general condition of mankind, the result in both cases will come to the
same thing. For patricians will always think those the best, who are
rich, or related to themselves in blood, or allied by friendship. And,
indeed, if such were the nature of patricians, that they were free from
all passion, and guided by mere zeal for the public welfare in choosing
their patrician colleagues, no dominion could be compared with
aristocracy. But experience itself teaches us only too well, that things
pass in quite a contrary manner, above all, in oligarchies, where the
will of the patricians, from the absence of rivals, is most free from
the law. For there the patricians intentionally keep away the best men
from the council, and seek for themselves such colleagues in it, as hang
upon their words, so that in such a dominion things are in a much more
unhappy condition, because the choice of patricians depends entirely
upon the arbitrary will of a few, which is free or unrestrained by any
law. But I return to my subject.

3. From what has been said in the last section, it is manifest that we
can conceive of various kinds of democracy. But my intention is not to
treat of every kind, but of that only, "wherein all, without exception,
who owe allegiance to the laws of the country only, and are further
independent and of respectable life, have the right of voting in the
supreme council and of filling the offices of the dominion." I say
expressly. "who owe allegiance to the laws of the country only," to
exclude foreigners, who are treated as being under another's dominion. I
added, besides, "who are independent," except in so far as they are
under allegiance to the laws of the dominion, to exclude women and
slaves, who are under the authority of men and masters, and also
children and wards, as long as they are under the authority of parents
and guardians. I said, lastly, "and of respectable life," to exclude,
above all, those that are infamous from crime, or some disgraceful means
of livelihood.

4. But, perhaps, someone will ask, whether women are under men's
authority by nature or institution? For if it has been by mere
institution, then we had no reason compelling us to exclude women from
government. But if we consult experience itself, we shall find that the
origin of it is in their weakness. For there has never been a case of
men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are
found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this
plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons,
who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in
their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males
to whom they gave birth. [1] But if by nature women were equal to men,
and were equally distinguished by force of character and ability, in
which human power and therefore human right chiefly consist; surely
among nations so many and different some would be found, where both
sexes rule alike, and others, where men are ruled by women, and so
brought up, that they can make less use of their abilities. And since
this is nowhere the case, one may assert with perfect propriety, that
women have not by nature equal right with men: but that they necessarily
give way to men, and that thus it cannot happen, that both sexes should
rule alike, much less that men should be ruled by women. But if we
further reflect upon human passions, how men, in fact, generally love
women merely from the passion of lust, and esteem their cleverness and
wisdom in proportion to the excellence of their beauty, and also how
very ill-disposed men are to suffer the women they love to show any sort
of favour to others, and other facts of this kind, we shall easily see
that men and women cannot rule alike without great hurt to peace. But of
this enough.

------

1. Justin, Histories, ii. 4. 

------------------------

END