Lecture 10

Hippodamus, the son of Euryphon, a native of Miletus, the same who invented the art of planning cities, and who also laid out the Piraeus- a strange man, whose fondness for distinction led him into a general eccentricity of life, which made some think him affected (for he would wear flowing hair and expensive ornaments; but these were worn on a cheap but warm garment both in winter and summer); he, besides aspiring to be an adept in the knowledge of nature, was the first person not a statesman who made inquiries about the best form of government.

The city of Hippodamus was composed of 10,000 citizens divided into three parts—one of artisans, one of husbandmen, and a third of armed defenders of the state. He also divided the land into three parts, one sacred, one public, the third private: the first was set apart to maintain the customary worship of the Gods, the second was to support the warriors, the third was the property of the husbandmen.

He also divided laws into three classes, and no more, for he maintained that there are three subjects of lawsuits—insult, injury, and homicide.

He likewise instituted a single final court of appeal, to which all causes seeming to have been improperly decided might be referred; this court he formed of elders chosen for the purpose.

He was further of opinion that the decisions of the courts ought not to be given by the use of a voting pebble, but that every one should have a tablet on which he might not only write a simple condemnation, or leave the tablet blank for a simple acquittal; but, if he partly acquitted and partly condemned, he was to distinguish accordingly. To the existing law he objected that it obliged the judges to be guilty of perjury, whichever way they voted.

He also enacted that those who discovered anything for the good of the state should be honored; and he provided that the children of citizens who died in battle should be maintained at the public expense, as if such an enactment had never been heard of before, yet it actually exists at Athens and in other places. As to the magistrates, he would have them all elected by the people, that is, by the three classes already mentioned, and those who were elected were to watch over the interests of the public, of strangers, and of orphans. These are the most striking points in the constitution of Hippodamus. There is not much else.

Ypodamus autem Eurifontis, etc. After the philosopher went after the regime of Phaleas, he here starts to deal with the regime of Hippodamus. Concerning this he does three things.

First, he sets out the condition of the legislator.

Second, he describes his regime, which he instituted, at construxit autem civitatem, [II.10.2] etc.

Third, he objects to it in a certain respect, at dubitabit autem utique aliquis, [II.11.1] etc.

Concerning the first he does three things.

First, he says what Hippodamus discovered in the political art, and he says that he discovered the distinction of the city with reference to the diverse orders of citizens. And moreover, he carved out—that is, divided—the suburbs. For he discovered how the territories of the city ought to be distinguished through diverse suburbs. Now he was the son of Euriphons, but of Miletus by birth.

Second, he sets out his conduct [conversatio], and he says that because he desired [cupidus] honor, he observed some extravagant things in his own private life that is different from his civic life: for he seems to have been a curiosity in the length of his hair and beard, and also in the usefulness of his clothes, as he wished to have warm clothes not only in the winter, but also in the summer.

Third, he sets out his study: for he wished to reason out the whole nature of things, and was the first among the philosophers who did not lead a civic life, but a contemplative, and attempted to determine what is the best regime.

Then, where he says construxit autem civitatem, etc., he describes the order of his regime.

First, with reference to the divisions which he discovered.

Second, with reference to judgments, at putavit autem et species legum, [II.10.4] etc.

Third, with reference to the discipline of citizens, at adhuc autem legem, [II.10.5] etc.

Concerning the first he does two things.

First, he shows how he divided the multitude of citizens.

Second, how he divided the possessions of the city, at dividebat autem in tres partes, [II.10.3] etc.

Therefore, he first says that Hippodamus determined the best quantity for the multitude in the city—that it is ten thousand men. And this multitude he divided into three parts: the first was the artisans; the second the farmers; the third, the warriors.

Then, where he says dividebat autem, etc., he shows how he divided the possessions of the city. And he says that the whole region—that is, the territory of the city—he divided into three parts. The first he wished to be holy, where things were done that men reputed should be done for divine worship; the other he wished to be public or common, where the warriors would live; the third he wished to be private, which would be distributed among the farmers.

Then, where he says putavit autem et species, etc., he describes the order of the regime itself, with reference to judgments.

And concerning this he does three things.

First, he says that Hippodamus deemed that there should be only three laws of judgment, according to the three things about which men dispute in judgment: these things are wrong-doing, injury, and death. As wrongdoing, he referred to those things that come to be from censuring a man; as injury, however he referred to what comes to be from damaging things; under death, he included all things that come to be in injuring a person.

Second, at lege autem statuit, etc., he says that Hippodamus instituted a governing court to which all causes were brought back—as if through an appeal—that did not seem to have been judged well. And he wanted this judgment to be committed to some old men chosen for this, who were proven in both discernment and virtue.

Third, at iudicia autem, etc., he lays out the mode that he wished to be observed in judgment. For when a sentence was to be given by many judges, he thought that the judges must not confer with each other about the sentence to be given; but that each one should think in solitude about the sentence to be given, and that he should carry what he thought written on a tablet, so that if it seemed to him that the accused should be condemned, he would simply “condemnation”; but if it seemed to him that he should be absolved, he would carry an empty tablet. If, however, it seemed to him that with reference to one thing he should be condemned, and with reference to another he should be absolved, he would determine this through writing. And so, from everything written, what seemed correct to most would be chosen. However, he did not deem that what is now established as law is good—that judges confer with each other before each one offers his sentence: for since they have vowed to say how things seem to them, through the sort of disagreements that happen in this such a place and about such matters, they are in a certain manner compelled to swear when someone does not dare to speak what it seems to him, because many contract him.

Then, where he says adhuc autem legem posuit, etc., he describes the ordering of Hippodamus concerning the discipline of the citizens. And he lays out the four laws of Hippodamus.

The first is that those who discover some order for the city that would be advantageous to the city would obtain some honor.

The second law he lays out at et pueris eorum, etc. Namely, that the sons of those who are killed in war for the city should be fed out of the public treasury—which indeed was not yet established in cities; now, however, such a law is observed in Athens and in some other cities.

He lays out the third law at principes autem, etc., and this is about the choosing of leaders—namely, that the whole of the people chooses the governors . But he said that the people were the three aforementioned parts of the city: the farmers, the artisans, and the warriors.

He lays out a fourth law about the office of the governors at electos autem, etc. Namely, that those who are chosen as governors have care for the common affairs of the city, and of travelers, and of orphans, and other persons without power.

And lastly, he concludes that most of the things that Hippodamus put in order—and the greatest—are what has been discussed.