Chapter 32

256Plato, Legg. vii. p. 821 A. We must observe that the Athenian (who here represents Plato himself) does not give this repugnance to astronomical study as his own feeling, but, on the contrary, as a prejudice from which he dissents. There is no ground, therefore, so far as this passage is concerned, for the charge of contradiction advanced by Velleius against Plato in Cicero De Nat. Deor. i. 12, 30.

257Plat. Legg. vii. pp. 821 B-822 C. καταψευδόμεθα νῦν, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, Ἕλληνες πάντες μεγάλων θεῶν, Ἡλίου τε ἅμα καὶ Σελήνης (821 B) … περὶ θεῶν τῶν κατ’ οὔρανον τούς γε ἡμετέρους πολίτας τε καὶ τοὺς νέους τὸ μέχρι τοσούτου μαθεῖν περὶ ἁπάντων τούτων, μέχρι τοῦ μὴ βλασφημεῖν περὶ αὐτά, εὐφημεῖν δὲ ἀεὶ θύοντας τε καὶ ἐν εὐχαῖς εὐχομένους εὐσεβως (821C-D). The five Planets were distinguished and named, and their periods to a certain extent understood, by Plato; but by many persons in his day the word Planet was understood more generally as comprehending all the celestial bodies, sun and moon among them — (except fixed stars) therefore comets also — τὰ μὴ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ περιφορᾷ ὄντα, Xenoph. Memor. iv. 7, 5, where an opinion is ascribed to Sokrates quite opposed to that which Plato here expresses. See Schaubach, Geschichte der Astronomie, pp. 212-477.

258Plato, Legg. vii. pp. 819 D, 821 E.This portion of the Leges is obscure, and would be hardly intelligible if it were not illustrated by a passage in the Timæus (p. 38). Even with such help it is difficult, and has been understood differently by different interpreters. Proklus (in Timæum, pp. 262-263) and Martin (Études sur le Timée, ii. note 36, p. 84) interpret it as alluding to the spiral line (ἕλικα) described by each planet (Sun and Moon are each counted as planets) round the Earth, arising from the combination of the force of the revolving sidereal sphere or Aplanês, carrying all the planets round along with it from East to West, with the counter-movement (contrary, but obliquely contrary) inherent in each planet. The spiral movement of each planet, resulting from combination of these two distinct forces, is a regular movement governed by law; though to an observer who does not understand the law, the movements appear irregular. Compare Derkyllides ap. Theon Smyrn. c. 41, f. 27, p. 330, ed. Martin.The point here discussed forms one of the items of controversy between Gruppe and Boeckh, in the recent discussion about Plato’s astronomical views.Gruppe, Die Kosmischen Systeme der Griechen, pp. 157-168:Boeckh, Untersuchungen über das Kosmische System des Platon, pp. 45-57.Gruppe has an ingenious argument to show that the novelty (παράδοξον) which Plato had in his mind, but was afraid to declare openly because of existing prejudices, was the heliocentric or Copernican system, which he believes to have been Plato’s discovery. Boeckh refutes Gruppe’s reasoning; and refutes it, in my judgment, completely. He sustains the interpretation given by Proklus and Martin.Boeckh also illustrates (pp. 35-38-49-54), in a manner more satisfactory than Gruppe, the dicta of Plato about the comparative velocity of the Planets (Sun and Moon counted among them).Plato declares the Moon to be the quickest mover among the planets, and Saturn to be the slowest. On the contrary Demokritus pronounced the Moon to be the slowest mover of all; slower than the Sun, because the Sun was farther from the Earth and nearer to the outermost or sidereal sphere. It was the rotation of this last-mentioned sphere (according to Demokritus) which carried round along with it the Sun, the Moon, and all the planets: the bodies near to it were more forcibly acted upon by its rotation, and carried round more rapidly, than the bodies distant from it — hence the Moon was the least rapid mover of all (Lucretius, v. 615-635. See Sir George Lewis’s Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, ch. ii. pp. 139-140).It appears to me probable that Plato, in the severe remarks which he makes on persons who falsely affirmed the quickest mover in the heavens to be the slowest, had in view these doctrines of Demokritus. Plato never once mentions Demokritus by name (see Mullach, Fragment. Demokrit. p. 25); but he is very sparing in mentioning by nameanycontemporaries. It illustrates the difference between the manner of Aristotle and Plato, that Aristotle frequently names Demokritus — seventy-eight times according to Mullach (p. 107) — even in the works which we possess.

258Plato, Legg. vii. pp. 819 D, 821 E.

This portion of the Leges is obscure, and would be hardly intelligible if it were not illustrated by a passage in the Timæus (p. 38). Even with such help it is difficult, and has been understood differently by different interpreters. Proklus (in Timæum, pp. 262-263) and Martin (Études sur le Timée, ii. note 36, p. 84) interpret it as alluding to the spiral line (ἕλικα) described by each planet (Sun and Moon are each counted as planets) round the Earth, arising from the combination of the force of the revolving sidereal sphere or Aplanês, carrying all the planets round along with it from East to West, with the counter-movement (contrary, but obliquely contrary) inherent in each planet. The spiral movement of each planet, resulting from combination of these two distinct forces, is a regular movement governed by law; though to an observer who does not understand the law, the movements appear irregular. Compare Derkyllides ap. Theon Smyrn. c. 41, f. 27, p. 330, ed. Martin.

The point here discussed forms one of the items of controversy between Gruppe and Boeckh, in the recent discussion about Plato’s astronomical views.Gruppe, Die Kosmischen Systeme der Griechen, pp. 157-168:Boeckh, Untersuchungen über das Kosmische System des Platon, pp. 45-57.

Gruppe has an ingenious argument to show that the novelty (παράδοξον) which Plato had in his mind, but was afraid to declare openly because of existing prejudices, was the heliocentric or Copernican system, which he believes to have been Plato’s discovery. Boeckh refutes Gruppe’s reasoning; and refutes it, in my judgment, completely. He sustains the interpretation given by Proklus and Martin.

Boeckh also illustrates (pp. 35-38-49-54), in a manner more satisfactory than Gruppe, the dicta of Plato about the comparative velocity of the Planets (Sun and Moon counted among them).

Plato declares the Moon to be the quickest mover among the planets, and Saturn to be the slowest. On the contrary Demokritus pronounced the Moon to be the slowest mover of all; slower than the Sun, because the Sun was farther from the Earth and nearer to the outermost or sidereal sphere. It was the rotation of this last-mentioned sphere (according to Demokritus) which carried round along with it the Sun, the Moon, and all the planets: the bodies near to it were more forcibly acted upon by its rotation, and carried round more rapidly, than the bodies distant from it — hence the Moon was the least rapid mover of all (Lucretius, v. 615-635. See Sir George Lewis’s Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, ch. ii. pp. 139-140).

It appears to me probable that Plato, in the severe remarks which he makes on persons who falsely affirmed the quickest mover in the heavens to be the slowest, had in view these doctrines of Demokritus. Plato never once mentions Demokritus by name (see Mullach, Fragment. Demokrit. p. 25); but he is very sparing in mentioning by nameanycontemporaries. It illustrates the difference between the manner of Aristotle and Plato, that Aristotle frequently names Demokritus — seventy-eight times according to Mullach (p. 107) — even in the works which we possess.

Hunting — how far permitted or advised.

In regard to hunting, Plato thinks that it is a subject on which positive laws are unsuitable or insufficient, and he therefore gives certain general directions which partake of the nature both of advice and of law. The good citizen (he says) is one who not only obeys the positivelaws prescribed by the lawgiver, but who also conforms his conduct to the general cast of the lawgiver’s opinions: practising what is commended therein, abstaining from what is blamed.259Plato commends one mode of hunting — the chase after quadrupeds: yet only with horses, dogs, javelins, &c., wherein both courage and bodily strength are improved — but not with nets or snares, where no such result is produced. He blames other modes — such as fishing and bird-snaring (especially by night). He blames still more emphatically theft and piracy, which he regards also as various modes of hunting.260

259Plato, Legg. vii. p. 822 E.

260Plato, Legg. vii. pp. 823-824.

Large general sense which Plato gives to the word hunting.

What principally deserves notice here is, the large general idea which Plato conceives to himself under the term Hunting, and the number of diverse particulars comprehended therein. 1. Hunting of quadrupeds; either with dogs and javelins openly, or with snares, by stratagem. 2. Hunting of birds, in the air. 3. Hunting of fishes, in the water. 4. Hunting after the property of other men, in the city or country. 5. Hunting after men as slaves, or after other valuables, by means of piratical vessels. 6. Hunting of public enemies, by one army against an opposite one. 7. Hunting of men to conciliate their friendship or affection, sometimes by fair means, sometimes by foul.261

261Plato, Legg. vii. p. 823. θήρα γὰρ παμπολύ τι πρᾶγμά ἐστι, περιειλημμένον ὀνόματι σχεδὸν ἑνὶ … πολλὴ δὲ ἡ κατὰ φιλίαν θηρεύουσα (823 B) … ἄγρας ἀνθρώπων κατὰ θάλατταν … κλωπείας ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ πόλει (823 E). Compare the Epinomis, p. 975 C.So also in the Sophistês (pp. 221-222) Plato analyses and distributes the general idea of θηρευτική: including under it, as one variety, the hunting after men by violent means (τὴν βίαιον θήραν, τὴν λῃστικήν, ἀνδραποδιστικὴν, τυραννικήν, καὶ ξύμπασαν τὴν πολεμικήν) — and as another variety, the hunting after men by persuasive or seductive means (τὴν πιθανουργικήν, ἐρωτικήν, κολακικήν). In the Memorabilia of Xenophon also (ii. 6, 29-33), Sokrates expands this same idea — τὴν θήραν ἀνθρώπων — τὰ τῶν φίλων θηρατικά, &c. Compare also the conversation between Sokrates and Theodotê (iii. 11, 8-15) — θηρώμενος, ib. i. 2, 24 — and Plato Protag. init.

So also in the Sophistês (pp. 221-222) Plato analyses and distributes the general idea of θηρευτική: including under it, as one variety, the hunting after men by violent means (τὴν βίαιον θήραν, τὴν λῃστικήν, ἀνδραποδιστικὴν, τυραννικήν, καὶ ξύμπασαν τὴν πολεμικήν) — and as another variety, the hunting after men by persuasive or seductive means (τὴν πιθανουργικήν, ἐρωτικήν, κολακικήν). In the Memorabilia of Xenophon also (ii. 6, 29-33), Sokrates expands this same idea — τὴν θήραν ἀνθρώπων — τὰ τῶν φίλων θηρατικά, &c. Compare also the conversation between Sokrates and Theodotê (iii. 11, 8-15) — θηρώμενος, ib. i. 2, 24 — and Plato Protag. init.

That all these processes — which Plato here includes as so many varieties of hunting — present to the mind, when they are compared, a common point of analogy, is not to be denied. The number of different comparisons which the mind can make between phenomena, is almost unlimited. Analogies may be followed from one to another, until at last, after successive steps, the analogy between the first and the last becomes faint or imperceptible.Yet the same word, transferred successively from the first to the last, conceals this faintness of analogy and keeps them all before the mind as one. To us, this extension of the wordhuntingto particular cases dissimilar in so many respects, appears more as poetical metaphor: to intelligent Greeks of the Sokratic school, it seemed a serious comparison: and to Plato, with his theory of Ideas, it ought to have presented a Real Idea or permanent One, which alone remained constant amidst an indefinite multitude of fugitive, shadowy, and deceptive, particulars. But though this is the consistent corollary, from Plato’s theory of Ideas, he does not so state it in the Treatise De Legibus, and probably he did not so conceive it. Critics have already observed that in this Treatise scarce any mention is made of the theory of Ideas. Plato had passed into other points of view: yet he neither formally renounces the points of view which we find in anterior dialogues, nor takes the trouble of reconciling them with the thoughts of the later dialogues. Whether there exists any Real, Abstract, Idea of Hunting, apart from the particular acts and varieties of hunting — is a question which he does not touch upon. Yet this is the main feature of the Platonic philosophy, and the main doctrine most frequently impugned by Aristotle as Platonic.

Number of religious sacrifices to be determined by lawgiver.

Although, in regard to the religious worship of his community, the oracle of Delphi is asked to prescribe what sacrifices are to be offered, and to what Gods — yet the religious lawgiver will determine the number of such sacrifices and festivals, as well as the times and seasons.262Each day in the year, sacrifice will be offered by one of the magistrates to some God or Dæmon. Once in every month, there will be a solemn sacrifice and festival, with matches of music and gymnastics, offered by each tribe to its eponymous God. The offerings to the celestial Gods will be kept distinct from the offerings to the subterranean Gods. Among these last, Pluto will be especially worshipped during the twelfth month of the year. The festivals will be adjusted to the seasons, and there will on proper occasions be festivals for women separately and exclusively.263

262Plato, Legg. viii. p. 828.

263Plato, Legg. viii. p. 828.

Military muster of the whole citizen population once in each month — men, women, and children.

Once a month certainly — and more than once, if the magistrates command — on occasion of one of these festivals, all the citizen population are ordered to attend in military muster — men, women and children. They will be brought together in such divisions and detachments as the magistrate shall direct. They will here go through gymnastic and military exercises. They will also have fights, with warlike weapons not likely to inflict mortal wounds, yet involving sufficient danger to test their bravery and endurance: one against one, two against two, ten against ten.264The victors will receive honorary wreaths, and public encomium in appropriate songs. Both men and women will take part alike in these exercises and contests, and in the composition of the odes to celebrate the victors.265

264Plat. Legg. viii. p. 833 E.

265Plat. Legg. viii. p. 829 B-E. Τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ λέγω στρατείας τε περὶ καὶ τῆς ἐν ποιήσεσι παῤῥησίας γυναιξί τε καὶ ἀνδράσιν ὁμοίως γίγνεσθαι δεῖν. 830 E: χρωμένους ὑποκινδύνοις βέλεσιν.

Such monthly musters, over and above the constant daily gymnastics of the youthful population, are indispensable as preliminary training; without which the citizens cannot fight with efficiency and success, in the event of a real foreign enemy invading the territory.266No athlete ever feels himself qualified to contend at the public games without the most laborious special training beforehand. Yet Plato expresses apprehension that his proposal of regular musters for warlike exercises with sham-battles, will appear ridiculous. He states that nothing of the kind existed in any Grecian city, by reason of two great corruptions:— First, the general love of riches and money-getting: Secondly, the bad governments everywhere existing, whether democracy, oligarchy, or despotism — each of which was in reality a faction or party-government,i.e., government by one part over another unwilling part.267

266Plat. Legg. viii. p. 830.

267Plat. Legg. viii. pp. 831-832.I read with surprise the declaration of Plato, that no such military training exercises existedanywherein Greece. How is this to be reconciled with the statements of Xenophon in his Treatise on the Republic of the Lacedæmonians, wherein he expressly calls the Spartans τεχνίτας τῶν πολεμικῶν — or even with statement of Plato himself about Sparta in the first book of this Treatise De Legibus? Compare Thucyd. v. 69.

267Plat. Legg. viii. pp. 831-832.

I read with surprise the declaration of Plato, that no such military training exercises existedanywherein Greece. How is this to be reconciled with the statements of Xenophon in his Treatise on the Republic of the Lacedæmonians, wherein he expressly calls the Spartans τεχνίτας τῶν πολεμικῶν — or even with statement of Plato himself about Sparta in the first book of this Treatise De Legibus? Compare Thucyd. v. 69.

Gymnastic training must have reference to war, not to athletic prizes.

Plato prescribes that the gymnastic training in his community shall be such as to have a constant reference to war; and that elaborate bodily excellence, for the purposesimply of obtaining prizes at the public games, shall be discouraged. There will be foot-races, for men, for boys, and for young women up to twenty years of age — the men always running in full panoply.268Horse-racing is permitted, but chariot-racing is discountenanced.269There will also be practice with the bow and with other weapons of light warfare, in which the young women are encouraged to take part — yet not constrained, in deference to prevalent sentiment.270

268Plat. Legg. viii. p. 833 B-C.

269Plat. Legg. viii. p. 834 B.

270Plat. Legg. viii. p. 834 C-D.

Regulation of sexual intercourse. Syssitia or public mess.

In regard to sexual intercourse, Plato recognises that the difficulty of regulating it according to the wisdom of the lawgiver is greater in his citythanin any actual city, because of the more free and public life of the women. Neither Krete nor Sparta furnish a good example to follow on this point.271He thinks however that by causing one doctrine on the subject to be continually preached, and by preventing any other from being even mentioned, the lawgiver may be able so to consecrate this doctrine as to procure for it pretty universal obedience. The lawgiver may thus be able to suppress pæderasty altogether, and to restrict generally the sexual intercourse to that of persons legally married — or to enforce at least the restriction, that the exceptional cases of sexual intercourse departing from these conditions shall be covered with the veil of secrecy.272The constant bodily exercises prescribed in the Platonic community will tend to diminish the influence of such appetites in the citizens: while the example of the distinguished prize combatants at the Olympic games, in whose long-continued training strict continence was practised, shows that even more than what Plato anticipates can be obtained, under the stimulus of sufficient motive.273

271Plat. Legg. viii. p. 836 B.

272Plato, Legg. viii. p. 841.

273Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 840 A, 841 A.Compare the remarks which I have made above in this volume (p. 197) respecting the small probable influence of Aphroditê in the Platonic Republic. A like remark may be made, though not so emphatically, respecting the Platonic community in the Leges.

273Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 840 A, 841 A.

Compare the remarks which I have made above in this volume (p. 197) respecting the small probable influence of Aphroditê in the Platonic Republic. A like remark may be made, though not so emphatically, respecting the Platonic community in the Leges.

What is here proposed respecting the sexual appetite finds no approbation from Kleinias, since the customs in Krete were altogether different. But the Syssitia, or public mess-table for the citizens, are welcomed readily both by the Kretan and the Spartan. The Syssitia existed both in Krete and at Sparta; butwere regulated on very different principles in one and in the other. Plato declines to discuss this difference, pronouncing it to be unimportant. But Aristotle informs us what it was; and shows that material consequences turned upon it, in reference to the citizenship at Sparta.274

274Plato, Legg. viii. p. 842 B; Aristot. Politic. ii. 9-10, p. 1271, a. 26, 1272, a. 12. The statement of Aristotle, about the manner in which the cost of the Kretan Syssitia was provided, while substantially agreeing with Ephorus (ap. Strabo. x. p. 480), does not exactly coincide with the account given by Dosiadas of the Kretans in Lyktus (ap. Athenæum, iv. p. 143). Compare Hoeckh, Kreta, vol. iii. pp. 134-138.

Regulations about landed property — Boundaries — Limited power of fining by magistrates.

Plato enters now upon the economical and proprietary rules proper for his community. As there will be neither gold and silver nor foreign commerce, he is dispensed from the necessity of making laws about shipments, retailing, interest, mine-digging, collectors of taxes, &c. The persons under his charge will be husbandmen, shepherds, bee-keepers, &c., with those who work under them, and with the artisans who supply implements to them.275The first and most important of all regulations is, the law of Zeus Horius or Terminalis — Not to disturb or transgress the boundary marks between different properties. Upon this depends the maintenance of those unalterablefundior lots, which is the cardinal principle of the Platonic community. Severe penalties, religious as well as civil, are prescribed for offenders against this rule.276Each proprietor is directed to have proper regard to the convenience of neighbours, and above all to abstain from annoying or damaging them, especially in regard to the transit, or retention, or distribution, of water. To intercept the supply, or corrupt the quality of water, is a high crime.277Regulations are made about the carrying of the harvest, both of grain and fruit. Disputes arising upon these points are to be decided by the magistrates, up to the sum of three minæ: above that sum, by the public Dikasteries. Many rules of detail will require to be made by the magistrates themselves with a view to fulfil the purposes of the lawgiver. So soon as the magistrates think that enough of these regulations have been introduced, they will consecrate the system as it stands, rendering it perpetual and unalterable.278

275Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 842 D, 846 D.

276Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 842-843.

277Plat. Legg. viii. pp. 844 A, 845 E.

278Plat. Legg. viii. p. 846 A-D.

Regulations about artisans — Distribution of the annual landed produce.

Next, Plato passes to the Demiurgi or Artisans. These are all non-citizens or metics: for it is a peremptory law, that no citizen shall be an artisan in any branch. Nor is any artisan permitted to carry on two crafts trades at once.279If any article be imperatively required from abroad, either for implements of war or for religious purposes, the magistrates shall cause it to be imported. But there shall be no retailing, nor reselling with profit, of any article.280

279Plato, Legg. viii. p. 846 D-E.

280Plato, Legg. viii. p. 847.

The distribution of the produce of land shall be made on a principle approaching to that which prevails in Krete.281The total produce raised will be distributed into twelve portions, each equivalent to one month’s consumption. Each twelfth portion will then be divided into equal thirds. Two of these thirds will be consumed by the citizens, their families, their slaves, and their agricultural animals: the other third will be sold in the market for the consumption of artisans and strangers, who alone are permitted to buy it, all citizens being forbidden to do so. Each citizen will make the apportionment of his own two-thirds among freemen and slaves: a measured quantity shall then be given to each of the working animals.282On the first of each month, the sale of barley and wheat will be made in the market-place, and every artisan or stranger will then purchase enough for his monthly consumption: the like on the twelfth of each month, for wine and other liquids — and on the twentieth of each month, for animals and animal products, such as wool and hides. Firewood may be purchased daily by any stranger or artisan, from the proprietors on whose lands the trees grow, and may be resold by him to other artisans: other articles can only be sold at the monthly market-days. The Agoranomi, or regulators of the market, will preside on those days, and will fix the spots on which the different goods shall be exposed for sale. They will also take account of the quantity which each man has for sale, fixing a certain price for each article. They will then adjust the entries of each man’s property in the public registers according to these new transactions. But if the actual purchasesand sales be made at any rate different from what is thus fixed, the Agoranomi will modify their entries in the register according to the actual rate, either in plus or in minus. These entries of individual property in the public register will be made both for citizens and resident strangers alike.283

281Plato, Legg. viii. p. 847 E. ἐγγὺς τῆ τοῦ Κρητικοῦ νόμου.

282Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 847-848.

283Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 849-850.These regulations are given both briefly and obscurely.

283Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 849-850.

These regulations are given both briefly and obscurely.

Admission of resident Metics — conditions attached.

It shall be open to any one who chooses, to come and reside in the city as a stranger or artisan to exercise his craft, without payment of any fee, simply on condition of good conduct; and of being enrolled with his property in the register. But he shall not acquire any fixed settlement. After twenty years, he must depart and take away his property. When he departs, the entries belonging to his name, in the proprietary register, shall be cancelled. If he has a son, the son may also exercise the same art and reside as a metic in the city for twenty years, but no longer; beginning from the age of fifteen. Any metic who may render special service to the city, may have his term prolonged, the magistrates and the citizens consenting.284

284Plato, Legg. viii. p. 850.

Offences and penal judicature — Procedure of the Dikasts.

Plato now passes to the criminal code of his community: the determination of offences, penalties, and penal judicature. Serious and capital offences will be judged by the thirty-seven Nomophylakes, in conjunction with a Board of Select Dikasts, composed of the best among the magistrates of the preceding year.285They will hear first the pleading of the accuser, next that of the accused: they will then proceed, in the order of seniority, to put questions to both these persons, sifting the matter of charge. Plato requires them to be active in this examination, and to get at the facts by mental effort of their own. They will take notes of the examination, then seal up the tablet, and deposit it upon the altar of Hestia. On the morrow they will reassemble and repeat their examination, hearing witnesses and calling for information respecting the affair. On the third day, again the like: after which they will deliver their verdict on the altar ofHestia. Upon this altar two urns will be placed, for condemnation and acquittal: each Dikast will deposit his pebble in one or other of these, openly before the accuser and accused, and before the assembled citizens.286

285Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 855-856. This judicial Board is mentioned also in xi. pp. 926 D, 928 B, 938 B, under the title of τὸ τῶν ἐκκρίτων δικαστήριον — τὸ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν δικαστήριον. It forms the parallel to the Areiopagus at Athens. See K. F. Hermann, De Vestigiis Institut. Attic., &c., pp. 45-46, &c.

286Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 855-856. Compare the procedure before the Areiopagus at Athens, as described by Schömann, Antiq. Juris Publ. Græc. Part v. s. 63, p. 292. It does not appear that the Areiopagites at Athens were in the practice of exercising any such ἀνάκρισις of the parties before them, as Plato enjoins upon his ἐκλεκτοὶ δικασταί: though it was competent to the Dikasts at Athens to put questions if they chose. Meier und Schömann, Der Attische Prozess, p. 718.

Conformably to the general sentiment announced still more distinctly in the Republic, Plato speaks here also of penal legislation as if it were hardly required. He regards it as almost an insult to assume that any of his citizens can grow up capable of committing grave crimes, when they have been subjected to such a training, discipline, and government as he institutes. Still human nature is perverse: we must provide for the occurrence of some exceptional criminals among our citizens, even after all our precautionary supervision: besides, over and above the citizens, we have metics and slaves to watch over.287

287Plato, Legg. ix. p. 853 C-D-E.

Sacrilege, the gravest of all crimes. High Treason.

The first and gravest of all crimes is Sacrilege: pillage or destruction of places or objects consecrated to the Gods. Next comes high treason: either betrayal of the city to foreign enemies, or overthrow of the established laws and government. Persons charged with these crimes shall be tried before the Select Dikasts, or High Court above constituted. If found guilty, they shall be punished either capitally or by such other sentence as the court may award. But no sentence either of complete disfranchisement or of perpetual banishment can be passed against any citizen, because every one of the 5040 lots of land must always remain occupied.288Nor can any citizen be fined to any greater extent than what he possesses over and above his lot of land. He may be imprisoned, or flogged, or exposed in the pillory, or put to dopenance in some sacred precinct. But his punishment shall noway extend to his children, unless persons of the same family shall be condemned to death for three successive generations. Should this occur, the family shall be held as tainted. Their lot of land shall be considered vacant, and assigned to some deserving young man of another citizen family.289

288Plato, Legg. ix. p. 855 C.Compare the penalties inflicted by Plato with those which were inflicted in Attic procedure. Meier und Schömann, Der Attische Prozess, pp. 739-740 seq. There is considerable difference between the two, arising to a great degree out of Plato’s peculiar institution about the unalterable number of lots of land (5040) and of citizen families — as well as out of his fixation of maximum and minimum of property. Flogging or beating is prescribed by Plato, but had no place at Athens: ἀτιμία was a frequent punishment at Athens: Plato’s substitute for it seems to be the pillory — τινὰς ἀμόρφους ἕδρας. Fine was frequent at Athens as a punishment: Plato is obliged to employ it sparingly.

288Plato, Legg. ix. p. 855 C.

Compare the penalties inflicted by Plato with those which were inflicted in Attic procedure. Meier und Schömann, Der Attische Prozess, pp. 739-740 seq. There is considerable difference between the two, arising to a great degree out of Plato’s peculiar institution about the unalterable number of lots of land (5040) and of citizen families — as well as out of his fixation of maximum and minimum of property. Flogging or beating is prescribed by Plato, but had no place at Athens: ἀτιμία was a frequent punishment at Athens: Plato’s substitute for it seems to be the pillory — τινὰς ἀμόρφους ἕδρας. Fine was frequent at Athens as a punishment: Plato is obliged to employ it sparingly.

289Plato, Legg. ix. p. 856 D.

Theft punished bypœna dupli. General exhortation founded by Plato upon this enactment.

Theft.— Plato next adverts to theft, and prescribes that the punishment for a convicted thief shall be one and the same in all cases — to compensate the party robbed to the extent of double the value of the property, or to be imprisoned until he does so.290But upon a question upon this being raised, how far one and the samepœna dupli, neither more nor less, can be properly applied to all cases of theft, we are carried (according to the usual unsystematic manner of the Platonic dialogue) into a general discussion on the principles of penal legislation. We are reminded that the Platonic lawgiver looks beyond the narrow and defective objects to which all other lawgivers have hitherto unwisely confined themselves.291He is under no pressing necessity to legislate at once: he can afford time for preliminary discussion and exposition: he desires to instruct his citizens respecting right and wrong, as well as to constrain their acts by penalty.292As he is better qualified than the poets to enlighten them about the just and honourable, so the principles which he lays down ought to have more weight than the verses of Homer or Tyrtæus.293In regard to Justice and Injustice generally, there are points on which Plato differs from the public, and also points on which the public are at variance with themselves. For example, every one is unanimous in affirming that whatever is just is also beautiful or honourable. But if this be true, then not only what is justly done, but also what is justly suffered, is beautiful or honourable. Now the penalty of death, inflicted on the sacrilegious person, is justlyinflicted. It must therefore be beautiful or honourable: yet every one agrees in declaring it to be shocking and infamous. Here there is an inconsistency or contradiction in the opinions of the public themselves.294

290Plato, Legg. ix. p. 857 A, xii. p. 941. The Solonian Law at Athens provided, that if a man was sued for theft under the ἰδία δίκη κλοπῆς, he should be condemned to thepœna dupliand to a certain προστίμημα besides (Demosthen. cont. Timokrat. 733-736). But it seems that the thief might be indicted by a γραφή, and then the punishment might be heavier. See Aulus Gellius, xi. 18, and chap. xi. of my ‘History of Greece,’ p. 189.

291Plato, Legg. ix. p. 857 C. τὰ περὶ τὴν τῶν νόμων θέσιν οὐδενὶ τρόπῳ πώποτε γέγονεν ὀρθῶς διαπεπονημένα, &c.

292Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 857 E, 858 A.

293Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 858-859.

294Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 859-860.The same argument is employed by Sokrates in the Gorgias, p. 476 E.

294Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 859-860.

The same argument is employed by Sokrates in the Gorgias, p. 476 E.

All unjust men are unjust involuntarily. — No such thing as voluntary injustice. Injustice depends upon the temper of the agent — Distinction between damage and injury.

But Plato differs from the public on another point also. He affirms all wicked or unjust men to be unwillingly wicked or unjust: he affirms that no man does injustice willingly.295How is he to carry out this maxim in his laws? He cannot make any distinction (as all existing cities make it) in the penalties prescribed for voluntary injustice, and for involuntary injustice; for he does not recognise the former as real.296He must explain upon what foundation his dissent from the public rests. He discriminates betweenDamnumandInjuria— between Damage or Hurt, and Injustice. When damage is done, it is sometimes done voluntarily — sometimes, and quite as often, involuntarily. The public call this latter by the name of involuntary injustice; but in Plato’s view it is no injustice at all. Injustice is essentially distinct from damage: it depends on the temper, purpose, or disposition of the agent, not on the result as affecting the patient. A man may be unjust when he is conferring benefit upon another, as well as when he is doing hurt to another. Whether the result be beneficial or hurtful, the action will be right or wrong, and the agent just or unjust, according to the condition of his own mind in doing it.297

Back to Index Next