Criticism of predecessors 91 



critics in the social circles of Athens. It happens that Xenophon has 

 left us a sketch of the ordinary conversations of Socrates. No doubt 

 these were the most important examples of their kind, and his method 

 a powerful, if sometimes irritating, stimulus to thought. But we are 

 not to assume a lack of other questioners, acute and even sincere, more 

 especially among men of oligarchic leanings. That Aristotle came into 

 touch with such persons is probable from his connexion with Plato. 

 Certain passages in the Constitution of Athens, in which he is reasonably 

 suspected 1 of giving a partisan view of historical events, point to the 

 same conclusion. We shall never know all the criticisms and sugges- 

 tions of others that this watchful collector heard and noted. But it is 

 both possible and desirable to recall those to which his own record 

 proves him to have paid attention. 



Both Hippodamus and Plato based their schemes on a class-system, 

 in which the farmer-class fofm a distinct body: but the former made 

 them citizens with voting rights. Being unarmed, and so at the mercy 

 of the military class, Aristotle held that their political rights were 

 nugatory. In the Republic, Plato gave them no voice in state-affairs, 

 but in the Laws he admitted them to the franchise. While these two 

 reformers made provision for a military force, Phaleas, ignoring relations 

 with other states, made none. To Phaleas, equality in landed estate 

 seemed the best means of promoting harmony and wellbeing in the 

 community; and he would effect this equality by legal restrictions. 

 This proposition Aristotle rejected as neither adequate nor suited to 

 its purpose. Moral 2 influences, hard work, discretion, even intellectual 

 activity, can alone produce the temper of moderation that promotes 

 concord and happiness. In short, if you are to effect any real improve- 

 ment, you must start from the doctrine of the Mean 3 and not trust to 

 material equalizing. The several tenure of land-lots was generally 

 recognized, with variations in detail; Plato in the Laws abandoned 

 the impracticable land-system of the Republic, and not only assigned 

 a tc\fjpo<i to each citizen household, but arranged it in two 4 sections, 

 for reasons given above. The attempt to ensure the permanence of the 

 number of land-lots and households by strict legal regulation, as some 

 legislators had tried to do, is also a general feature of these speculations. 

 Plato in the Laws even went further, and would place rigid restrictions 

 on acquisition of property of all kinds. All agree in the usual Greek 

 contempt for those engaged in manual or sedentary trades. Such 

 'mechanical' (ftavavo-oi) workers were held to be debased in both body 

 and mind below the standard of 'virtue' required of the good soldier 

 or citizen. Phaleas made these 'artisans' public slaves de iure\ 



1 See Sandys on 'A^ iro\ 04. 2 Pol n 7 12. 3 Pol n 7 7. 



4 Severely criticized in Pol n 6 15, though adopted by himself. See below. 



