interest was essential. Consequently first Calvin, and then other Protestant divines, sanctioned
interest. At last the Catholic Church was compelled to follow suit, because the old prohibitions
did not suit the modern world. Philosophers, whose incomes are derived from the investments of
universities, have favoured interest ever since they ceased to be ecclesiastics and therefore
connected with landowning. At every stage, there has been a wealth of theoretical argument to
support the economically convenient opinion.
Plato's Utopia is criticized by Aristotle on various grounds. There is first the very interesting
comment that it gives too much unity to the State, and would make it into an individual. Next
comes the kind of argument against the proposed abolition of the family that naturally occurs to
every reader. Plato thinks that, by merely giving the title of "son" to all who are of an age that
makes their sonship possible, a man will acquire towards the whole multitude the sentiments that
men have at present towards their actual sons, and correlatively as regards the title "father."
Aristotle, on the contrary, says that what is common to the greatest number receives the least care,
and that if "sons" are common to many "fathers" they will be neglected in common; it is better to
be a cousin in reality than a "son" in Plato's sense; Plato's plan would make love watery. Then
there is a curious argument that, since abstinence from adultery is a virtue, it would be a pity to
have a social system which abolishes this virtue and the correlative vice ( 1263b). Then we are
asked: if women are common, who will manage the house? I wrote an essay once, called
"Architecture and the Social System," in which I pointed out that all who combine communism
with abolition of the family also advocate communal houses for large numbers, with communal
kitchens, dining-rooms, and nurseries. This system may be described as monasteries without
celibacy. It is essential to the carrying out of Plato's plans, but it is certainly not more impossible
than many other things that he recommends.
Plato's communism annoys Aristotle. It would lead, he says, to anger against lazy people, and to
the sort of quarrels that are common between fellow-travellers. It is better if each minds his own
business. Property should be private, but people should be so trained in benevolence as to allow
the use of it to be largely common. Benevolence and generosity are virtues, and without private
property