Liber III, Pars I — Quae, et quot sunt reprehensabilia in his quae statuit Hippodamus circa gubernationem civium. Cap. XX.

Liber III, Pars I — Quae, et quot sunt reprehensabilia in his quae statuit Hippodamus circa gubernationem civium. Cap. XX.

We gain many good things from the opinions of the ancient philosophers, because they spoke many good and true things in their writings. Even if they said nothing true, their opinions should still be recited, according to the views of the philosophers. We should give thanks to those who deviate from the truth and disagree with our opinions, for such things sometimes stimulate understanding; indeed, the bad sayings of others often provoke understanding, so that one may judge rightly. Therefore, we have recounted the opinion of Hippodamus, because he promulgated many good principles in his governance; however, he did establish some things incongruously. As for the present, we can follow the teachings of the philosophers. 2. Pol. To criticize Hippodamus regarding the three. First, regarding the impossibility of the statutes. Second, regarding the method that he established for judging. Third, regarding the method he established, touching on different kinds of people. First, indeed, the aforementioned philosopher. He made it impossible to defer by establishing impossibilities. For the statute regarding the distinction of citizens could not stand with the statute regarding the election of the prince. If, indeed, the city should be distinguished according to him into three parts, namely into warriors, artisans, and farmers; and only the warriors should have arms, so that they could remove disturbances and conflicts in the city and defend the homeland from enemies: it was necessary for the warriors to have greater power than the farmers and artisans combined; and because the more powerful always dominate, and people willingly justify injustice when they can; with this in mind, artisans and farmers would not have a part in the polity; and the warriors would not allow them to participate in the election of the prince. Therefore, to establish that the whole people should elect a prince cannot stand with the statute regarding the warriors, so that they are more powerful than others and are the only ones who have arms. Secondly, Hippodamus failed regarding the method he established for judging; for he believed that judges should not confer in the court about the sentence to be delivered: however, as the Philosopher says, he did not deny that they could confer privately at home. This, however, can be disproved in two ways. First, because from this method of judging follows a greater perversion and a greater degeneration of judges. For judges reach their conclusions more quickly if they can speak privately to one another than if they speak publicly in court; and if they swear to say what they feel, they will degenerate more quickly in this way than otherwise. Hence, the Philosopher suggests that in some good political systems the opposite is established from what Hippodamus arranged: where judges are allowed to speak to one another publicly, yet they cannot have counsel with one another privately. Thirdly, the aforementioned Philosopher failed regarding the laws he established, touching on various types of persons, and specifically regarding the law he established concerning the wise. For if any wise person, finding something beneficial for the city, should receive the honor due to them; wise individuals would strive to create new laws and to demonstrate that the new laws they invented are beneficial to the city: therefore, the laws would be continually changed, which is very dangerous for the city, because laws have great efficacy due to their long-standing nature. Thus, if laws are continually innovated, their virtue and efficacy will be removed. The rule set by Hippodamus regarding those who find something beneficial for the city appears good at first glance, as the Philosopher says, but it is actually dangerous. However, it falls short in this regard. Whether it has failed in other areas, whether the principality should be established through election or inheritance, whether laws should be innovated given that they may contain some defect, and other matters related to this will be discussed in more detail below; for now, it suffices to touch on these opinions of the Philosophers. And in this, the first part of this third book will conclude, in which it deals with the governance of the city and the kingdom. The purpose of the first part, in which it was stated that the community of the city and kingdom was established for the sake of the common good, is now complete.