68 Soldiers. Craftsmen. Farmers 



point of view necessitated a limit. He proceeds on a system of triads. 

 The citizens are grouped in three classes, artisans (re^trat), husband- 

 men (yecopjoi), and the military, possessors of arms. The land is either 

 sacred (for service of religion, lepd\ public (SrjfAOirta or KOIVIJ) or the 

 property of the husbandmen (ISia). The three classes of land and 

 citizens are to be assumed equal. The military are to be supported by 

 the produce of the public land. But who cultivates it? Aristotle shews 

 that the scheme is not fully thought out. If the soldiers, then the dis- 

 tinction, obviously intended, between soldier and farmer, is lost. If the 

 farmers, then the distinction between the public and private land is 

 meaningless. If neither, a fourth class, not allowed for in the plan, will 

 be required. This last is probably what Hippodamus meant: but to 

 particularize the employment of slaves may have appeared superfluous. 

 Into the purely constitutional details I need not enter, but one criticism 

 is so frankly expressive of Greek ideas that it can hardly be omitted. 

 What, says Aristotle, is the use of political rights to the artisans and 

 husbandmen? they are unarmed, and therefore will practically be slaves 

 of the military class. This was the truth in Greek politics generally, 

 and is one of the most significant facts to be borne in mind when 

 considering the political failure of the Greeks. 



A curious difference of economic view is shewn in the position 

 assigned to the artisan 1 or craftsman element by Hippodamus and 

 Phaleas respectively. Phaleas would have them state-slaves (Srjfwo-ioi,), 

 Hippodamus makes them citizens, though unarmed. On the former 

 plan the state would no doubt feed them and use their produce, as we 

 do with machinery. Of the latter plan Aristotle remarks that re^vlrai 

 are indispensable: all states need them, and they can live of the earn- 

 ings of their crafts, but the yecopyol as a distinct class are superfluous. 

 We may reply that, if the craftsmen live of their earnings and stick to 

 their several crafts, they will need to buy food, and the farmers are 

 surely there to supply it. The reply is so obvious that one feels as if 

 Aristotle's meaning had been obscured through some mishap to the 

 text. For the present purpose it suffices that the professional craftsmen 

 in these two Utopias are to be either actual slaves or citizens de iure 

 who are de facto as helpless as slaves. In the scheme of Hippodamus 

 the farmer-class also are virtually the slaves of the military. Another 

 notable point, apparently neglected by Hippodamus, is the trust reposed 

 in education 2 or training by both Phaleas and his critic. How to im- 

 plant in your citizens the qualities needed for making your institutions 

 work well in practice, is the problem. Phaleas would give all the same 



1 'Artisan' is not quite = Texvlnjs. All professional work is included. 



2 Pol II 7 8, 9. The probable influence of Spartan precedents is pointed out in Mr 

 Newman's note. 



