[1268b]
[1]
and moreover why are they not both to take food for themselves
and to supply it to the soldiers direct from the land and from the same
allotments? All these points
therefore involve much confusion. Also the law about trials is
unsatisfactory—the requirement that the verdict shall be given on
separate counts when the charge in the indictment is single, and the conversion
of the juror into an arbitrator. A qualified verdict is practicable in an
arbitration even when there are several arbitrators (for they confer
with one another about their verdict), but it is not practicable in the
law-courts, but the contrary to this is actually provided for by most lawgivers,
who prohibit consultation between the jurymen. Then the verdict will inevitably be a confused one when
the juror thinks that the defendant is liable for damages but not in so large an
amount as the plaintiff claims; for the plaintiff will sue for twenty minae1 and the juror will adjudge ten minae
(or the former some larger and the latter some smaller sum),
and another juror five minae, and yet another four (and so they will
obviously go on making fractions), while others will award the whole
sum, and others nothing; what then will be the method of counting the votes?
Again, nobody compels the juror to commit perjury who, if the indictment has
been drawn in simple form, gives a simple verdict of acquittal or condemnation,
and gives it justly; for the juror
[20]
who
gives a verdict of acquittal does not give judgement that the defendant owes
nothing, but that he does not owe the twenty minae for which he is sued; it is
only the juror who gives a verdict condemning the defendant when he does not
think that he owes twenty minae who commits perjury. As for the view that an honor ought to be awarded to those
who invent something advantageous to the state, legislation to this effect is
not safe, but only specious to the ear; for it involves malicious prosecutions
and, it may even happen, constitutional upheavals. And the matter leads to
another problem and a different inquiry: some persons raise the question whether
to alter the ancestral laws, supposing another law is better, is harmful or
advantageous to states. Hence it is not easy to give a speedy agreement to the
above proposal to honor reformers, if really it is disadvantageous to alter the
laws; yet it is possible that persons may bring forward the repeal of laws or of
the constitution as a benefit to the community. And since we have made mention of this question, it will
be better if we set out a few further observations about it, for, as we said, it
involves difficulty. And it might be thought that it would be better for
alteration to take place; at all events in the other fields of knowledge this
has proved beneficial—for example, medicine has been improved by being
altered from the ancestral system, and gymnastic training, and in general all
the arts and faculties so that since statesmanship also is to be counted as one
of these, it is clear that the same thing necessarily holds good in regard to it
as well. And it might be said that a sign of this has occurred in the actual
events of history, for (one might argue) the laws of ancient
times were too simple and uncivilized: the Hellenes, for instance, used both to
carry arms and to purchase their wives from one another, and all the survivals of the customs of antiquity
existing anywhere are utterly foolish,
1 The mina, 100 drachmas, may be put at 4 pounds (gold).
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.