The passage of Plato is not perspicuous. It appears to me to have been misunderstood by some commentators, who suppose that only 90 βουλευταὶ are to be chosen out of each census in the original voting (see Schneider’s Comment. on the passage of Aristotle above alluded to, p. 99). The number originally chosen from each class must be 360, because it is directed, in the final process, to be reduced first (by election) to 180 from each class, and next (by sortition) to 90 from each class.
Character of the electoral scheme — Plato’s views about wealth — he caters partly for the oligarchical sentiment, partly for the democratical.
Here the evident purpose of Plato is to obtain in the last result a greater number of votes from the rich than from the poor, without absolutely disfranchising the poor. Where the persons to be voted for are all of the richer classes, there the poor are compelled to come and vote as well as the rich: where the persons to be voted for are all of the poorer class, there the rich are compelled to vote, while the poor are allowed to stay away. He seems to look on the vote, not as a privilege which citizens will wish to exercise, but as a duty which they must be compelled by fine to discharge. This is (as Aristotle calls it) an oligarchical provision. It exhibits Plato’s mode of attaining the end stated by Livy as proposed in the Servian constitution at Rome, and the end contemplated (without being announced) by the framers of most other political constitutions recorded in history — “Gradus facti, ut neque exclusus quisquam suffragio videretur, et vis omnis penes primores civitatis esset”.[178] Plato defends it by distinguishing two sorts of equality: one complete and undistinguishing, in which all the citizens are put upon a level: the other in which the good and able citizen is distinguished from the bad and incapable citizen, so that he acquires power and honour in proportion to his superior merit.[179] This second sort of equality Plato approves, pronouncing it to be political justice. But such defence tacitly assumes that superiority in wealth, as between the four classes of his census, is to count as evidence of, or as an equivalent for, superior merit: an assumption doubtless received by many Grecian politicians, and admitted in the general opinion of Greece — but altogether at variance with the declared judgment of Plato himself as to the effect of wealth upon the character of the wealthy man. The poorest citizen in the Platonic community must have his lot of land, which Plato considers sufficient for a sober-minded family: the richest citizen can possess only five times as much: and all receive the same public instruction. Here, therefore, there can be no presumption of superior merit in the richer citizen as compared with the poorer, whatever might be said about the case as it stood in actual Grecian communities. We see that Plato in this case forgets his own peculiar mode of thought, and accommodates himself to received distinctions, without reflecting that the principles of his own political system rendered such distinctions inapplicable. He bows to the oligarchical sentiment of his contemporaries, by his preferential encouragement to the votes of the rich: he bows to the democratical sentiment, when he consents to employ to a small extent the principle of the lot.[180]
[178] Livy i. 43.
Aristotle characterises these regulations of the Platonic community as oligarchical, and remarks that this is in contradiction to the principle with which Plato set out — that it ought to be a compound of monarchy and democracy. Aristotle understands this last principle somewhat differently from what Plato seems to have intended (Politic. ii. 6, 1266, a. 10).
[179] Plato, Legg. vi. p. 757 A-B.
Compare a like distinction drawn between two sorts of ἰσότης in Isokrates, Areiopagitic. Orat. vii. s. 23-24; also Aristotel. Politic.
[180] Plato, Legg. vi. p. 757 E. διὸ τῷ τοῦ κλήρου ἴσῳ ἀνάγκη προσχρήσασθαι, δυσκολίας τῶν πολλῶν ἕνεκα, &c.
Meetings of council — other magistrates — Agoranomi — Astynomi, &c.
Of the annually-chosen Council, one twelfth part only (or thirty Councillors) will be in constant session in the city: each of their sessions lasting for one month, and the total thus covering the year. The remaining eleven twelfths will be attending to their private affairs, except when special necessities arise. The Council will have the general superintendence of the city, and controul over all meetings of the citizens.[181] Provision is made for three magistrates called Astynomi, to regulate the streets, roads, public buildings, water-courses, &c.: and for five Agoranomi, to watch over the public market with its appertaining temples and fountains, and to take cognisance of disputes or offences occurring therein. None but citizens of the two richest classes of the census are eligible as Astynomi or Agoranomi: first, twice the number required are chosen by public show of hands — next, half of the number so chosen are drawn off by lot. In regard to the show of hands, Plato again decrees, that all citizens of the two richer classes shall be compelled to take part in it, under fine: all citizens of the two poorer classes may take part if they choose, but are not compelled.[182] By this provision, as before, Plato baits for the oligarchical sentiment: by the partial use of the lot, for the democratical.