Book I.. Footnote 274:

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. 1266b17-24.

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. 1267b31-33. Cf. Cornford’s visionary article (Class. Quart., VI , 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. 1267b33-36.

Footnote 295:

1268a34 ff.

Footnote 296:

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

Footnote 297:

Pol. ii. 7.

Footnote 298:

1266a37 f.

Footnote 299:

1266a40: φησὶ γὰρ δεῖν ἴσας εἶναι τὰς κτήσεις τῶν πολιτῶν; 1266b31-33, to be realized in an old state, partly by allowing only the rich to give dowries and only the poor to receive them; 1266b2-4.

Footnote 300:

Ar. (1267b10) criticizes him for this.

Footnote 301:

1267b15; cf. Poehlmann, op. cit., II, 7 f.

Footnote 302:

1266a37 f.; 1267a1 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 (1264a33) 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 , 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: