Politics: A Treatise on Government
a city and a nation when the people are not collected into separate
villages, but live as the Arcadians. Now those things in which a city
should be one are of different sorts, and in preserving an alternate
reciprocation of power between these, the safety thereof consists (as
I have already mentioned in my treatise on Morals), for amongst freemen
and equals this is absolutely necessary; for all cannot govern at the
same time, but either by the year, or according to some other regulation
or time, by which means every one in his turn will be in office; as
if the shoemakers and carpenters should exchange occupations, and not
always be employed in the same calling. But as it is evidently better,
that these should continue to exercise their respective trades; so also
in civil society, where it is possible, it would be better that the
government should continue in the same hands; but where it [1261b] is
not (as nature has made all men equal, and therefore it is just, be the
administration good or bad, that all should partake of it), there it is
best to observe a rotation, and let those who are their equals by turns
submit to those who are at that time magistrates, as they will, in their
turns, alternately be governors and governed, as if they were different
men: by the same method different persons will execute different
offices. From hence it is evident, that a city cannot be one in the
manner that some persons propose; and that what has been said to be the
greatest good which it could enjoy, is absolutely its destruction, which
cannot be: for the good of anything is that which preserves it.
For another reason also it is clear, that it is not for the best
to endeavour to make a city too much one, because a family is more
sufficient in itself than a single person, a city than a family; and
indeed Plato supposes that a city owes its existence to that sufficiency
in themselves which the members of it enjoy. If then this sufficiency is
so desirable, the less the city is one the better.
CHAPTER III
But admitting that it is most advantageous for a city to be one as much
as possible, it does not seem to follow that this will take place by
permitting all at once to say this is mine, and this is not mine (though
this is what Socrates regards as a proof that a city is entirely one),
for the word All is used in two senses; if it means each individual,
what Socrates proposes will nearly take place; for each person will
say, this is his own son, and his own wife, and his own property, and
of everything else that may happen to belong to him, that it is his own.
But those who have their wives and children in common will not say so,
but all will say so, though not as individuals; therefore, to use the
word all is evidently a fallacious mode of speech; for this word is
sometimes used distributively, and sometimes collectively, on account
of its double meaning, and is the cause of inconclusive syllogisms in
reasoning. Therefore for all persons to say the same thing was their
own, using the word all in its distributive sense, would be well, but is
impossible: in its collective sense it would by no means contribute to
the concord of the state. Besides, there would be another inconvenience
attending this proposal, for what is common to many is taken least care
of; for all men regard more what is their own than what others share
with them in, to which they pay less attention than is incumbent on
every one: let me add also, that every one is more negligent of what
another is to see to, as well as himself, than of his own private
business; as in a family one is often worse served by many servants than
by a few. Let each citizen then in the state have a thousand children,
but let none of them be considered as the children of that individual,
but let the relation of father and child be common to them all, and they
will all be neglected. Besides, in consequence of this, [1262a] whenever
any citizen behaved well or ill, every person, be the number what it
would, might say, this is my son, or this man's or that; and in
this manner would they speak, and thus would they doubt of the whole
thousand, or of whatever number the city consisted; and it would be
uncertain to whom each child belonged, and when it was born, who was to
take care of it: and which do you think is better, for every one to say
this is mine, while they may apply it equally to two thousand or ten
thousand; or as we say, this is mine in our present forms of government,
where one man calls another his son, another calls that same person
his brother, another nephew, or some other relation, either by blood
or marriage, and first extends his care to him and his, while another
regards him as one of the same parish and the same tribe; and it is
better for any one to be a nephew in his private capacity than a son
after that manner. Besides, it will be impossible to prevent some
persons from suspecting that they are brothers and sisters, fathers and
mothers to each other; for, from the mutual likeness there is between
the sire and the offspring, they will necessarily conclude in what
relation they stand to each other, which circumstance, we are informed
by those writers who describe different parts of the world, does
sometimes happen; for in Upper Africa there are wives in common who
yet deliver their children to their respective fathers, being guided
by their likeness to them. There are also some mares and cows which
naturally bring forth their young so like the male, that we can easily
distinguish by which of them they were impregnated: such was the mare
called Just, in Pharsalia.
CHAPTER IV
Besides, those who contrive this plan of community cannot easily avoid
the following evils; namely, blows, murders involuntary or voluntary,
quarrels, and reproaches, all which it would be impious indeed to be
guilty of towards our fathers and mothers, or those who are nearly
related to us; though not to those who are not connected to us by any
tie of affinity: and certainly these mischiefs must necessarily happen
oftener amongst those who do not know how they are connected to each
other than those who do; and when they do happen, if it is among the
first of these, they admit of a legal expiation, but amongst the latter
that cannot be done. It is also absurd for those who promote a
community of children to forbid those who love each other from indulging
themselves in the last excesses of that passion, while they do not
restrain them from the passion itself, or those intercourses which are
of all things most improper, between a Father and a son, a brother and
a brother, and indeed the thing itself is most absurd. It is also
ridiculous to prevent this intercourse between the nearest relations,
for no other reason than the violence of the pleasure, while they think
that the relation of father and daughter, the brother and sister, is of
no consequence at all. It seems also more advantageous for the state,
that the husbandmen should have their wives and children in common than
the military, for there will be less affection [1262b] among them
in that case than when otherwise; for such persons ought to be under
subjection, that they may obey the laws, and not seek after innovations.
Upon the whole, the consequences of such a law as this would be directly
contrary to those things which good laws ought to establish, and which
Socrates endeavoured to establish by his regulations concerning women
and children: for we think that friendship is the greatest good which
can happen to any city, as nothing so much prevents seditions: and amity
in a city is what Socrates commends above all things, which appears
to be, as indeed he says, the effect of friendship; as we learn from
Aristophanes in the Erotics, who says, that those who love one another
from the excess of that passion, desire to breathe the same soul, and
from being two to be blended into one: from whence it would necessarily
follow, that both or one of them must be destroyed. But now in a city
which admits of this community, the tie of friendship must, from that
very cause, be extremely weak, when no father can say, this is my son;
or son, this is my father; for as a very little of what is sweet, being
mixed with a great deal of water is imperceptible after the mixture, so
must all family connections, and the names they go by, be necessarily
disregarded in such a community, it being then by no means necessary
that the father should have any regard for him he called a son, or
the brothers for those they call brothers. There are two things which
principally inspire mankind with care and love of their offspring,
knowing it is their own, and what ought to be the object of their
affection, neither of which can take place in this sort of community. As
for exchanging the children of the artificers and husbandmen with those
of the military, and theirs reciprocally with these, it will occasion
great confusion in whatever manner it shall be done; for of necessity,
those who carry the children must know from whom they took and to whom
they gave them; and by this means those evils which I have already
mentioned will necessarily be the more likely to happen, as blows,
incestuous love, murders, and the like; for those who are given from
their own parents to other citizens, the military, for instance, will
not call them brothers, sons, fathers, or mothers. The same thing
would happen to those of the military who were placed among the other
citizens; so that by this means every one would be in fear how to act
in consequence of consanguinity. And thus let us determine concerning a
community of wives and children.
CHAPTER V
We proceed next to consider in what manner property should be regulated
in a state which is formed after the most perfect mode of government,
whether it should be common or not; for this may be considered as a
separate question from what had been determined concerning [1263a] wives
and children; I mean, whether it is better that these should be held
separate, as they now everywhere are, or that not only possessions but
also the usufruct of them should be in common; or that the soil should
have a particular owner, but that the produce should be brought together
and used as one common stock, as some nations at present do; or on the
contrary, should the soil be common, and should it also be cultivated in
common, while the produce is divided amongst the individuals for their
particular use, which is said to be practised by some barbarians; or
shall both the soil and the fruit be common? When the business of
the husbandman devolves not on the citizen, the matter is much easier
settled; but when those labour together who have a common right of
possession, this may occasion several difficulties; for there may not
be an equal proportion between their labour and what they consume; and
those who labour hard and have but a small proportion of the produce,
will certainly complain of those who take a large share of it and do but
little for that. Upon the whole, as a community between man and man so
entire as to include everything possible, and thus to have all things
that man can possess in common, is very difficult, so is it particularly
so with respect to property; and this is evident from that community
which takes place between those who go out to settle a colony; for they
frequently have disputes with each other upon the most common occasions,
and come to blows upon trifles: we find, too, that we oftenest correct
those slaves who are generally employed in the common offices of the
family: a community of property then has these and other inconveniences
attending it.
But the manner of life which is now established, more particularly when
embellished with good morals and a system of equal laws, is far superior