Politics   

the Laws, and therefore we had better examine briefly the constitution
which is therein described. In the Republic, Socrates has definitely
settled in all a few questions only; such as the community of women
and children, the community of property, and the constitution of the
state. The population is divided into two classes- one of husbandmen,
and the other of warriors; from this latter is taken a third class of
counselors and rulers of the state. But Socrates has not determined
whether the husbandmen and artisans are to have a share in the
government, and whether they, too, are to carry arms and share in
military service, or not. He certainly thinks that the women ought to
share in the education of the guardians, and to fight by their side.
The remainder of the work is filled up with digressions foreign to the
main subject, and with discussions about the education of the
guardians. In the Laws there is hardly anything but laws; not much is
said about the constitution. This, which he had intended to make more
of the ordinary type, he gradually brings round to the other or ideal
form. For with the exception of the community of women and property,
he supposes everything to be the same in both states; there is to be
the same education; the citizens of both are to live free from servile
occupations, and there are to be common meals in both. The only
difference is that in the Laws, the common meals are extended to
women, and the warriors number 5000, but in the Republic only 1000.
The discourses of Socrates are never commonplace; they always exhibit
grace and originality and thought; but perfection in everything can
hardly be expected. We must not overlook the fact that the number of
5000 citizens, just now mentioned, will require a territory as large
as Babylon, or some other huge site, if so many persons are to be
supported in idleness, together with their women and attendants, who
will be a multitude many times as great. In framing an ideal we may
assume what we wish, but should avoid impossibilities.
It is said that the legislator ought to have his eye directed to two
points- the people and the country. But neighboring countries also
must not be forgotten by him, firstly because the state for which he
legislates is to have a political and not an isolated life. For a
state must have such a military force as will be serviceable against
her neighbors, and not merely useful at home. Even if the life of
action is not admitted to be the best, either for individuals or
states, still a city should be formidable to enemies, whether invading
or retreating.
There is another point: Should not the amount of property be defined
in some way which differs from this by being clearer? For Socrates
says that a man should have so much property as will enable him to
live temperately, which is only a way of saying 'to live well'; this
is too general a conception. Further, a man may live temperately and
yet miserably. A better definition would be that a man must have so
much property as will enable him to live not only temperately but
liberally; if the two are parted, liberally will combine with luxury;
temperance will be associated with toil. For liberality and temperance
are the only eligible qualities which have to do with the use of
property. A man cannot use property with mildness or courage, but
temperately and liberally he may; and therefore the practice of these
virtues is inseparable from property. There is an inconsistency, too,
in too, in equalizing the property and not regulating the number of
the citizens; the population is to remain unlimited, and he thinks
that it will be sufficiently equalized by a certain number of
marriages being unfruitful, however many are born to others, because
he finds this to be the case in existing states. But greater care will
be required than now; for among ourselves, whatever may be the number
of citizens, the property is always distributed among them, and
therefore no one is in want; but, if the property were incapable of
division as in the Laws, the supernumeraries, whether few or many,
would get nothing. One would have thought that it was even more
necessary to limit population than property; and that the limit should
be fixed by calculating the chances of mortality in the children, and