Liber III, Pars I — Quod non oportet civitatem maximam unitatem et conformitatem habere, ut Socrates et Plato statuerunt. Cap. VIII.

Liber III, Pars I — Quod non oportet civitatem maximam unitatem et conformitatem habere, ut Socrates et Plato statuerunt. Cap. VIII.

One should not seek maximum unity and equality in all things. For if everything were equal, then nothing would exist. To achieve what is required for the universe, and for the universe to be in its most perfect state, there must be diversity according to species. For since the total goodness of the universe cannot be preserved in one species, there must be different species; so that in the diversity of beings, a greater perfection is reserved than in just one. Thus, in a city, to achieve perfection, there must be some diversity; nor should there be complete conformity and equality, as Socrates and Plato believed. The philosopher touches on this. He discusses it. He presents six arguments that demonstrate that a city should not be perfectly unified and conformed. The first is taken in relation to the essence of the city itself, the second by comparison to the army. The third is by comparison to the parts. The fourth is by comparison to the leaders and the subjects. The fifth is by comparison to the end. The sixth is by comparison to those things we see in other wholes. The first way is thus clear. For the unity of a single individual is greater than that of an entire household, and the household is greater than a village, and the village is greater than a city, and the city is greater than a kingdom. For a household consists of many persons, a village consists of many households, a city consists of many villages, and a kingdom consists of many cities. If a house were to be united in such a way that all its inhabitants became one person, it would no longer be a house but would become a single individual; similarly, if a neighborhood were to be united so that it became one house, it would no longer be a neighborhood. In the same way, if a city were to be united so that it became one neighborhood or one house, it would no longer remain a city; for a city requires some diversity, beyond which, if it were to descend, it would cease to exist. To say that there should be complete unity in a city or a kingdom is to say that a city is not a city and a kingdom is not a kingdom. The second way to investigate this same point is as follows. This is understood by comparing it to an army or to warfare. For as it is said, It is. One is warfare, and the other is a city; for this indeed, warfare is useful according to quantity, even though it is the same in kind: for warfare is for the sake of assistance. For just as many men pull a ship more effectively, no matter how many of them share the same ritual and are similar and conform to one another, so too do many men fight more effectively. A city, however, is not established in this way, but is meant for the sufficiency of life. Because we need various things for life, it is necessary for a city to have some diversity. The third way, declaring and manifesting the aforementioned paths, is taken by comparing it to parts. For just as the same body needs different functions. As for walking, touching, seeing, and hearing; therefore, it is necessary to have different members performing various actions: just as we need houses, clothing, food, and other such things for the sufficiency of life, it is necessary for a city to provide some diversity so that sufficiency for life can be found within it. So, if there were no diversity in the members of the body, as if all were eyes, the body would be imperfect, because although it could see, it would not be able to hear or walk: likewise, if there were maximum conformity in the city, so that all were tailors or cobblers, the city would be imperfect, because for the sufficiency of life we need not only shoes but also food, houses, and other things required for life. The fourth way is taken by comparing it to leaders and subjects. For since a city is an order of citizens under some leader or ruler, it is necessary to have some magistrates and positions of authority in the city, which would not exist unless there were some who were dominant and some who were subjects. Therefore, since this requires diversity, it is necessary to have some diversity in the city. The fifth way is taken by comparison to the end. For the purpose of the city is to live well and to have sufficiency in life; for the city is a community that has the limit of all sufficiency for life: but as it has been said, for sufficiency in life, various things are required, therefore the city must have some diversity within itself and have different neighborhoods, so that what is necessary for life that is not found in one neighborhood may be found in another. The sixth way is taken by comparison to other wholes. So that there is never a melody; which is a multitude of voices, is well proportioned if all voices are equal: but for a proper harmony, there must be a diversity of tones. In the same way, a painting is never well arranged unless there is a diversity of colors. Likewise, a city will never be well ordered unless there is a diversity of offices. Therefore, it is fitting for kings and leaders to understand this, that no one ever knows how to govern a city well unless they know how it is constituted; and unless they recognize that there must be diversity within it.