Chapter VII: Book I: Footnote 274

_Rep._ 421A, cited by Zeller, _op. cit._, II, 1, 907, as evidence of
this, states merely that it is more important that there be efficient
rulers than efficient cobblers. Cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, II, 36-108,
a masterly defense of the _Republic_ on this point, criticizing both
Zeller and Gomperz. He errs on the other side, however, as e.g., p.
96, where he infers from _Rep._ 462C that Plato intended his communism
to apply to the whole people.

Footnote 275:

416A-B, 417B.

Footnote 276:

415A, introducing the alleged aristocratic myth.

Footnote 277:

463B, 417B, 416A, 547C.

Footnote 278:

431E-432A, 443E, 423D.

Footnote 279:

421C-E, cited on p. 48, n. 8. Cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, II, 91.

Footnote 280:

590C.

Footnote 281:

431D-E, 434C.

Footnote 282:

378B, E, 377B, insisting upon proper stories for all children;
915E-520A, implying that the artisans shall share in all benefits of
the state up to their capacity.

Footnote 283:

643B-C.

Footnote 284:

847B, 921C-D.

Footnote 285:

936B-C.

Footnote 286:

Mill is an exception, but despite his thoroughgoing definitions of
economics.

Footnote 287:

Cf. Ar. _Pol._ ii. 1266_b_17-24.

Footnote 288:

On the Spartan system, cf. Guiraud, _La Prop. fonc._, pp. 41 f.;
Poehlmann, _op. cit._, I, 75-98, both of whom oppose the more extreme
theory of communism in Sparta.

Footnote 289:

On this general subject, cf. Guiraud, _La Prop. fonc._, 573 f.; cf. S.
Cognetti de Martiis, _Socialismo Antico_ (1889), pp. 515-17, on
socialistic tendencies in Greek constitutions and politics.

Footnote 290:

E.g., Esmein, _Nouvelle Revue historique_, 1890, pp. 821 ff. For a
refutation, cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, 1st ed., pp. 20 ff.; Guiraud,
_op. cit._, p. 37; Souchon, _op. cit._, pp. 135 f.

Footnote 291:

For a refutation of the common error, cf. Zeller, _op. cit._, I, 1,
317, n. 1, and 318, n. 2; Guiraud, _op. cit._, pp. 574 f. and 7-11;
Souchon, _op. cit._, pp. 136-39 and notes. The earliest witnesses for
Pythagorean communism, Epicurus, in Diog. L. x. 2, and Timaeus of
Tauromenium, _ibid._, viii. 10 are remote from his time and
untrustworthy. The later writers (Diog. L. viii. 10; Aul. Gell. i. 9.
12; Hippolytus _Refut._ i. 2. 12; Porphyry _Vit. Pyth._ 20; Jamblichus
_De Pyth. vit._ 30, 72, 168, 257, etc.; Photius, under κοινά) quoted,
and made the tradition general. The older writers know nothing of the
tradition. Moreover, some passages give evidence of private property
among the Pythagoreans (Diog. L. viii. 1. 15, 39). The origin of the
tradition has been plausibly assigned to a misunderstanding of the
proverb κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων and to the doctrine of moral helpfulness
among the Pythagoreans. S. Cognetti de Martiis (_op. cit._, pp.
459ff.) calls it _socialismo cenobito_.

Footnote 292:

_Pol._ ii. 8. Hippodamas the Pythagorean, cited by _Stob. Flor._ xliii
(xli). 92 f., should not be confused with him. The former wrote in the
Dorian dialect, and differs materially in his ideas. His three classes
are rulers, soldiers, and all laborers, including merchants and
farmers. He says nothing of the division of the land or who shall own
it, but provides that the third class furnish a living to the rest.
But cf. Robin, _op. cit._, p. 228, n. 1, who identifies them.

Footnote 293:

_Pol._ 1267_b_31-33. Cf. Cornford’s visionary article (_Class.
Quart._, VI [1912], 246 ff.), in which he seeks to prove that the
tripartite psychology of Plato’s _Republic_ is an inference from this
triple division of society. Cf. a similar idea of Pohlenz, _Aus Platos
Werdezeit_ (1913), pp. 229 ff.

Footnote 294:

ii. 8. 1267_b_33-36.

Footnote 295:

1268_a_34 ff.

Footnote 296:

So Souchon, _op. cit._, p. 141, who makes him an individualist.

Footnote 297:

_Pol._ ii. 7.

Footnote 298:

1266_a_37 f.

Footnote 299:

1266_a_40: φησὶ γὰρ δεῖν ἴσας εἶναι τὰς κτήσεις τῶν πολιτῶν;
1266_b_31-33, to be realized in an old state, partly by allowing only
the rich to give dowries and only the poor to receive them;
1266_b_2-4.

Footnote 300:

Ar. (1267_b_10) criticizes him for this.

Footnote 301:

1267_b_15; cf. Poehlmann, _op. cit._, II, 7 f.

Footnote 302:

1266_a_37 f.; 1267_a_1 f. Aristotle’s account of these writers, as of
Plato, is incomplete and unsatisfactory.

Footnote 303:

_Rep._ 415A; cf. above, pp. 48 ff. on this and the following note.

Footnote 304:

420B-C.

Footnote 305:

416D-E, 458C; cf. also _Critias_ 112B-C, where common houses, common
meals, and the prohibition of gold and silver are presented as an
ideal.

Footnote 306:

457D.

Footnote 307:

462B-C.

Footnote 308:

451D-455D. Poehlmann points to this doctrine of the _Ebenbürtigkeit_
of women as an advanced ground even for Christianity.

Footnote 309:

451E.

Footnote 310:

Guiraud (_La Prop. fonc._, p. 578) distinguishes these elements in
Plato’s system, _Republic_ and _Laws_: exclusive right of property
vested in the state; use of land granted to a part of the citizens;
distribution of the product among all the citizens; obligation to
work, tempered by equality of service; inequality of classes, and
equality of men in each class; heredity of profession, corrected by
selection of talents.

Footnote 311:

Cf. pp. 48 f. and notes. Even Aristotle admits (1264_a_33) that Plato
makes his husbandmen absolute owners of their lots, on condition of
paying rental. The rulers alone (μόνοις) are to keep themselves from
silver or gold (417A). Cf. Book IV, beg.: οἶον ἄλλοι ἄγρούς τε
κεκτημένοι καὶ οἰκίας οἰκοδομούμενοι, etc.; 420A, 416D-E, 458C,
464B-D, where the community is applied to the guards only, and 464A-D,
where the same is true of family communism. Doubtless he would have
extended it farther, had he thought it feasible (462B-C), but
Poehlmann (_op. cit._, I, 569 f.; II, 96 f.) overemphasizes this
demand of Plato. Adler (_Geschichte des Socialismus und Kommunismus
von Plato bis zur Gegenwart_, p. 44), DuBois (_op. cit._, p. 40),
Oncken (_op. cit._, p. 34), Souchon (_op. cit._, 148); Malon (_op.
cit._, pp. 90 f.), Shorey (_Class. Phil._, October, 1914, art. on
“Plato’s Laws”) all agree with the foregoing conclusion. Francotte
(_L’Industrie_, II, 258 ff.) leaves the question open, but (261 f.)
observes that the third class is at least restrained from extremes of
wealth and poverty.

Footnote 312:

421D, 421E-422E.

Footnote 313:

_Ibid._, the fundamental idea of the _Republic_. L. Stein (_Sociale
Frage_, p. 164) rightly says: “Denn der Kommunismus Platons ist seinem
Schoepfer nicht Zweck, sondern blosses paedagogisches Mittel.”

Footnote 314:

415E-416A, 417B, 420D, 421A, 421C. He would also avoid vulgarization
of the rulers through trade (416E-417A).

Footnote 315:

421D.

Footnote 316:

Ruskin thinks that inequality of possessions, in itself, does not
necessarily mean either evil or good for a nation (_Unto This Last_,
II, 31 [Vol. XVII, 46 f.]); he argues that each is born with an
absolutely limited capacity, and calls the idea of natural equality of
men “radical blockheadism” (_Fors Clav._, VIII, Letter 95, 6 [Vol.
XXIX, 496]); cf. _Unto This Last_, III, 54 (Vol. XVII, 74); _Modern
Painters_, III, Pt. IV, chap. x, 22 (Vol. III, 189); _Seven Lamps of
Architecture_, IV, 28 (Vol. VIII, 167); _Fors Clav._, II, Letter 14, 4
and note (Vol. XXVII, 248); _Stones of Venice_, III, 4 (Vol. XI, 260),
all of which emphasize its impossibility. He strongly opposes
socialism, cf. above, and _Mun. Pul._, 21 (Vol. XVII, 144), though his
economic ideas contained essentially the germ of modern socialistic
doctrine.

Footnote 317:

Cf. his ironical criticism of democratic equality in Athens, 558C:
ἰσότητά τινα ὁμοίως ἴσοις τε καὶ ἀνίσοις διανέμουσα; _Laws_ 757B-D,
744B-C; cf. _infra_ for Aristotle’s idea. Cf. p. 61, n. 1 for further
notice of these passages.

Footnote 318:

Poehlmann (_op. cit._, I, 553, n. 3) is extreme in asserting that
Plato’s account of the growth of the proletariat, and the rise of
class struggles (Book VIII) contains “alle wesentlichen Züge des
Bildes, welches die moderne Plutokratie gewährt,” and (560), “Das
vierte Jahrhundert v. Chr. hat uns den Kampf vorgekämpft in welchem
wir selbst mittenhineinstehen.”

Footnote 319:

Pohlenz (_op. cit._, p. 240) makes his socialism a reaction against
the individualism of Pericles, but makes the extreme assertion: “Die
Grundlage auf der Plato seinen Idealstaat aufbaut, ist der strengste
Socialismus.”

Footnote 320:

Cf. p. 43, n. 10. He evidently recognizes his ideas on the family and
on the philosopher-king as utopian; cf. also 425D-E; but Poehlmann
(_op. cit._, II, 144-52) opposes this view. Cf. Shorey, _Class.
Phil._, October, 1914, pp. 357 f., on the idea of law in the _Laws_
and _Politics_.

Footnote 321:

When advocated, it has not been with the lofty motive of Plato.

Footnote 322:

Poehlmann ((_op. cit._, I, 579, 598) admits this. Guiraud (_La Prop.
fonc._, p. 594) points out that the analogy with modern socialism is
difficult, owing to the modern abolition of slavery, great extent of
states, and large increase in personal property.

Footnote 323:

So Souchon, (_op. cit._, pp. 145 ff.); Guiraud (_La Prop. fonc._, p.
638) well says: “Si ces derniers [modern socialists] reussissaient à
appliquer leurs projects, les sociétés qui sortiraient de leurs mains
n’auraient pas la moindre ressemblance avec la société hellenique.”
Cf. also _ibid_., p. 594, where he distinguishes between Plato and
modern socialists. Francotte (_L’Industrie_, II, 250, n. 1) makes the
_Republic_ essentially socialistic, though he admits that it has not
the modern aim (p. 255). Poehlmann (_op. cit._, II, 123-43) makes it a
“Koinzidenz der beiden Prinzipien” (p. 143). Wolf (_Gesch. d. Ant.
Kommun. u. Individ._, p. 96) distinguishes Plato’s two aims as a
strong community spirit, and a strong central authority, devoid of
selfish interest. Cf. S. Cognetti de Martiis, (_op. cit._, pp.
524-89), on the _Socialismo filosofico of the Republic_.

Footnote 324:

_Vierteljahrschrift f. Staats u. Volkswirtschaft_, I, 375 ff. Of
course Aristophanes may have caricatured Plato as he did Socrates in
the _Clouds_. However, since both were opposed to extreme
individualism, and since the comedy was written before the _Republic_,
it is improbable. But cf. Drumann, _Arbeiter u. Communisten in
Griechenland u. Rom_ (1860), pp. 133 f., who thinks the poet was
satirizing the oral discussions of Plato. Pohlenz (_op. cit._, pp.
223-28) argues for an earlier edition of the _Republic_, and states
that, though the comedy is not a direct satire on the _Republic_, yet
its numerous specific ideas and expressions that are similar to
Plato’s warrant the conclusion that the poet followed Plato. Cf. also
S. Cognetti de Martiis, (_op. cit._, pp. 541-61), on the relation of
the two.

Footnote 325:

434D-E, and the entire plan of the _Republic_. Cf. Poehlmann, (_op.
cit._, I, 527 ff.; also II, 210 f.), on Plato’s idea of a
pre-established harmony between individual and common good.

Footnote 326:

Poehlmann (_op. cit._, II, 205 ff.) suggests that this change resulted
from Plato’s experiences with Dionysius of Syracuse, but it may be
easily accounted for by the natural conservatism of age. Cf. Shorey,
_Class. Phil._, IX (1914), 353.

Footnote 327:

739D, 740A.

Footnote 328:

739C-E, 807B.

Footnote 329:

737E, 741C.

Footnote 330:

831C-D, though it refers to the love of wealth, 807B, 713E.

Footnote 331:

Cf. Guiraud (_La Prop. fonc._, pp. 582 f.); cf. _infra_ for details.

Footnote 332:

740-741A, 923A-B, a remarkable passage, which declares that they are
not full owners either of themselves or their property, but that they
belong to the whole race, past, present, and future (ξύμπαντος δέ τοῦ
γένους ὑμῶν τοῦ τε ἔμπροσθεν και τοῦ ἔπειτα ἐσομένου), and especially
to the state.

Footnote 333:

737E, 745C-E.

Footnote 334:

745C-E.

Footnote 335:

740B.

Footnote 336:

741B-C.

Footnote 337:

745A, 855A-B, 754E-755A, 744E.

Footnote 338:

740B, 923C. If the family is large, the women are to be married off,
and the men adopted by the childless (740C). Personal property may be
willed to the other children (923D); cf. also above, pp. 45 f. and
notes.

Footnote 339:

740C, 741B-D.

Footnote 340:

847E-848C.

Footnote 341:

741E.

Footnote 342:

847D, 919D.

Footnote 343:

846D, 847A, 919D.

Footnote 344:

806E.

Footnote 345:

920A; cf. above, on exchange.

Footnote 346:

849C.

Footnote 347:

Cf. p. 39 and notes.

Footnote 348:

Cf. p. 40 and notes.

Footnote 349:

742C.

Footnote 350:

Cf. p. 59 and notes.

Footnote 351:

744E. The entire wealth will thus vary from the bare lot to five times
its value. Cf. Jowett, _Dialogs of Plato_, 3d ed., V, 127, though the
division into four classes might mean that the highest was only four
times the lot value. Espinas (_Revue des Etudes Grecques_, XXVII
[1914], 237) accepts the former interpretation.

Footnote 352:

54D-E. The value of the lot was thus only a mina.

Footnote 353:

744E, 745A.

Footnote 354:

745A, 754D-E (which requires it only for the excess), 755A. Espinas
(_op. cit._, pp. 118 ff.) emphasizes the ascetic tendency of his
regulations.

Footnote 355:

729A ff., 919B, 936B-C, against beggars.

Footnote 356:

744B-E, and above notes.

Footnote 357: