Politics   

first person not a statesman who made inquiries about the best form of
government.
The city of Hippodamus was composed of 10,000 citizens divided into
three parts- one of artisans, one of husbandmen, and a third of armed
defenders of the state. He also divided the land into three parts, one
sacred, one public, the third private: the first was set apart to
maintain the customary worship of the Gods, the second was to support
the warriors, the third was the property of the husbandmen. He also
divided laws into three classes, and no more, for he maintained that
there are three subjects of lawsuits- insult, injury, and homicide. He
likewise instituted a single final court of appeal, to which all
causes seeming to have been improperly decided might be referred; this
court he formed of elders chosen for the purpose. He was further of
opinion that the decisions of the courts ought not to be given by the
use of a voting pebble, but that every one should have a tablet on
which he might not only write a simple condemnation, or leave the
tablet blank for a simple acquittal; but, if he partly acquitted and
partly condemned, he was to distinguish accordingly. To the existing
law he objected that it obliged the judges to be guilty of perjury,
whichever way they voted. He also enacted that those who discovered
anything for the good of the state should be honored; and he provided
that the children of citizens who died in battle should be maintained
at the public expense, as if such an enactment had never been heard of
before, yet it actually exists at Athens and in other places. As to
the magistrates, he would have them all elected by the people, that
is, by the three classes already mentioned, and those who were elected
were to watch over the interests of the public, of strangers, and of
orphans. These are the most striking points in the constitution of
Hippodamus. There is not much else.
The first of these proposals to which objection may be taken is the
threefold division of the citizens. The artisans, and the husbandmen,
and the warriors, all have a share in the government. But the
husbandmen have no arms, and the artisans neither arms nor land, and
therefore they become all but slaves of the warrior class. That they
should share in all the offices is an impossibility; for generals and
guardians of the citizens, and nearly all the principal magistrates,
must be taken from the class of those who carry arms. Yet, if the two
other classes have no share in the government, how can they be loyal
citizens? It may be said that those who have arms must necessarily be
masters of both the other classes, but this is not so easily
accomplished unless they are numerous; and if they are, why should the
other classes share in the government at all, or have power to appoint
magistrates? Further, what use are farmers to the city? Artisans there
must be, for these are wanted in every city, and they can live by
their craft, as elsewhere; and the husbandmen too, if they really
provided the warriors with food, might fairly have a share in the
government. But in the republic of Hippodamus they are supposed to
have land of their own, which they cultivate for their private
benefit. Again, as to this common land out of which the soldiers are
maintained, if they are themselves to be the cultivators of it, the
warrior class will be identical with the husbandmen, although the
legislator intended to make a distinction between them. If, again,
there are to be other cultivators distinct both from the husbandmen,
who have land of their own, and from the warriors, they will make a
fourth class, which has no place in the state and no share in
anything. Or, if the same persons are to cultivate their own lands,
and those of the public as well, they will have difficulty in
supplying the quantity of produce which will maintain two households:
and why, in this case, should there be any division, for they might
find food themselves and give to the warriors from the same land and
the same lots? There is surely a great confusion in all this.
Neither is the law to commended which says that the judges, when a
simple issue is laid before them, should distinguish in their
judgement; for the judge is thus converted into an arbitrator. Now, in