The Complete Aristotle (eng.)

time
given to one, at another time to another, but always to the same:
as he says, ‘God mingles gold in some, and silver in others, from
their very birth; but brass and iron in those who are meant to be
artisans and husbandmen.’ Again, he deprives the guardians even of
happiness, and says that the legislator ought to make the whole
state happy. But the whole cannot be happy unless most, or all, or
some of its parts enjoy happiness. In this respect happiness is not
like the even principle in numbers, which may exist only in the
whole, but in neither of the parts; not so happiness. And if the
guardians are not happy, who are? Surely not the artisans, or the
common people. The Republic of which Socrates discourses has all
these difficulties, and others quite as great.
VI
    The same, or nearly the same, objections apply to Plato’s later
work, 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