Lecture 13

In the governments of Lacedaemon and Crete, and indeed in all governments, two points have to be considered: first, whether any particular law is good or bad, when compared with the perfect state; secondly, whether it is or is not consistent with the idea and character which the lawgiver has set before his citizens.

That in a well-ordered state the citizens should have leisure and not have to provide for their daily wants is generally acknowledged, but there is a difficulty in seeing how this leisure is to be attained. The Thessalian Penestae have often risen against their masters, and the Helots in like manner against the Lacedaemonians, for whose misfortunes they are always lying in wait. Nothing, however, of this kind has as yet happened to the Cretans; the reason probably is that the neighboring cities, even when at war with one another, never form an alliance with rebellious serfs, rebellions not being for their interest, since they themselves have a dependent population. Whereas all the neighbors of the Lacedaemonians, whether Argives, Messenians, or Arcadians, were their enemies. In Thessaly, again, the original revolt of the slaves occurred because the Thessalians were still at war with the neighboring Achaeans, Perrhaebians, and Magnesians. Besides, if there were no other difficulty, the treatment or management of slaves is a troublesome affair; for, if not kept in hand, they are insolent, and think that they are as good as their masters, and, if harshly treated, they hate and conspire against them. Now it is clear that when these are the results the citizens of a state have not found out the secret of managing their subject population.

Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws.

And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.

The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness; many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.

Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.

This license of the Lacedaemonian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what might be expected. For, during the wars of the Lacedaemonians, first against the Argives, and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were long away from home, and, on the return of peace, they gave themselves into the legislator's hand, already prepared by the discipline of a soldier's life (in which there are many elements of virtue), to receive his enactments. But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt. These then are the causes of what then happened, and this defect in the constitution is clearly to be attributed to them. We are not, however, considering what is or is not to be excused, but what is right or wrong, and the disorder of the women, as I have already said, not only gives an air of indecorum to the constitution considered in itself, but tends in a measure to foster avarice.

The mention of avarice naturally suggests a criticism on the inequality of property. While some of the Spartan citizen have quite small properties, others have very large ones; hence the land has passed into the hands of a few.

And this is due also to faulty laws; for, although the legislator rightly holds up to shame the sale or purchase of an inheritance, he allows anybody who likes to give or bequeath it. Yet both practices lead to the same result. And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir.

Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1,500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1,000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin. There is a tradition that, in the days of their ancient kings, they were in the habit of giving the rights of citizenship to strangers, and therefore, in spite of their long wars, no lack of population was experienced by them; indeed, at one time Sparta is said to have numbered not less than 10,000 citizens. Whether this statement is true or not, it would certainly have been better to have maintained their numbers by the equalization of property.

Again, the law which relates to the procreation of children is adverse to the correction of this inequality. For the legislator, wanting to have as many Spartans as he could, encouraged the citizens to have large families; and there is a law at Sparta that the father of three sons shall be exempt from military service, and he who has four from all the burdens of the state. Yet it is obvious that, if there were many children, the land being distributed as it is, many of them must necessarily fall into poverty.

De ea autem quae Lacedaemoniorum, etc. After the philosopher laid out the regimes instituted by the wise, he now treats of the regimes that are observed in cities,

and first, about the regime of the Laconians—or the Lacedaemonians.

Second, about the regime of the Cretans, at Cretensium autem politeia, [II.15.1] etc.

Third, about the regime of the Carthaginians, at politizare autem videntes, [II.16.1] etc.

For the regimes of these cities are commended. Concerning the first he does two things.

First, he lays out the mode of consideration that is necessary concerning these regimes.

Second, he deals with the regime of the Lacedaemonians at quod quidem igitur oportet, [II.13.2] etc.

Therefore, he first says that two considerations are encountered concerning the regimes of the Lacedaemonians and the other regimes. One of these is that it ought to be considered whether what is established by law in them is fitting for the order of virtue. For this is the end of every law. Whence, if the law is not proportionate to virtue, it will not be law. The other consideration is whether in the regime something is ordered that is fitting to the suppositions and mode of a regime that is contrary to the one proposed. Consider, for instance, if someone intended to institute a democratic regime, and he set up laws that are fitting for an oligarchic regime, which is contrary. Thus, also, is something objected to in the sciences, either because it does not fit the truth, or because it does not fit a proposition [positio].

Then, where he says quod quidem igitur, etc., he deals with the regime of the Lacedaemonians.

And first, with reference to what was held [i.e. owned] by the citizens.

Second, with reference to the order of the citizens themselves, at at vero et quae circa efforiam, [II.14.1] etc.

Concerning the first, he does three things.

First, he pursues the things that belong to slaves.

Second, the things that belong to women, at adhuc autem ad mulieres, [II.13.5] etc.

Third, what belongs to possessions, at post ea enim quae nunc dicta sunt, [II.13.9] etc.

For these three things are held [i.e. owned] by the citizens.

Therefore, he first says that everyone confesses this: that it is opportune for a city that is due to live well politically, that there exists in it a school for those who are necessary—that is, for the slaves, or for anyone who is necessary for serving—so that they may, with the correct discipline, be capable [of serving]. But how this comes to be cannot be easily received.

Moreover, that this is necessary he consequently clarifies through the unfitting things that would follow from them were they not well-disciplined. For it happened many times that the poor in Thessaly caused trouble for the wealthy, and likewise also in Sparta—that is, among the Lacedaemonians—their slaves were frequently hostile, for they plotted against them when some misfortune happened to them, when they could not repress them, and troubled them in such misfortunes. But among the Cretans, nothing of this sort happened, and perhaps the cause of this is because however much neighboring cities fight with each other, yet there is no city that fights against distant citizens, since it is not advantageous for them—because they possess estates near the city and their own households; and so, if they were to undertake a war from afar, they could not care for their own estates. And because the Cretans did not have neighbors who would fight against them—existing, for example, in islands at sea—misfortunes did not frequently threaten them, in which their slaves or indigents could plot against them. But for the Laconians—that is, the Lacedaemonians—all neighbors were made enemies. For they were wholly given over to military affairs, as Vegetius says in his book, De Re Militari, as do the Athenian philosophers. For they made enemies of the Argives, the Messenians, and also the Arcadians, and from the beginning they also quarreled with the Thessalians. They also waged war with the Achaeans, their neighbors, and the Perrhaebians, and the Magnesians. And therefore, misfortune threatened them many times—at which times their slaves plotted against them.

Thus, therefore, it is evident that it is necessary for the slaves and the other necessary people to have discipline. But that this is not easy he shows in what follows. And he says that, if it were nothing else, it seems that this would be laborious with regard to the care that must be had about the slaves, how one would have to converse with them, or in what way to associate with them. Because on the one hand, if a man relates to them kindly, they will grow haughty and it will have an effect upon them that is wrong, and they will deem themselves equals to their master. But on the other hand, if they live always enduring evils from their masters, they will hate them and plot against them; and so it is difficult to see how they should be treated. For one must adopt a middling manner toward them, neither punishing them unjustly, nor yet showing too much familiarity to them. From this, therefore, he concludes that the Lacedaemonians, to whom this happened so that they were troubled by their slaves, are not among those who discovered the best method for the government of slaves.

Then, where he says adhuc autem ad mulieres, etc., he deals with the regime of the Lacedaemonians with reference to women. And concerning this, he does four things.

First, he shows that it is necessary for the women in the city to be well-disciplined.

Second, he shows what the Lacedaemonians observed about this, at quod quidem ibi accidit, [II.13.6] etc.

Third, he shows what unfitting things would follow from this observance, at itaque necessarium [II.13.7].

Fourth, he shows what the cause of this observance was, at a principio quidem igitur, [II.13.8] etc.

Therefore, he first says that loosening the laws about women—such that they live in the city without a fitting discipline—is harmful for two reasons.

The first, indeed, regarding the choice of the regime, because through their disorder, the whole regime can happen to be changed, as will be said.

Second, regarding the happiness of the city; for because of their disorder, many unfitting things can follow in the city.

And this is clear, because just as the parts of the household are the man and the woman, as was said in Bk. I, so also it must be as though the whole city, which is constituted from households, is divided in two, if the multitude of men and women is considered. So it would follow that in any city where the order of women is badly arranged, it should be deemed that the mean for the city has not been well ordered according to the laws.

Then, where he says quod quidem ibi, etc., he shows what was observed in this regard among the Lecedaemonians. For there, the aforementioned disorder of the women occurred. For since the intention of the legislator was that the whole city should have perseverance, that is, able to endure and to abstain from delights, this was well observed with reference to the men; but the legislator neglected to institute this for the women. For there, the women live voluptuously, following every kind of intemperance, and also luxuriously.

Then, where he says itaque neessarium, etc., he shows what unfitting thing followed. And he lays out four things.

The first is that it is necessary in such a regime, in which the women live so luxuriously, that the men will appraise wealth highly, and desire it so that from it they can satisfy the delights of the women—which cannot be done without great expense. This, however, does much, for morals are corrupted in a city that greatly cares for wealth. For from this it follows that everything in the city is for sale, which corrupts the establishment of the city.

He lays out a second unfitting thing at aliterque si existant, etc., and he says that if the multitude of citizens were compelled to abstain too much from women, it would follow that they would slip into the foulest of vices—namely, the intercourse of males—as happens to many soldiers and warriors, and to anyone like them. For whoever introduced the tale that Mars was the husband of Venus did not speak irrationally, because warriors, who are called Martial, are debaucherous, and are agape with desire for intercourse with men or women. For it says in the Problems that those continually riding become more debaucherous because, on account of the heat and motion, they experience what happens in intercourse. This also made them debaucherous: they were frequently unoccupied with business. And this also befell the Lacedaemonians because the legislator led them to abstain too much from women.

He lays out a third unfitting thing at et multa dispensabantur, etc, and he says that the women in Lacedaemon, because they lived luxuriously, were given back to presumption, and wished to insinuate themselves into everything, so that even in the government of the city, many things were managed by the women. And yet it makes no difference whether the women govern or if the governors themselves are ruled by women, being subject to them because of the extravagance of the women. For the same thing happens in both modes: the city is badly ruled because the women lack reason.

He lays out a fourth unfitting thing at utili autem existente, etc. For the women of the Lacedaemonians, because of luxury, returned to extravagance and boldness. But boldness, in regular affairs—that is, local affairs—cannot be useful except for war: and yet even here was the boldness of their women harmful. This, indeed, was clear in the war that they had with the Thebans, in which the women were useful for nothing, since they didn't want to do the services that the women do in other cities. But while the men were fighting, the women carried out a greater uproar even than the enemies—wishing, perhaps, to insinuate themselves into everything. So it is clear from this that the loosening of the women was harmful.

Then, where he says a principio quidem igitur, etc., he shows the cause of the aforementioned observance. And he says that a loosening of the discipline of women quite rationally happened to the Lacedaemonians from the beginning: because, on account of the army, to which the whole city was given over, at many times they traveled away from home, fighting against the Argives, and the Arcadians, and the Messenians. And therefore, the women remained at home without the men, living at their pleasure, and having no discipline from the men. And from this cause, it happened that the men were made virtuous in many things. For when idle from the affairs of war, they showed themselves ready for obedience to the legislator because of the custom of military life, which contains in itself many parts of virtue. For such a life requires the greatest obedience and abstinence from luxury, and perseverance in labors, and in sorrowful affairs. Afterward, Lycurgus, the legislator of the Lacedaemonians, attempted to lead the women back to the correct discipline of the laws. But the women were utterly resistant because of crooked custom; and therefore, the legislator must have ceased from the start. These, therefore, are the causes of what came to be among the Lacedaemonians, and of the power of the women that was among them. And although this came to pass from a rational cause, apart from their fault, and thus should be excused, yet we are not considering them in the mode of asking to whom we should or should not give pardon; for we do not intend to praise or blame them, but to show how they were correctly arranged, or not correctly. For it is clear that what was not well disposed concerning the women was not only indecent in a certain respect, regarding their polity, but also in the souls of the citizens, something was given over to the love of money, as was said.

Then, where he says post ea enim quae nunc dicta sunt, etc., he deals with the regime of the Lacedaemonians with reference to possessions.

And first, he objects to their regime concerning possessions, showing that it is harmful to the city.

Second, showing that it is contrary to the intention of the legislator, at contraria autem, [II.13.12] etc.

Concerning the first he does three things.

First, he proposes that among them there was an unevenness of possessions.

Second, he shows from whence it came forth, at hoc autem et per leges, etc.

Third, he shows the harm that followed from this, at igitur cum possit regio, etc.

Therefore, he first says that after the aforementioned things about slaves and women, which should be objected to, someone can also complain to them that they failed, concerning the unevenness of possessions. For it happened among them that some had exceedingly great possessions, but others had exceedingly few, such that it was as if the whole region had arrived at the mastery of a few.

Then, where he says hoc autem et per leges, etc., he shows from what this unevenness proceeded. And he says that this proceeded from a crooked ordering of law. For the legislator established among them that a citizen would not be [his own] master of buying and selling, such that he could have sold his possessions or bought those of another for any cause. And certainly, he did this good thing to regulate possessions; but not yet correctly, because not sufficiently. For he gave power to the citizens that they could give their goods to anyone they wished while living, or even when departed in a will. From this happened an unnevenness of possessions, as from buying and selling: such that if the whole of their territory were divided into five parts, two of the parts came to rest with the women. This, both because many of them were instituted as heiresses by their dead husbands, and also because when they were married, they received great dowries—though indeed, it is much better either to give no dowry, or few, or moderate ones. But among the Lacedaemonians, it was permitted to anyone to leave in a will to an heir whichever of his goods he wished; and if, in his death, he did not wish to leave an heir, he could distribute his goods to whomever he wished.

Then, where he says igitur cum possit, etc., he shows that harm followed from this. And he says that although their region—that is, their territory—was so great that a thousand five hundred knights could be fed from it, and above this, thirty thousand foot-soldiers, yet it was left to so few—the possessions having been left to few—that there were not even a thousand warriors in the city. And so, through their works it is clear that the aforementioned institution was bad, because the city, through this, perished when it did not survive the heavy assault of an enemy. For it is said that in ancient times, they extended their regime as much as they could, so that they could have a multitude of wars; thus sometimes the Spartans (as they are called)–that is, the Lacedaemonians—had in their army ten thousand armed men. But whether this is true or not, nevertheless it is opportune that, by regulating possessions, the city should be filled with men—which can not otherwise come to be. Because if possessions should fall to a few, the others will desert the city because of poverty.

Then, where he says contraria autem, etc., he shows that the aforementioned unevenness of possessions was contrary to the intention of the legislator, who proposed a particular law about the generation of sons that is contrary to the aforementioned institution, from which proceeded the unevenness of possessions. For the legislator, intending that there should be many citizens in the city, invited those who generated many sons to certain exemptions: for it was established by law among them that he who generated three sons would be an affruron—that is, not a guardian, because he was not required to go to guard the city; moreover, he who generated four sons was exempt from all taxes and tributes. And yet it is clear that if the aforementioned unevenness in the division of possessions was observed, it will be necessary, if many sons are generated, that there will be many who are poor in the city, which is harmful to the city, as was said above.