There remain to be considered the questions which are interwoven with those provisions in the communistic theory which affect womankind. We are told that "male and female guardians are to have all their pursuits in common"; and that "these women shall be without exception the common wives of these men, and that no one shall have a wife of his own: likewise, that the children shall be common, and that the parent shall not know his child, nor the child his parent."* The first clause of this proclamation is not likely to shock us as much as it would undoubtedly shock the ancient Greeks, accustomed as we are to see the weaker sex breaking down every barrier which checks their onward progress to the complete attainment of Plato's wish, the equality of the sexes. But things were not so in the days that are past. Athenian women of repute were taught to regard as their greatest glory the obscurity of their fame. among men, whether for good or for bad. They were accustomed to keep within the doors of their houses unless some public festival, some public or private funeral warranted their appearance in the streets of Athens. Xenophon relates how that his friend Ischomachus bade his virtuous wife take exercise by folding and re-folding the household linen. In short, Athenian women of repute were in a condition somewhat worse than that which was endured by respectable English girls till the middle of the nineteenth century. We can barely imagine then the consternation which Plato's announcement would make, that women must share in the education, and in the pursuits, warlike and peaceful, of the men. The equality is to be complete. After describing the advanced education of those who are fitted to sit at the helm of the state, Plato avows that his remarks are not intended to apply any * Par. 457. more to the men than to the women, 66 so long as we can find women whose talents are equal to the situation,' a reservation which will be thought by many to be superfluous. In his rebellion against the degrading restraint which was imposed on respectable Athenian women, Plato is obeying, he thinks, the mandates of justice. Nothing more and nothing less than the performance of appropriate function will satisfy her demands. If, then, as Plato firmly believed, "there is no difference, so far as the guardianship of the state is concerned, between the natures of the man and of the woman,' he was justified in demanding that there should be no difference in the duties assigned to them. "We shall have to select duly qualified women also to share in the life and official labours of the duly qualified men." The question at issue is perhaps insoluble. Writers, in prose and verse alike, have descanted on the mutually supplementary qualities possessed by man and woman, on The double-cell, beating with one full stroke Unequivocal proof is perhaps impossible. Yet, though we may point now to Artemisia, whose valour at Salamis wrung from Xerxes the cry that "his men had become women, and his women men," and now to Aspasia, whose political wisdom a Pericles did not disdain to consult, the majority of people will be prepared to recognise that an insuperable barrier has been fixed by nature to prevent the complete equalization of the sexes. Whether Plato had a clearer view into one of the greatest mysteries of life, or was merely led astray by an undue pressure of the analogy of the watch-dogs, some praise is due to him as to one who would have lifted Athenian women from the degrading restraint which they were forced to endure. The remaining clauses in the proclamation which abolish the institutions of the family and of marriage, will-we had almost said, for ever-meet with the most determined opposition. All men, all civilized men have, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that the family is a necessary institution. At one fell stroke Plato is thought to demolish the foundations of public and private morality. The charge is a weighty one. Kin to kind is the normal progress for human affections. Where are the kin? To this Plato will answer that “ no younger man will insult his seniors: for there are two warders that will effectually interpose, namely, fear and shame: shame restraining him from laying hands on one whom he regards as a parent; and fear, lest the person attacked should be succoured by the rest in the character of sons, brothers and fathers."* But what will happen if perchance the filial affections of the young man are weakened, not strengthened, by the width of their operations ? Another objection is raised that large institutions inevitably fail to take into account the idiosyncrasies of each particular child, without regard to which the development of character is impossible. Plato would perhaps have answered that parents have shown their inability to train their children, and shall accordingly be deprived of their charge. Yet another objection is that affection for the state, and still more for humanity at large, is not possible without the institution of the family. As the rings which, when a stone is thrown into the pool, spread out wider and wider till they reach the side, so must the affections centre in the family, and emanate thence in ever-widening circles. Here we can fancy that Plato would smile as he pointed to Athens, where the rings never reached the side, and where the affections centred permanently in the family. Indeed, *Par. 465. the disintegrating influence of family life is the cause, or or rather one of the causes, why he decreed that his guardians should possess neither houses nor wives of their own. There was another cause. Seeing that dog-fanciers exercised great care in the selection of the best dogs for breeding purposes,* Plato thought that his hymenæal festivals should be arranged with surely not less care. The potency of this argument cannot well be tested. It meets with the bitterest opposition, because it introduces law where we think We live Law to ourselves. The whole range of marriage customs advocated by Plato are of a peculiarly savage type, and do not invite inspection. If any one be tempted to pursue the inquiry he will find that they bear a remarkable resemblance to the customs which, at the present day, obtain among many of the savage "packs," the most primitive savages which people Central and Northern Australia. Plato's only apology is his unflinching honesty of purpose. "The highest perfection of the state is due to the community of wives and children, which is to prevail among our auxiliaries." + Some praise is always due to the man who, in the face of obstinate resistance and embittered prejudice, holds fast to that most excellent maxim that "the useful is the noble, and the hurtful is the base." I There is an argument to which every communistic theory is subjected. Objectors say that since communism tends to simplify the problems of the moral life, it tends also to dwarf the moral stature. The truth of this is indubitable. Moral strength is the outcome of moral temptation; and we can scarcely refrain from surmising * Par. 459. + Par. 464. Par. 457. that the guardians would be not moral, but, perhaps, innocent. For the moral virtues, indeed, Plato seems to have a slight contempt. "They resemble," he says, "the virtues of the body, inasmuch as they do not pre-exist in the soul, but are formed in it in the course of time by habit and exercise; the virtue of wisdom, on the other hand, does most certainly appertain to a more divine substance."* He had such a distinct preference for the element of reason, which alone he seems to have considered immortal, that he thought "virtue, unaided by philosophy," of small avail, and was willing to discard the means by which such a virtue is attainable. We are now inclined to agree with the words of Glaucon : "But I really think, Socrates, that if you be permitted to go on in this way, you will never recollect what you put aside some time ago before you entered on all these questions, namely, the task of shewing that this constitution of things is possible, and how it might be realized. For, in proof of the assertion that if it were realized it would ensure all kinds of advantages to a city which was the seat of it, I can myself adduce facts, which you have omitted, as, that such soldiers would fight to perfection against their enemies, in consequence of the unwillingness to desert one another which would arise from their knowing one another as brothers, fathers, and sons, and using these endearing names familiarly: and if the female sex were to serve in the army, whether in the same ranks with the men, or posted as a reserve behind to strike terror into the enemy and render assistance at any point in case of need, I know that this would render them invincible: moreover, I see all the advantages omitted by you which they would enjoy at home. But as I fully admit the |