[1265a]
[1]
But though the
Laws consists for the most part of a treatise on law, the
author has said a little about the form of the constitution, and in a desire to
make this more suitable for adoption by actual states he brings it round by
degrees back to the other form, that of the Republic. For except
community in wives and property, he assigns all his other regulations in the
same form to both states, for he prescribes for both the same scheme of
education, and a life detached from menial tasks, and similarly as regards
common meals, except that in the state described in the Laws he
says there are to be common meals for women also, and he makes the Republic
consist of a class possessing arms that numbers a thousand, but the state of the
Laws has five thousand.Now it is true that all the
discourses of Socrates possess brilliance, cleverness, originality and keenness
of inquiry, but it is no doubt difficult to be right about everything: for
instance with regard to the size of population just mentioned it must not be
over-looked that a territory as large as that of Babylon will be needed for so many inhabitants, or some other
country of unlimited extent, to support five thousand men in idleness and
another swarm of women and servants around them many times as numerous. It is
proper no doubt to assume ideal conditions, but not to go beyond all bounds of
possibility. And it is said that in
laying down the laws the legislator must have his attention fixed on two
things,
[20]
the territory and the
population. But also it would be well to add that he must take into account the
neighboring regions also, if the city is to live a life of politics1 (for it is
necessary for it to use for war not only such arms as are serviceable within its
own territory but also such as are serviceable against places outside
it); and if one does not accept such a description whether for the life
of the individual or for the common life of the state, yet it is none the less
necessary for the citizens to be formidable to their enemies not only when they
have entered the country but also when they have left it.2
Also the amount of property requires
consideration: would it not perhaps be better to define it differently, by a
clearer formula? The writer says that it ought to be sufficiently large for the
citizens ‘to live a temperate life’—as if one were
to say ‘to live a good life’; but really that phrase is too
general, since it is possible to live temperately yet miserably. But a better
definition would be ‘to live temperately and liberally’
(for if the two are separated a liberal mode of life is liable to slip
into luxury and a temperate one into a life of hardship), since surely
these are the only desirable qualities relating to the use of
wealth—for instance you cannot use wealth gently or bravely, but you
can use it temperately and liberally, so that it follows that these are
qualities that have to do with wealth. And it is also strange that although equalizing properties
the writer does not regulate the number of the citizens, but leaves the
birth-rate uncontrolled, on the assumption that it will be sufficiently levelled
up to the same total owing to childless marriages, however many children are
begotten,
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.