Chapter 9

Having determined thus far, it remains that we consider whether all these different employments shall be open to all; for it is possible to continue the same persons always husbandmen, artificers, judges, or counsellors; or shall we appoint different persons to each of those employments which we have already mentioned; or shall some of them be appropriated to particulars, and others of course common to all? but this does not take place in every state, for, as we have already said, it is possible that all may be common to all, or not, but only common to some; and this is the difference between one government and another: for in democracies the whole community partakes of everything, but in oligarchies it is different.

Having settled these points, we must now consider whether all these different roles should be open to everyone. The same people could always serve as farmers, craftspeople, judges, or council members. Or should we assign different people to each of the roles already mentioned? Or should some roles be reserved for particular people, while others are open to everyone? But not every state arranges these roles in the same way. As we have already said, all roles may be open to everyone, or they may be open only to some. The difference in access distinguishes one form of government from another. For in democracies, the whole community takes part in everything, but in oligarchies, access is different.

Since we are inquiring what is the best government possible, and it is admitted to be that in which the citizens are happy; and that, as we have already said, it is impossible to obtain happiness without virtue; it follows, that in the best-governed states, where the citizens are really men of intrinsic and not relative goodness, none of them should be permitted to exercise any mechanic employment or follow merchandise, as being ignoble and destructive to virtue; neither should they be husband-[1329a] men, that they may be at leisure to improve in virtue and perform the duty they owe to the state. With respect to the employments of a soldier, a senator, and a judge, which are evidently necessary to the community, shall they be allotted to different persons, or shall the same person execute both? This question, too, is easily answered: for in some cases the same persons may execute them, in others they should be different, where the different employments require different abilities, as when courage is wanting for one, judgment for the other, there they should be allotted to different persons; but when it is evident, that it is impossible to oblige those who have arms in their hands, and can insist on their own terms, to be always under command; there these different employments should be trusted to one person; for those who have arms in their hands have it in their option whether they will or will not assume the supreme power: to these two (namely, those who have courage and judgment) the government must be entrusted; but not in the same manner, but as nature directs; what requires courage to the young, what requires judgment to the old; for with the young is courage, with the old is wisdom: thus each will be allotted the part they are fit for according to their different merits. It is also necessary that the landed property should belong to these men; for it is necessary that the citizens should be rich, and these are the men proper for citizens; for no mechanic ought to be admitted to the rights of a citizen, nor any other sort of people whose employment is not entirely noble, honourable, and virtuous; this is evident from the principle we at first set out with; for to be happy it is necessary to be virtuous; and no one should say that a city is happy while he considers only one part of its citizens, but for that purpose he ought to examine into all of them. It is evident, therefore, that the landed property should belong to these, though it may be necessary for them to have husbandmen, either slaves, barbarians, or servants. There remains of the different classes of the people whom we have enumerated, the priests, for these evidently compose a rank by themselves; for neither are they to be reckoned amongst the husbandmen nor the mechanics; for reverence to the gods is highly becoming every state: and since the citizens have been divided into orders, the military and the council, and it is proper to offer due worship to the gods, and since it is necessary that those who are employed in their service should have nothing else to do, let the business of the priesthood be allotted to those who are in years. We have now shown what is necessary to the existence of a city, and of what parts it consists, and that husbandmen, mechanic, and mercenary servants are necessary to a city; but that the parts of it are soldiers and sailors, and that these are always different from those, but from each other only occasionally.

We are asking what the best possible government is. We agree that it is the government whose citizens are happy. As we have already said, happiness is impossible without virtue. So, in the best-governed states, the citizens must be good in themselves, not merely good in particular circumstances. None should be allowed to work in a trade or engage in commerce. Such occupations are degrading and destructive of virtue. Nor should the citizens be farmers [1329a], so that they have leisure to develop virtue and fulfill their duties to the state. Soldiers, senators, and judges are clearly necessary to the community. Should these roles be assigned to different people, or should the same people perform them? This question is also easily answered. In some cases, the same people may perform these roles. In others, the roles should go to different people because they require different abilities. For example, one requires courage and another judgment. In that respect, the roles should be assigned to different people. But people who hold weapons and can dictate their own terms cannot be forced to remain forever under others’ command. For that reason, these different roles should be entrusted to the same people. Those who hold weapons can choose whether or not to take supreme power. Government must therefore be entrusted to these two groups, those with courage and those with judgment. But their responsibilities should differ, following nature’s guidance. Tasks requiring courage should go to the young, and tasks requiring judgment to the old. For the young have courage, and the old have wisdom. Each group will thus receive the role suited to its particular merits. These men must also own the land. Citizens must be wealthy, and these are the men suited to citizenship. No tradesman should have the rights of a citizen. Nor should anyone else whose occupation is not entirely noble, honorable, and virtuous. This follows clearly from our starting principle: happiness requires virtue. No one should call a city happy after considering only some of its citizens. To judge the city’s happiness, we must consider all its citizens. Clearly, then, the land should belong to these men. They may, however, need farmers to work it, whether slaves, barbarians, or servants. Of the classes we listed, the priests remain. They clearly form a separate class, since they belong neither among the farmers nor among the tradesmen. Reverence for the gods is highly fitting for every state. We have divided the citizens into military and council groups, and the gods must receive proper worship. Those serving the gods must have no other duties. The priesthood should therefore be assigned to elderly citizens. We have now shown what a city needs to exist and what its parts are. Farmers, tradesmen, and hired servants are necessary to a city. But its constituent parts are soldiers and sailors. These are always distinct from farmers, tradesmen, and hired servants, but only sometimes distinct from one another.