Cf. pp. 48 f. and notes. Even Aristotle admits (1264_a_33) 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: