Chapter 19

312.421D, 421E-422E.

313.Ibid., the fundamental idea of theRepublic. L. Stein (Sociale Frage, p. 164) rightly says: “Denn der Kommunismus Platons ist seinem Schoepfer nicht Zweck, sondern blosses paedagogisches Mittel.”

314.415E-416A, 417B, 420D, 421A, 421C. He would also avoid vulgarization of the rulers through trade (416E-417A).

315.421D.

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, andMun. Pul., 21 (Vol. XVII, 144), though his economic ideas contained essentially the germ of modern socialistic doctrine.

317.Cf. his ironical criticism of democratic equality in Athens, 558C: ἰσότητά τινα ὁμοίως ἴσοις τε καὶ ἀνίσοις διανέμουσα;Laws757B-D, 744B-C; cf.infrafor Aristotle’s idea. Cf. p.61, n. 1 for further notice of these passages.

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.”

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.”

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 theLawsandPolitics.

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

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.

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. alsoibid., p. 594, where he distinguishes between Plato and modern socialists. Francotte (L’Industrie, II, 250, n. 1) makes theRepublicessentially 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 theSocialismo filosofico of the Republic.

324.Vierteljahrschrift f. Staats u. Volkswirtschaft, I, 375 ff. Of course Aristophanes may have caricatured Plato as he did Socrates in theClouds. However, since both were opposed to extreme individualism, and since the comedy was written before theRepublic, 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 theRepublic, and states that, though the comedy is not a direct satire on theRepublic, 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.

325.434D-E, and the entire plan of theRepublic. 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.

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.

327.739D, 740A.

328.739C-E, 807B.

329.737E, 741C.

330.831C-D, though it refers to the love of wealth, 807B, 713E.

331.Cf. Guiraud (La Prop. fonc., pp. 582 f.); cf.infrafor details.

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.

333.737E, 745C-E.

334.745C-E.

335.740B.

336.741B-C.

337.745A, 855A-B, 754E-755A, 744E.

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.45f. and notes.

339.740C, 741B-D.

340.847E-848C.

341.741E.

342.847D, 919D.

343.846D, 847A, 919D.

344.806E.

345.920A; cf. above, on exchange.

346.849C.

347.Cf. p.39and notes.

348.Cf. p.40and notes.

349.742C.

350.Cf. p.59and notes.

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.

352.54D-E. The value of the lot was thus only a mina.

353.744E, 745A.

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.

355.729A ff., 919B, 936B-C, against beggars.

356.744B-E, and above notes.

357.Book VII.

358.780B; women and children separate, 806E; on its Cretan origin, 625E ff.

359.846D, 847A, D, 919D, 806E.

360.744B; cf. pp.55f. on equality; cf. 757B-D, contrasting the mere arithmetical equality (τὴν ἀριθμῷ ἴσην), which is easily realized, and the true equality, which is very difficult. This latter apportions to each in accord with his nature (πρὸς τὴν φύσιν αὐτῶν). The two are almost opposites (ἐναντιαῖν). Espinas (op. cit., p. 236) thinks that the division into property classes in theLawsis an attempt to realize this principle.

361.744B.

362.736C-D, 704.

363.Op. cit., p. 143; cf. also pp. 163-65, where he compares it to modern collectivism; cf. p. 162; also Poehlmann,op. cit., II, 295.

364.923A; cf. 877D, and much of the legislation on property, above.

365.Cf. pp.59f. and notes. The modern analogy is not close, yet in each case the aim is to prevent undue gains whereby the public is oppressed.

366.Cf. p.30, n. 3.

367.Cf. p.59and notes. The socialistic tendency to overemphasize the power of law is also strong here as in theRepublic. But cf. p.36, n. 4, andLaws807B, 746A-B, 747B.

368.Time and Tide, IX, 5-9. Modern Painters, V, Pt. 8, chap. i, 6 (Vol. VII, 207). Espinas (Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 246) calls this Platonic denial of “conflict of interest” in trade “le thème éternel de la chimère socialiste.”

369.Laws 626E: τὸ πολεμίους εἶναι πάντας πᾶσιν; cited by Poehlmann,op. cit., I, 557; but he exaggerates the analogy.

370.Cf. 742D-E, 743D-E, 729A, and the remarks on retail trade, 918B-919E, 870B; cf. also, above, on wealth.

371.As seen above, they are all slaves or strangers. A direct comparison is hardly possible, since in theRepublic, the masses are the majority of the citizens, while in theLaws, there are none.

372.744D; cf. Shorey,Class. Phil., IX (1914), 363: “Plato’s object, however, is not socialistic equalization of the ‘good things’ of life, but the enforced disinterestedness of the rulers, and the complete self-realization of every type of man, in limitation to his own proper sphere and task.”

373.Cf. pp.55and60, on equality; also note 4, above.

374.Francotte (L’Industrie, II, 250) suggests thatl’étatisme, “nationalism,” would be a more applicable term for theLaws. He distinguishes this from socialism, as being not so thoroughgoing a limitation of the individual as is the “socialism” of theRepublic. Cf. Shorey,Class. Phil., IX (1914), 358, on the famous “communistic” passage inLaws739C: ὄντως ἐστὶ κοινὰ τὰ φίλων, etc. He calls it a “rhetorical exaltation of that ideal unity of civic feeling, which Demosthenes upbraids Aeschines for not sharing.” For further communistic ideas of Plato, cf. his incomplete romantic story of Atlantis in theCritias. The ideal is similar to that of the larger works. Cf. Poehlmann,op. cit., II, 348 ff.

375.We shall not try to distinguish between the actual ideas of Xenophon and those which he reports objectively as Socratic.

376.On the Xenophontine authorship of theRevenues, cf. Croiset,op. cit., IV, 393 and notes; Christ,Griechische Literatur-Geschichte, 4th ed., pp. 367 f. and notes. Other authorities are cited there.

377.The οἰκονομικός, at least, the first extant, devoted to private economy, and especially agriculture, but revealing practical interest in the details of the production of wealth. Cf.infrafor further discussion ofEconomicain Greek literature.

378.For some qualifications, cf. above,Introduction.

379.Econ.i. 2: οἰκονόμου ἀγοθοῦ εἶναι οἰκεῖν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ οἶκον; cf. 3: τὸν ἄλλου δὲ οἶκον. οἶκον is used of one’s entire property (5).

380.Mem.iii. 4. 6; cf. further above, p.9, n. 4. Cf. Ruskin,Pol. Econ. of Art, I, 12: “Precisely the same laws of economy, which apply to the cultivation of a farm or an estate, apply to the cultivation of a province or an island.” Cf. the story in Hdt. v. 29 on this idea. Espinas (Revue des Etudes Grecques, XXVII [1914], 111) contrasts Xenophon, to whom the royal administration is a greatly expanded private economy, with Plato’s absorption of all private economy by the state.

381.Econ.i. 7-15; cf. 10: ταύτα ἄρα ὄντα τῷ μὲν ἐπισταμένῳ χρῆσθαι αὐτῶν ἑκάστοισ χρήματα ἐστι, τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐπισταμένῳ οὐ χρήματα. Cf. p. 23 and notes on Plato and Ruskin. H. Sewall (“Theory of Value before Adam Smith,”Publications of the American Economic Association, II, Part III, p. 1) says that the conception of value (ἀξία) as a quality inherent in the thing was not questioned, but Xenophon seems to question it here. As she observes, n. 1, the term originally meant “weight,” at first weight in money, as well as actual worth.

382.i. 11 f.

383.Unto This Last, beginning; cf. preceding n. 1; Ruskin tookXen. Econ.as the foundation on which he built all his own economic studies. Cf.Unto This Last, Pref., Vol. XVII, pp. xlix and 18; Vol. XXXI, Introd.; pp. xv ff. It was the first in hisBib. Pastorum. Cf. his Preface to his translation of theEconomicus;Arrows of the Chace, Vol. XXXIV, 547;Letters, II (Vol. XXXVII, 350). InMun. Pul., IV, 105 (Vol. XVII, 230); also on pp. 288 and 88, he refers to Xenophon’s “faultless” definition of wealth, citingMem.ii. 3. 7. Cf. also Vol. XXXI, pp. xvii and 27. Fontpertuis (“Filiation des idées économiques dans l’antiquité,”Jour. des écon., September, 1871, p. 361) thinks this is at bottom the true theory of value.

384.Econ.i. 2: ἀποδιδομένοις μὲν οἱ αὐλοὶ χρήματα, μὴ αποδιδομένοις δὲ ἀλλὰ κεκτημένοις οὔ, τοῖς μὴ ἐπισταμένοις αὐτοῖς χρῆσθαι. Brants (Xen. Econ., p. 8) overemphasizes this.

385.Rev.iv. 6-10, a remarkable passage, though he fails to include silver in the law. Cf. Kautz,op. cit., p. 129; Kaulla,Die geschichtliche Entwickelung der modernen Werttheorien, p. 2.

386.Especially in the story of Isomachus (Econ.), and theRevenues.

387.Cf.infra; also Espinas,Histoire des doctrines economiques, p. 20.

388.Econ.vi. 4; cf. i. 7 ff., cited above, p.64, n. 1.

389.P.64and notes. Büchsenschütz (Besitz und Erwerb, p. 15) criticizes it as too broad, including spiritual goods; too narrow, including only what one can use.

390.InEcon.ii. 2-8, Socrates’ comparison of himself with the wealthy Critoboulos;Hieroiv. 6-10;Mem.iv. 2. 37 f.; i. 6. 1-10, where Socrates defends his own simple life, especially 10: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐνόμιζον τὸ μὲν μηδενὸς δεῖσθαι θεῖον εἶναι. If meant in the economic sense, this would approach a definition of capital, as “excess of goods over needs.”

391.Cf. p.25, n. 11, on the similar modern doctrine.

392.Symp.iii. 8 and iv. 34-44, given as the doctrine of Antisthenes, the Cynic, though with apparent approval;Mem.iv. 2. 9.

393.Econ.xi. 9.

394.Cyrop.viii. 2. 23.

395.Mem.ii. 7. 7;Rev.iv. 29.

396.Thuc. vii. 6. 2, of walls;Gorg.449D, ἱματίων;Theaet.146D, ὑποδημάτων; Xen.Econ.vii. 21, ἐσθῆτος.

397.Hdt. i. 68;Charm.173E; Thuc. iv. 105.

398.Ar.Frogs1034; Isoc.Areop.30.

399.Isoc.Areop., 146d, citedinfraon the terms for capital;Ad Nicocl.18C.

400.Mem.iii. 10. 1; Dem. xxxiii. 4.

401.C.I.A.3924: ἡ ἐργασία τῶν βαφέων.

402.Ar.N. Eth.vi. 4. 2 ff.

403.Op. cit., 1st ed., p. 55.

404.Econ., especially chaps. v-vii; iv. 4;Mem.ii. 1. 6;Econ.v. 17: εὒ μὲν γὰρ φερομένης τῆς γεωργίας ἔρρωνται καὶ ἄλλαι τέχναι ἄπασαι, ὅπου δ᾽ ἂν ἀναγκασθῇ ἡ γῆ χερσεύειν, ἀποσβέννυνται καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι τέχναι σχεδόν τι καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν, a very true statement, which does not belittle other industries.

405.Ibid.v. 2; iii. 15. 11, 16;Rev.i. 2 ff., etc.

406.Pol.i. 8 and 9.

407.Mem.ii. 7. 13 f., from Socrates. Cf.infraunder distribution, on this.

408.Rev.iv. 5-7; Cossa,op. cit., p. 148; Kautz,Histoire des doctrines économiques, p. 127; Fontpertuis,op. cit., p. 367.

409.Econ.v. 17, cited on p. 66, n. 11, perhaps the strongest statement of the economic importance of agriculture in Greek writers. Ruskin follows Xenophon in his high appreciation of agriculture. He thinks it should be largely done by the upper classes (Mun. Pul., 109 [Vol. XVII, 235]); cf. also Vol. VII, 341, 429; Vol. X, 201.

410.Econ.iv. 4; cf.Rev.v. andCyrop.iii. 2. 17, which favor peace for the sake of economic advance.

411.Econ.iv. 8 to end of chapter, especially 21.

412.Econ., v. 1; 2-16; vi. 9-10; cf. Fontpertuis,op. cit., pp. 362 f.

413.Econ.vi. 8.

414.Cf.Revenues.

415.Econ.ii. 10, περιουσίαν. Brants thinks (Xen. Econ., p. 13) that the theory is implied in his principle of sparing (Mem.ii. 7). Blanqui (op. cit., I, 81) emphasizesEcon.i. 7-15 as defining productive and unproductive wealth, but this merely distinguishes wealth from non-wealth, from the standpoint of consumption.

416.Mem.ii. 7. 11 f.

417.Thuc. i. 90. 2.

418.Cf. n. 1, although Liddell and Scott cite the passage as having the meaning of “capital”;Mem.iii. 12. 4, where it need mean no more than wealth;Econ.i. 1. 16; Dem. xxxvi. 54: πίστις ἀφορμὴ πασῶν ἐστὶ μεγίστη πρὸς χρηματισμόν. Here πίστις is almost called capital. Cf. p. 106, n. 3.

419.Dem. xxxvi. 11: καίτοι εἰ ἢν ἰδία τις ἀφορμὴ τουτῳῖ πρὸς τῇ τραπέζῃ; xiv. 36; Lysias fr. 2. 2, p. 343, ed. Thalheim;Rev.iii. 9 and 12 and iv. 34 are also used of large financial undertakings; cf. Harpocration’s definition; ὅταν τις ἀργύριον δῷ ἐνθήκην, ἀφορμὴ καλεῖται ἰδίως παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς; for the term in Ar.Pol.vi. 1320a35-1320b17 cf.infra. Cf. Isoc.Areop.146dfor a similar passage.

420.Dem. xxvii. 8 and 13.

421.Ar.Rhet.i. 5. 7.

422.Laughlin, ed., 1907, pp. 66 and 93.

423.Ar.Pol.1254a1 ff.; cf.infraon Aristotle (“Production”); pseudo-Ar.Econ.ii. 1346b14.

424.PlatoLaws742C; Dem. xxvii. 75.

425.Lycurg., p. 150, 22: τοὺς ἐράνους διενεγκεῖν; Dem. xxi. 184 f.; cf. Dem. lix. 8 for the interesting figurative use, τὸν αὐτὸν ἔρανον ἀποδοῦναι, “to pay him in his own coin”; also Lycurg., p. 168, 143.

426.Mem.iii. 9. 14 f.; cf. Brants,Xen. Econ., p. 10, for passages on Xenophon’s attitude to labor.

427.Mem.ii 7. 7 f. Guiraud (La Main-d’œuvre indust., p. 46) thinks that this passage is a good commentary on Pericles’ oration (Thuc. ii). Both see in labor, not an inevitable evil, but a good. Guiraud holds that this was the general attitude in Athens. Cf. this chapter, pp.36-50, on “Opinions des Grecs sur le travail.”

428.Mem.ii. 8. 1-5.

429.ii. 1. 20.

430.Cf. Döring,Die Lehre des Socrates als soziales Reform-System, pp. 387 ff.

431.Rev., especially i. 2 ff. and iv;Econ.v. 2; iii. 15; ii. 16; Kautz,op. cit., p. 126. But cf., on the other hand, Xen.Laced. Pol.on the restrictions in Sparta against acquisition of wealth by trade and arts; cf. also (Xen.).Rep. Ath.ii. 11 ff.

432.Rev.iv. 51.

433.Econ.iv. 2; vi. 5-7; agriculture and war are not included.

434.iv. 3.

435.Mem.iv. 2. 22.

436.Cyrop.viii. 2. 5 f.; cf. also ii. 1. 21, of military labor.

Back to Index Next