The Complete Aristotle (eng.)

allows less), while another judge allows five,
another four minae. In this way they will go on splitting up the
damages, and some will grant the whole and others nothing: how is
the final reckoning to be taken? Again, no one contends that he who
votes for a simple acquittal or condemnation perjures himself, if
the indictment has been laid in an unqualified form; and this is
just, for the judge who acquits does not decide that the defendant
owes nothing, but that he does not owe the twenty minae. He only is
guilty of perjury who thinks that the defendant ought not to pay
twenty minae, and yet condemns him.
    To honor those who discover anything which is useful to the
state is a proposal which has a specious sound, but cannot safely
be enacted by law, for it may encourage informers, and perhaps even
lead to political commotions. This question involves another. It
has been doubted whether it is or is not expedient to make any
changes in the laws of a country, even if another law be better.
Now, if an changes are inexpedient, we can hardly assent to the
proposal of Hippodamus; for, under pretense of doing a public
service, a man may introduce measures which are really destructive
to the laws or to the constitution. But, since we have touched upon
this subject, perhaps we had better go a little into detail, for,
as I was saying, there is a difference of opinion, and it may
sometimes seem desirable to make changes. Such changes in the other
arts and sciences have certainly been beneficial; medicine, for
example, and gymnastic, and every other art and craft have departed
from traditional usage. And, if politics be an art, change must be
necessary in this as in any other art. That improvement has
occurred is shown by the fact that old customs are exceedingly
simple and barbarous. For the ancient Hellenes went about armed and
bought their brides of each other. The remains of ancient laws
which have come down to us are quite absurd; for example, at Cumae
there is a law about murder, to the effect that if the accuser
produce a certain number of witnesses from among his own kinsmen,
the accused shall be held guilty. Again, men in general desire the
good, and not merely what their fathers had. But the primeval
inhabitants, whether they were born of the earth or were the
survivors of some destruction, may be supposed to have been no
better than ordinary or even foolish people among ourselves (such
is certainly the tradition concerning the earth-born men); and it
would be ridiculous to rest contented with their notions. Even when
laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain
unaltered. As in other sciences, so in politics, it is impossible
that all things should be precisely set down in writing; for
enactments must be universal, but actions are concerned with
particulars. Hence we infer that sometimes and in certain cases
laws may be changed; but when we look at the matter from another
point of view, great caution would seem to be required. For the
habit of lightly changing the laws is an evil, and, when the
advantage is small, some errors both of lawgivers and rulers had
better be left; the citizen will not gain so much by making the
change as he will lose by the habit of disobedience. The analogy of
the arts is false; a change in a law is a very different thing from
a change in an art. For the law has no power to command obedience
except that of habit, which can only be given by time, so that a
readiness to change from old to new laws enfeebles the power of the
law. Even if we admit that the laws are to be changed, are they all
to be changed, and in every state? And are they to be changed by
anybody who likes, or only by certain persons? These are very
important questions; and therefore we had better reserve the
discussion of them to a more suitable occasion.
IX
    In the governments of Lacedaemon and Crete, and indeed in all
governments, two points have to be considered: first, whether any
particular law is good or bad, when compared with the perfect
state; secondly, whether it is or is not consistent with the idea
and character which the lawgiver has set before his citizens. That
in a well-ordered state the citizens should have leisure and not
have to provide for their daily wants is generally acknowledged,
but there is a difficulty in seeing how this leisure is to be
attained. The Thessalian Penestae have often risen against their
masters, and the Helots in like manner against the Lacedaemonians,
for whose