Liber III, Pars I — Qualis fuit politia Hippodami quid Hippodamius Philosophus statuit circa regimen civitatis. Cap. XIX.

Liber III, Pars I — Qualis fuit politia Hippodami quid Hippodamius Philosophus statuit circa regimen civitatis. Cap. XIX.

Besides Socrates and Phaleas, there was another philosopher named Hippodamus, who introduced himself regarding the governance of the city, establishing many points relevant to the rule of citizens. It seems that these ideas can be reduced to six categories that he proposed regarding this kind of governance. First, he established certain principles concerning the population and distinction of citizens. Second, he determined the distinction of possessions. Third, he addressed the distinction of judgments. Fourth, he discussed the distinction of those who judge. Fifth, he addressed the manner of judging. Lastly, he established certain laws touching on various types of persons. Hippodamus, however, establishing his own political system, first introduced the topic of the population and the distinction of citizens, saying that the ideal number of citizens is around ten thousand men. He distinguished this quantity into three parts, namely into warriors, artisans, and farmers. He wanted the warriors to have arms and not land. Farmers, however, should have land, but not arms. Artisans, indeed, should have neither land nor arms. For it seems that a man (as far as the present situation is concerned) needs three things. Namely, sustenance, drink, and food due to the natural heat consuming such a radical. Secondly, he needs a home, clothing, and other things from artisans due to the harshness of the weather. Third, a person needs defense because of external enemies, as well as due to seditions and disputes that can arise in a city. For these three things serve the previously mentioned three types of men. Because, as far as food is concerned, the farmers provide for themselves, so we understand through the farmers, all who cultivate the land and vineyards, and universally all shepherds of animals. But as for homes, clothing, and other crafts, the artisans provide for themselves. However, the warriors serve for defense. Thus, the aforementioned philosopher determined about the number and distinction of citizens. Secondly, he introduced and determined the distinction of possessions, dividing the entire region, that is, the whole territory of the city into three parts: namely, the sacred part, the common part, and the private part. He assigned the sacred part to divine worship, the common part to the warriors, and the private part to the farmers. He said that the territory of the city should be optimally divided if a portion were assigned to those serving in the divine temples, which he called the sacred part, while the warriors would receive the other part. He called the portion for common use, because the common warriors should be free to defend the homeland; the part for the farmers should be their own; indeed, he assigned no part of the territory to the artisans, since they could live sufficiently by their craft; nor did he assign territory as their own to the warriors, but only gave them arms. He said there should be some common territory from which the warriors could live, as if from a common treasury. Third, he introduced himself to the distinction of judgments, for he said that all judgments should be based on three matters, according to which citizens litigate: namely, concerning harm, injuries, and death. For whoever justifies harm to another, or justifies it by harming and damaging something, or against a person. And this happens in two ways: either by dishonoring it, by doing it reproach and blame; or by offending it, by inflicting blows and wounds. However, he called injustifications concerning things harm; but he called injustification concerning the honor of a person injury; he named the offense against the person concerning blows and wounds death, because such things lead to death, since every passion more greatly casts aside substance. Fourth, he introduced himself to the distinction of judges, for he said there should be two kinds of judges and a double tribunal. There should be one ordinary court where cases are discussed, and another principal court to which appeals are made. He believed that the principal court should be, as the philosopher narrates. He stated that there should be judges chosen from the elders, so that if cases were judged poorly in the ordinary court, those chosen elders of good reputation would correct them. Fifth, he introduced the method of judging. He wanted judgments to be made in both courts, both the principal and the ordinary, without the judges consulting each other. He said that when a case was heard, each judge should deliberate on it independently and later write down their judgment on a tablet: if the accused was to be condemned outright, the judge would write a simple condemnation; if they were to be acquitted, the tablet would remain blank; but if they were to be condemned in some respects and acquitted in others, the judge would determine that in writing. The philosopher said this. In politics. In the place where the philosopher's position is narrated, he assigns why Hippodamus decided this way. He believed that if judges were bound by an oath to say what they felt, they might hesitate to speak their minds out of fear of others. Therefore, he ordained that each judge should privately write down his own opinion. Sixth, he established certain laws that addressed various types of people. He established four classes, the first of which concerned the wise, the second the warriors, the third only the common people, and the fourth the prince. Regarding the wise, he decreed that anyone who discovered something beneficial to the city should receive due honor. As for the warriors, he ordained that their sons, who died in battle defending the homeland and for the good of the city, should receive food from the public treasury. Thirdly, regarding the entire populace, he established that all the people, both warriors and craftsmen and farmers, should gather for the election of a prince; for they did not want, as it appears from their statements, for the prince to be established by inheritance, but by election, which he attributed to the whole people. Fourth, regarding the elected leader, he established that the leader should have primary responsibility for the three. Namely, concerning common matters and about foreigners. And about orphans. He called orphans universally all those who impose burdens, unable to claim their rights on their own. For it pertains to the king and the leader, who must be a just guardian, to take special care of common matters, of foreigners, and of those who impose burdens, because others can easily be wronged by such, when they cannot defend their rights.