Chapter 8

Hippodamus, the son of Euruphon a Milesian, contrived the art of laying out towns, and separated the Pireus. This man was in other respects too eager after notice, and seemed to many to live in a very affected manner, with his flowing locks and his expensive ornaments, and a coarse warm vest which he wore, not only in the winter, but also in the hot weather. As he was very desirous of the character of a universal scholar, he was the first who, not being actually engaged in the management of public affairs, sat himself to inquire what sort of government was best; and he planned a state, consisting of ten thousand persons, divided into three parts, one consisting of artisans, another of husbandmen, and the third of soldiers; he also divided the lands into three parts, and allotted one to sacred purposes, another to the public, and the third to individuals. The first of these was to supply what was necessary for the established worship of the gods; the second was to be allotted to the support of the soldiery; and the third was to be the property of the husbandman. He thought also that there need only be three sorts of laws, corresponding to the three sorts of actions which can be brought, namely, for assault, trespasses, or death. He ordered also that there should be a particular court of appeal, into which all causes might be removed which were supposed to have been unjustly determined elsewhere; which court should be composed of old men chosen for that purpose. He thought also [1268a] that they should not pass sentence by votes; but that every one should bring with him a tablet, on which he should write, that he found the party guilty, if it was so, but if not, he should bring a plain tablet; but if he acquitted him of one part of the indictment but not of the other, he should express that also on the tablet; for he disapproved of that general custom already established, as it obliges the judges to be guilty of perjury if they determined positively either on the one side or the other. He also made a law, that those should be rewarded who found out anything for the good of the city, and that the children of those who fell in battle should be educated at the public expense; which law had never been proposed by any other legislator, though it is at present in use at Athens as well as in other cities, he would have the magistrates chosen out of the people in general, by whom he meant the three parts before spoken of; and that those who were so elected should be the particular guardians of what belonged to the public, to strangers, and to orphans.

Hippodamus, son of Euruphon, was a Milesian who developed the art of town planning and laid out the Pireus. In other ways, too, he was overly eager for attention. Many people thought his lifestyle very affected, with his long, flowing hair and expensive ornaments. He wore a thick, coarse garment not only in winter but also in hot weather. He was very eager to be known as a scholar of every subject. He was the first person not actively involved in public affairs to investigate what form of government was best. He planned a state of ten thousand people, divided into three groups: artisans, farmers, and soldiers. He also divided the land into three parts, assigning one to religious purposes, another to public use, and the third to individuals. The first part would provide whatever was needed for the established worship of the gods. The second would support the soldiers, and the third would belong to the farmers. He also thought only three kinds of laws were needed, corresponding to the three kinds of legal cases. These were cases involving assault, damage to property, or death. He also provided for a special appeals court. All cases believed to have been decided unjustly elsewhere could be referred to this court. It would consist of elderly men chosen for that purpose. He also thought [1268a] that judges should not deliver their verdicts by voting. Instead, each judge should bring a tablet. If the judge found the accused guilty, he should write that verdict on the tablet. If not, he should bring a blank tablet. But if he acquitted the accused on one part of the charge and not another, he should record that distinction. Hippodamus disapproved of the established general practice. He believed it forced judges to commit perjury if they ruled unconditionally for either side. He also proposed a law rewarding anyone who discovered anything beneficial to the city. The law also provided for the children of those killed in battle to be educated at public expense. No other lawgiver had ever proposed this law, although it is now in use at Athens and other cities. He wanted magistrates to be chosen from the people as a whole, meaning the three groups already mentioned. Those elected would have special responsibility for protecting public property, foreigners, and orphans.

These are the principal parts and most worthy of notice in Hippodamus's plan. But some persons might doubt the propriety of his division of the citizens into three parts; for the artisans, the husbandmen, and the soldiers are to compose one community, where the husbandmen are to have no arms, and the artisans neither arms nor land, which would in a manner render them slaves to the soldiery. It is also impossible that the whole community should partake of all the honourable employments in it—for the generals and the guardians of the state must necessarily be appointed out of the soldiery, and indeed the most honourable magistrates; but as the two other parts will not have their share in the government, how can they be expected to have any affection for it? But it is necessary that the soldiery should be superior to the other two parts, and this superiority will not be easily gained without they are very numerous; and if they are so, why should the community consist of any other members? why should any others have a right to elect the magistrates? Besides, of what use are the husbandmen to this community? Artisans, 'tis true, are necessary, for these every city wants, and they can live upon their business. If the husbandmen indeed furnished the soldiers with provisions, they would be properly part of the community; but these are supposed to have their private property, and to cultivate it for their own use. Moreover, if the soldiers themselves are to cultivate that common land which is appropriated for their support, there will be no distinction between the soldier and the husbandman, which the legislator intended there should be; and if there should be any others who are to cultivate the private property of the husbandman and the common lands of the military, there will be a fourth order in the state which will have no share in it, and always entertain hostile sentiments towards it. If any one should propose that the same persons should cultivate their own lands and the public ones also, then there would be a deficiency [1268b] of provisions to supply two families, as the lands would not immediately yield enough for themselves and the soldiers also; and all these things would occasion great confusion.

These are the main features of Hippodamus's plan and the ones most worth considering. But some people might question whether dividing the citizens into three groups is appropriate. The artisans, farmers, and soldiers are to form one community. Yet the farmers are to have no weapons, and the artisans neither weapons nor land. This would make the farmers and artisans, in a sense, slaves to the soldiers. Nor can the whole community share in all its positions of honor. The generals and guardians of the state must come from the soldiers, as must the highest-ranking magistrates. But the other two groups will have no share in government. How, then, can they be expected to feel any loyalty to it? Yet the soldiers must be stronger than the other two groups. They will not easily gain this superiority unless they are very numerous. And if the soldiers are so numerous, why should the community include anyone else? Why should anyone else have the right to elect the magistrates? Besides, what use are the farmers to this community? Artisans are certainly necessary, since every city needs them, and they can earn a living through their trades. If the farmers supplied the soldiers with food, the farmers would properly belong to the community. But the farmers are supposed to own private land and cultivate it for their own use. Moreover, suppose the soldiers themselves cultivate the common land set aside for their support. Then there will be no distinction between soldiers and farmers, although the lawmaker intended such a distinction. Or suppose others cultivate both the farmers' private land and the soldiers' common land. Then the state will have a fourth class, with no share in government and always hostile to the state. Someone might propose that the same people cultivate both their own land and the public land. But then there would be too little [1268b] food to support two families. The land would not immediately produce enough for both the farmers and the soldiers. And all these arrangements would cause great confusion.

Nor do I approve of his method of determining causes, when he would have the judge split the case which comes simply before him; and thus, instead of being a judge, become an arbitrator. Now when any matter is brought to arbitration, it is customary for many persons to confer together upon the business that is before them; but when a cause is brought before judges it is not so; and many legislators take care that the judges shall not have it in their power to communicate their sentiments to each other. Besides, what can prevent confusion on the bench when one judge thinks a fine should be different from what another has set it at; one proposing twenty minae, another ten, or be it more or less, another four, and another five; and it is evident, that in this manner they will differ from each other, while some will give the whole damages sued for, and others nothing; in this situation, how shall their determinations be settled? Besides, a judge cannot be obliged to perjure himself who simply acquits or condemns, if the action is fairly and justly brought; for he who acquits the party does not say that he ought not to pay any fine at all, but that he ought not to pay a fine of twenty minae. But he that condemns him is guilty of perjury if he sentences him to pay twenty minae while he believes the damages ought not to be so much.

Nor do I approve of his way of deciding cases. He would have the judge divide a case presented for a simple decision. The judge would then become an arbitrator instead of a judge. In arbitration, several people usually discuss the matter together. But judges hearing a case do not do this. Many lawmakers take care to prevent judges from sharing their opinions with one another. Besides, what can prevent confusion among judges when they disagree about the amount of a fine? One proposes twenty minae, another ten, or some greater or smaller amount, another four, and another five. Clearly, the judges will disagree under this system. Some will award the full damages claimed, while others will award nothing. In these circumstances, how will their decisions be settled? Besides, a judge who simply acquits or condemns cannot be forced to commit perjury if the case is brought fairly and justly. A judge who acquits does not say that the defendant should pay no fine at all. Rather, the judge says that the defendant should not pay a fine of twenty minae. But a judge who condemns the defendant commits perjury if he imposes twenty minae while believing the damages deserve less.

Now with respect to these honours which he proposes to bestow on those who can give any information useful to the community, this, though very pleasing in speculation, is what the legislator should not settle, for it would encourage informers, and probably occasion commotions in the state. And this proposal of his gives rise also to further conjectures and inquiries; for some persons have doubted whether it is useful or hurtful to alter the established law of any country, if even for the better; for which reason one cannot immediately determine upon what he here says, whether it is advantageous to alter the law or not. We know, indeed, that it is possible to propose to new model both the laws and government as a common good; and since we have mentioned this subject, it may be very proper to enter into a few particulars concerning it, for it contains some difficulties, as I have already said, and it may appear better to alter them, since it has been found useful in other sciences.

He proposes giving honours to anyone who provides information useful to the community. Although this proposal sounds very appealing in theory, lawmakers should not adopt it. It would encourage informers and probably cause unrest in the state. His proposal also raises further questions worth considering. Some people have doubted whether changing a country's established laws is helpful or harmful, even when the changes are improvements. Because of this doubt, we cannot immediately judge whether the legal change he proposes would be beneficial. We do know that proposals to reshape both laws and government can be made for the common good. Since we have raised this subject, it may be worth examining a few points in more detail. As I have already said, the subject presents some difficulties. Still, changing laws and government may seem preferable, since change has proved useful in other fields of knowledge.

Thus the science of physic is extended beyond its ancient bounds; so is the gymnastic, and indeed all other arts and powers; so that one may lay it down for certain that the same thing will necessarily hold good in the art of government. And it may also be affirmed, that experience itself gives a proof of this; for the ancient laws are too simple and barbarous; which allowed the Greeks to wear swords in the city, and to buy their wives of each [1269a]. other. And indeed all the remains of old laws which we have are very simple; for instance, a law in Cuma relative to murder. If any person who prosecutes another for murder can produce a certain number of witnesses to it of his own relations, the accused person shall be held guilty. Upon the whole, all persons ought to endeavour to follow what is right, and not what is established; and it is probable that the first men, whether they sprung out of the earth, or were saved from some general calamity, had very little understanding or knowledge, as is affirmed of these aborigines; so that it would be absurd to continue in the practice of their rules. Nor is it, moreover, right to permit written laws always to remain without alteration; for as in all other sciences, so in politics, it is impossible to express everything in writing with perfect exactness; for when we commit anything to writing we must use general terms, but in every action there is something particular to itself, which these may not comprehend; from whence it is evident, that certain laws will at certain times admit of alterations. But if we consider this matter in another point of view, it will appear to require great caution; for when the advantage proposed is trifling, as the accustoming the people easily to abolish their laws is of bad consequence, it is evidently better to pass over some faults which either the legislator or the magistrates may have committed; for the alterations will not be of so much service as a habit of disobeying the magistrates will be of disservice. Besides, the instance brought from the arts is fallacious; for it is not the same thing to alter the one as the other. For a law derives all its strength from custom, and this requires long time to establish; so that, to make it an easy matter to pass from the established laws to other new ones, is to weaken the power of laws. Besides, here is another question; if the laws are to be altered, are they all to be altered, and in every government or not, and whether at the pleasure of one person or many? all which particulars will make a great difference; for which reason we will at present drop the inquiry, to pursue it at some other time.

Medicine has advanced beyond its ancient limits. So have physical training and all other arts and skills. We can therefore say with certainty that the same must hold true for the art of government. Experience itself also provides evidence of this. Ancient laws are too simple and barbaric. They allowed the Greeks to carry swords in the city and buy their wives from each [1269a] other. Indeed, all surviving ancient laws are very simple. Take, for example, a law about murder in Cuma. Suppose someone prosecuting another person for murder produces a certain number of witnesses from among the prosecutor’s own relatives. Under this law, the accused must be found guilty. In general, everyone should try to follow what is right, not what is established. The first people probably had very little understanding or knowledge, whether they emerged from the earth or survived some widespread disaster. Such ignorance is attributed to these earliest inhabitants. So it would be absurd to continue following their rules. Nor is it right to leave written laws unchanged forever. In politics, as in all other fields of knowledge, writing cannot express everything with perfect precision. Written statements must use general terms. But every action has particular features that those terms may not cover. So clearly, certain laws may be changed at certain times. But viewed from another angle, changing laws calls for great caution. Suppose the proposed benefit is small. Since getting people used to easily abolishing laws has harmful consequences, overlooking some faults is clearly better. These may be faults committed by either the lawmaker or the magistrates. The changes will do less good than a habit of disobeying the magistrates will do harm. Besides, the comparison with the arts is misleading. Changing an art is not the same as changing a law. A law draws all its strength from custom, and custom takes a long time to establish. So making it easy to replace established laws with new ones weakens the power of laws. There is also another question. If laws are to be changed, should all laws be changed? Should changes be made in every form of government, or not? And should changes be made at the discretion of one person or many? All these details make a great difference. For that reason, we will leave this inquiry for now and return to it another time.