir,[338] and no citizen, in any manner whatsoever, may become owner of more than one lot.[339] The living of the other members of the family is arranged for by a provision for a general distribution of the product of the soil, in imitation of the Cretan law.[340] The annual product of grain and cattle shall be divided into three equal parts, one for citizens, one for their servants, and one for the artisans, metics, and strangers. The first two parts shall not be subject to sale, but each head of a family shall receive from them enough to nourish his family and slaves.

It is evident from all these regulations that Plato’s citizens do not actually own their lots, but merely enjoy the usufruct of them from the state on certain conditions. He takes away with one hand what he gives with the other. Under such a system all his precautionary measures could not have prevented the growth of an even more oppressive poverty, unless the growth of population could be checked.

The regulations limiting the acquisition or possession of personal property are even more stringent, though here an absolute equality is not attempted. He seeks, however, to prevent the rise of inequality of fortunes, at the very threshold, by making undue acquisition difficult or even impossible for the citizens. All money-making occupations are practically closed to them[341]—trade,[342] the mechanical arts,[343] and even agriculture, so far as their own personal work is concerned. The latter is given over to slaves,[344] the arts and trade to aliens, with strict limitations to be enforced by the officers of the market.[345] As seen above, two-thirds of the farm products are not to be subject to commercial dealings.[346] The loan of money at interest is forbidden, and he who disobeys will risk the loss of both principal and interest.[347] A bulky coinage of baser metal is provided for the daily use of private citizens, such as will not pass current in another country.[348] No dowries are to be given or received,[349] and there shall be no hoarding, but the entire produce of the lots must be annually distributed for consumption among the whole population of the state.[350] To make assurance doubly sure, Plato prohibits his citizens from owning personal property above four times the value of the lot,[351] or four minas.[352] Any amount in excess of this must be handed over to the state on pain of severe fine for disobedience.[353] This is to be accomplished by the regulation that all property except the lot must be publicly registered, and failure to fulfil this obligation entails the loss of all but the original lot, and public disgrace.[354]

In all this drastic limitation of property rights, Plato’s chief motive is to render excessive wealth or poverty impossible,[355] and to harmonize the citizenship by reducing all inequalities to a minimum.[356] This he purposes to accomplish, not merely by the foregoing restrictions, but also by means of a common education,[357] and by the institution of the _sussitia_.[358] He makes the road to comparative equality easier than in his first state by relegating all the third class, the artisans, merchants, and farmers, outside the pale of citizenship.[359] The actual difference, however, is not so great as it might appear. In the _Republic_ there is equality in the upper class, while in the _Laws_ there is comparative equality among the citizens who comprise only the upper class. In neither case is there a real equality in the whole state. Plato is well aware that only approximate equality can be attained, and that differences not only in property, but also in birth, virtue, strength, and beauty, are bound to exist.[360] He would therefore have taxes and distributions unequal in the same ratio, so as to avoid dissatisfaction and dispute.[361] The difficulties incident to such a scheme of legislation he would obviate by starting a new state in virgin soil.[362]

Souchon[363] recognizes the Plato of the _Laws_ as a true socialist, and points to his attempt to prevent all inequality, and to his extreme state intervention as characteristic elements of socialism. Plato certainly does approach nearer to a real socialism in the _Laws_ than in the _Republic_. In addition to the points noted by Souchon, there may be observed the application of the system of equality to the whole citizenship, though at the cost of shutting out all the workers; the strong sense of the social function of property;[364] the practical denial of real private ownership of land; the demand for publicity in business, which is one of the chief suggestions for the regulation of corporations today;[365] the active interest in the conservation of natural resources, which, while not socialistic, lies in the direction of greater social control;[366] and the fact that distribution of the products of industry is made practically a function of the state.[367] The demand for equality and unity is also somewhat analogous to the modern socialistic hostility to competition, which Ruskin calls the “law of death.”[368] It may be added further that Plato’s description of the economic strife in his day is slightly suggestive of the criticism of capitalism by modern socialism.[369] However, the basal motive of Plato is, again, not that of modern socialism. His aim is still primarily moral and political rather than material,[370] and he exhibits less interest in the welfare of the laborers than he does in the _Republic_.[371] Moreover, his demand for equality is prompted by exactly the same motive as was active in the _Republic_, not to ameliorate the condition of the laborer, whom he has relegated to slavery, but to avoid the hated civic discord (διάστασις) and to preserve the unity of the state.[372] The equality too, is in no sense analogous to that sought by modern socialism, for, as seen above, it is merely equality within a class, comprising the aristocratic minority of the state, and does not touch the working masses at all.[373] In fine then, though there are perhaps enough truly socialistic elements in the _Laws_ to warrant the classification of Souchon, yet if Plato’s ideal were realized, it would be mainly a restoration of the old economic régime in Greece, based on agriculture and the family tenure of property. Such an ideal, modern socialists would doubtless fail to recognize as having much in common with their own.[374]

Footnote 68:

To judge by Xen. _Mem._, this might have been said of Socrates had he
been a writer.

Footnote 69:

Robin (_Platon et la science sociale_, p. 239) makes him the
forerunner of the triple division of economics—production, exchange,
distribution—but this is hardly warranted.

Footnote 70:

_Rep._ 369 B-C.

Footnote 71:

_Pol._ i. chap. 2. But in the _Laws_, Plato’s theory of origins is
more social, tracing society back to clan and family.

Footnote 72:

Cf. _Laws_ 889 D-E, 709 B-D, and Robin, _op. cit._, pp. 224 f.; also
the entire argument of the _Republic_ on justice.

Footnote 73:

_Laws_ 921B. The word is ἀξία.

Footnote 74:

_Ibid._: γιγνώσκει γὰρ ὅγε δημιουργὸς τὴν ἀξίαν.

Footnote 75:

Cf. p. 15, n. 7 above.

Footnote 76:

_Euthydemus_ 280B-E, 281B, D, 288E-289A; _Meno_ 88D-E.

Footnote 77:

_Unto This Last_, IV, 62: “Useful articles that we can use”; 64:
“Wealth is the possession of the valuable by the valiant” (Vol. XVII,
86 ff.); _Fors Clavigera_, Letter 70 (Vol. XXVIII, 712 ff.); _Munera
Pulveris_, I, 14 (Vol. XVII, 154); II, 35 (Vol. XVII, 166 f.). Plato’s
economic ideas greatly influenced Ruskin. Cf. _infra_, p. 149, n. 2.
Cf. also Vol. XXXVIII, 112; XXXIX, 411, of Ruskin. He says, in the
preface to _Unto This Last_ (Vols. XVII, XVIII), that his “real
purpose is to give ... a logical definition of wealth,” which has
“often been given incidentally in good Greek by Plato and Xenophon.”
Cf. _ibid._, n. 1, for other such references.

Footnote 78:

_Ibid._

Footnote 79:

Cf. above note and _Mun. Pul._, II, 30, notes; _Fors Clav._, Letter
70, 3 (Vol. XXVII, 713), the “good things.”

Footnote 80:

_Fors Clav._, Lett. 70, 8 f. (Vol. XXVIII, 718 ff.), where he refers
to Plato’s _Laws_ 727A.

Footnote 81:

Cf. _infra_ for citations.

Footnote 82:

Cf. p. 23 and notes.

Footnote 83:

_Laws_ 697B, 631C, 728A, 870B; _Apol._ 29D-E.

Footnote 84:

_Apol._ 30B; also _Laws_ 743E; _Gorg._ 451E; cf. Ruskin, _Fors Clav._,
Lett. 70, 6 and 11 (Vol. XXVIII, 717), where he cites _Laws_ 726-728A,
on the value of the soul. He also cites _Laws_ 742-743 and _Rep._ 416E
(cf. _Mun. Pul._ [Vol. XVII, 89, 148]).

Footnote 85:

_Laws_ 743E.

Footnote 86:

831C-D. Ruskin (_Crown of Wild Olive_, 83, Vol. XVIII, 456 f.) cites
_Critias_ 120E ff., in urging the same idea. He also cites Plato’s
myth of the metals, _Rep._ 416E, in similar vein (_Mun. Pul._, III,
89, Vol. XVII, 211).

Footnote 87:

631C cited by Ruskin, _Mun. Pul._, III, 88 (Vol. XVII, 210).

Footnote 88:

661A, 661B; _Rep._ 331A-B.

Footnote 89:

_Laws_ 661B; _Hipp. Maj._ 290D; _Menex._ 246E.

Footnote 90:

_Mun. Pul._, II, 35 ff.; he refers to both Xenophon and Plato as being
right on this point. Cf. _Fors. Clav._, I, 8 (Vol. XXVII, 122); _Unto
This Last_, 64 (Vol. XVII, 89).

Footnote 91:

_Rep._ 550D, 373D: ἐὰν καὶ ἐκεῖνοι ἀφῶσιν αὑτοὺς ἐπὶ χρημάτων κτῆσιν
ἄπειρον ὑπερβάντες τὸν τῶν ἀναγκαίων ὄρον. On ἄπειρος cf. _infra_
under Aristotle. Cf. Dobbs, _op. cit._, pp. 202 f. and note, on the
evil results of excessive wealth and poverty in the Greece of that
age. Like Ruskin, _Mun. Pul._, VI, 153 and note (Vol. XVII, 277), who
cites _Laws_ 736E; _Aratra Pentelici_, IV, 138 (Vol. XX, 295 f.) on
money as the root of all evil, citing _Laws_ 705B.

Footnote 92:

_Laws_ 729A.

Footnote 93:

742D.

Footnote 94:

_Rep._ 421D.

Footnote 95:

_Laws_ 742E, especially πλουσίους δ᾽ αὒ σφόδρα καὶ ἀγαθοὺς ἀδύνατον.
For the modern application of this doctrine, cf. _infra_; cf. also
743A, C; _Rep._ 550E, 551A.

Footnote 96:

_Rep._ 422; cf. 372E ff. on the φλεγμαίνουσα state.

Footnote 97:

373E; _Phaedo_ 66C. Compare the modern doctrine that lasting peace is
impossible under the present economic system.

Footnote 98:

_Laws_ 744D: διάστασις; also a basal idea of the _Republic_.

Footnote 99:

This is the spirit of the _Republic_ throughout, but cf. especially
369C-374D, and p. 25, n. 7.

Footnote 100:

_Laws_ 736E: καὶ πενίαν ἡγουμένους εἶναι μὴ τὸ τὴν οὐσίαν ἐλάττω
ποιεῖν, ἀλλὸ τὸ τὴν ἀπληστίαν πλείω. Cf. _infra_ on Xenophon for
similar ideas. Carlyle, _Sartor Resartus_, chapter on “Everlasting
Yea”: “The fraction of life can be increased in value not so much by
increasing your numerator as by lessening your denominator.” Ruskin,
_Time and Tide_, II, 5 ff. (Vol. XVII, 319 ff.); cf. 320, n. 1, for
other references. Thoreau: “A man is wealthy in proportion to the
number of things he can let alone”—an overemphasized truth.

Footnote 101:

So Socrates (_Apol._ 41E, 29D-E) and Jesus (Matt. 6:33).

Footnote 102:

_Laws_ 634A.

Footnote 103:

_Rep._ 329E-330A, 330D-331B; cf. also the prayer of _Phaedrus_ 279C:
τὸ δὲ χρυσοῦ πλῆθος εἴη μοι ὅσον μήτε ἅγειν δύναιτ᾽ ἄλλος ἢ ὁ σώφρων;
_Laws_ 679B; _Gorg._ 477E: τίς οὖν τέχνη πενίας ἀππαλλάττει; οὐ
χρηματιστική; cf. also 452C.

Footnote 104:

Cf. preceding notes; also _Rep._ 421D-E; _Laws_ 744D.

Footnote 105:

Bonar (_Philosophy and Political Economy_, pp. 13 f.) criticizes
_Rep._ 400-402 for not seeing that unlimited wealth is necessary for
the realization of the highest art and beauty.

Footnote 106:

Plato also emphasizes this, _Laws_ 743E, 870B: οὐ χρὴ πλουτεῖν ζητεῖν
τὸν εὐδαίμονα ἐσόμενον, ἀλλὰ δικαίως πλουτεῖν καὶ σωφρόνως; 660E;
though he implies that unlimited wealth is necessarily evil.

Footnote 107:

_Rep._ 552B-D; cf. Robin, _op. cit._, p. 243, n. 1, on κηφήν.

Footnote 108:

In _Mun. Pul._, III, 91 (Vol. XVII, 213), he makes Circe’s swine a
type of false consumption; cf. _Fors Clav._, Letter 38 (Vol. XXVIII,
30 ff.); _Mun. Pul._, Pref., 16 (Vol. XVII, 139 f.); _Queen of the
Air_, III, 124 ff. (Vol. XIX, 404 ff.); _Pol. Econ. of Art_, I, 48 ff.
(Vol. XVI, 47 ff.); _Unto This Last_, IV, 76 (Vol. XVII, 102); Mill
also attacked this idea.

Footnote 109:

_Unto This Last_, II, 40 (Vol. XVII, 56); cf. also _Mun. Pul._, II, 54
(Vol. XVII, 178 f.).

Footnote 110:

Discussed above.

Footnote 111:

Cf. _Pol._ 281D-283A, for an excellent description of the weaving
industry; also _Crat._ 388C ff.; _Phileb._ 56B, on carpentry.

Footnote 112:

_Pol._ 287D-289B; cf. Espinas, _op. cit._, pp. 35 f.; “L’Art économie
dans Platon,” _Revue des Etudes Grecques_, XXVII (1914), 106 ff.

Footnote 113:

_Pol._ 281D-E; cf. also _Phaedo_ 99A-B; _Phileb._ 27A; _Timaeus_
46C-D.

Footnote 114:

_Sophist._ 219A-D. Bonar’s (_op. cit._, p. 20) criticism of this on
the ground that learning may produce something new, while the arts may
merely change the shape of things, takes Plato too seriously. We have
here only a characteristic Platonic generalization. Cf. Shorey, _Unity
of Plato’s Thought_ (1903), p. 64, n. 500, on the foregoing passages
from _Sophist._ and _Pol._; cf. Robin, _op. cit._, pp. 231 f.

Footnote 115:

_Rep._ 371C.

Footnote 116:

_Laws_ 918B-C, especially πῶς γὰρ οὐκ εὐεργέτης πᾶς ὃς ἂν οὐσίαν
χρημάτων ὡντινωνοῦν, ἀσύμμετρον οὔσαν καὶ ἀνώμαλον, ὁμαλήν τε καὶ
σύμμετρον ἀπεργάζεται.

Footnote 117:

Cf. DuBois, _Precis de l’histoire des doctrines économiques dans leurs
rapports avec les faits et avec les institutions_, pp. 45-47,
comparing Plato and Aristotle on this point. _Laws_ 743D and Plato’s
attitude on agriculture (cf. _infra_) might seem to point the other
way. Cf. _infra_, p. 41, nn. 7-10. Espinas (_Revue des études
Grecques_, XXVII [1914], 247, n. 1) is extreme in calling him a
physiocrat. The term would more nearly apply to Aristotle.

Footnote 118:

Ar. (_Pol._ vi [iv]. 1291_a_12-19) so interprets him, because he finds
the origin of the state in physical needs (_Rep._ 369C ff.), but this
is a carping criticism. Blanqui is hardly fair to Plato on this point
(_Histoire de l’économie politique en Europe_, p. 88). Cf. above, p.
22, n. 4, on Plato’s other theory of origins.

Footnote 119:

_Pol._ 279C.

Footnote 120:

Cf. _infra_ and Poehlmann, _op. cit._, I, 574.

Footnote 121:

As we shall see, the third reason has been exaggerated for the
philosophers. On the favorable attitude to labor at Athens, cf. V.
Brants, _Revue de l’instruction publique in Belg._, XXVI (1883), 108
f., 100 f.; he distinguishes between the _doctrine philosophique_ and
the _doctrine politique_. So also Guiraud, _La main-d’œuvre
industrielle dans l’ancienne Grèce_ (1900), pp. 36-50; Zimmern, _op.
cit._, pp. 382 ff., 256-72. For the older view of general prejudice
against free labor in Greece, cf. Drumann, _Arbeiter und Communisten
in Griechenland u. Rom_ (1860), pp. 24 ff. Francotte (_L’Industrie_)
takes the more conservative position. Cf. _infra_ for further notice
of this problem.

Footnote 122:

Hesiod _Erga_; _Theog._ 969-975, though even here it is opposed to
commerce.

Footnote 123:

_Laws_ 743D, but he would even limit this, so that it may not become a
sordid occupation.

Footnote 124:

_Laws_ 760E-761C, 763D. Ruskin cites this in _Fors Clav._; cf. Vol.
XXIX, 546.

Footnote 125:

Cf. pp. 19 f., and notes; cf. also p. 106, n. 1. The extensive
commerce of Athens necessitated the presence of a comparatively large
amount of money capital, and a large amount was also invested in
slaves. For further notice, cf. _infra_, p. 68, nn. 8 ff., on the
terms.

Footnote 126:

But cf. _Laws_ 742C (κεφάλαιον), and _infra_, under Xenophon, on the
terms for capital.

Footnote 127:

Cf. _Rep._ 552B, and p. 27. Kautz (_op. cit._, p. 119) overemphasizes
this; cf. Souchon, _op. cit._, p. 91, n. 2, who observes, however,
that Plato, by his insistence upon collectivism in landed property
implies that “la terre est toujours un capital, et que la fortune
mobilière ne l’est jamais.”

Footnote 128:

Cf. _infra_ on money.

Footnote 129:

On the general attitude toward labor in Athens, cf. p. 30, n. 4. On
Plato’s regard for the laborer, cf. _infra_, under distribution.

Footnote 130:

_Rep._ 590C, but only for him whose higher nature (τὸ τοῦ βελτίστου
εἴδος) is naturally weak, though the implication is that this is
characteristic of the artisans. Cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, II, 49 f.

Footnote 131:

_Laws_ 842D, 806D-E, 741E, 846D, 919D.

Footnote 132:

847A.

Footnote 133:

743D.

Footnote 134:

_Charm._ 163A-C.

Footnote 135:

_Gorg._ 517D-518E.

Footnote 136:

292E, 289E-290A.

Footnote 137:

_Ibid._ 300E.

Footnote 138:

Cf. _Rep._ 371C for a contrast in his attitude toward the two; cf.
Bonar, _op. cit._, pp. 21 f.

Footnote 139:

_Laws_ 846D, 847A. Ruskin (_Fors Clav._, Letter 82, 34 [Vol. XXIX, 253
f.]) contrasts the fevered leisure that results from extreme
money-making with the true leisure, citing _Laws_ 831.

Footnote 140:

_Laws_ 743D. The aristocratic Greek feeling of independence against
selling one’s powers to another, and the fact of the frank acceptance
of slavery, by most contemporary thinkers, as the natural order, also
exerted some unconscious influence.

Footnote 141:

Cf. _infra_ for citations from Zeller, and Poehlmann’s able, but
somewhat extreme, defense of Plato (_op. cit._, II, 36 ff.). He cites
Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_, V, I, Pt. 2, art. 2, in similar vein
to Plato, on the ill-effects of mechanical labor, despite his
undoubted interest in the industrial arts.

Footnote 142:

Francotte, _L’Industrie_, I, 246, in reference to the _Laws_.

Footnote 143:

_Op. cit._, p. 26, n. 2.

Footnote 144:

Eisenhart (_Geschichte der Nationalökonomie_, p. 5) also says that
Plato calls “Volkswirtschaft gerade zu den Staat der Schweine.”
Dietzel (“Beiträge zur Geschichte des Socialismus und des
Kommunismus,” _Zeitschrift für Literatur und Geschichte der
Staatswissenschaften_, p. 397, n. 1) criticizes both the foregoing.

Footnote 145:

_Sympos._ 209A; _Phileb._ 56C.

Footnote 146:

_Protag._ 321E.

Footnote 147:

_Rep._ 420E, 421C; _Laws_ 779A, 807A-E, 808C. The passages in the
_Laws_ apply particularly to the work of the soldier and the citizen.
Cf. Ruskin, _Unto This Last_, I, 22 (Vol. XVII, 40) for a similar idea
that the function of the laborer is not primarily to draw his pay, but
to do his work well.

Footnote 148:

_Rep._ 433A.

Footnote 149:

_Rep._ 552A, C, 564E; cf. _Laws_ 901A, where he refers to the passage
in Hesiod’s _Erga_ 304: κηφηνέσσι κοθούροις. Cf. p. 27, n. 1, above.
Poehlmann (_op. cit._, II, 87 f.) points to Plato’s demand that woman
be freed, so that the total number of free workers may be increased,
but Plato is thinking only of the ruling class.

Footnote 150:

_Laws_ 918B-919C, referring to retail trade; but if he could admit it
for this, he surely could for the industries. Cf. Aristotle’s passage
on liberal and illiberal work (_Pol._ 1337_b_5-22).

Footnote 151:

_Mun. Pul._, V, 105 and note (Vol. XVII, 234 f.), where he refers to
Plato’s diminutive, ἄνθρωπίσκοι, as applied to laborers (_Rep._ 495C;
_Laws_ 741E); _Time and Tide_, 103 (Vol. XVII, 402), 127 (p. 423 and
note); _Crown of Wild Olive_, 2 (Vol. XVIII, 388), on the furnace;
_Lectures on Art_, IV, 123 (Vol. XX, 113); on the evil effects of arts
needing fire, as iron-working, where Xen. _Econ._ iv. 2, 3 is cited.
He makes frequent reference to the Greek attitude, e.g., Vol. XVIII,
241, 461, and above. But he was not absolutely opposed to machinery;
cf. _Cestus Aglaia_, 33 for what is called the finest eulogy of a
machine in English literature. He even anticipated the great future
mechanical development (_Mun. Pul._, 17).

Footnote 152:

_Stones of Venice_ (Vol. X, 201); cf. also IV, 6 (Vol. XI, 202 f.),
where he cites Plato _Alc._ I. 129.

Footnote 153:

_Fors. Clav._, VII, 9 (Vol. XIX, 230).

Footnote 154:

Cf. Vol. XXVII, Intro., p. lxv.

Footnote 155:

_Rep._ 370A-C and many other passages. Cf. _infra_; _Laws_ 846E-847A.
Cf. _infra_ on the unfair interpretation of _Rep._ 421A by Zeller and
others. Plato implies by the passage merely that specialization is
more important for the statesman than for the cobbler (421C).

Footnote 156:

_Rep._ 369C. Adam Smith makes this the basal fact of exchange (_Wealth
of Nations_, I, ii).

Footnote 157:

_Rep._ 370C: πλείω τε ἕκαστα γίγνεται καὶ κάλλιον καὶ ρᾷον, ὅταν ἑἶς
ἓν κατὰ φύσιν, καὶ ἐν καιρῷ σχολὴν τῶν ἄλλων ἄγων, πράττῃ. He first
states the principle less plausibly as a literary device, _Rep._ 369C;
cf. 433A.

Footnote 158:

_Rep._ 370C, B.

Footnote 159:

_Op. cit._, I, chap. ii.

Footnote 160:

So Herbert Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_ (1900), III, 342-49. Cf.
also Ruskin, _Fors Clav._, IV, 15 (Vol. XXVIII, 160).

Footnote 161:

_Rep._ 370B-C, 374B-E.

Footnote 162:

_Op. cit._, I, chap. 1. Plato implies the increase in wealth. Haney
(_op. cit._, p. 41) observes that Plato thought especially of the
advantages of division of labor to the state, rather than to the
individual. Cf. further _Wealth of Nations_, II, Intro.

Footnote 163:

_Rep._ 370C-371B; cf. DuBois, _op. cit._, p. 37.

Footnote 164:

_Rep._ 370C-D.

Footnote 165:

371C.

Footnote 166:

371B; _Laws_ 918B.

Footnote 167:

_Rep._ 370E-371A. In the _Laws_, he does not extend the principle to
international trade. Cf. Bonar, _op. cit._, p. 17.

Footnote 168:

Poehlmann (_op. cit._, II, 185 f.) notes a contradiction between
Plato’s insistence upon the division of labor and his desire for the
simple life. But the philosopher is aware of this, and knows that the
simpler ideal is impossible. Cf. V. Brants, _Revue de l’instr. pub. en
Belg._, XXVI (1883), 102-4, on the fact of the extensive division of
labor in Athenian industry.

Footnote 169:

δεμιουργοὺς ἐλευθερίας; _Rep._ 395C, 434A-D; cf. also 420B-421B. In
the _Laws_, the artisans and traders are non-citizens (846D, 847A,
918B-C), not because of prejudice primarily, but for the sake of
better government.

Footnote 170:

_Rep._ 374B-E.

Footnote 171:

395A-B; cf. Adam’s note to 395A, explaining _Sympos._ 223D, where
Plato asserts the opposite. He thinks Plato is speaking ideally in the
_Republic_ passage, but here of the actual fact. But cf. Shorey,
_Unity_, etc., p. 78, n. 597.

Footnote 172:

_Rep._ 433A-B, D, 434A-D, 432A, 443-444A, 396D-E; _Charm._ 161E. In
his broad application of the law, he has advanced beyond Adam Smith.
Cf. Souchon, _op. cit._, p. 81 and n. 2.

Footnote 173:

_Rep._ 397E-398A.

Footnote 174:

443C-D; cf. Nettleship _Lectures on the Republic of Plato_, p. 71.

Footnote 175:

Oncken observes (_Geschichte der Nationalökonomie_, pp. 34-36) that
while Smith drew from the law the idea of freedom of trade and
industry, Plato inferred the strictest subordination of these to the
will of the state, and that he also based the caste system on the
principle. For the alleged caste system, cf. Souchon, _op. cit._, p.
82, and infra, under distribution. Aristotle’s state implies even a
more rigid separation of the capable few. On Plato’s insight into
economic principles, cf. Robin, _op. cit._, pp. 229 ff. He criticizes
Guiraud for belittling the value of Plato’s social ideas, and urges
that he should be judged, not by the worth of his proposed remedies,
but by his scientific insight (p. 252).

Footnote 176:

_Rep._ 395A-B; 374E, 395B; εἰς σμικρότερα κατακερματίσθαι.

Footnote 177:

_Apol._ 21C-22E; cf. _Rep._ 495D-E, though it applies rather to the
evil effects of the banausic life. Cf. Bonar, _op. cit._, p. 16.
Ruskin (_Stones of Venice_, VI, 16 [Vol. X, 196]), says: It is “not
the labor that is divided but the men—divided into segments of men.”
It stunts their faculties.

Footnote 178:

_Rep._ 552A.

Footnote 179:

396C-373E; cf. Bonar, _op. cit._, p. 27.

Footnote 180:

579D.

Footnote 181:

Cf. Zimmern, _op. cit._, p. 389, note; _Laws_ 777B: δῆλον ὡς ἐπειδὴ
δύσκολόν ἐστι τὸ θρέμμα ἄνθρωπος καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀναγκαίαν διόρισιν, τὸ
δοῦλόν τε ἔργῳ διορίζεσθαι καὶ ἐλεύθερον καὶ δεσπότην οὐδαμῶς
εὕχρηστον ἐθέλει εἶναι τε καὶ γίγνεσθαι. On his alleged caste system,
cf. above, n. 2, and _infra_.

Footnote 182:

_Rep_. 469C; cf. _Pol._ 309A.

Footnote 183:

_Laws_ 806D. For Ruskin on slavery, cf. _infra_ on Aristotle.

Footnote 184:

_Laws_ 776D-777E. Espinas (_Revue des Etudes Grecques_, XXVII [1914],
256) observes that Plato adopts the mean between the two extremes in
his attitude to slaves.

Footnote 185:

Cf. Xen. _Ath. Pol._ i. 10-12 on the easy life of slaves in Athens,
and Zimmern, _op. cit._, pp. 382 f., who points out that this resulted
from economic necessity. Cf. 777C-D; _cf._ _Rep._ 578D-579A on the
dangers and troubles arising from extensive slave-holding.

Footnote 186:

Laws 915A ff., another striking evidence of the actual status of
freedmen and slaves in Athens.

Footnote 187:

Rep. 371B. The word is νόμισμα, something established by usage, hence
“current coin,” not necessarily suggestive of intrinsic worth, as are
χρήματα and the metals. Cf. Ar. _Clouds_ 248 for a play on the word,
θεοὶ ἡμῖν νόμισμ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι. Cf. the simile, _Frogs_ 720, and _Phaedo_
69A, for an analogy between it and wisdom.

Footnote 188:

Rep. 371B: ξύμβολον τῆς ἀλλαγῆς.

Footnote 189:

_Fors Clav._, IV, 11, note (Vol. XXVIII, 134 f.); cf. also Vol. XVII,
50, 194 f.

Footnote 190:

742A-B: νόμισμα δ᾽ ἕνεκα ἀλλαγῆς; 918B: ἐξευπορεῖν καὶ ὁμαλότητα ταῖς
οὐσίαις, referring directly to traders.

Footnote 191:

_Laws_ 918B.

Footnote 192:

_Rep._ 553E; for Aristotle, cf. _infra_.

Footnote 193:

_Laws_ 743D.

Footnote 194:

849E.

Footnote 195:

742C, 915D-E; _Rep._ 556A-B; _Laws_ 850A.

Footnote 196:

921C, an obol per month.

Footnote 197:

_Rep._ 555E.

Footnote 198:

_Fors. Clav._, notes to Letter 43, 14 (Vol. XXVIII, 121 f.), notes to