Chapter 10

It seems neither now nor very lately to have been known [1329b] to those philosophers who have made politics their study, that a city ought to be divided by families into different orders of men; and that the husbandmen and soldiers should be kept separate from each other; which custom is even to this day preserved in Egypt and in Crete; also Sesostris having founded it in Egypt, Minos in Crete. Common meals seem also to have been an ancient regulation, and to have been established in Crete during the reign of Minos, and in a still more remote period in Italy; for those who are the best judges in that country say that one Italus being king of AEnotria., from whom the people, changing their names, were called Italians instead of AEnotrians, and that part of Europe was called Italy which is bounded by the Scylletic Gulf on the one side and the Lametic on the other, the distance between which is about half a day's journey. This Italus, they relate, made the AEnotrians, who were formerly shepherds, husbandmen, and gave them different laws from what they had before, and to have been the first who established common meals, for which reason some of his descendants still use them, and observe some of his laws. The Opici inhabit that part which lies towards the Tyrrhenian Sea, who both now are and formerly were called Ausonians. The Chones inhabited the part toward Iapigia and the Ionian Sea which is called Syrtis. These Chones were descended from the AEnotrians. Hence arose the custom of common meals, but the separation of the citizens into different families from Egypt: for the reign of Sesostris is of much higher antiquity than that of Minos. As we ought to think that most other things were found out in a long, nay, even in a boundless time (reason teaching us that want would make us first invent that which was necessary, and, when that was obtained, then those things which were requisite for the conveniences and ornament of life), so should we conclude the same with respect to a political state; now everything in Egypt bears the marks of the most remote antiquity, for these people seem to be the most ancient of all others, and to have acquired laws and political order; we should therefore make a proper use of what is told us of them, and endeavour to find out what they have omitted. We have already said, that the landed property ought to belong to the military and those who partake of the government of the state; and that therefore the husbandmen should be a separate order of people; and how large and of what nature the country ought to be: we will first treat of the division of the land, and of the husbandmen, how many and of what sort they ought to be; since we by no means hold that property ought to be common, as some persons have said, only thus far, in friendship, it [1330a] should be their custom to let no citizen want subsistence. As to common meals, it is in general agreed that they are proper in well-regulated cities; my reasons for approving of them shall be mentioned hereafter: they are what all the citizens ought to partake of; but it will not be easy for the poor, out of what is their own, to furnish as much as they are ordered to do, and supply their own house besides. The expense also of religious worship should be defrayed by the whole state. Of necessity therefore the land ought to be divided into two parts, one of which should belong to the community in general, the other to the individuals separately; and each of these parts should again be subdivided into two: half of that which belongs to the public should be appropriated to maintain the worship of the gods, the other half to support the common meals. Half of that which belongs to the individuals should be at the extremity of the country, the other half near the city, so that these two portions being allotted to each person, all would partake of land in both places, which would be both equal and right; and induce them to act in concert with greater harmony in any war with their neighbours: for when the land is not divided in this manner, one party neglects the inroads of the enemy on the borders, the other makes it a matter of too much consequence and more than is necessary; for which reason in some places there is a law which forbids the inhabitants of the borders to have any vote in the council when they are debating upon a war which is made against them as their private interest might prevent their voting impartially. Thus therefore the country ought to be divided and for the reasons before mentioned. Could one have one's choice, the husbandmen should by all means be slaves, not of the same nation, or men of any spirit; for thus they would be laborious in their business, and safe from attempting any novelties: next to these barbarian servants are to be preferred, similar in natural disposition to these we have already mentioned. Of these, let those who are to cultivate the private property of the individual belong to that individual, and those who are to cultivate the public territory belong to the public. In what manner these slaves ought to be used, and for what reason it is very proper that they should have the promise of their liberty made them, as a reward for their services, shall be mentioned hereafter.

It seems that philosophers who study politics have not recognized certain principles, either now or in the recent past [1329b]. A city should be divided by families into different classes, and farmers and soldiers should be kept separate. This practice survives to this day in Egypt and Crete. Sesostris established it in Egypt, and Minos in Crete. Shared meals also seem to be an ancient institution. They were established in Crete during Minos’s reign, and even earlier in Italy. The best authorities in Italy say that a man named Italus was king of AEnotria. The people took his name, calling themselves Italians instead of AEnotrians. The part of Europe between the Scylletic Gulf and the Lametic Gulf was then called Italy. The distance between these gulfs is about half a day’s journey. According to these accounts, Italus turned the AEnotrians from shepherds into farmers and gave them new laws. He was also the first to establish shared meals. For this reason, some of his descendants still share meals and follow some of his laws. The Opici inhabit the part facing the Tyrrhenian Sea. They are now called Ausonians, as they were in the past. The Chones inhabited the part toward Iapigia and the Ionian Sea called Syrtis. These Chones were descended from the AEnotrians. Shared meals therefore originated here, but the division of citizens into different families came from Egypt. For Sesostris reigned much earlier than Minos. We should suppose that most other things were discovered over a long, indeed a boundless, period. Reason tells us that need first led people to invent necessities. Once they had these, they invented things that made life more comfortable and beautiful. We should reach the same conclusion about political organization. Everything in Egypt bears signs of extreme antiquity. The Egyptians seem to be the oldest of all peoples and to have developed laws and political order. We should therefore make proper use of what we are told about them and try to discover what they overlooked. We have already said that land should belong to the military class and those who take part in government. Farmers should therefore form a separate class. We have also discussed how large the territory should be and what kind of land it should contain. We will first consider how to divide the land, and how many farmers there should be and of what kind. We certainly do not believe that property should be held in common, as some have argued. Property should be shared only in this sense: out of friendship, it [1330a] should be customary to ensure that no citizen lacks food. Shared meals are generally agreed to be appropriate in well-governed cities. I will explain my reasons for approving of them later. All citizens should take part in these meals. But poor people will struggle to provide the required contribution from their own resources while also supporting their households. The whole state should also pay the costs of religious worship. The land must therefore be divided into two parts, one publicly owned and the other privately owned. Each part should then be divided in two. Half the public land should support the worship of the gods, and the other half should support shared meals. Half the private land should lie at the borders of the territory, and the other half near the city. Each person should receive land in both places. This would be fair and equitable. It would also encourage citizens to act together more harmoniously in any war with their neighbors. For when land is not divided this way, one group ignores enemy raids on the borders. The other group treats those raids as more serious than they need to be. For this reason, some places forbid border residents from voting in council debates about a war directed against them. Their private interests might prevent them from voting impartially. The territory should therefore be divided in the way described, for the reasons already given. If one could choose, the farmers should certainly be slaves, neither from the same nation nor spirited in character. They would then work hard and be unlikely to attempt political change. The next-best choice would be barbarian servants with a similar natural disposition to those just described. Those who cultivate an individual’s private land should belong to that individual. Those who cultivate public land should belong to the public. Later, we will discuss how these slaves should be treated. We will also explain why it is very appropriate to promise them freedom as a reward for their service.