[1268a]
[1]
He held that the verdicts in the courts ought not to be given
by ballot, but that each juryman should bring a tablet on which if he found a
simple verdict of guilty he should write the penalty, and if simply not guilty
leave a blank, but if he found the prisoner guilty on some counts but not on
others he should state this; for the present state of the law he thought
unsatisfactory, since it forces jurors to commit perjury by giving either the
one verdict or the other. He
proposed a law that those who discovered something of advantage to the state
should receive honor, and that the children of those who died in war should have
their maintenance from the state, in the belief that this had never yet been
provided by law among other people—but as a matter of fact this law
exists at present both at Athens and
in others of the cities. The governing officials were all to be chosen by the
assembly of the people, and this he made to consist of the three classes of the
city; and the officials elected were to superintend the business of the
community and the affairs of foreign residents and of orphans. These then are
the greatest number and the most noteworthy of the provisions in the system of
Hippodamus. But doubt might be
raised first of all about the division of the general mass of the citizens. The
artisans, the farmers and the military class all participate in the government,
though the farmers have not got arms and the artisans neither arms nor
land,
[20]
which makes them almost the
slaves of those who possess the arms. Therefore for them to share in all the
offices is impossible (for it is inevitable that both military
commanders and civic guards and in general the most important offices should be
appointed from those that have the arms); but if they do not share in
the government of the state, how is it possible for them to be friendly towards
the constitution? But it may be said
that the ruling class as possessing the arms is bound to be stronger than both
classes. But this is not easy if they are not numerous and if this be the case,
why should the other classes participate in the government and control the
appointment of the rulers?1 Again,
what use are the farmers to the state? artisans there must necessarily be
(for every state requires artisans), and they can make a
living as in the other states from the practice of their craft; but as for the
farmers, although it would have been reasonable for them to be a portion of the
state if they provided the class possessing the arms with its food, as it is
they have private land of their own and farm it for themselves. And again, if the common land from which
those who fight for the state are to have their food is to be farmed by
themselves, the military class would not be different from the agricultural, but
the legislator intends it to be; while if the cultivators of the common land are
to be a different set of people from both those who cultivate the private farms
and the soldiers, this will be yet a forth section of the state, holding no part
in it but quite estranged from the government. But yet if one is to make those
who cultivate the private and the common land the same people, the amount of the
produce from the farms which each man will cultivate will be scanty for two
households,
1 As military posts must be filled by the military class, the civilians will feel excluded and be disaffected; and the military class may not be strong enough to control them. Better, then, not to give full citizenship to civilians.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.