Liber III, Pars I — Quomodo positio Socratis circa regimen civitatis trahi possit ad bonum intellectum. Cap. XV.

Liber III, Pars I — Quomodo positio Socratis circa regimen civitatis trahi possit ad bonum intellectum. Cap. XV.

It was mentioned above that Socrates and his disciple Plato said that the city should be governed in such a way that the citizens share wives, children, and possessions. But if this is understood as the words sound, it cannot stand, as is evident from what has been established. For the way of speaking of the Platonists was metaphorical, which way of speaking Socrates himself likely had, since Plato was his disciple. If we want to understand the Socratic sayings not as the words sound, we can preserve his position. For it is not possible or useful for everything to be common among the citizens according to the truth of the matter; however, according to love and affection, community should be preserved there. Just as every citizen should love other citizens as himself, so they should love the wives, children, and possessions of others as their own; thus, in this way, everything should be common among the citizens, so that each one intends the common good and the good of all, and is concerned (when the opportunity arises) about the affairs of others as if they were his own. However, in the case of wives and children, community should be preserved as far as love is concerned; but in possessions, community should not only be preserved in relation to love, so that all citizens love the good of each citizen in common, but also in relation to sharing and generosity: because every citizen should share his goods with other citizens (as reason dictates). Therefore, we have preserved the Socratic saying regarding the community of citizens: likewise, we can also preserve his saying regarding the unity of the city. For when he said that the city should be one above all, he likely did not mean the unity of habitation, that all citizens should live in one house, so that there would not be multiple houses or neighborhoods in the city; nor did he mean the unity of crafts, that there should not be different trades or craftsmen in the city; nor did he refer to the unity of what is required for the sufficiency of life, that there should not be many and diverse things in the city as life’s needs require. But perhaps he wanted to refer this kind of unity to love and affection, so that the city would be optimal when the citizens unite most in loving and caring for one another. Thus, considering Socrates' thoughts on the community of goods and the unity of citizens, it is true that he believed there would be the greatest peace in the city, and that disputes would not arise there. For the proper effect of love seems to be peace and harmony. Moreover, Socrates added that women should be organized for military duties. It can be saved not by understanding this simply, but in specific cases. For it could happen that women would also need to fight. Often in parts of Italy, this happens, that when men abandon the city and go off to military service, while the men are also present in the army, their city is invaded by enemies, which is why women must defend the city due to the poverty of the citizens. Moreover, he added that the same individuals should always be preferred in positions of authority, so that the same people should always be appointed as leaders and magistrates; this should be understood to mean that those in charge should always be the same, that is, adorned with the same virtues. He was dividing the city among farmers, craftsmen, and soldiers, intending for the city to contain at least a thousand soldiers. He was perhaps referring to the nobles through the soldiers, who do not work with their hands. For when some were working with their hands, like those who cultivate the land and the craftsmen, others were not, like the nobles; these nobles should especially defend the homeland, and they should focus primarily on the business of arms. Therefore, Socrates believed that a certain polity should not be called a city unless it contained at least a thousand nobles, whom he referred to as soldiers due to their exceptional status.