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.