Chapter XXXIX: Leges and Epinomis (5)

[Footnote 246: Plato, Legg. vii. p. 811 C-D. [Greek: ou)k a)/neu tino\s e)pipnoi/as theô=n . . . ma/la ê(sthê=nai.] Stallbaum in his note (p. 337) treats this as said in jest (_faceté_ dicit). To me it seems sober earnest, and quite in character with the didactic solemnity of the whole treatise. Plato himself would have been astonished (I think) at the note of his commentator.]

[Footnote 247: Plato, Legg. vii. pp. 810-811. [Greek: ki/nduno/n phêmi ei)=nai phe/rousan toi=s paisi\ tê\n polumathi/an] (811 B). Compare p. 819 A.]

[Side-note: The teaching is to be simple, and common to both sexes.]

The teaching of the harp and of music (occupying the three years from thirteen to sixteen, after the three preceding years of teaching letters) will not be suffered to extend to any elaborate or complicated combinations. The melody will be simple: the measure grave and dignified. The imitative movement or dancing will exhibit only the gestures and demeanour suitable to the virtuous man in the various situations of life, whether warlike or pacific:[248] the subject-matter of the songs or hymns will be regulated (as above described) by censorial authority. The practice will be consecrated and unchangeable, under the supervision of a magistrate for education.[249]

[Footnote 248: Plato, Legg. vii. p. 812 C-D. Still Plato allows the exhibition, under certain conditions, of low, comic, ludicrous dances; yet not by any freemen or citizens, but by slaves and hired persons of mean character. He even considers it necessary that the citizens should see such low exhibitions occasionally, in order to appreciate by contrast the excellence of their own dignified exhibitions. Of two opposites you cannot know the one unless you also learn to know the other--[Greek: a)/neu ga\r geloi/ôn ta\ spoudai=a kai\ pa/ntôn tô=n e)nanti/ôn ta\ e)nanti/a mathei=n me\n ou) dunato/n, ei) me/llei tis phro/nimos e)/sesthai, poiei=n de\ ou)k a)\n dunato\n a)mpho/tera], &c. (p. 816 E).]

[Footnote 249: Plato, Legg. vii. p. 813 A.]

All this teaching is imparted to the youth of both sexes: to boys, by male teachers--to girls, by female teachers, both of them paid. The training in gymnastic and military exercises and in arms, is also common to girls and boys.[250] Plato deems it disgraceful that the females shall be brought up timorous and helpless--unable to aid in defending the city when it is menaced, and even unmanning the male citizens by demonstrations of terror.[251]

[Footnote 250: Plato, Legg. vii. pp. 813 C-E, 814-815. [Greek: polemikê\ o)/rchêsis--ei)rênikê/] or [Greek: a)po/lemos o)/rchêsis.]]

[Footnote 251: Plato, Legg. vii. p. 814 B. See Æschylus, Sept. adv. Thebas, 172-220.]

[Side-note: Rudiments of arithmetic and geometry to be taught.]

We next come to arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. Plato directs that all his citizens shall learn the rudiments of these sciences--not for the reason urged by most persons, because of the necessities of practical life (which reason he discards as extravagantly silly, though his master Sokrates was among those who urged it)--but because these are endowments belonging to the divine nature, and because without them no man can become a God, Dæmon, or Hero, capable of watching over mankind.[252] In Egypt elementary arithmetic and geometry were extensively taught to boys--but very little in Greece:[253] though he intimates that both in Egypt, and in the Phenician towns, they were turned only to purposes of traffic, and were joined with sordid dispositions which a good lawgiver ought to correct by other provisions. In the Platonic city, both arithmetic and geometry will be taught, so far as to guard the youth against absurd blunders about measurement, and against confusion of incommensurable lines and spaces with commensurable. Such blunders are now often made by Greeks.[254] By a good method, the teaching of these sciences may be made attractive and interesting; so that no force will be required to compel youth to learn.[255]

[Footnote 252: Plato. Legg. vii. p. 812 B-C. [Greek: ou(=tos pa/ntôs tô=n lo/gôn eu)êthe/stato/s e)sti makrô=|.] In interpreting this curious passage we must remember that regularity, symmetry, exact numerical proportion, &c., are the primary characteristics of the divine agents in Plato's view: of Uranus and the Stars, as the first of them, compare Æschyl. Prometh. 460.]

[Footnote 253: Plato, Legg. vii. pp. 818 E, 819 B-D. [Greek: ê)|schu/nthên . . . u(pe\r a(pa/ntôn tô=n E(llê/nôn.] Compare Legg. v. p. 747 C, and Republic, iv. p. 436 A.

Respecting the distinction between [Greek: theoi/, dai/mones, ê(/rôes], see Nägelsbach, Nach-Homerische Theologie, pp. 104-115.]

[Footnote 254: Plato, Legg. vii. pp. 819 E, 820 A-C.]

[Footnote 255: Plato, Legg. vii. p. 820 D. [Greek: meta\ paidia=s a(/ma manthano/mena ô)phelê/sei.]

I transcribe here the curious passage which we read a little before.

Plat. Legg. vii. p. 819 A-C. [Greek: Tosa/de toi/nun e(/kasta chrê\ pha/nai mantha/nein dei=n tou\s e)leuthe/rous, _o(/sa kai\ pa/mpolus_ e)n Ai)gu/ptô| _pai/dôn o)/chlos a(/ma gra/mmasi mantha/nei_. Prô=ton me\n ga\r peri\ logismou\s a)technô=s paisi\n e)xeurême/na mathê/mata, meta\ paidia=s te kai\ ê(donê=s mantha/nein; _ mê/lôn te/ tinô=n dianomai\ kai\ stepha/nôn_ plei/osin a(/ma kai\ e)la/ttosin, a(rmotto/ntôn a)rithmô=n tô=n au)tô=n . . . kai\ dê\ kai\ pai/zontes, phia/las a(/ma chrusou= kai\ chalkou= kai\ a)rgu/rou kai\ toiou/tôn tinô=n a)/llôn kerannu/ntes, oi( de\ kai\ o(/las pôs diadido/ntes, o(/per ei)=pon, ei)s _paidia\n e)narmo/ttontes ta\s tô=n a)nagkai/ôn a)rithmô=n chrê/seis, ô)phelou=si tou\s mantha/nontas ei)s_ te ta\s tô=n stratope/dôn ta/xeis kai\ a)gôga\s kai\ stratei/as kai\ ei)s oi)konomi/as au)=; kai\ pa/ntôs _chrêsimôte/rous au)tou\s au)toi=s kai\ e)grêgoro/tas ma=llon tou\s a)nthrô/pous_ a)perga/zontai.]

The information here given is valuable respecting the extensive teaching of elementary arithmetic as well as of letters among Egyptian boys, far more extensive than among Hellenic boys. The priests especially, in Egypt a numerous order, taught these matters to their own sons (Diodor. i. 81), probably to other boys also. The information is valuable too in another point of view, as respects the _method_ of teaching arithmetic to boys; not by abstract numbers, nor by simple effort of memory in the repetition of a multiplication-table, but by concrete examples and illustrations exhibited to sense in familiar objects. The importance of this concrete method, both in facilitating comprehension and in interesting the youthful learner, are strongly insisted on by Plato, as they have been also by some of the ablest modern teachers of elementary arithmetic: see Professor Leslie's Philosophy of Arithmetic, and Mr. Horace Grant's Arithmetic for Young Children and Second Stage of Arithmetic. The following passage from a work of Sir John Herschel (Review of Whewell's History of Inductive Sciences, in the Quarterly Review, June, 1841) bears a striking and curious analogy to the sentences above transcribed from Plato:--"_Number_ we cannot help regarding as an abstraction, and consequently its general properties or its axioms to be of necessity inductively concluded from the consideration of particular cases. And surely this is the way in which children do acquire their knowledge of number, and in which they learn its axioms. The apples and the marbles are put in requisition ([Greek: mê/lôn dianomai\ kai\ stepha/nôn], _Plato_), and through the multitude of gingerbread nuts their ideas acquire clearness, precision, and generality."

I borrow the above references from Mr. John Stuart Mill, System of Logic, Book ii. ch. vi. p. 335, ed. 1. They are annexed as a note to the valuable chapters of his work on Demonstration and Necessary Truths, in which he shows that the truth so-called, both in Geometry and Arithmetic, rest upon inductive evidence.

"The fundamental truths of the Science of Number all rest upon the evidence of sense: they are proved by showing to our eyes and to our fingers that any given number of objects, ten balls for example, may by separation and re-arrangement exhibit to our senses all the different sets of numbers, the sum of which is equal to ten. All the improved methods of teaching arithmetic to children proceed upon a knowledge of this fact. All who wish to carry the child's _mind_ along with them in learning arithmetic--all who (as Dr. Biber in his remarkable Letters on Education expresses it) wish to teach numbers and not mere ciphers--now teach it through the evidence of the senses, in the manner we have described" (p. 335).]

[Side-note: Astronomy must be taught, in order that the citizens may not assert libellous falsehoods respecting the heavenly bodies.]

Astronomy must also be taught up to a certain point, in order that the youth may imbibe correct belief respecting those great Divinities--Hêlios, Selênê, and the Planets--or may at any rate be protected from the danger of unconsciously advancing false affirmations about them, discreditable to their dignity. The general public consider it impious to study the Kosmos and the celestial bodies, with a view to detect the causes of what occurs:[256] while at the same time they assert that the movements of Hêlios and Selênê are irregular, and they call the planets Wanderers. Regular action is (in Plato's view) the characteristic mark of what is good and perfect: irregularity is the foremost of all defects, and cannot without blasphemy be imputed to any of the celestial bodies. Moreover, many persons also assert untruly, that among the celestial bodies the one which is really the slowest mover, moves the fastest--and that the one which is really the fastest mover, moves the slowest. How foolish would it appear (continues Plato) if they made the like mistake about the Olympic runners, and if they selected the defeated competitor, instead of the victor, to be crowned and celebrated in panegyrical odes! How offensive is such falsehood, when applied to the great Gods in the heavens! Each of them has in reality one uniform circular movement, though they appear to have many and variable movements. Our youth must be taught enough of astronomy to guard against such heresies. The study of astronomy up to this point, far from being impious, is indispensable as a safeguard against impiety.[257] Plato intimates that these astronomical truths were of recent acquisition, even to himself.[258]

[Footnote 256: Plato, Legg. vii. p. 821 A. We must observe that the Athenian (who here represents Plato himself) does not give this repugnance to astronomical study as his own feeling, but, on the contrary, as a prejudice from which he dissents. There is no ground, therefore, so far as this passage is concerned, for the charge of contradiction advanced by Velleius against Plato in Cicero De Nat. Deor. i. 12, 30.]

[Footnote 257: Plat. Legg. vii. pp. 821 B-822 C. [Greek: katapseudo/metha nu=n, ô(s e)/pos ei)pei=n, E(/llênes pa/ntes mega/lôn theô=n, Ê(li/ou te a(/ma kai\ Selê/nês] (821 B) . . . [Greek: peri\ theô=n tô=n kat' ou)/ranon tou/s ge ê(mete/rous poli/tas te kai\ tou\s ne/ous to\ me/chri tosou/tou mathei=n peri\ a(pa/ntôn tou/tôn, me/chri tou= mê\ blasphêmei=n peri\ au)ta/, eu)phêmei=n de\ a)ei\ thu/ontas te kai\ e)n eu)chai=s eu)chome/nous eu)sebôs] (821C-D). The five Planets were distinguished and named, and their periods to a certain extent understood, by Plato; but by many persons in his day the word Planet was understood more generally as comprehending all the celestial bodies, sun and moon among them--(except fixed stars) therefore comets also--[Greek: ta\ mê\ e)n tê=| au)tê=| periphora=| o)/nta], Xenoph. Memor. iv. 7, 5, where an opinion is ascribed to Sokrates quite opposed to that which Plato here expresses. See Schaubach, Geschichte der Astronomie, pp. 212-477.]

[Footnote 258: Plato, Legg. vii. pp. 819 D, 821 E.

This portion of the Leges is obscure, and would be hardly intelligible if it were not illustrated by a passage in the Timæus (p. 38). Even with such help it is difficult, and has been understood differently by different interpreters. Proklus (in Timæum, pp. 262-263) and Martin (Études sur le Timée, ii. note 36, p. 84) interpret it as alluding to the spiral line ([Greek: e(/lika]) described by each planet (Sun and Moon are each counted as planets) round the Earth, arising from the combination of the force of the revolving sidereal sphere or Aplanês, carrying all the planets round along with it from East to West, with the counter-movement (contrary, but obliquely contrary) inherent in each planet. The spiral movement of each planet, resulting from combination of these two distinct forces, is a regular movement governed by law; though to an observer who does not understand the law, the movements appear irregular. Compare Derkyllides ap. Theon Smyrn. c. 41, f. 27, p. 330, ed. Martin.

The point here discussed forms one of the items of controversy between Gruppe and Boeckh, in the recent discussion about Plato's astronomical views. _Gruppe_, Die Kosmischen Systeme der Griechen, pp. 157-168: _Boeckh_, Untersuchungen über das Kosmische System des Platon, pp. 45-57.

Gruppe has an ingenious argument to show that the novelty ([Greek: para/doxon]) which Plato had in his mind, but was afraid to declare openly because of existing prejudices, was the heliocentric or Copernican system, which he believes to have been Plato's discovery. Boeckh refutes Gruppe's reasoning; and refutes it, in my judgment, completely. He sustains the interpretation given by Proklus and Martin.

Boeckh also illustrates (pp. 35-38-49-54), in a manner more satisfactory than Gruppe, the dicta of Plato about the comparative velocity of the Planets (Sun and Moon counted among them).

Plato declares the Moon to be the quickest mover among the planets, and Saturn to be the slowest. On the contrary Demokritus pronounced the Moon to be the slowest mover of all; slower than the Sun, because the Sun was farther from the Earth and nearer to the outermost or sidereal sphere. It was the rotation of this last-mentioned sphere (according to Demokritus) which carried round along with it the Sun, the Moon, and all the planets: the bodies near to it were more forcibly acted upon by its rotation, and carried round more rapidly, than the bodies distant from it--hence the Moon was the least rapid mover of all (Lucretius, v. 615-635. See Sir George Lewis's Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, ch. ii. pp. 139-140).

It appears to me probable that Plato, in the severe remarks which he makes on persons who falsely affirmed the quickest mover in the heavens to be the slowest, had in view these doctrines of Demokritus. Plato never once mentions Demokritus by name (see Mullach, Fragment. Demokrit. p. 25); but he is very sparing in mentioning by name _any_ contemporaries. It illustrates the difference between the manner of Aristotle and Plato, that Aristotle frequently names Demokritus--seventy-eight times according to Mullach (p. 107)--even in the works which we possess.]

[Side-note: Hunting--how far permitted or advised.]

In regard to hunting, Plato thinks that it is a subject on which positive laws are unsuitable or insufficient, and he therefore gives certain general directions which partake of the nature both of advice and of law. The good citizen (he says) is one who not only obeys the positive laws prescribed by the lawgiver, but who also conforms his conduct to the general cast of the lawgiver's opinions: practising what is commended therein, abstaining from what is blamed.[259] Plato commends one mode of hunting--the chase after quadrupeds: yet only with horses, dogs, javelins, &c., wherein both courage and bodily strength are improved--but not with nets or snares, where no such result is produced. He blames other modes--such as fishing and bird-snaring (especially by night). He blames still more emphatically theft and piracy, which he regards also as various modes of hunting.[260]

[Footnote 259: Plato, Legg. vii. p. 822 E.]

[Footnote 260: Plato, Legg. vii. pp. 823-824.]

[Side-note: Large general sense which Plato gives to the word hunting.]

What principally deserves notice here is, the large general idea which Plato conceives to himself under the term Hunting, and the number of diverse particulars comprehended therein. 1. Hunting of quadrupeds; either with dogs and javelins openly, or with snares, by stratagem. 2. Hunting of birds, in the air. 3. Hunting of fishes, in the water. 4. Hunting after the property of other men, in the city or country. 5. Hunting after men as slaves, or after other valuables, by means of piratical vessels. 6. Hunting of public enemies, by one army against an opposite one. 7. Hunting of men to conciliate their friendship or affection, sometimes by fair means, sometimes by foul.[261]

[Footnote 261: Plato, Legg. vii. p. 823. [Greek: thê/ra ga\r pampolu/ ti pra=gma/ e)sti, perieilêmme/non o)no/mati schedo\n e(ni\ . . . pollê\ de\ ê( kata\ phili/an thêreu/ousa] (823 B) . . . [Greek: a)/gras a)nthrô/pôn kata\ tha/lattan . . . klôpei/as e)n chô/ra| kai\ po/lei] (823 E). Compare the Epinomis, p. 975 C.

So also in the Sophistês (pp. 221-222) Plato analyses and distributes the general idea of [Greek: thêreutikê/]: including under it, as one variety, the hunting after men by violent means ([Greek: tê\n bi/aion thê/ran, tê\n lê|stikê/n, a)ndrapodistikê\n, turannikê/n, kai\ xu/mpasan tê\n polemikê/n])--and as another variety, the hunting after men by persuasive or seductive means ([Greek: tê\n pithanourgikê/n, e)rôtikê/n, kolakikê/n]). In the Memorabilia of Xenophon also (ii. 6, 29-33), Sokrates expands this same idea--[Greek: tê\n thê/ran a)nthrô/pôn--ta\ tô=n phi/lôn thêratika/], &c. Compare also the conversation between Sokrates and Theodotê (iii. 11, 8-15)--[Greek: thêrô/menos], ib. i. 2, 24--and Plato Protag. init.]

That all these processes--which Plato here includes as so many varieties of hunting--present to the mind, when they are compared, a common point of analogy, is not to be denied. The number of different comparisons which the mind can make between phenomena, is almost unlimited. Analogies may be followed from one to another, until at last, after successive steps, the analogy between the first and the last becomes faint or imperceptible. Yet the same word, transferred successively from the first to the last, conceals this faintness of analogy and keeps them all before the mind as one. To us, this extension of the word _hunting_ to particular cases dissimilar in so many respects, appears more as poetical metaphor: to intelligent Greeks of the Sokratic school, it seemed a serious comparison: and to Plato, with his theory of Ideas, it ought to have presented a Real Idea or permanent One, which alone remained constant amidst an indefinite multitude of fugitive, shadowy, and deceptive, particulars. But though this is the consistent corollary, from Plato's theory of Ideas, he does not so state it in the Treatise De Legibus, and probably he did not so conceive it. Critics have already observed that in this Treatise scarce any mention is made of the theory of Ideas. Plato had passed into other points of view: yet he neither formally renounces the points of view which we find in anterior dialogues, nor takes the trouble of reconciling them with the thoughts of the later dialogues. Whether there exists any Real, Abstract, Idea of Hunting, apart from the particular acts and varieties of hunting--is a question which he does not touch upon. Yet this is the main feature of the Platonic philosophy, and the main doctrine most frequently impugned by Aristotle as Platonic.

[Side-note: Number of religious sacrifices to be determined by lawgiver.]

Although, in regard to the religious worship of his community, the oracle of Delphi is asked to prescribe what sacrifices are to be offered, and to what Gods--yet the religious lawgiver will determine the number of such sacrifices and festivals, as well as the times and seasons.[262] Each day in the year, sacrifice will be offered by one of the magistrates to some God or Dæmon. Once in every month, there will be a solemn sacrifice and festival, with matches of music and gymnastics, offered by each tribe to its eponymous God. The offerings to the celestial Gods will be kept distinct from the offerings to the subterranean Gods. Among these last, Pluto will be especially worshipped during the twelfth month of the year. The festivals will be adjusted to the seasons, and there will on proper occasions be festivals for women separately and exclusively.[263]

[Footnote 262: Plato, Legg. viii. p. 828.]

[Footnote 263: Plato, Legg. viii. p. 828.]

[Side-note: Military muster of the whole citizen population once in each month--men, women, and children.]

Once a month certainly--and more than once, if the magistrates command--on occasion of one of these festivals, all the citizen population are ordered to attend in military muster--men, women and children. They will be brought together in such divisions and detachments as the magistrate shall direct. They will here go through gymnastic and military exercises. They will also have fights, with warlike weapons not likely to inflict mortal wounds, yet involving sufficient danger to test their bravery and endurance: one against one, two against two, ten against ten.[264] The victors will receive honorary wreaths, and public encomium in appropriate songs. Both men and women will take part alike in these exercises and contests, and in the composition of the odes to celebrate the victors.[265]

[Footnote 264: Plat. Legg. viii. p. 833 E.]

[Footnote 265: Plat. Legg. viii. p. 829 B-E. [Greek: Ta\ au)ta\ de\ le/gô stratei/as te peri\ kai\ tê=s e)n poiê/sesi par)r(êsi/as gunaixi/ te kai\ a)ndra/sin o(moi/ôs gi/gnesthai dei=n.] 830 E: [Greek: chrôme/nous u(pokindu/nois be/lesin.]]

Such monthly musters, over and above the constant daily gymnastics of the youthful population, are indispensable as preliminary training; without which the citizens cannot fight with efficiency and success, in the event of a real foreign enemy invading the territory.[266] No athlete ever feels himself qualified to contend at the public games without the most laborious special training beforehand. Yet Plato expresses apprehension that his proposal of regular musters for warlike exercises with sham-battles, will appear ridiculous. He states that nothing of the kind existed in any Grecian city, by reason of two great corruptions:--First, the general love of riches and money-getting: Secondly, the bad governments everywhere existing, whether democracy, oligarchy, or despotism--each of which was in reality a faction or party-government, _i.e._, government by one part over another unwilling part.[267]

[Footnote 266: Plat. Legg. viii. p. 830.]

[Footnote 267: Plat. Legg. viii. pp. 831-832.

I read with surprise the declaration of Plato, that no such military training exercises existed _anywhere_ in Greece. How is this to be reconciled with the statements of Xenophon in his Treatise on the Republic of the Lacedæmonians, wherein he expressly calls the Spartans [Greek: techni/tas tô=n polemikô=n]--or even with statement of Plato himself about Sparta in the first book of this Treatise De Legibus? Compare Thucyd. v. 69.]

[Side-note: Gymnastic training must have reference to war, not to athletic prizes.]

Plato prescribes that the gymnastic training in his community shall be such as to have a constant reference to war; and that elaborate bodily excellence, for the purpose simply of obtaining prizes at the public games, shall be discouraged. There will be foot-races, for men, for boys, and for young women up to twenty years of age--the men always running in full panoply.[268] Horse-racing is permitted, but chariot-racing is discountenanced.[269] There will also be practice with the bow and with other weapons of light warfare, in which the young women are encouraged to take part--yet not constrained, in deference to prevalent sentiment.[270]

[Footnote 268: Plat. Legg. viii. p. 833 B-C.]

[Footnote 269: Plat. Legg. viii. p. 834 B.]

[Footnote 270: Plat. Legg. viii. p. 834 C-D.]

[Side-note: Regulation of sexual intercourse. Syssitia or public mess.]

In regard to sexual intercourse, Plato recognises that the difficulty of regulating it according to the wisdom of the lawgiver is greater in his city than** in any actual city, because of the more free and public life of the women. Neither Krete nor Sparta furnish a good example to follow on this point.[271] He thinks however that by causing one doctrine on the subject to be continually preached, and by preventing any other from being even mentioned, the lawgiver may be able so to consecrate this doctrine as to procure for it pretty universal obedience. The lawgiver may thus be able to suppress pæderasty altogether, and to restrict generally the sexual intercourse to that of persons legally married--or to enforce at least the restriction, that the exceptional cases of sexual intercourse departing from these conditions shall be covered with the veil of secrecy.[272] The constant bodily exercises prescribed in the Platonic community will tend to diminish the influence of such appetites in the citizens: while the example of the distinguished prize combatants at the Olympic games, in whose long-continued training strict continence was practised, shows that even more than what Plato anticipates can be obtained, under the stimulus of sufficient motive.[273]

[Footnote 271: Plat. Legg. viii. p. 836 B.]

[Footnote 272: Plato, Legg. viii. p. 841.]

[Footnote 273: Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 840 A, 841 A.

Compare the remarks which I have made above in this volume (p. 197) respecting the small probable influence of Aphroditê in the Platonic Republic. A like remark may be made, though not so emphatically, respecting the Platonic community in the Leges.]

What is here proposed respecting the sexual appetite finds no approbation from Kleinias, since the customs in Krete were altogether different. But the Syssitia, or public mess-table for the citizens, are welcomed readily both by the Kretan and the Spartan. The Syssitia existed both in Krete and at Sparta; but were regulated on very different principles in one and in the other. Plato declines to discuss this difference, pronouncing it to be unimportant. But Aristotle informs us what it was; and shows that material consequences turned upon it, in reference to the citizenship at Sparta.[274]

[Footnote 274: Plato, Legg. viii. p. 842 B; Aristot. Politic. ii. 9-10, p. 1271, a. 26, 1272, a. 12. The statement of Aristotle, about the manner in which the cost of the Kretan Syssitia was provided, while substantially agreeing with Ephorus (ap. Strabo. x. p. 480), does not exactly coincide with the account given by Dosiadas of the Kretans in Lyktus (ap. Athenæum, iv. p. 143). Compare Hoeckh, Kreta, vol. iii. pp. 134-138.]

[Side-note: Regulations about landed property--Boundaries--Limited power of fining by magistrates.]

Plato enters now upon the economical and proprietary rules proper for his community. As there will be neither gold and silver nor foreign commerce, he is dispensed from the necessity of making laws about shipments, retailing, interest, mine-digging, collectors of taxes, &c. The persons under his charge will be husbandmen, shepherds, bee-keepers, &c., with those who work under them, and with the artisans who supply implements to them.[275] The first and most important of all regulations is, the law of Zeus Horius or Terminalis--Not to disturb or transgress the boundary marks between different properties. Upon this depends the maintenance of those unalterable _fundi_ or lots, which is the cardinal principle of the Platonic community. Severe penalties, religious as well as civil, are prescribed for offenders against this rule.[276] Each proprietor is directed to have proper regard to the convenience of neighbours, and above all to abstain from annoying or damaging them, especially in regard to the transit, or retention, or distribution, of water. To intercept the supply, or corrupt the quality of water, is a high crime.[277] Regulations are made about the carrying of the harvest, both of grain and fruit. Disputes arising upon these points are to be decided by the magistrates, up to the sum of three minæ: above that sum, by the public Dikasteries. Many rules of detail will require to be made by the magistrates themselves with a view to fulfil the purposes of the lawgiver. So soon as the magistrates think that enough of these regulations have been introduced, they will consecrate the system as it stands, rendering it perpetual and unalterable.[278]

[Footnote 275: Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 842 D, 846 D.]

[Footnote 276: Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 842-843.]

[Footnote 277: Plat. Legg. viii. pp. 844 A, 845 E.]

[Footnote 278: Plat. Legg. viii. p. 846 A-D.]

[Side-note: Regulations about artisans--Distribution of the annual landed produce.]

Next, Plato passes to the Demiurgi or Artisans. These are all non-citizens or metics: for it is a peremptory law, that no citizen shall be an artisan in any branch. Nor is any artisan permitted to carry on two crafts trades at once.[279] If any article be imperatively required from abroad, either for implements of war or for religious purposes, the magistrates shall cause it to be imported. But there shall be no retailing, nor reselling with profit, of any article.[280]

[Footnote 279: Plato, Legg. viii. p. 846 D-E.]

[Footnote 280: Plato, Legg. viii. p. 847.]

The distribution of the produce of land shall be made on a principle approaching to that which prevails in Krete.[281] The total produce raised will be distributed into twelve portions, each equivalent to one month's consumption. Each twelfth portion will then be divided into equal thirds. Two of these thirds will be consumed by the citizens, their families, their slaves, and their agricultural animals: the other third will be sold in the market for the consumption of artisans and strangers, who alone are permitted to buy it, all citizens being forbidden to do so. Each citizen will make the apportionment of his own two-thirds among freemen and slaves: a measured quantity shall then be given to each of the working animals.[282] On the first of each month, the sale of barley and wheat will be made in the market-place, and every artisan or stranger will then purchase enough for his monthly consumption: the like on the twelfth of each month, for wine and other liquids--and on the twentieth of each month, for animals and animal products, such as wool and hides. Firewood may be purchased daily by any stranger or artisan, from the proprietors on whose lands the trees grow, and may be resold by him to other artisans: other articles can only be sold at the monthly market-days. The Agoranomi, or regulators of the market, will preside on those days, and will fix the spots on which the different goods shall be exposed for sale. They will also take account of the quantity which each man has for sale, fixing a certain price for each article. They will then adjust the entries of each man's property in the public registers according to these new transactions. But if the actual purchases and sales be made at any rate different from what is thus fixed, the Agoranomi will modify their entries in the register according to the actual rate, either in plus or in minus. These entries of individual property in the public register will be made both for citizens and resident strangers alike.[283]

[Footnote 281: Plato, Legg. viii. p. 847 E. [Greek: e)ggu\s tê= tou= Krêtikou= no/mou.]]

[Footnote 282: Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 847-848.]

[Footnote 283: Plato, Legg. viii. pp. 849-850.

These regulations are given both briefly and obscurely.]

[Side-note: Admission of resident Metics--conditions attached.]

It shall be open to any one who chooses, to come and reside in the city as a stranger or artisan to exercise his craft, without payment of any fee, simply on condition of good conduct; and of being enrolled with his property in the register. But he shall not acquire any fixed settlement. After twenty years, he must depart and take away his property. When he departs, the entries belonging to his name, in the proprietary register, shall be cancelled. If he has a son, the son may also exercise the same art and reside as a metic in the city for twenty years, but no longer; beginning from the age of fifteen. Any metic who may render special service to the city, may have his term prolonged, the magistrates and the citizens consenting.[284]

[Footnote 284: Plato, Legg. viii. p. 850.]

[Side-note: Offences and penal judicature--Procedure of the Dikasts.]

Plato now passes to the criminal code of his community: the determination of offences, penalties, and penal judicature. Serious and capital offences will be judged by the thirty-seven Nomophylakes, in conjunction with a Board of Select Dikasts, composed of the best among the magistrates of the preceding year.[285] They will hear first the pleading of the accuser, next that of the accused: they will then proceed, in the order of seniority, to put questions to both these persons, sifting the matter of charge. Plato requires them to be active in this examination, and to get at the facts by mental effort of their own. They will take notes of the examination, then seal up the tablet, and deposit it upon the altar of Hestia. On the morrow they will reassemble and repeat their examination, hearing witnesses and calling for information respecting the affair. On the third day, again the like: after which they will deliver their verdict on the altar of Hestia. Upon this altar two urns will be placed, for condemnation and acquittal: each Dikast will deposit his pebble in one or other of these, openly before the accuser and accused, and before the assembled citizens.[286]

[Footnote 285: Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 855-856. This judicial Board is mentioned also in xi. pp. 926 D, 928 B, 938 B, under the title of [Greek: to\ tô=n e)kkri/tôn dikastê/rion--to\ tô=n e)klektô=n dikastê/rion]. It forms the parallel to the Areiopagus at Athens. See K. F. Hermann, De Vestigiis Institut. Attic., &c., pp. 45-46, &c.]

[Footnote 286: Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 855-856. Compare the procedure before the Areiopagus at Athens, as described by Schömann, Antiq. Juris Publ. Græc. Part v. s. 63, p. 292. It does not appear that the Areiopagites at Athens were in the practice of exercising any such [Greek: a)na/krisis] of the parties before them, as Plato enjoins upon his [Greek: e)klektoi\ dikastai/]: though it was competent to the Dikasts at Athens to put questions if they chose. Meier und Schömann, Der Attische Prozess, p. 718.]

Conformably to the general sentiment announced still more distinctly in the Republic, Plato speaks here also of penal legislation as if it were hardly required. He regards it as almost an insult to assume that any of his citizens can grow up capable of committing grave crimes, when they have been subjected to such a training, discipline, and government as he institutes. Still human nature is perverse: we must provide for the occurrence of some exceptional criminals among our citizens, even after all our precautionary supervision: besides, over and above the citizens, we have metics and slaves to watch over.[287]

[Footnote 287: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 853 C-D-E.]

[Side-note: Sacrilege, the gravest of all crimes. High Treason.]

The first and gravest of all crimes is Sacrilege: pillage or destruction of places or objects consecrated to the Gods. Next comes high treason: either betrayal of the city to foreign enemies, or overthrow of the established laws and government. Persons charged with these crimes shall be tried before the Select Dikasts, or High Court above constituted. If found guilty, they shall be punished either capitally or by such other sentence as the court may award. But no sentence either of complete disfranchisement or of perpetual banishment can be passed against any citizen, because every one of the 5040 lots of land must always remain occupied.[288] Nor can any citizen be fined to any greater extent than what he possesses over and above his lot of land. He may be imprisoned, or flogged, or exposed in the pillory, or put to do penance in some sacred precinct. But his punishment shall noway extend to his children, unless persons of the same family shall be condemned to death for three successive generations. Should this occur, the family shall be held as tainted. Their lot of land shall be considered vacant, and assigned to some deserving young man of another citizen family.[289]

[Footnote 288: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 855 C.

Compare the penalties inflicted by Plato with those which were inflicted in Attic procedure. Meier und Schömann, Der Attische Prozess, pp. 739-740 seq. There is considerable difference between the two, arising to a great degree out of Plato's peculiar institution about the unalterable number of lots of land (5040) and of citizen families--as well as out of his fixation of maximum and minimum of property. Flogging or beating is prescribed by Plato, but had no place at Athens: [Greek: a)timi/a] was a frequent punishment at Athens: Plato's substitute for it seems to be the pillory--[Greek: tina\s a)mo/rphous e(/dras]. Fine was frequent at Athens as a punishment: Plato is obliged to employ it sparingly.]

[Footnote 289: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 856 D.]

[Side-note: Theft punished by _poena dupli_. General exhortation founded by Plato upon this enactment.]

_Theft._--Plato next adverts to theft, and prescribes that the punishment for a convicted thief shall be one and the same in all cases--to compensate the party robbed to the extent of double the value of the property, or to be imprisoned until he does so.[290] But upon a question upon this being raised, how far one and the same _poena dupli_, neither more nor less, can be properly applied to all cases of theft, we are carried (according to the usual unsystematic manner of the Platonic dialogue) into a general discussion on the principles of penal legislation. We are reminded that the Platonic lawgiver looks beyond the narrow and defective objects to which all other lawgivers have hitherto unwisely confined themselves.[291] He is under no pressing necessity to legislate at once: he can afford time for preliminary discussion and exposition: he desires to instruct his citizens respecting right and wrong, as well as to constrain their acts by penalty.[292] As he is better qualified than the poets to enlighten them about the just and honourable, so the principles which he lays down ought to have more weight than the verses of Homer or Tyrtæus.[293] In regard to Justice and Injustice generally, there are points on which Plato differs from the public, and also points on which the public are at variance with themselves. For example, every one is unanimous in affirming that whatever is just is also beautiful or honourable. But if this be true, then not only what is justly done, but also what is justly suffered, is beautiful or honourable. Now the penalty of death, inflicted on the sacrilegious person, is justly inflicted. It must therefore be beautiful or honourable: yet every one agrees in declaring it to be shocking and infamous. Here there is an inconsistency or contradiction in the opinions of the public themselves.[294]

[Footnote 290: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 857 A, xii. p. 941. The Solonian Law at Athens provided, that if a man was sued for theft under the [Greek: i)di/a di/kê klopê=s], he should be condemned to the _poena dupli_ and to a certain [Greek: prosti/mêma] besides (Demosthen. cont. Timokrat. 733-736). But it seems that the thief might be indicted by a [Greek: graphê/], and then the punishment might be heavier. See Aulus Gellius, xi. 18, and chap. xi. of my 'History of Greece,' p. 189.]

[Footnote 291: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 857 C. [Greek: ta\ peri\ tê\n tô=n no/môn the/sin ou)deni\ tro/pô| pô/pote ge/gonen o)rthô=s diapeponême/na], &c.]

[Footnote 292: Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 857 E, 858 A.]

[Footnote 293: Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 858-859.]

[Footnote 294: Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 859-860.

The same argument is employed by Sokrates in the Gorgias, p. 476 E.]

[Side-note: All unjust men are unjust involuntarily.--No such thing as voluntary injustice. Injustice depends upon the temper of the agent--Distinction between damage and injury.]

But Plato differs from the public on another point also. He affirms all wicked or unjust men to be unwillingly wicked or unjust: he affirms that no man does injustice willingly.[295] How is he to carry out this maxim in his laws? He cannot make any distinction (as all existing cities make it) in the penalties prescribed for voluntary injustice, and for involuntary injustice; for he does not recognise the former as real.[296] He must explain upon what foundation his dissent from the public rests. He discriminates between _Damnum_ and _Injuria_--between Damage or Hurt, and Injustice. When damage is done, it is sometimes done voluntarily--sometimes, and quite as often, involuntarily. The public call this latter by the name of involuntary injustice; but in Plato's view it is no injustice at all. Injustice is essentially distinct from damage: it depends on the temper, purpose, or disposition of the agent, not on the result as affecting the patient. A man may be unjust when he is conferring benefit upon another, as well as when he is doing hurt to another. Whether the result be beneficial or hurtful, the action will be right or wrong, and the agent just or unjust, according to the condition of his own mind in doing it.[297]

[Footnote 295: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 860 D-E.]

[Footnote 296: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 861 B. [Greek: a(\ dê\ kata\ pa/sas ta\s po/leis u(po\ nomothetô=n pa/ntôn tô=n pô/pote genome/nôn ô(s du/o ei)/dê tô=n a)dikêma/tôn o)/nta, ta\ me\n e(kou/sia, ta\ de\ a)kou/sia, tau/tê| kai\ nomothetei=tai.]

The eighth chapter, fifth Book, of Aristotle's Nikomachean Ethics, discusses this question more instructively than Plato.]

[Footnote 297: Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 861-862.]

[Side-note: Damage may be voluntary or involuntary--Injustice is shown often by conferring corrupt profit upon another--Purpose of punishment, to heal the distemper of the criminal.]

The real distinction therefore (according to Plato) is not between voluntary and involuntary injustice, but between voluntary and involuntary damage. Voluntary damage is injustice, but it is not voluntary injustice. The unjust agent, so far forth as unjust, acts involuntarily: he is under the perverting influence of mental distemper. He must be compelled to make good the damage which he has done, or to offer such requital as may satisfy the feelings of the person damaged: and he must besides be subjected to such treatment as will heal the distemper of his mind, so that he will not be disposed to do farther voluntary damage in future. And he ought to be subjected to this treatment equally, whether his mental distemper (injustice) has shown itself in doing wilful damage to another, or in conferring corrupt profit on another--in taking away another man's property, or in giving away his own property wrongfully.[298] The healing treatment may be different in different cases: discourses addressed, or works imposed--pleasures or pains, honour or disgrace, fine or otherwise. But in all cases the purpose is one and the same--to heal the distemper of his mind, and to make him hate injustice. If he be found incurable, he must be put to death. It is a gain for himself to die, and a still greater gain for society that he should die, since his execution will serve as a warning to others.[299]

[Footnote 298: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 862 B. [Greek: ou)/t' ei)/ ti/s tô| di/dôsi/ ti tô=n o)/ntôn ou)/t' ei) tou)nanti/on a)phairei=tai, di/kaion a(plô=s ê)\ a)/dikon chrê\ to\ toiou=ton ou(/tô le/gein, a)ll' e)a\n ê)/thei kai\ dikai/ô| tro/pô| chrô/meno/s tis ô)phelê=| tina/ ti kai\ bla/ptê|, tou=to/ e)sti tô=| nomothe/tê| theate/on, kai\ pro\s du/o tau=ta dê\ blepte/on, pro/s te a)diki/an kai\ blabê/n.]]

[Footnote 299: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 862 C-E.]

[Side-note: Three distinct causes of misguided proceedings. 1. Painful stimulus. 2. Pleasurable stimulus. 3. Ignorance.]

Of misguided or erroneous proceeding there are in the human mind three producing causes, acting separately or conjointly:--1. The painful stimulus--Anger, Envy, Hatred, or Fear. 2. The seductive stimulus, of Pleasure or Desire. 3. Ignorance. Ignorance is twofold:--1. Ignorance pure and simple. 2. Ignorance combined with the false persuasion of knowledge. This last again is exhibited under two distinguishable cases:--1. When combined with power; and in this case it produces grave and enormous crimes. 2. When found in weak persons, children or old men, in which case it produces, nothing worse than slight and venial offences, giving little trouble to the lawgiver.[300]

[Footnote 300: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 863 C. [Greek: Tri/ton mê\n a)/gnoian le/gôn a)/n tis tô=n a(martêma/tôn ai)ti/an ou)k a)\n pseu/doito.]]

[Side-note: The unjust man is under the influence either of the first or second of these causes, without controul of Reason. If he acts under controul of Reason, though the Reason be bad, he is not unjust.]

Now the unjust man (Plato tells us) is he in whose mind either one or other of the two first causes are paramount, and not controuled by Reason: either Hatred, Anger, Fear--or else Appetite and the Desire of Pleasure. What he does under either of these two stimuli is unjust, whether he damages any one else or not. But if neither of these two stimuli be prevalent in his mind--if, on the contrary, both of them are subordinated to the opinion which he entertains about what is good and right--then everything which he does is just, even though he falls into error. If in this state of mind he hurts any one else, it will be simply _hurt_, not injustice. Those persons are incorrect who speak of it as injustice, but as involuntary injustice. The proceedings of such a man may be misguided or erroneous, but they will never be unjust.[301]

[Footnote 301: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 864 A. [Greek: tê\n de\ tou= a)ri/stou do/xan, o(/pê| per a)\n e)/sesthai tou=to ê(gê/sôntai po/lis ei)/te i)diô=tai/ tines, e)a\n au)/tê kratou=sa e)n psuchê=| diakosmê=| pa/nta a)/ndra, ka)\n spha/llêtai/ ti, di/kaion me\n pa=n ei)=nai to\ tau/tê| prachthe\n kai\ to\ tê=s toiau/tês a)rchê=s gigno/menon u(pê/koon e(ka/stôn, kai\ e)pi\ to\n a(/panta a)/nthrô/pôn bi/on a)/riston.]]

All these three causes may realise themselves in act under three varieties of circumstances: 1. By open and violent deeds. 2. By secret, deceitful, premeditated contrivance. 3. By a combination of both the two. Our laws must make provision for all the three.[302]

[Footnote 302: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 864 C.]

[Side-note: Reasoning of Plato to save his doctrine--That no man commits injustice voluntarily.]

Such is the theory here advanced by Plato to reconcile his views and recommendations in the Leges with a doctrine which he had propounded and insisted upon elsewhere:--That no man commits injustice voluntarily--That all injustice is involuntary, arising from ignorance--That every one would be just, if he only knew wherein justice consists--That knowledge, when it exists in the mind, will exercise controul and preponderance over the passions and appetites.[303]

[Footnote 303: Compare Legg. v. p. 731 C; Timæus, p. 86 D; Republic, ix. p. 589 C; Protagoras, pp. 345 D--352 D.]

The distinction whereby Plato here proposes to save all inconsistency, is a distinction between misconduct or misguided actions ([Greek: a(martê/mata], or [Greek: a(martano/mena]), and unjust actions ([Greek: a)dikê/mata]). The last of these categories is comprised by him in the first, as one species or variety thereof. That is, all [Greek: a)dikê/mata] are [Greek: a(martê/mata]: but all [Greek: a(martê/mata] are not [Greek: a)dikê/mata]. He reckons three distinct causes of [Greek: a(martê/mata]: two belonging to the emotional department of mind; one to the intellectual. Those [Greek: a(martê/mata] which arise from either of the two first causes are also [Greek: a)dikê/mata]: those which arise from the third are not [Greek: a)dikê/mata].

This is the distinction which Plato here draws, with a view to save consistency in his own doctrine--at least as far as I can understand it, for the reasoning is not clear. It proceeds upon a restricted definition, peculiar to himself, of the word _injustice_--a restriction, however, which coincides in part with that which he gives of Justice in the Republic,[304] where he treats Justice as consisting in the controul exercised over Passion and Appetite (the emotional department) by Reason (the intellectual): each of the three departments of the soul or each of the three separate souls, keeping in its own place, and discharging its own appropriate functions. Every act which a man does under the influence of persuasion or opinion of the best, is held by Plato to be _just_--whatever his persuasion may be--whether it be true or false[305] If he be sincerely persuaded that he is acting for the best, he cannot commit injustice.

[Footnote 304: Plato, Republ. iv. pp. 443-444.]

[Footnote 305: Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 863 C, 864 A.]

[Side-note: Peculiar definition of Injustice. A man may do great voluntary hurt to others, and yet not be unjust, provided he does it under the influence of Reason, and not of Appetite.]

Injustice being thus restricted to mean the separate and unregulated action of emotional impulse--and such unregulated action being, as a general fact, a cause of misery to the agent--Plato's view is, that no man is voluntarily unjust: for no man wishes to be miserable. Every man wishes to be happy: therefore every man wishes to be just: because some controul of impulse by reason is absolutely essential to happiness. When once such controul is established, a man becomes just: he no longer commits injustice. But he may still commit misconduct, and very gross misconduct: moreover, this misconduct will be, or may be, voluntary. For though the rational soul be now preponderant and controuling over the emotional (which controul constitutes _justice_), yet the rational soul itself may be imperfectly informed (ignorance simple); or may not only be ignorant, but preoccupied besides with false persuasions and prejudices. Under such circumstances the just man may commit misconduct, and do serious hurt to others. What he does may be done voluntarily, in full coincidence with his own will: for the will postulates only the controul of reason over emotion, and here that condition is fulfilled, the fault lying with the controuling reason itself.

[Side-note: Plato's purpose in the Laws is to prevent or remedy not only injustice but misconduct.]

Plato's reasoning here (obscure and difficult to follow) is intended to show that there can be no voluntary _injustice_, but that there is much both of voluntary _misconduct_, and voluntary _mischief_. His purpose as lawgiver is to prevent or remedy not only (what he calls) _injustice_, but also misconduct and mischief. As a remedy for mischief done, he prescribes that the agent thereof shall make full compensation to the sufferer. As an antidote to injustice, he applies his educational discipline as well as his penal and remuneratory treatment, to the emotions, with a view to subdue some and develop others.[306] As a corrective to misconduct in all its branches, he assumes to himself as lawgiver a spiritual power, applied to the improvement of the rational or intellectual man: prescribing what doctrines and beliefs shall be accredited in his city, tolerating no others, and forbidding all contradiction, or dissentient individuality of judgment.[307] He thus ensures that every man s individual reason shall be in harmony with the infallible reason.

[Footnote 306: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 862 C-D.]

[Footnote 307: K. F. Hermann, in his valuable Dissertation, De Vestigiis Institutorum Veterum, imprimis Atticorum, per Platonis de Legibus libros indagandis, Marburg, 1836, p. 55, says:--"Philosophi [Platonis] manum novatricem in iis tantum agnosco, quæ de exsilii tempore pro diversis criminum fontibus diverso argutatur; qui quum omnino omnium, nisi fallor, primus in hoc ipso Legum Opere veterem usuque receptam criminum divisionem in voluntaria et invita reprehenderit, eaque secundum tres animi partes trifariam distribuerit, ita hic quoque mediam inter imprudentiam et dolum malum iracundiam inseruit, quâ quis motus cædem vel extemplo committeret vel etiam posterius animum suum sanguine explêret."

I do not conceive Plato's reasoning exactly in the same way as Hermann. Plato denies only the reality of [Greek: e(kou/sia a)dikê/mata]: he considers all [Greek: a)dikê/mata] as essentially [Greek: a)kou/sia]. But he does not deny [Greek: e(kou/sia a)dikê/mata] (which is the large genus comprehending [Greek: a)dikê/mata] as one species): he recognises both [Greek: a(martê/mata e(kou/sia] and [Greek: a(martê/mata a)kou/sia]. And he considers the [Greek: a(martê/mata] arising from [Greek: thumo\s] to be midway between the two. But he also recognises [Greek: a(martê/mata] as springing from the three different sources in the human mind. The two positions are not incompatible; though the whole discussion is obscured by the perplexing distinction between [Greek: a(martê/mata] and [Greek: a)dikê/mata].]

The peculiar sense in which Plato uses the words justice and injustice is perplexing throughout this discussion. The words, as he uses them, coincide only in part with the ordinary meaning. They comprehend more in one direction, and less in another.

Plato now proceeds to promulgate laws in respect to homicide, wounds, beating, &c.

[Side-note: Varieties of homicide--modes of dealing with them penally.]

Homicide, however involuntary and unintentional, taints the person by whose hands it is committed. He must undergo purification, partly by such expiatory ceremonies as the Exêgêtæ may appoint, partly by a temporary exile from the places habitually frequented by the person slain: who even after death (according to the doctrine of an ancient fable, which Plato here ratifies[308]), if he saw the homicidal agent among his prior haunts, while the occurrence was yet recent, would be himself disturbed, and would communicate tormenting disturbance to the agent. This latter accordingly is commanded to leave the territory for a year, and to refrain from visiting any of the sacred precincts until he has been purified. If he obeys, the relatives of the person slain shall forgive him; and he shall, after his year's exile, return to his ordinary abode and citizenship. But if he evades obedience, these relatives shall indict him for the act, and he shall incur double penalties. Should the nearest relative, under these circumstances, neglect to indict, he may himself be indicted by any one who chooses, and shall be condemned to an exile of five years.[309]

[Footnote 308: Plato, Legg. ix. pp. 865 A-D--866 B.

Compare Antiphon. Accus. Cæd. p. 116, and Lobeck, Aglaophamus, p. 301. The old law of Drako is given in substance in Demosthen. adv. Leptin. p. 505. [Greek: A)peniautismo/s], compulsory year of exile. K. F. Hermann, Griechische Privat-Alterthümer, s. 61, not. 23.]

[Footnote 309: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 866.]

[Side-note: Homicide involuntary--Homicide under provocation.]

Plato provides distinct modes of proceeding for this same act of involuntary homicide, under varieties of persons and circumstances--citizens, metics, strangers, slaves, &c. He especially lays it down that physicians, if a patient dies under their hands, they being unwilling--shall be held innocent, and shall not need purification.[310]

[Footnote 310: Plato, Legg. ix. p. 865 B.]