[1282a]
[1]
and that this is the case
similarly with regard to the other arts and crafts. Hence just as a court of
physicians must judge the work of a physician, so also all other practitioners
ought to be called to account before their fellows. But
‘physician’ means both the ordinary practitioner, and the
master of the craft, and thirdly, the man who has studied medicine as part of
his general education (for in almost all the arts there are some such
students, and we assign the right of judgement just as much to cultivated
amateurs as to experts). Further the same might be thought to hold good also of the election of
officials, for to elect rightly is a task for experts—for example, it
is for experts in the science of mensuration to elect a land-surveyor and for
experts in navigation to choose a pilot; for even though in some occupations and
arts some laymen also have a voice in appointments, yet they certainly do not
have more voice than the experts. Hence according to this argument the masses
should not be put in control over either the election of magistrates or their
audit. But perhaps this statement
is not entirely correct, both for the reason stated above,1 in case the populace is not of too slavish a
character (for although each individual separately will be a worse
judge than the experts, the whole of them assembled together will be better or
at least as good judges), and also because about some things the man
who made them would not be the only nor the best judge, in the case of
professionals whose products come within the knowledge of laymen also:
[20]
to judge a house, for instance, does not
belong only to the man who built it, but in fact the man who uses the house
(that is, the householder) will be an even better judge of it,
and a steersman judges a rudder better than a carpenter, and the diner judges a
banquet better than the cook.This difficulty then
might perhaps be thought to be satisfactorily solved in this way. But there is another connected with it: it
is thought to be absurd that the base should be in control over more important
matters than the respectable; but the audits and the elections of magistrates
are a very important matter, yet in some constitutions, as has been said, they
are assigned to the common people, for all such matters are under the control of
the assembly, yet persons of a low property-assessment and of any age take part
in the assembly and the council and sit on juries, whereas treasury officials,
generals and the holders of the highest magistracies are drawn from among
persons of large property. Now this
difficulty also may be solved in a similar way; for perhaps these regulations
also are sound, since it is not the individual juryman or councillor or member
of the assembly in whom authority rests, but the court, the council and the
people, while each of the individuals named (I mean the councillor, the
members of assembly and the juryman) is a part of those bodies. Hence
justly the multitude is sovereign in greater matters, for the popular assembly,
the council and the jury-court are formed of a number of people, and also the
assessed property of all these members collectively is more than that of the
magistrates holding great offices individually or in small groups.Let these
points therefore be decided in this manner.
1 See 6.4.
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.